I'd guess it will be something like $3.25m for one year.
I expect that Armstrong will have learned from the Allen mistake and I wouldn't be surprised if Binnington was happy with a one year deal to earn something more next summer.
As for the arbitration process, none of us can speculate on how they will weight the factors. The fact he hasn't played 60 NHL games absolutely is going to be taken into consideration, but so will his role in our run since the turn of the year. His sv% is .922, which is comparable to Grubauer last season. Grubauer had a longer track record of that level of production, but he didn't do it in the playoffs. He signed 3 years at $3.33m, which includes two UFA year. Murray had a three year deal at $3.75m, which was signed having played fewer NHL games than Binnington, but having put up better numbers.
I would be surprised to see either side filed for arbitration though. I don't think that a two year deal suits either side, but the moment that the other files for arbitration then it becomes the logical choice for the request in arbitration.
Whoever elects for arbitration gives the other side the decision on a one or two year contract. If the Blues elected for it, Binnington would have the choice.The team gets to choose if the arbitration awarded contract is 1 or 2 years.
Binnington is two years away from UFA. If we get a contract worked out through negotiation, I agree that a two year deal is extremely unlikely.I'd read Binny is 2 years from UFA (unsure about this), but there's no way that the team walks him to UFA with a contract award - he gets a 1 year, or a long term deal.
The "48 hours after the Final" piece you mention alludes to club-elected arbitration where the player's salary in the prior season was $1.75 million or more [$ based on 2013-14, it adjusts up in future seasons]. Even if you figure out the math to say where that threshold should be today, Binnington made $650K last season. So, this piece won't apply and the Blues cannot take him to arbitration right now.The Blues time to send him to arbitration I believe dies either today or tomorrow (48 hours past the last game in the final). But, if I am correct, the Blues get to set the term length of the arbitration, so that is in their favor. And the arbitrators in hockey have been fairly fair in the past unlike in some other sports. I don't think they will be that far apart, Armstrong usually comes in with pretty fair numbers. If Binny is expecting something way out of line, they'll have a tough time getting that past the arbitrator.
It really is mind boggling they went out to sign another backup this year instead of giving him a try. I would really like to know their reasoning for keeping him at the minor level so long. It's not like his numbers were bad, they actually were pretty good. Now he's always going to have the 5 year minor pro stigma through no fault of his own that I know about. Was it all just to keep giving Allen chances to prove himself? Because if I were Binny, and that were the case while I was continually posting consistently good numbers up to age 25 never really getting a shot and only actually did because Husso was injured when the callup was made, that wouldn't set well with me.I still think Allen's contract is a potential albatross for the Blues in contract discussions.
Allen at the time he got his extension (which was right on the heels of having shipped out Elliott to make Allen the undisputed #1 going forward.): regular season + playoffs combined 111 career games played, 99 career starts, 60-31-7, 2.33, .914. That playoff record? Just 3-5.
Binnington, to date: 59 total career games played, 56 career starts, 40-15-1, 2.16, .920. Oh, and 16 playoff wins in one playoff year, - or 5x as many as Allen had across 2 years when he got his extension.e
Oh, and you can definitely say that Binnington was a more legitimate #1 [meaning, he was given #1 responsibilities and work loads] this past season than Allen ever was before he got his extension.
If Allen got pretty decent $ for not really demonstrating a whole lot, I really don't know how you argue that Binnington should get less than Allen did after doing a hell of a lot more. "Well, it's different" and "well, we've learned not to put a lot of weight on ________" and such sounds awesome, but 16 wins and a Cup speaks volumes. Maybe Binnington will give a hometown discount and do something for less, but after the team tried to cram him down to the ECHL in 2017-18 before finally loaning him to Providence, and after getting crammed down to the league minimum for this past season and getting shut out of a chance to contend for the backup spot in training camp, ... I've said it before, I'll say it yet again. If I'm Binnington's agent, I'm getting that pound of flesh back on this next deal. I'm sure as hell not agreeing for him to take less than the guy whose job he just took for good.
The reason for keeping him in the minors for so long is because coaching and management didn't rate him. Binnington was told in camp that he wasn't going to get game time in pre-season because he wasn't in the organisations plans moving forward.It really is mind boggling they went out to sign another backup this year instead of giving him a try. I would really like to know their reasoning for keeping him at the minor level so long. It's not like his numbers were bad, they actually were pretty good. Now he's always going to have the 5 year minor pro stigma through no fault of his own that I know about. Was it all just to keep giving Allen chances to prove himself? Because if I were Binny, and that were the case while I was continually posting consistently good numbers up to age 25 never really getting a shot and only actually did because Husso was injured when the callup was made, that wouldn't set well with me.
I agree with this. I don't see a long-term deal coming this summer, and I think both sides have reasons to not want that. I'm not sure I see 2 years coming in this either; that takes him to UFA and I don't think the Blues want to roll the dice on that. So IMO, all we're really arguing about is the $.You have to make sure he's for real, he's a UFA in 2 years, and he just led the team to a Cup. I don't see how this doesn't add up to a 1-year "prove it" contract for $4-5m. It's too dangerous to lock him up long-term.
I get why he was in the minors. Prior to 2017-18, there was nothing that said "he's clearly ready for the NHL." I think trying to send him to the ECHL because they didn't have room at San Antonio was a stupid idea; yes, the Blues were splitting San Antonio with Colorado and so there wasn't room for both of our goalies, but at least try to loan him out before trying to send him down to the AA, don't start with "well, we're shipping you to the ECHL - pack your bags and go." Sure, Husso was the guy in the '17 playoffs for Chicago but it's not like he was lights out by any stretch and he played fewer games in the regular season [due to injuries] than Binnington did. He just happened to get the 2015 Allen, "you looked great in the last few games of the season so the #1 spot is yours for the playoffs" treatment.It really is mind boggling they went out to sign another backup this year instead of giving him a try. I would really like to know their reasoning for keeping him at the minor level so long. It's not like his numbers were bad, they actually were pretty good. Now he's always going to have the 5 year minor pro stigma through no fault of his own that I know about. Was it all just to keep giving Allen chances to prove himself? Because if I were Binny, and that were the case while I was continually posting consistently good numbers up to age 25 never really getting a shot and only actually did because Husso was injured when the callup was made, that wouldn't set well with me.
Like I've said, I just don't know how you offer Allen 4 years, $17 million and the #1 spot in net without him really having proven much, then turn around and say "yeah, even though you bailed our asses out in the postseason and backstopped us to the Cup, ... well, I learned my lesson, I'm not forking that kind of money over again" and think that argument is going to fly if it gets in front of an arbitrator. And while I don't think either side wants this to end up in front of an arbitrator, I think one of the two sides has a real vested interest in making sure it doesn't happen because they're going to have a hell of a time making their argument stand up - and trying to go cheap is a great way to make sure it ends up there.
From the Blues POV? Sure, they'll make that argument.That won't at all be the argument to the arbitrator. The argument will be that after Allen played 50 NHL games, he got a 2 year bridge deal at $2.35 mil AAV.
[underlining is my way of noting what you put in italics]But if he wants to use Allen as a comparable during arbitration, he is opening the door for the Blues to point out how much better Allen had performed before turning 24 and then argue that we agree Allen's first 1 way NHL contract is a great comparable to what you should be earning.
I've heard a few summers now that offer sheets would be coming, and they've still yet to happen. But I think too many people think of offer sheets in terms of "why bother, the other team is going to match anyway so why waste the effort" and there's way too little consideration to "this is a weapon we can use to really screw some other team over."If this is the summer of offer sheets to RFA’s, how much risk is the potential in a team going after Binnington? There’s plenty of teams who would love to snatch up a #1 goalie capable of a Cup run.
If this is the summer of offer sheets to RFA’s, how much risk is the potential in a team going after Binnington? There’s plenty of teams who would love to snatch up a #1 goalie capable of a Cup run.