Speculation: Guess Binnington's next contract

[Bench]

My point is that $5 mil looks like a bad contract if you don't get a top goalie

Prepare for disappointment.

 

[Brian39]

Prepare for disappointment.

...which is exactly why I'm not rushing to hand out a $5 mil, long term deal to Binny. It may work out and it may not. I'd rather take a 1 year deal at an almost-certainly-lower AAV and then pay the man a garbage truck full of money after he proves me wrong and posts a .920 this year.

 

[Ranksu]

Prove me contract. LOL Brian is delusional. It feels like you are arquing för sake of arquing. You need to stop now.

 

[Ranksu]

I think Brian is going to crawl in his foxhole after Binny gets his proven money contract. Or does he have balls to come Bäck and admit he was wrong?

 

[Thallis]

I think Brian is going to crawl in his foxhole after Binny gets his proven money contract. Or does he have balls to come Bäck and admit he was wrong?

He's not saying from a position of confidence that he won't get that money, he's just saying that that kind of money is an unnecessary risk and he's right. No matter what Binnington gets, he's right about that.

 

[Brian39]

I think Brian is going to crawl in his foxhole after Binny gets his proven money contract. Or does he have balls to come Bäck and admit he was wrong?

I'm not saying Binny absolutely won't get that type of contract. GMs overpay all the time and up until a few months ago your favorite pastime was criticizing Army for overpaying guys. He very well could get it.

My point is that he shouldn't. I would love for Binny to prove me wildly wrong if he gets a "proven top-10 NHL goalie" contract after an awesome half season. I'd rather pay a higher AAV a year from now with a larger body of work than the 56 games we currently have. I don't want the Blues to hand out a contract with the potential to cripple the team.

I don't want the Blues to be like the Hurricanes and be a one and done because their Conn Smythe winning, .920-through-the-playoffs rookie goalie turned in an .897 and .904 in the two following seasons.

A 1 year deal doesn't close the window. A 3 year deal at a similar AAV to Murray doesn't close the window. I don't think a long term, $5+ mil deal closes the window, but it is the only one of those three contracts with the potential to do so. I'd hope our GM isn't in a rush to hand out the one type of contract to Binny that could cripple the team.

Hoping the Blues give Binny a more lucrative contract than Ben Bishop's current deal is insane. Swap goalies in the Dallas series and we win in 5. That' not a knock on Binny. Bishop is a stud and was out of his mind in the playoffs. But that's what I want out of a long term deal at $5+ mil. I don't want to give that kind of contract for average goaltending through the playoffs with an ability to step up late in a series after a clunker or two early. That was good enough this year and good enough for the near-term given this core. But only if it is reasonably priced to where we can cheap out in goal for 2020/21 once Allen is gone.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

3 @ 3.5 AAV

 

[Bench]

...which is exactly why I'm not rushing to hand out a $5 mil, long term deal to Binny. It may work out and it may not. I'd rather take a 1 year deal at an almost-certainly-lower AAV and then pay the man a garbage truck full of money after he proves me wrong and posts a .920 this year.

$5 million a year isn't garbage truck full of money, though. That's half of what the latest top free agent goalie signed for.

Which is why I think that would be a pretty choice deal to get Binnington on into some prime UFA years.

 

[Stealth JD]

Follow Doug Wilson’s lead and give him $1M/1yr. Lol

 

[Ted Hoffman]

3 @ 3.5 AAV

LOL. Binnington will see you wherever and whenever the hearing is scheduled if you're offering that.

I'm not saying Binny absolutely won't get that type of contract. GMs overpay all the time and up until a few months ago your favorite pastime was criticizing Army for overpaying guys. He very well could get it.

My point is that he shouldn't. I would love for Binny to prove me wildly wrong if he gets a "proven top-10 NHL goalie" contract after an awesome half season. I'd rather pay a higher AAV a year from now with a larger body of work than the 56 games we currently have. I don't want the Blues to hand out a contract with the potential to cripple the team.

I don't want the Blues to be like the Hurricanes and be a one and done because their Conn Smythe winning, .920-through-the-playoffs rookie goalie turned in an .897 and .904 in the two following seasons.

A 1 year deal doesn't close the window. A 3 year deal at a similar AAV to Murray doesn't close the window. I don't think a long term, $5+ mil deal closes the window, but it is the only one of those three contracts with the potential to do so. I'd hope our GM isn't in a rush to hand out the one type of contract to Binny that could cripple the team.

Hoping the Blues give Binny a more lucrative contract than Ben Bishop's current deal is insane. Swap goalies in the Dallas series and we win in 5. That' not a knock on Binny. Bishop is a stud and was out of his mind in the playoffs. But that's what I want out of a long term deal at $5+ mil. I don't want to give that kind of contract for average goaltending through the playoffs with an ability to step up late in a series after a clunker or two early. That was good enough this year and good enough for the near-term given this core. But only if it is reasonably priced to where we can cheap out in goal for 2020/21 once Allen is gone.

Perhaps I've missed it, but is anyone here saying "yeah, give Binnington 5+ years and $25 million plus?" on this next contract? I think the longest I've seen anyone suggest is 4 years, and even that I don't recall seeing more than $20 million total. I'm seeing a whole lot of "go 1 year, re-evaluate next offseason" comments and the bigger point of contention is whether to pay him more or less than what Allen is getting.

 

[TK 421]

@Brian39 with the outstanding goaltending post once again, I really don't even know why people argue with you on this. You're making lots of sense to me. This deal obviously doesn't have much in the way of comparables and more data is needed to justify term. I'm not sure how many times people need to see bad contracts get signed before they start paying attention but I'm happy to see someone pointing this out.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

LOL. Binnington will see you wherever and whenever the hearing is scheduled if you're offering that.

Um....ok.....

Just a guess.

Bad guess?

 

[Em etah Eh]

I think Brian is going to crawl in his foxhole after Binny gets his proven money contract. Or does he have balls to come Bäck and admit he was wrong?

What is your official prediction again?

 

[TheDizee]

I think Brian is going to crawl in his foxhole after Binny gets his proven money contract. Or does he have balls to come Bäck and admit he was wrong?

Brian would have signed elliott to carey price money if he was GM

 

[Brian39]

LOL. Binnington will see you wherever and whenever the hearing is scheduled if you're offering that.


Perhaps I've missed it, but is anyone here saying "yeah, give Binnington 5+ years and $25 million plus?" on this next contract? I think the longest I've seen anyone suggest is 4 years, and even that I don't recall seeing more than $20 million total. I'm seeing a whole lot of "go 1 year, re-evaluate next offseason" comments and the bigger point of contention is whether to pay him more or less than what Allen is getting.

Over the last few pages we have Ransku predicting $6.25 x 8 years, discussion of a couple reports/rumors of a 4-6 year deal at $5 mil AAV, someone comparing him to Quick saying 'give him as much as he wants for as long as he wants', Goldenseal wants it to be the Allen contract + 1 mil per year (so over $5 mil x 4 years), Tarasenkosforearm suggested $4.75 x 4 years, bleedblue thinks $5 mil x 4 years is fair, and Bench was talking about $5 mil being a good price if we can lock him up for more than a couple years and later talked about buying 'some UFA years' which implies a 4+ year deal.

Plenty of the discussion has been about getting into the $5 mil range on a medium-to-long term deal, which is why I have been using the "4+ years" language and not "5+ years."

I just don't see much point to a 3 year deal at $5 mil. If that is the AAV it takes to get a 3 year deal, I'd rather do a 1 year deal and then work on an extension with a bigger sample size. If he posts a .920 and another deep playoff run, I'd much rather spend next summer working out a 5 or 6 year deal at $7 mil AAV than just having him locked up for 2 more years before he hits UFA. If he stumbles or simply looks like an average to slightly below average starter, then we are obviously better off knowing that before a medium/long term decision than being stuck at $5 mil AAV for 2 more years. Buying just 1 UFA year isn't worth $5 mil AAV IMO and we certainly shouldn't do a 2 year deal. So to me, if $5 mil AAV ends up being the number, it only makes any sense if it is on a 1 year deal or a 4+ year deal.

For a variety of reasons I have laid out in this thread, I don't think either is a great option. I still haven't seen a single comparable he can point to that gets him to $5 mil on a 1 year deal in arbitration, so if that's the AAV it takes to avoid arbitration, I'm happy rolling the dice that the arbitrator goes my way. I'm not giving Binny our worst case scenario from arbitration to avoid arbitration. I'm confident that the Blues can build a very good arbitration case for salary in the mid-$3, low-$4 mil range without having to drag the player through the mud like you usually do.

 

[Brian39]

$5 million a year isn't garbage truck full of money, though. That's half of what the latest top free agent goalie signed for.

Which is why I think that would be a pretty choice deal to get Binnington on into some prime UFA years.

I never said it was.

I'm saying I'd rather go with a 1 year deal with the assumption that we are talking about 5 or 6 years at $7 AAV next summer if he posts a .920+ over 50+ regular season starts and strong playoff run. That's the garbage truck full of money. If he goes even further and wins the Vezina next year, then great. Pay the man even more. Avoiding the risk of a 4+ year deal at $5 mil AAV based on the current sample size is worth a couple million a year more in AAV to me if he goes out and does it again.

Paying top 10 goalie money to a guy who proves to be a top 10 goalie two straight years is a better use of cap allocation than paying Binny dead-average starter money medium-long term now after one top 10 year. I'd rather pay for (closer to) a sure thing than try to get a discount on what is much less sure of a thing with the caveat that 'well worst case scenario we are just paying average starting money to an average-below-average starter' on a contract that we can't move.

I don't think it is at all unreasonable to ask a professional hockey player to prove it over 100 NHL games before you give him $20 mil. The list of guys who have gotten that kind of contract in less than 100 games is insanely small. I honestly can't think of one. I can think of three rookie goalies who have led their teams to Cups in the cap era and none of them got close to $20 mil. Ward got $8 mil after the following season, Murray got $11.25 mil right after, and Niemi got $2 mil right after. Two of those 3 posted noticeably better numbers than Binny and Niemi was worse but in the ballpark (worse SV% but better GSAA).

 

[Bluesnatic27]

This thread is making my head hurt.

"Hey, Allen's contract is terrible because we handed out over $4 million a year to an unproven goalie. But I can't wait to hand out more money a year to a goalie that has even less data to suggest he deserves it. God having the memory of a goldfish makes life so much easier when making decisions."

Binnington did great to win the Cup. He has the potential to be the Blues starter for a long time, much to the great surprise to me. I love that I was wrong on him and I hope he takes the reigns to the Blues starting position for as long as he can. But you know what's better than winning one Cup? Winning multiple Cups. You know how to win those Cups? Not spending anymore unnecessary money with a very high chance of blowing up in your face. Allen is the reason the Blues need to look at this logically, and not get swept up in the moment of a cup winning season. The Blues will be competitive as long as core contracts allow for more quality depth to be added to the roster. If these contracts stop that, kind of like San Jose tying up over $26 million a year for three defensemen (two of which over the age of 30), then the Blues will rapidly decline. Look at LA. They have great players, but they are throwing dumb contracts around like candy. It's no surprise that team went from a Cup contender to a Lefreniere contender.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Brian has provided a logical, supported argument for his opinion. I don’t understand why some posters want to make this into a contest where they have given themselves permission to ridicule him if he’s wrong. I happen to agree with him, but I’m not expecting to give anyone a hard time for predicting ridiculously high AAV or term. I can’t understand why this can’t just be a friendly discussion.

 

[TK 421]

Brian has provided a logical, supported argument for his opinion. I don’t understand why some posters want to make this into a contest where they have given themselves permission to ridicule him if he’s wrong. I happen to agree with him, but I’m not expecting to give anyone a hard time for predicting ridiculously high AAV or term. I can’t understand why this can’t just be a friendly discussion.

Apparently some value "being right" more than quality conversation, a pity really.

 

[DeuceNine]

...which is exactly why I'm not rushing to hand out a $5 mil, long term deal to Binny. It may work out and it may not. I'd rather take a 1 year deal at an almost-certainly-lower AAV and then pay the man a garbage truck full of money after he proves me wrong and posts a .920 this year.

Especially since that's more affordable after we move Allen. Sometime this year we'll have a handle on the Husso situation, so all this will probably iron itself out in 8-9 months.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

I hate the idea of paying a goalie insane money.

I’d rather gamble on the guy who brought home the Cup on a 5x5 or whatever over having to pay him 8 or higher in a year or 2.

 

[Spektre]

LOL. Binnington will see you wherever and whenever the hearing is scheduled if you're offering that.


Perhaps I've missed it, but is anyone here saying "yeah, give Binnington 5+ years and $25 million plus?" on this next contract? I think the longest I've seen anyone suggest is 4 years, and even that I don't recall seeing more than $20 million total. I'm seeing a whole lot of "go 1 year, re-evaluate next offseason" comments and the bigger point of contention is whether to pay him more or less than what Allen is getting.

I guessed first with 6 years at 5.5 million. I said I was guessing on the high side.

As stated before, Army has issued out some contracts where he's over payed players including Allen. Prior to Allen's current deal he played 3 years with 15, 37, and 47 games in those 3 seasons. Allen was still under contract for 1 more year at 2.35m when he signed his current deal.

I completely understand the logic of "Binnington has a limited resume". The counter argument from his camp will be that he was the backbone of the team, going worst in the league in January, to winning the 1st Cup in the history of the franchise. Add on top of that last statement that he did so as a rookie.

Murray in Pittsburgh is probably the closest comparison but he had his run at a younger age so the team had more control.

I think Binnington is going to get paid. I can't see how he's making less than Allen starting next season.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

@Mud the ACAS why don’t you just post your prediction in a simple manner?

So far, all I can tell from your plethora of beat-around-the-bush posts is that you think it will be a 1 or 2 year deal.

Please post your prediction in a simple post because I don’t feel like reading through all of the nonsense in this thread.

1 year at what amount?

2 years at what amount?

EDIT: 1 year at $4-5m?

Is that your guess?

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

The arbitration process could change things, obviously, as the contract becomes 1 or 2 years. The Blues have a good reason to prefer not doing 2 years, since that would take Binnington right to UFA. Since he initiated the process, the Blues would have the choice of term.

If I were Armstrong, I’d be offering 1 or 3 year deals. Any term longer than that is too much risk unless it’s a lower AAV than Binnington would probably like.

I still think 3 years, 11M is reasonable. But maybe they’ll do 4M for one year instead. It’s important to remember Binnington got 650K last year, so a 3 year deal for 10M+ sets him up for the rest of his life regardless of the rest of his career. That has to be a thought in his head.

The team would probably win the argument in arbitration, but would rather not go there since it requires them to basically tear down their player and express doubts / worst case scenario. Armstrong and all the front office would happily pay Binnington for being a top 10 goalie over several years, but they have to balance the hope that he will be with the reality that he may not keep that up.

I also think it may be worth it to the team to overpay Binnington on a shorter term deal to be able to avoid arbitration. But there are limits.

Every single outcome will be life-changing money for Jordan. And good for him!

 

[simon IC]

I think a one year deal with slightly higher money than Allen is both fair, and also the safest way to go.