Confirmed with Link: Pavel Buchnevich has agreed to terms on a four-year contract

[Majorityof1]

Well I like the trade a whole hell of a lot more than the signing. Not as surprising NYR got rid of him now. 5.8? He had 1 outstanding year and I hope it continues. The term doesn't benefit us either. Either sign him cheap for 2 years or if you're giving him 5 mil plus, it should be for longer than 4 years. He'll be 30 and if things go well (hope they do) he'll be gone in 4 years.

I mean Garland just got 4.9 from Vancouver.

We’re talking about a player who for his career scores at a 53 points per 82 games played rate. And over the last two years it’s right at about 65. That’s in addition to being very good on the PK, and a quality defensive toward. 5.8 million is absolutely in the ballpark for a player of his caliber.

Also, it was very few RFA years. People don't understand the difference between RFA and UFA years. All else being equal, the closer a player is to UFA, the higher the AAV on the contract. Buchnevich could have signed his qualifying offer, and then got a 6-7 year deal @ $7-8M on the open market next year. Why would he give up that opportunity to lock himself into a $4.9M deal with any term?

Garland has an extra year of RFA, which changes things. His QO is also A LOT lower. Buchnevich is qualified at $3.25M whereas Garland is qualified at around $800k and change. If Garland couldn't come to terms with the Coyotes and wanted to play in the NHL, he would make under $2M total on QOs the next 2 years before hitting UFA. That is a lot different then Buchnevich making $3.25 next year and hitting free agency after 1 year. Both contracts included the same number of UFA years. Garland's AAV was tamped down by the extra RFa year, and the fact that he doesn't have near the stats as Buchnevich to base his value on.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

With a roster of

9F- O’Reilly, Perron, Buchnevich, Tarasenko, Schenn, Sundqvist, Kostin, Clifford, MacEachern

7D- Parayko, Faulk, Krug, Scandella, Bortuzzo, Mikkola, Walman

2G- Binnington, Husso

We have $12,967,818 left in cap space. I’d assume Kyrou, Thomas, Barbashev, Joshua would take around 8 of that. I still don’t think Sanford(and obviously Vladi) starts the year with us.

 

[Majorityof1]

If you're able to cram an extra talent into the lineup because you squeezed all of your RFA on dollars in lieu of term, you give yourself a very good shot at icing a team dangerous enough to make noise in the playoffs. Ultimately you're going to likely lose some guys that you'd prefer to have kept around (on another bargain contract), but it's better than overpaying guys and not having enough talent to get the entire team over the hump (like the Leafs, Sharks and Knights).

But we lose high end players earlier in exchange for a depth guy. We have to go out and replace those guys which isn't easy. How are we going to replace Parayko if he leaves? Which is worth more, 1 year of an elite player like Parayko or a $1M depth guy over 4 years. That is a no brainer to me, but obviously you and Army think different.

We got lucky and won the cup once, but most of those years we were out in the first round. Vegas has gone to the conference finals in 3 of their 4 years. Let's give them some time before we write off their chances of winning the cup.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

Also, it was very few RFA years. People don't understand the difference between RFA and UFA years. All else being equal, the closer a player is to UFA, the higher the AAV on the contract. Buchnevich could have signed his qualifying offer, and then got a 6-7 year deal @ $7-8M on the open market next year. Why would he give up that opportunity to lock himself into a $4.9M deal with any term?

Garland has an extra year of RFA, which changes things. His QO is also A LOT lower. Buchnevich is qualified at $3.25M whereas Garland is qualified at around $800k and change. If Garland couldn't come to terms with the Coyotes and wanted to play in the NHL, he would make under $2M on QOs the next 2 years before hitting UFA. That is a lot different then Buchnevich making $3.25 next year and hitting free agency after 1 year. Both contracts included the same number of UFA years. Garland's AAV was tamped down by the extra RFa year, and the fact that he doesn't have near the stats as Buchnevich to base his value on.

How many RFA years did Buchnevich have left? I thought he had just one but it’s entirely possible I’m wrong.

 

[Majorityof1]

How many RFA years did Buchnevich have left? I thought he had just one but it’s entirely possible I’m wrong.

Yes, he had 1 that would have earned a minimum of $3.25 on a qualifying offer. That is why he could have just taken the QO and walked to free agency at 27.

 

[Ranksu]

The Army special. Give very little term to an RFA to lower the cap hit but walk him to a young free agency. Same thing with Shattenkirk, Parayko and Schwartz. I always hate it. I'd rather have the term at a slightly high cap hit. Still for the acquisition price, if this is what it took to get it done, it was worth the cost. 4 years of Buchnevich is worth Blais and a 2nd. He should be worth that or more as a rental in his last year as well, so we can recoup assets then if needed.

This.

X1000000000

But still happy we upgrade Blais for Buchnevic.

Short term not like.

I give respect to Army find this trade.

 

[Mike Liut]

Yes, he had 1 that would have earned a minimum of $3.25 on a qualifying offer. That is why he could have just taken the QO and walked to free agency at 27.

True, 4 yrs of Buch is better than 1 yr

 

[Stealth JD]

But we lose high end players earlier in exchange for a depth guy. We have to go out and replace those guys which isn't easy. How are we going to replace Parayko if he leaves? Which is worth more, 1 year of an elite player like Parayko or a $1M depth guy over 4 years. That is a no brainer to me, but obviously you and Army think different.

We got lucky and won the cup once, but most of those years we were out in the first round. Vegas has gone to the conference finals in 3 of their 4 years. Let's give them some time before we write off their chances of winning the cup.

I'm not saying I agree with Army's approach...but I understand it. Just playing devil's advocate. I think you do whatever it takes to lock your best players for as long as you're able (and it still makes sense). It's one thing to squeeze an RFA to load the roster and compete for a Cup (which they successfully did), but to squeeze guys and still build a roster that isn't deep enough or strong enough to win a Cup obviously doesn't help in the long-run. It's tough to acquire guys and build a championship roster if every RFA or UFA you sign has been overpaid by $1M/year for the sheer purpose of "locking them up". You're probably better off not locking guys up if they're going to turn to shit at the end of the deal anyway. For 95% of the guys in the league, I'd prefer a 4-year deal to a 7-year deal...and Buch is no exception.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Am I the only one who is happy with four years?

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Yes, he had 1 that would have earned a minimum of $3.25 on a qualifying offer. That is why he could have just taken the QO and walked to free agency at 27.

Buch is cashing in now. No need to risk an injury.

And if his numbers are good heading into the 4th season, he could see a significant extension. Good gamble on his part and also smart to not risk injury (I don't know if he actually thought of this) and cash in now with a reasonable term.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

This is a good contract overall for the Blues - remember, he fits into our core now. But I really see that core only having another 2-3 years max until it starts to age out. Now this can clearly change if a number of things happen (Tarasenko gets traded for a young [U25] stud player - looking at you MT, Thomas, Kyrou, and Kostin all take massive leaps forward, we swing some other trades) but right now, our top 6 has a bunch of guys who are about to be on the wrong side of 30. I love ROR, but is he really going to age like Bergeron? Bergeron is such a unicorn in the professional sports world. The dude has actually posted a higher PPG over the last 6 years (ages 30-36) then his career average. Can we really bank on ROR doing the same? Especially since a bunch of that production for Bergeron was driven by finding younger line mates in Pasta and Marchand that could help him? Right now Perron is ROR's guy, but he's 34. How many more years are we really going to get out of him? 2-3 at best if I were a betting man.

Overall, by the time Buch's contract is up, we'll have a better idea of if we're a serious contender or if it's time for a hard retool.

 

[Brian39]

The Army special. Give very little term to an RFA to lower the cap hit but walk him to a young free agency. Same thing with Shattenkirk, Parayko and Schwartz. I always hate it. I'd rather have the term at a slightly high cap hit. Still for the acquisition price, if this is what it took to get it done, it was worth the cost. 4 years of Buchnevich is worth Blais and a 2nd. He should be worth that or more as a rental in his last year as well, so we can recoup assets then if needed.

You and I have very, very different ideas of walking a guy to a young free agency. Buch will be a 30 year old UFA and this buys 3 UFA years. A 4 year term is resoundingly not "very little term." It is a medium term deal. Schwartz and Parayko each got 5 year deals that sees them reach UFA at 29. These are not short term deals and they all buy multiple UFA seasons.

Players aren't selling their 30, 31 and 32 year old seasons for a couple hundred grand extra AAV in our new economic reality where the cap will likely shoot up about $20M in one summer once the escrow balance is restored. Every additional year beyond these 4 was likely going to cost an extra $500k-$1M. In a flat cap, an extra $1M+ cap space is well worth him hitting UFA a year or two sooner. This cap hit isn't much more than I'd expect him to get in an arbitration award that walks him to UFA at 27 and it is much less than the AAV that I Buch have needed to start selling his early 30s. I love this contract.

 

[Majorityof1]

You and I have very, very different ideas of walking a guy to a young free agency. Buch will be a 30 year old UFA and this buys 3 UFA years. A 4 year term is resoundingly not "very little term." It is a medium term deal. Schwartz and Parayko each got 5 year deals that sees them reach UFA at 29. These are not short term deals and they all buy multiple UFA seasons.

Players aren't selling their 30, 31 and 32 year old seasons for a couple hundred grand extra AAV in our new economic reality where the cap will likely shoot up about $20M in one summer once the escrow balance is restored. Every additional year beyond these 4 was likely going to cost an extra $500k-$1M. In a flat cap, an extra $1M+ cap space is well worth him hitting UFA a year or two sooner. This cap hit isn't much more than I'd expect him to get in an arbitration award that walks him to UFA at 27 and it is much less than the AAV that I Buch have needed to start selling his early 30s. I love this contract.

"Very little" is an exaggeration. But less than a 6 or 7 year deal which would be preferred.

Buchnevich was the only one of those deals to be signed in our new economic reality. I didn't consider that with him, as it is par for the course for Armstrong. But yes, these type of deals are more common lately. However, even if it cost an extra $500k a year to get 1 year or even an extra $1M for 2 years, I'd prefer it. All else being equal, I prefer to concentrate talent in the top 6 and top 4. I want to spend my cap on better players. Now I don't want to be Toronto where they have half their cap on 4 players. But I'd prefer that to running 23 $3.5M guys. Buchnevich is a top line talent who started the contract at 26. I'd rather pay him for more term than get 7 years for middle pairing D like Krug and Faulk who started at 28, or even Schenn who is good but started his contract older too.

 

[Brian39]

Yes, he had 1 that would have earned a minimum of $3.25 on a qualifying offer. That is why he could have just taken the QO and walked to free agency at 27.

He wouldn't have taken the QO. He would have gone to arbitration and almost certainly gotten at least $4M (and probably more). He was on pace for 30 goals last year, 19 the year before and 27 the year before that. 57 goals in 186 games is a 25 goal pace over those 3 years, so he would have had a great case to push that salary past the $4M mark. Tyler Bertuzzi got $3.5M after a 21 goal and 48 point season 71 games). Buch is coming off 20 goals and 48 points in just 54 games. Their career totals pre-arbitration are 79 goals and 195 points in 301 games for Buch and 49 goals and 126 points in 199 games for Bertuzzi. Buch has a longer resume and his pre-arbitration season was noticeably better than Bertuzzi's.

We were negotiating a guy who had a viable option to get a $4-5M arbitration award that walked him to UFA at 27. He had even more leverage than what you are describing!

 

[Brian39]

I'd rather pay him for more term than get 7 years for middle pairing D like Krug and Faulk who started at 28, or even Schenn who is good but started his contract older too.

Fully agreed.

But in our current reality where we have $25.5M tied up long term in Schenn, Binner, Krug, and Faulk I prefer the $1M+ in cap savings this deal got by going to 4 years instead of 5 or 6. But my issue is about giving too much term/money to those guys rather than being weary about giving too much term to Buch before he ever suits up for the Blues. I really, really like Buch's game and I don't think that he is the product of Zibanejad. However, chemistry and systems fit is a real thing and you never completely know how a guy will look in your system. While I don't think it is likely, there is a chance that Buch doesn't fit here and $5.8M winds up being an overpayment. Part of the benefit of this term instead of max term is to insure against getting an anchor contract. Again, I think Buch will excel here, but you never fully know.

I never thought Tarasenko would be an anchor contract, but here we are. 6+ year deals carry tangible risk no matter how good they look when they are signed and how young the player is when you sign them.

 

[Majorityof1]

Fully agreed.

But in our current reality where we have $25.5M tied up long term in Schenn, Binner, Krug, and Faulk I prefer the $1M+ in cap savings this deal got by going to 4 years instead of 5 or 6. But my issue is about giving too much term/money to those guys rather than being weary about giving too much term to Buch before he ever suits up for the Blues. I really, really like Buch's game and I don't think that he is the product of Zibanejad. However, chemistry and systems fit is a real thing and you never completely know how a guy will look in your system. While I don't think it is likely, there is a chance that Buch doesn't fit here and $5.8M winds up being an overpayment. Part of the benefit of this term instead of max term is to insure against getting an anchor contract. Again, I think Buch will excel here, but you never fully know.

I never thought Tarasenko would be an anchor contract, but here we are. 6+ year deals carry tangible risk no matter how good they look when they are signed and how young the player is when you sign them.

With a guy like Buch though, that's a risk you have to take. You cannot go to the poker table and try to completely minimize risk. You will end up never playing a hand and bleeding out on blinds. The key is to take the smart risks. I think Buchnevich is a smart risk. If you sign him to 6/7 years, and he finds no chemistry, that is still a moveable contract after a year.

I'd hardly call Tarasenko an anchor. That may be you exaggerating this time. There were teams willing to take him with little to no retention, we just weren't getting anything back without retention. A movable contract is not an anchor. Plus, Tarasenko can still be a useful player even if he doesn't live up to his $7.5M. He put up a 14G, 58 point pace last year coming back very rusty. That is worth $4-5M if he can produce like that going forward.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Absolute worst case, we get Buch for 4 years without giving up much. A slightly better scenario is we get Buch for 3-3.5 years, and we at a minimum recoup what we gave up. Ideally, he performs well, and we can bring him back at the end of these 4 years on a good deal.

 

[Blueswin]

Many of the NYR fans cannot believe we got him so cheap. Why did we trade him if we could have signed him for a deal like that? People may not feel like they are getting their $$$ worth on our 6.5 mil. def. but how many of them can you be paying 8-10 mil. dollars. They Leafs are a great example of over paying forwards but at least they are young. How much is Parayko going to be to resign? Glad Petro chose Vegas at his age.

 

[Brian39]

Buchnevich was the only one of those deals to be signed in our new economic reality. I didn't consider that with him, as it is par for the course for Armstrong. But yes, these type of deals are more common lately. However, even if it cost an extra $500k a year to get 1 year or even an extra $1M for 2 years, I'd prefer it. All else being equal, I prefer to concentrate talent in the top 6 and top 4. I want to spend my cap on better players.

It's not just about 1 contract that saves $1M and allows for 1 depth guy though. Assuming $500k of annual cap savings for each shaved off year (which I think is less than the real-world cost of buying UFA years in the early 30s), that adds up. That's $500k of savings for giving Petro 7 years instead of 8 and $1M of savings for each year you shaved off for Parayko/Schwartz. Assuming you wanted to give Parayko/Schwartz 7 year deals, we would have been looking at $2.5M against the cap to put off UFA decisions on those 3. We were a cap team in 2019, so that amount probably prevents us from getting Bozak or Perron. I don't think we win the Cup if we replace either of those guys with whatever $1.5-$2.5M would have gotten us.

Moreover, there are more consequences than just cap savings. What if we had given Backes a 7 year deal when he was 26 instead of the 5 year deal we gave him? Suddenly he's making an extra $1M or so and is on the roster through 2017/18. Do we have the space to fit Schenn? I'd argue that the organization was better off letting Backes walk before the wheels came fully off than we would have been had we locked him up to near-max term (even at a cap hit that still would have been a great deal).

Again, I'd prefer if we chose to give our 6-7 year deals to Buch/Parayko over older Krug/Faulk/Schenns. But I think there is more tangible value in going "just" 5 years on guys in their mid-20s than simply shaving enough off the AAV to afford a single depth piece.

 

[Brian39]

I'd hardly call Tarasenko an anchor. That may be you exaggerating this time. There were teams willing to take him with little to no retention, we just weren't getting anything back without retention. A movable contract is not an anchor. Plus, Tarasenko can still be a useful player even if he doesn't live up to his $7.5M. He put up a 14G, 58 point pace last year coming back very rusty. That is worth $4-5M if he can produce like that going forward.

I'm not referring to his current trade value. His production and availability vs his cap hit has been abysmal for the last 2 seasons. We have been able to get some relief with LTIR, but in both seasons we knew he'd be back before playoffs and had to keep millions of dollars in cap space available to fit him back in mid-season. Our organization unquestionably would have been better off with Tarasenko hitting UFA after the first 5 years of his contract (2019/20) instead of being locked in to him for 8 years. I'm not faulting Army for failing to predict shoulder issues. But a player dealing with injuries in his late 20s and declining into his early 30s is part of the risk you take on by going 8 years instead of 5.

An injury-riddled Tarasenko has been an anchor for the last 2 years. Even factoring in LTIR savings, he has prevented the Blues from spending at least $4M a year on other players and has contributed 9 goals and 24 points over the last 2 years (including playoffs). We absolutely would have fielded a better roster last season had Tarasenko hit UFA in the summer of 2020.

 

[Blueston]

I'm not referring to his current trade value. His production and availability vs his cap hit has been abysmal for the last 2 seasons. We have been able to get some relief with LTIR, but in both seasons we knew he'd be back before playoffs and had to keep millions of dollars in cap space available to fit him back in mid-season. Our organization unquestionably would have been better off with Tarasenko hitting UFA after the first 5 years of his contract (2019/20) instead of being locked in to him for 8 years. I'm not faulting Army for failing to predict shoulder issues. But a player dealing with injuries in his late 20s and declining into his early 30s is part of the risk you take on by going 8 years instead of 5.

An injury-riddled Tarasenko has been an anchor for the last 2 years. Even factoring in LTIR savings, he has prevented the Blues from spending at least $4M a year on other players and has contributed 9 goals and 24 points over the last 2 years (including playoffs). We absolutely would have fielded a better roster last season had Tarasenko hit UFA in the summer of 2020.

I would absolutely trade him for a minor leaguer that stays with his old team at this point.

 

[Celtic Note]

I am happy with the trade and the contract. Frankly, I am a bit surprised it happened and happy that I get to say that!

 

[ChicagoBlues]

This is a good contract overall for the Blues - remember, he fits into our core now. But I really see that core only having another 2-3 years max until it starts to age out. Now this can clearly change if a number of things happen (Tarasenko gets traded for a young [U25] stud player - looking at you MT, Thomas, Kyrou, and Kostin all take massive leaps forward, we swing some other trades) but right now, our top 6 has a bunch of guys who are about to be on the wrong side of 30. I love ROR, but is he really going to age like Bergeron? Bergeron is such a unicorn in the professional sports world. The dude has actually posted a higher PPG over the last 6 years (ages 30-36) then his career average. Can we really bank on ROR doing the same? Especially since a bunch of that production for Bergeron was driven by finding younger line mates in Pasta and Marchand that could help him? Right now Perron is ROR's guy, but he's 34. How many more years are we really going to get out of him? 2-3 at best if I were a betting man.

Overall, by the time Buch's contract is up, we'll have a better idea of if we're a serious contender or if it's time for a hard retool.

2-3 years max, which is why 4 years is great.

 

[Vektor]

This thread really showcases how some people are never happy. Good deal for the Blues and I'm very happy with it.

 

[simon IC]

I am very happy with both the trade and the contract. I find the term very interesting. This may be a bit cynical, but could it be that Armstrong is aware that the back end of Krug's, Faulk's, and Schenn's contracts are going to limit his options? The 4 yr term on Buch's contract really seems to indicate just how long Armstrong thinks our "window" is. Smart move on Armstrong's part.