Confirmed with Link: Jordan Binnington 6 Year Extension

[Brian39]

Double post for a more concise summary of some numbers regarding this 'downward trajectory' talk.

Binner entered the league and had an absolutely ludicrous first 2 months after taking over the starting job on 1/7/19. In January and February, he put up a .942 on the way to a 15-2-1 record. And I guess this is where the downward trajectory suddenly and abruptly occurred. He posted a .912 for the rest of the regular season.

In 2019/20 he was .912 in the regular season.

In 2020/21 he was .910 in the regular season.

This year, he was .910 through his first 21 starts of the season before an absolutely disastrous 3 game stretch vs TOR/CAL/NJ that have tanked his season-long SV% to .898.

Again, I've hated his contract since day 1. But this notion that we have been watching him get steadily worse is just overwhelmingly untrue. He settled in as a 'steady-but-not-great' guy who could handle a heavy workload 2 months into his NHL career. Even in the Cup run, he was a .914 goalie who had a ton of really rough nights but then came up big deep into each series. A slide from .912 to .910 is just not a statistically significant drop in play. That's an extra goal every 500 shots, or about 3 extra goals against per season if you see a very heavy workload. It is about as statistically significant as a guy scoring 26 goals one year and 25 the next (assuming the same number of shots taken, that would actually be a greater decrease in shooting percentage than a .002 drop in SV%).

He absolutely needs to play better. He very likely will. He very likely will not be worth his contract. But we have not been looking at some long extended sample of a struggling goalie that is steadily getting worse.

 

[Blueston]

Double post for a more concise summary of some numbers regarding this 'downward trajectory' talk.

Binner entered the league and had an absolutely ludicrous first 2 months after taking over the starting job on 1/7/19. In January and February, he put up a .942 on the way to a 15-2-1 record. And I guess this is where the downward trajectory suddenly and abruptly occurred. He posted a .912 for the rest of the regular season.

In 2019/20 he was .912 in the regular season.

In 2020/21 he was .910 in the regular season.

This year, he was .910 through his first 21 starts of the season before an absolutely disastrous 3 game stretch vs TOR/CAL/NJ that have tanked his season-long SV% to .898.

Again, I've hated his contract since day 1. But this notion that we have been watching him get steadily worse is just overwhelmingly untrue. He settled in as a 'steady-but-not-great' guy who could handle a heavy workload 2 months into his NHL career. Even in the Cup run, he was a .914 goalie who had a ton of really rough nights but then came up big deep into each series. A slide from .912 to .910 is just not a statistically significant drop in play. That's an extra goal every 500 shots, or about 3 extra goals against per season if you see a very heavy workload. It is about as statistically significant as a guy scoring 26 goals one year and 25 the next (assuming the same number of shots taken, that would actually be a greater decrease in shooting percentage than a .002 drop in SV%).

He absolutely needs to play better. He very likely will. He very likely will not be worth his contract. But we have not been looking at some long extended sample of a struggling goalie that is steadily getting worse.

This. 100% this.

 

[Xerloris]

Binner has played 1 game in the last 4 weeks. His last start was 12 days ago. He went 16 days between starts before that. Husso has started 9 of our last 11 games. One of Binner's two starts was the 2nd half of a road back-to-back.

This idea that the Blues keep trotting him out there to try and let games fix him isn't remotely true. Moreover, your narrative that they were doing that in the past and it didn't work is also complete and total fiction.

When Binner got COVID his season-long SV% was a .912 through 16 starts at the end of November. There is no real world argument to be make that he was broken at this point and in need of rebuilding his game. He had slumped in November (.903 for the month) but nothing remotely out of the norm for a starting goalie. He returned in our last game before Christmas and allowed 4 goals on 34 shots. He then played our first game after Christmas and allowed 2 goals on 28 shots to bring his season SV% to .911 at the close of 2021.

Binner played the Winter Classic and this is the first possible moment you can plausibly point to in order to argue that he became broken and in need of major fixing. He allowed 4 goals on 33 shots, with 2 of them going in off our own player. I absolutely don't believe anyone should have looked at this game and concluded that he was in a free fall and in need of rebuilding his game. He started our next game against the Pens and allowed 5 on 41 shots. None of them were softies, but if you want to claim that he was broken here for your narrative be my guest. Husso played the next game and then Binner started the next against Dallas. He allowed 1 goal on 27 shots, which seems to be a data point against your idea that it never works to let him play his way out of shit if you felt that he needed to sit for a month in the start of January. At the conclusion of the Dallas game on 1/9/22 he had a .910 for the season. Your narrative that he's been bad all year is fantasy. The idea that the Blues at this point should have sat him out for a month to rebuild his game is pure and total nonsense.

That Dallas game was over 6 weeks ago and Binner has played just 3 games since. Husso got the next game after Dallas because he was playing too damn well to not split starts. Binner then looked really bad against Toronto in our next game, which led to Husso getting our next 3 games. Binner got the tail end of a B2B and looked bad again vs Calgary. That led to Husso getting the final 2 games before the all star break. Binner plays against the Devils, looks awful and then Husso gets the next 4 games. These 3 games in between long stretches of inactivity have cratered his season-long SV% from .910 to .898.

The Blues have done exactly what you claim they aren't doing. He has gone very long stretches between starts since giving away 2 points vs the Leafs on 1/15/22. He's played 2 games in 37 days since then. Your notion that they need to 'give him a break' and that they 'just continue to put him in net' is full blown fiction.

Don't forget that not only did 2 goals go off of our own guys during the Winter Classic but the other 2 goals were some of the most outrageously poor defensive coverage anyone has ever seen.

 

[Reality Czech]

Binner has played 1 game in the last 4 weeks. His last start was 12 days ago. He went 16 days between starts before that. Husso has started 9 of our last 11 games. One of Binner's two starts was the 2nd half of a road back-to-back.

This idea that the Blues keep trotting him out there to try and let games fix him isn't remotely true. Moreover, your narrative that they were doing that in the past and it didn't work is also complete and total fiction.

When Binner got COVID his season-long SV% was a .912 through 16 starts at the end of November. There is no real world argument to be make that he was broken at this point and in need of rebuilding his game. He had slumped in November (.903 for the month) but nothing remotely out of the norm for a starting goalie. He returned in our last game before Christmas and allowed 4 goals on 34 shots. He then played our first game after Christmas and allowed 2 goals on 28 shots to bring his season SV% to .911 at the close of 2021.

Binner played the Winter Classic and this is the first possible moment you can plausibly point to in order to argue that he became broken and in need of major fixing. He allowed 4 goals on 33 shots, with 2 of them going in off our own player. I absolutely don't believe anyone should have looked at this game and concluded that he was in a free fall and in need of rebuilding his game. He started our next game against the Pens and allowed 5 on 41 shots. None of them were softies, but if you want to claim that he was broken here for your narrative be my guest. Husso played the next game and then Binner started the next against Dallas. He allowed 1 goal on 27 shots, which seems to be a data point against your idea that it never works to let him play his way out of shit if you felt that he needed to sit for a month in the start of January. At the conclusion of the Dallas game on 1/9/22 he had a .910 for the season. Your narrative that he's been bad all year is fantasy. The idea that the Blues at this point should have sat him out for a month to rebuild his game is pure and total nonsense.

That Dallas game was over 6 weeks ago and Binner has played just 3 games since. Husso got the next game after Dallas because he was playing too damn well to not split starts. Binner then looked really bad against Toronto in our next game, which led to Husso getting our next 3 games. Binner got the tail end of a B2B and looked bad again vs Calgary. That led to Husso getting the final 2 games before the all star break. Binner plays against the Devils, looks awful and then Husso gets the next 4 games. These 3 games in between long stretches of inactivity have cratered his season-long SV% from .910 to .898.

The Blues have done exactly what you claim they aren't doing. He has gone very long stretches between starts since giving away 2 points vs the Leafs on 1/15/22. He's played 2 games in 37 days since then. Your notion that they need to 'give him a break' and that they 'just continue to put him in net' is full blown fiction.

Ah sweet sweet reality, how refreshing.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Ah sweet sweet reality, how refreshing.

Binnington suxx and is bad and stuff.

 

[Reality Czech]

Binnington suxx and is bad and stuff.

All I know is that he DEFINITELY shouldn't be playing games right now. He needs to be sent down ASAP!

In all seriousness, did ya'll see how genuinely happy his teammates were for him to pick up the win? They aren't just gonna kick Binner to the curb no matter how much some fans want to see it happen.

 

[Xerloris]

"fans"

Should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Prosaic]

I was pretty confused when this deal was announced, given he was having a relatively mediocre season and wasn’t necessarily that good the previous season.

He’s currently the 8th highest paid G in the league. If you ask me, he’s not near worth that value.

I think we’ve reached the point where the contract has become immovable. I mean, I can’t see any team wanting him after this dreadful season.

Do the Blues just ride it out and hope he bounces back? What are the odds he does given he hasn’t been a quality starter aside from 2018-2019? Does DA try and keep Husso beyond this year? Do you buy him out? Add pieces for a team to take him or retain money? Very sticky solution with no clear answer.

What are the thoughts of some of the other Blues fans around here?

 

[execwrite1]

I was pretty confused when this deal was announced, given he was having a relatively mediocre season and wasn’t necessarily that good the previous season.

He’s currently the 8th highest paid G in the league. If you ask me, he’s not near worth that value.

I think we’ve reached the point where the contract has become immovable. I mean, I can’t see any team wanting him after this dreadful season.

Do the Blues just ride it out and hope he bounces back? What are the odds he does given he hasn’t been a quality starter aside from 2018-2019? Does DA try and keep Husso beyond this year? Do you buy him out? Add pieces for a team to take him or retain money? Very sticky solution with no clear answer.

What are the thoughts of some of the other Blues fans around here?

It's a Cap-tastrophe.

 

[Thallis]

I was pretty confused when this deal was announced, given he was having a relatively mediocre season and wasn’t necessarily that good the previous season.

He’s currently the 8th highest paid G in the league. If you ask me, he’s not near worth that value.

I think we’ve reached the point where the contract has become immovable. I mean, I can’t see any team wanting him after this dreadful season.

Do the Blues just ride it out and hope he bounces back? What are the odds he does given he hasn’t been a quality starter aside from 2018-2019? Does DA try and keep Husso beyond this year? Do you buy him out? Add pieces for a team to take him or retain money? Very sticky solution with no clear answer.

What are the thoughts of some of the other Blues fans around here?

Probably. Goaltending is voodoo in general, so it wouldn't be surprising to me for him to bounce back to his previous level next season. A lot more likely than the season Husso has been having after last's.

 

[WATTAGE4451]

Double post for a more concise summary of some numbers regarding this 'downward trajectory' talk.

Binner entered the league and had an absolutely ludicrous first 2 months after taking over the starting job on 1/7/19. In January and February, he put up a .942 on the way to a 15-2-1 record. And I guess this is where the downward trajectory suddenly and abruptly occurred. He posted a .912 for the rest of the regular season.

In 2019/20 he was .912 in the regular season.

In 2020/21 he was .910 in the regular season.

This year, he was .910 through his first 21 starts of the season before an absolutely disastrous 3 game stretch vs TOR/CAL/NJ that have tanked his season-long SV% to .898.

Again, I've hated his contract since day 1. But this notion that we have been watching him get steadily worse is just overwhelmingly untrue. He settled in as a 'steady-but-not-great' guy who could handle a heavy workload 2 months into his NHL career. Even in the Cup run, he was a .914 goalie who had a ton of really rough nights but then came up big deep into each series. A slide from .912 to .910 is just not a statistically significant drop in play. That's an extra goal every 500 shots, or about 3 extra goals against per season if you see a very heavy workload. It is about as statistically significant as a guy scoring 26 goals one year and 25 the next (assuming the same number of shots taken, that would actually be a greater decrease in shooting percentage than a .002 drop in SV%).

He absolutely needs to play better. He very likely will. He very likely will not be worth his contract. But we have not been looking at some long extended sample of a struggling goalie that is steadily getting worse.

I agree he hasnt "been in decline for years" in fact the drop from .912 and 910 not only is insignificant but it also coincided with us losing petrangelo.

Alrhough his struggles started before the 21 game mark this year.

He had a hot october to stary, and then had a greay first syart in november, but was bad after that amd hos sv% for november was only .903 including that stary(to lazy to calculate what it would be without that start) and he was .903 in december before a disasterous january. He may have only been terrible since january butnhe was pretty mediocre in november and december.

I do think he can bounce back next hear. Its not uncommon for average goalies to have 1 disaster season. Goalies cam be inconsistent from year to yeaf.

The contract was a mistake from day 1 though paying him 8th highest goalie salary for league average numbers excludong his first 2 momths in the leagie.

 

[execwrite1]

It's gonna take a wing and a prayer for Armstrong to clean up his mess here.

Maybe some team (Toronto?) flames out in the playoffs because of bad goaltending and is willing to take Binnington with the Blues eating some of the money.

 

[Blueston]

It's gonna take a wing and a prayer for Armstrong to clean up his mess here.

Maybe some team (Toronto?) flames out in the playoffs because of bad goaltending and is willing to take Binnington with the Blues eating some of the money.

Army is patient. If he can’t offload him this summer with minimal pain he will let Binny build back value. I think it’s unlikely he finishes contract here, but we have flexibility to carry it next year if he finds his game again.

 

[DeuceNine]

All talk aside, we have two really good goalies. Worst case, we lose one of them. I'd personally rather let Perron walk (as much as I love him) to retain some dough to keep both. We're deep on scoring. But, if not, best of luck to who has to move on.

 

[LGB]

All talk aside, we have two really good goalies. Worst case, we lose one of them. I'd personally rather let Perron walk (as much as I love him) to retain some dough to keep both. We're deep on scoring. But, if not, best of luck to who has to move on.

I think we need to keep Perron. His game has evolved as he's gotten older and I see him being effective for at least a few more years. He actually has a really strong defensive impact now which I think is mostly due to his ability to keep the puck away from the other team. He should remain very effective on the PP as well.

 

[MissouriMook]

I think we need to keep Perron. His game has evolved as he's gotten older and I see him being effective for at least a few more years. He actually has a really strong defensive impact now which I think is mostly due to his ability to keep the puck away from the other team. He should remain very effective on the PP as well.

At some point, we're not going to be able to keep everyone, barring an unprecedented series of hometown discounts by multiple players. I think we can all agree that the greatest area of need going into this offseason is the defense, and we're not going to find the money to address that (and keep Husso) by subtracting from the defense. That means a forward (maybe more than one) is going to have to go. Perron doesn't yet have a contract for next season, so I would say he is as likely as anyone to be on the chopping block.

 

[PJJJP]

At some point, we're not going to be able to keep everyone, barring an unprecedented series of hometown discounts by multiple players. I think we can all agree that the greatest area of need going into this offseason is the defense, and we're not going to find the money to address that (and keep Husso) by subtracting from the defense. That means a forward (maybe more than one) is going to have to go. Perron doesn't yet have a contract for next season, so I would say he is as likely as anyone to be on the chopping block.

The real cap crunch will come in the 2023 offseason when ROR, Thomas, Kyrou, and Tarasenko if he is still here are up for contracts. If we give Perron, Husso, and a new top 4 LHD contracts those will also take away cap space if they are signed for more than 1 year. If Tarasenko stays your looking at 2 forwards from the current group not being signed or traded. Unless Perron is going to take a extremely team friendly contract I don't see how we can fit him and I think Barbashev will be traded.

 

[LGB]

At some point, we're not going to be able to keep everyone, barring an unprecedented series of hometown discounts by multiple players. I think we can all agree that the greatest area of need going into this offseason is the defense, and we're not going to find the money to address that (and keep Husso) by subtracting from the defense. That means a forward (maybe more than one) is going to have to go. Perron doesn't yet have a contract for next season, so I would say he is as likely as anyone to be on the chopping block.

I think out of Perron, Tarasenko, and O'Reilly; Perron's contract will probably provide the most value. The other two will be looking for a lot of money and term and I'm not sure if they will age gracefully or not.

 

[Brian39]

I think out of Perron, Tarasenko, and O'Reilly; Perron's contract will probably provide the most value. The other two will be looking for a lot of money and term and I'm not sure if they will age gracefully or not.

He will definitely want the least term/money. But I'm not sure that means he will provide more value. Perron turns 34 next month. ROR turned 31 in February and Tarasenko doesn't turn 31 until December.

Perron almost at the age where it is fairly common for guys to see their skating suddenly fall off a cliff. The next 2 years will be his age 34 and 35 season. This year was Bozak's age 35 season. David Backes was scratched in the Cup Final in his age 34 season. I'm not saying that Perron is going to fall off a cliff or that every player does. But you can't ignore the noticeable risk that he can age very ungracefully on even a 1 or 2 year deal. I'm extremely confident that ROR and Tarasneko will both be better players than Perron over the next 2 seasons by a noticeable margin.

If Perron is willing to take a big hometown discount, then I want to re-sign him. In my ideal world, he's good taking 1 year deals from here on out. Because in the summer of 2023 he will be eligible for bonuses like the way we structured Bozak's deal. That could let us push the bulk of his money in 2023/24 to the 2024/25 season when there should be a decent bump in the cap. If he will do that, then we should absolutely keep him. But if he wants a 2-3 year deal around the AAV he can get in UFA then I'm not sold that provides more value for a win-now team than keeping/extending one or both of ROR/Tarasenko. Perron at a discount (but not a huge one) could still become a negative-value contract by the middle of next season.

 

[LGB]

He will definitely want the least term/money. But I'm not sure that means he will provide more value. Perron turns 34 next month. ROR turned 31 in February and Tarasenko doesn't turn 31 until December.

Perron almost at the age where it is fairly common for guys to see their skating suddenly fall off a cliff. The next 2 years will be his age 34 and 35 season. This year was Bozak's age 35 season. David Backes was scratched in the Cup Final in his age 34 season. I'm not saying that Perron is going to fall off a cliff or that every player does. But you can't ignore the noticeable risk that he can age very ungracefully on even a 1 or 2 year deal.

If Perron is willing to take a big hometown discount, then I want to re-sign him. In my ideal world, he's good taking 1 year deals from here on out. Because in the summer of 2023 he will be eligible for bonuses like the way we structured Bozak's deal. That could let us push the bulk of his money in 2023/24 to the 2024/25 season when there should be a decent bump in the cap. If he will do that, then we should absolutely keep him. But if he wants a 2-3 year deal around the AAV he can get in UFA then I'm not sold that provides more value for a win-now team than keeping/extending one or both of ROR/Tarasenko.

There's risk but I think there is a lot more risk with ROR and Tarasenko. I think Perron has already changed his game to be more sustainable as he gets older. Remains to be seen if ROR and Tarasenko can do the same. Also, with the season Tarasenko is having right now, what will his next contract look like?

 

[joe galiba]

He will definitely want the least term/money. But I'm not sure that means he will provide more value. Perron turns 34 next month. ROR turned 31 in February and Tarasenko doesn't turn 31 until December.

Perron almost at the age where it is fairly common for guys to see their skating suddenly fall off a cliff. The next 2 years will be his age 34 and 35 season. This year was Bozak's age 35 season. David Backes was scratched in the Cup Final in his age 34 season. I'm not saying that Perron is going to fall off a cliff or that every player does. But you can't ignore the noticeable risk that he can age very ungracefully on even a 1 or 2 year deal. I'm extremely confident that ROR and Tarasneko will both be better players than Perron over the next 2 seasons by a noticeable margin.

If Perron is willing to take a big hometown discount, then I want to re-sign him. In my ideal world, he's good taking 1 year deals from here on out. Because in the summer of 2023 he will be eligible for bonuses like the way we structured Bozak's deal. That could let us push the bulk of his money in 2023/24 to the 2024/25 season when there should be a decent bump in the cap. If he will do that, then we should absolutely keep him. But if he wants a 2-3 year deal around the AAV he can get in UFA then I'm not sold that provides more value for a win-now team than keeping/extending one or both of ROR/Tarasenko. Perron at a discount (but not a huge one) could still become a negative-value contract by the middle of next season.

all three have have skills that will still translate
ROR and Perron's stick handling and ability to win pucks on the boards
Perron and Tarasenko's shooting
all three have outstanding vision, anticipation and passing
age won't affect these that much

it will all come down to skating
especially for ROR and Perron, it is hard to forecheck when you can't get there

Tarasenko's better speed and strength may allow him to be a top player for longer before age catches him

unless we can move on from Binnington and keep Husso at a better rate, or we move someone unexpected, and with raises for other players coming, it will be hard to keep more than one of the three

 

[Brian39]

There's risk but I think there is a lot more risk with ROR and Tarasenko. I think Perron has already changed his game to be more sustainable as he gets older. Remains to be seen if ROR and Tarasenko can do the same. Also, with the season Tarasenko is having right now, what will his next contract look like?

I agree that we have more proof of concept that Perron will age more gracefully. However, that doesn't negate the fact that he is already 3 years further along the aging curve.

Let's say we can say with certainty that Perron will be better from age 34-36 than ROR and Tarasenko will be in their 34-36 seasons. That doesn't mean that he will provide more value overall to us since we are in a window right now. ROR and Tarasenko are bigger components to the current roster than Perron is right now. ROR does way more non-offensive heavy lifting than Perron while still producing at a decent clip. He plays 2+ extra minutes a night, he plays center and he will be the guy responsible for matching up against the top player of every team we face. Tarasenko and Perron play similar roles/minutes, but Tarasenko has 35% more offensive production than Perron. I'm confident that ROR and Tarasenko at 31/32 will be noticeably better players next year than Perron at 34. If signing Perron forces us to lose one of 90/91 this summer, next year's team has a larger hole to fill than letting Perron walk. If extending Perron means that you lose both of ROR and Tarasenko beyond next year instead of keeping one, then I think the 2023/24 team and possibly the 2024/25 team is worse. The value gained between Perron's 34-36 years vs ROR/Tarasenko's 34-36 years could very well be more than erased by the value lost by losing the 31-33 years of ROR/Tarasenko to keep Perron from 34-36.

I'd rather eat a market value deal on Tarasenko than a market value deal on Perron (because I think Perron's market value is a 3 year deal with a decent raise on the AAV). Perron being closer to worth his current market price in year 3 of his deal than Tarasenko will be in year 5 of his deal doesn't outweigh the good we'd get out of Tarasenko in the front half of the deal. I think Perron will take a fairly hefty discount and I want to sign him if he does. But I am weary about prioritizing a 34 year old over a 30 or 31 year old because I think the 34 year old will age better.

A big reason I feel this way is because I don't view dead money in 2026+ as a huge risk. The cap will be increasing by millions each year at that point, so contracts that are expensive now will start looking cheaper quickly. A new CBA is coming in the summer of 2026. The NHL has made it clear that LTIRing aging players is pretty highly accepted. We're probably going to have to rebuild/retool at that point anyway. We've locked a lot of aging guys into contracts and the prospect pool isn't good enough for a huge core shift anyway. For all these reasons, I'm very much prioritizing the next 3 years over the years where ROR/Tarasenko are 35+. I view a potential +5% increase to team success right now as about the same value as -10% in 2026. I wouldn't have felt this way without the deals we gave Schenn, Binner, Faulk, and Krug, but here we are. We are in a window right now and Schenn/Krug/Faulk are all 30+. That is the reality, so I'm ready to start mortgaging futures.

 

[execwrite1]

I'm afraid the reality is Husso is gone. Even if the money is here, why would he sign up as a 1-A or B goalie.

He's a number one starter now, and he'll get paid like one. He'll want to be the guy wherever he goes.

 

[LGB]

I agree that we have more proof of concept that Perron will age more gracefully. However, that doesn't negate the fact that he is already 3 years further along the aging curve.

Let's say we can say with certainty that Perron will be better from age 34-36 than ROR and Tarasenko will be in their 34-36 seasons. That doesn't mean that he will provide more value overall to us since we are in a window right now. ROR and Tarasenko are bigger components to the current roster than Perron is right now. ROR does way more non-offensive heavy lifting than Perron while still producing at a decent clip. He plays 2+ extra minutes a night, he plays center and he will be the guy responsible for matching up against the top player of every team we face. Tarasenko and Perron play similar roles/minutes, but Tarasenko has 35% more offensive production than Perron. I'm confident that ROR and Tarasenko at 31/32 will be noticeably better players next year than Perron at 34. If signing Perron forces us to lose one of 90/91 this summer, next year's team has a larger hole to fill than letting Perron walk. If extending Perron means that you lose both of ROR and Tarasenko beyond next year instead of keeping one, then I think the 2023/24 team and possibly the 2024/25 team is worse. The value gained between Perron's 34-36 years vs ROR/Tarasenko's 34-36 years could very well be more than erased by the value lost by losing the 31-33 years of ROR/Tarasenko to keep Perron from 34-36.

I'd rather eat a market value deal on Tarasenko than a market value deal on Perron (because I think Perron's market value is a 3 year deal with a decent raise on the AAV). Perron being closer to worth his current market price in year 3 of his deal than Tarasenko will be in year 5 of his deal doesn't outweigh the good we'd get out of Tarasenko in the front half of the deal. I think Perron will take a fairly hefty discount and I want to sign him if he does. But I am weary about prioritizing a 34 year old over a 30 or 31 year old because I think the 34 year old will age better.

A big reason I feel this way is because I don't view dead money in 2026+ as a huge risk. The cap will be increasing by millions each year at that point, so contracts that are expensive now will start looking cheaper quickly. A new CBA is coming in the summer of 2026. The NHL has made it clear that LTIRing aging players is pretty highly accepted. We're probably going to have to rebuild/retool at that point anyway. We've locked a lot of aging guys into contracts and the prospect pool isn't good enough for a huge core shift anyway. For all these reasons, I'm very much prioritizing the next 3 years over the years where ROR/Tarasenko are 35+. I view a potential +5% increase to team success right now as about the same value as -10% in 2026. I wouldn't have felt this way without the deals we gave Schenn, Binner, Faulk, and Krug, but here we are. We are in a window right now and Schenn/Krug/Faulk are all 30+. That is the reality, so I'm ready to start mortgaging futures.

I think it's likely that Perron provides more value relative to his contract over the next 3 seasons never mind the negative value the ROR and Tarasenko will likely have later. I expect his AAV to be pretty team friendly. It is true that the other two leave bigger holes in our roster. I'm wary of going all-in and being left with a non-playoff roster with a lot of bad contracts because you never know how long it will take to be competitive again especially with minimal roster flexibility. If there are some cap gymnastics that we can take advantage of sure but I don't know much about that stuff. It is interesting that Schenn, Saad, Krug, and Faulk all lose their full trade protection in 2025. Binner loses his in 2024.

 

[WATTAGE4451]

The real cap crunch will come in the 2023 offseason when ROR, Thomas, Kyrou, and Tarasenko if he is still here are up for contracts. If we give Perron, Husso, and a new top 4 LHD contracts those will also take away cap space if they are signed for more than 1 year. If Tarasenko stays your looking at 2 forwards from the current group not being signed or traded. Unless Perron is going to take a extremely team friendly contract I don't see how we can fit him and I think Barbashev will be traded.

Tarasenko was asking a trade request before last season. I dont think he will be eager to sign at a discpunt if he signs at all. I think he has to be the onethat goes.