Schwartz and Tarasenko: To go long term, or not to go long term?
- Thread starter Vladys Gumption
- Start date
BadgersandBlues
Registered User
- Jun 6, 2011
- 1,784
- 1,184
I said this before the series started. That if we go out again this year in the first round, we should really think about taking a page out of Boston's book, and trading some of our older players, and totally building this team around Schwartz and Tarasenko.
I want both of those players to have long, productive careers in a Bluenote. Lock em both up for life.
I want both of those players to have long, productive careers in a Bluenote. Lock em both up for life.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,140
- 13,101
I don't think it is quite fair to say Army is allergic to long term deals for younger players. He just gave Petro 7 years coming off his entry level deal and gave Shatty 4 years off his entry level deal. He also gave Oshie 5 years after a very understandable 1 year 'prove it' contract. I would be worried if Army was giving every young player a long term deal. Unless you are completely sure about a player a bridge deal is a good idea. Just look at how Edmonton has boxed themselves in by giving all of their young guys term.
With that said, I think both will get term. They are clearly the future of the team and are appearing to be the present as well. I don't think either has anything to prove at this point. IMO, Schwartz will only get a bridge deal if Army is very active on the UFA market and needs to keep Schwartz's salary low in order to fit under the cap. If this happens, it will be a calculated move to pay more later in order to work around a cap now. Tarasenko will get term unless he really struggles next year.
Note Worthy
History Made
I said it earlier in the season, we should offer them both identical deals as soon as the season is over. 8 years in the $4.5m-$5m range.
They probably won't sign for that little.
Landeskog got 7 years 5.5+ million.
Duchene got 5 years 6.0 million (granted after a bridge).
Couture got 5 years 6.0 million (after a bridge).
E. Kane got 6 years 5.25 million.
Jeff Skinner got 6 years 5.75 million.
Eberle got 6 years 6.0 million.
Hall got 7 years 6.0 million.
RNH got 7 years 6.0 million.
Seguin got 6 years 5.75 million.
Benn got 5 years 5.25 million.
Bobby Ryan got 5 years 5.1 million (back in 2010).
Tavares got 6 years 5.5 million.
And almost all of these contracts have already kicked in meaning Schwartz and Tarasenko will be signing contracts under a higher salary cap.
The contracts are likely to be around 5-6 years and 5.5-6.0 million. If the Blues want and 8 year contract be prepared to pay more 6+.
Thallis
No half measures
I'd go higher, but the identical Kane & Toews esque long term deal should be what we look to do this summer.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
Actually I think paying 6+ is highly doubtful. Every one of those guys you listed, minus maybe RNH, had already put up two or three great years when they signed. Tarasenko and Schwartz haven't and won't have as much leverage as the others.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
LongLiveTheNote
#LGB
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,140
- 13,101
If we aren't willing to go that high due to a small sample size, their agents will happily suggest a bridge deal that allows them to prove to the team that they can do it consistently.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
Maybe, maybe not. Some guys would prefer the guaranteed 40 million bucks and the stability a long term contract provides. Just depends on the player.
This exactly. If the Blues management is willing to commit 6-8 years to Schwartz and Tarasenko what are these two to think if the contract dollars are coming in under 5 million; when every other long term deal for young players is 5-6 million.
Both players have 5 seasons until they become UFAs. If the Blues want to sign Schwartz to a five year contract and Tarasenko to a four year contract taking them both to UFA status I'm sure that dollar amount is negotiable. But the moment the Blues start talking buying up UFA years I believe that cap hit will have to be 5-6 and probably closer to 6.
It's either a full team commitment or it's a bridge deal. There's really no precedent for in-between deals.
JustOneB4IDie
Duel Cancer Survivor
Possibly. There is zero chance either deserves $6m, and there are no comparables to suggest that. Players get paid on offensive production, and neither have that at this point. The closest comparison might be Landeskog, who got 7 years at just under $5.6m. Certain premium on draft position and the fact he was 20 as well.
Either way, I'd try and get them in the McDonagh type range. We really shouldn't have much trouble on selling them on a long term contract in the top range of ~$5.3m.
Giving them bridge deals means that you could easily be looking at $6.5m in a couple of years, a couple of seasons with a bridge deal in the high $3m range isn't worth that.
Robb_K
Registered User
I'd love this! Got to lock them up! They are the future of this team. giving them short deals would have LOTS more chance to backfire than to help, and would cost a LOT more in the long run. I'd rather risk having to go with lower quality depth than risk losing one or both of them sooner, or, more likely, having to pay them MUCH more, much earlier, after their "breakout seasons".
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
Question for those more in the know about contracts than me. Are we able to extend Tarasenko this summer, or do we have to wait until his ELC is up?
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,911
- 14,888
I think we can July 1st. I know at some point this summer we can because that marks the start of the final year and that's when we can extend him.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
Thanks bleedblue. That's actually what I was hoping to hear. I honestly like Robb's idea of giving them matching contracts now.
