Jake's next contract

Dipsy Doodle

Rent A Barn
May 28, 2006
76,528
21,072
As comforting as Jake signed for an eternity right away would be, TR makes a strong case for the bridge. He's not going anywhere, we are trying to maximize the next few years, and a big raise will be more manageable as the cap rises.
 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Registered User
Sep 5, 2008
28,726
2,346
I don't think $5.5M/yr is a huge deal, especially if/when Sheary and/or Hunwick are moved, and the cap goes up. Signing him to that deal asap seems like a pretty can't lose situation, especially as the years go by and the cap goes up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HandshakeLin

SHOOTANDSCORE

Eeny Meeny Miny Moe
Sep 25, 2005
10,952
4,675
I disagree with the people who say it doesn't matter what Jake costs down the road. We have the potential to open a 2nd window down the road with some young guys carrying the team and Sid and Geno as wily vets. The moves JR will make going forward will determine if that is possible and every single dollar will count. We need to lock Jake up for as long, and as low a cap hit, as possible. He's the winger we've been coveting for a decade, nothing should be left to chance.

If circumstances change and we decide on a rebuild, then we have a guy in his prime locked up for several years, and at a good cap hit, to trade for futures.
 

Tender Rip

Wears long pants
Feb 12, 2007
17,971
5,171
Shanghai, China
I disagree with the people who say it doesn't matter what Jake costs down the road. We have the potential to open a 2nd window down the road with some young guys carrying the team and Sid and Geno as wily vets.

Take my example where we give Jake a 2 year bridge. At the end of that, we’re done with the 20-21 season.
To start the 21-22 season Sid will be 34 and Geno will be 35 and on his last season (of this contract).

Say we pay Guentz 7 million per year on a new long term deal then. Imagine that the cap has increased only by the 5% inflation escalator in those 3 seasons. That’ll mean the cap is at 87 million (!) - 12 more than today. If Geno was to be re-signed then as a grizzly vet, it would be for less than 9,5 surely. It would be because he wanted to chase more. Phil surely wont be re-signed.

I just think its obvious that we’re more likely to win/ contend in the short term and also that we are much more likely to benefit from an extra couple of million now compared to 3+ seasons out.
 

WayneSid9987

Registered User
Nov 24, 2009
30,053
5,676
The bridge would certainly be the best thing for this window BUT if you can lock him up for 6-7 yrs at anything 6 and under, i think you take that and run.
Don't forget he still has a season left on his ELC so by the time the '19-20 season rolls around 6 will be a steal.
And yea, lock him up as soon as you can negotiate with him/his agent.
 

kahlon66

Registered User
Sep 8, 2009
496
10
the Mecca of Hockey
Well, 4 or 5 years is a far cry from 8, which I had an issue with. An 8 year deal for a middle six forward is, IMO, one that will come back to haunt you. He'll be 30 halfway through the deal. Considering Rust's entire game is built on speed, the moment his speed goes he's probably not going to be that effective.

I just think that you can't go too high with term for guys who aren't star players. The margin for error where guys like that lose even half a step and go from 30-40 point guys to 20-30 point guys for the next half decade is too worrisome to me.

If Rust will sign for 4 years, go for it. Anything longer and I think you're flirting with a contract that could be troublesome about halfway through it.

Great post
 

jmelm

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
13,412
3,822
Toronto, Canada
There is absolutely ZERO downside to signing Jake to a 5-6 year deal in the $5.5M (+/- 500k). That 500k-1M swing will make ZERO difference with the cap going up and virtually all of our other high end players locked up for 4+ years.

If Jake keeps up his playoff performance and puts up better regular season numbers next year than this year (which I personally would bet on), he will get $5M+ for his next deal anyway -- and I really do not believe his salary/cap hit will change substantially whether we sign him for a 2 year deal or a 5-6 year deal. His value is locked into that range. There is no possibility to lock him up to a 2 year bridge deal worth $3-4M, and we would be silly to do so because signing him long term after that (assuming he continues to improve and with the cap going up) could end up being a lot more expensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aiastelmon

CanadianPensFan1

Registered User
Jun 13, 2014
7,051
2,049
Canada
If Rust will sign for 4 years, go for it. Anything longer and I think you're flirting with a contract that could be troublesome about halfway through it.

While I get what you are trying to say and I agree with you..

A 4 year contract is ok? But at 5 years, it becomes a problem at 2.5 years? :)

Just messing with ya. Overall I agree with you.
 

66-30-33

Registered User
Jan 24, 2006
62,598
15,623
Victoria, BC
Is there any way we can keep Brassard, Jake, Rust, Hagelin? Obviously Sheary would be gone, but the rest? then you got MM down the line, maybe so long to Maatta or Schultz.
 

Tom Hanks

Spelling mistakes brought to you by my iPhone.
Nov 10, 2017
30,408
32,434
Is there any way we can keep Brassard, Jake, Rust, Hagelin? Obviously Sheary would be gone, but the rest? then you got MM down the line, maybe so long to Maatta or Schultz.

Brassard would be the tough one but with Sheary and Hunwick gone plus cap increases it’s a possibility. The ELC’s and cheap contracts will become even more important to keep our depth.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,282
25,205
Is there any way we can keep Brassard, Jake, Rust, Hagelin? Obviously Sheary would be gone, but the rest? then you got MM down the line, maybe so long to Maatta or Schultz.

Maaaaybe with a fair wind in cap raises. Pay Brassard by losing Sheahan when the top comes and having a minimum wage 4C. Bridging Guentzel would make it easier. You'd probably need Hags to give a hometown discount though.

It shouldn't come at the expense of the top 4 though. Barring incredible luck in finding cheap dmen in the next couple of years, any outgoings in the top 4 will probably have to be made good by a player of equal cap hit. The blue line should not get any weaker.

And if the cap starts forcing players away, then its gonna be a lot easier to find cheap replacements in the forwards than in defence.
 

Bumpus

Shhh ...
Mar 4, 2008
2,506
1,236
WV
images
 

Shady Machine

Registered User
Aug 6, 2010
36,691
8,111
As comforting as Jake signed for an eternity right away would be, TR makes a strong case for the bridge. He's not going anywhere, we are trying to maximize the next few years, and a big raise will be more manageable as the cap rises.

I wouldn't take a bridge if I were him. Back to back huge playoffs. I want my pay day now. Sure I could make 6.5-7MM in 3 years if I keep this trajectory, but I could also have a major injury or I could end up on a garbage team if something happens to Sid/Geno and I'm still not producing like I am.

Give me 5-8 years at 5.5MM and let me be a rich hockey player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Hanks

BladeRunner66

Two-Headed Jerk
Oct 23, 2017
1,164
747
-Jake needs locked in. Brassard and Sheahan needs locked in. Id dump Hagelin and Sheary for too much inconsistency. Ill take the 7 million from those 2 and look for an Elite LW or the fastest defensive player I can find. Resign Rust. And we are set for the next 5 years
Wise words.

Guentzel : 4.75 x 8 = 38 (if possible)
5 x 8 if not.
 

Dipsy Doodle

Rent A Barn
May 28, 2006
76,528
21,072
I wouldn't take a bridge if I were him. Back to back huge playoffs. I want my pay day now. Sure I could make 6.5-7MM in 3 years if I keep this trajectory, but I could also have a major injury or I could end up on a garbage team if something happens to Sid/Geno and I'm still not producing like I am.

Give me 5-8 years at 5.5MM and let me be a rich hockey player.

I'd be looking for a longer-term payday if I were Jake too (and personally, I'll be happy just so long as we get his name on the dotted line), but maybe the team can sell him on it.
 

66-30-33

Registered User
Jan 24, 2006
62,598
15,623
Victoria, BC
I wouldn't take a bridge if I were him. Back to back huge playoffs. I want my pay day now. Sure I could make 6.5-7MM in 3 years if I keep this trajectory, but I could also have a major injury or I could end up on a garbage team if something happens to Sid/Geno and I'm still not producing like I am.

Give me 5-8 years at 5.5MM and let me be a rich hockey player.
Yeah, 7 years at 6M per is what i'd ask for.
 

DesertPenguin

Registered User
Apr 22, 2015
3,063
1,582
Guentzel - Crosby - Hornqvist
Hagelin - Malkin - Rust
ZAR - Brassard - Kessel
Kuhn - Sheahan - Simon/Sprong

I look to move Sheary in the offseason, assuming one of ZAR/Simon/Sprong can step up into a permanent top 9 role. I also look to get rid of Hunwick by any means necessary, and use the cap space to add a solid #5, sliding Oleksiak/Ruh to 6 and 7. We need another Ian Cole type, or heck just sign Ian Cole.
 

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,515
46,231
5.5 for 6 year would be healthy for both parties.

Yeah, I think Jake would prefer a 6 year deal rather than 8, simply because it'll end when he's at an age where he can still make one big final payday in free agency. 8 years takes him until he's like 32 or 33, at which time he's on the downswing of his career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burn

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->