Schwartz and Tarasenko: To go long term, or not to go long term?

[Bluesnatic27]

Easy question. Long term.

Shouldn't even really be a question honestly. If we want to compete for a cup for the next 3-5 years, then we need these guys long term.

 

[Majorityof1]

I know I am in the vast minority, but I say bridge deals. Peeople will disagree, but I'm used to that. After all, as my name alludes, "any man more right than his neighbor represents a majority of one already." I think a bridge deals for both is the more right choice. There are several reasons for this.

#1 - Just win baby!!!!- We can win now but we need at least 2 more pieces. If we sign them both to $6M plus deals, which is what a long term deal will take, we are severely hampering our ability to sign the free agents we need. They aren't quite $6M players yet. The potential is there, but the consistency is not. We need more to win. We need cash to get it. We don't really have the assets to trade. That means we have to sign them relatively cheap to do so.

#2 - We are guaranteed to have them longer - If we sign them to 8 years now, they will be 29ish when the contract ends. Then they will be unrestricted free agents. They will be at the age when free agents are generally at their most expensive. If we sign them to 3 year bridge deals now, we still have exclusive rights after. Then we can keep them for 8 more. We'd have them locked up until they are 32ish.

#3 - Don't want to pay them when they are old - As a corollary to point 2, when we sign them at 29, we'll have to pay top dollar and extend the contract into their late 30s. Signing at 32, you tend to get more of a discount for the older years.

$4 - The difference before and after the bridge is not that much - Look at topnotch's post. He lists contracts by top notch (pun not intended) young players. 2 of those listed are after the bridge contract. They are not very much more. In fact, for Colorado, the difference is between Landeskog and Duchene is only half a million for similar players with or without a bridge. Now there is risk if a player puts up a monster season, and that will cost you a lot. Subban winning the Norris could cost Montreal huge, but we shall see. However, if one of our guys wins the Hart or Richard, I wouldn't care about the money. That would be awesome. It can also go the other way as well. Players can fail to meet expectations. You don't want to be saddled with a huge contract if the guy never reaches his potential. I don't think it would happen here but who knows. What if one got injured and was never the same player? (Knock on all sorts of wood but it could happen). If players live up to their expected potential/development, a bridge deal does not end up costing the team all that much more.

Much can change in 3 years of a bridge deal. It might be a mistake. However, if we can get a $3.5ish contract for 3 years for both, it would almost pay for Stasney's contract in savings over the $6.5 that could earn.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

I know I am in the vast minority, but I say bridge deals. Peeople will disagree, but I'm used to that. After all, as my name alludes, "any man more right than his neighbor represents a majority of one already." I think a bridge deals for both is the more right choice. There are several reasons for this.

#1 - Just win baby!!!!- We can win now but we need at least 2 more pieces. If we sign them both to $6M plus deals, which is what a long term deal will take, we are severely hampering our ability to sign the free agents we need. They aren't quite $6M players yet. The potential is there, but the consistency is not. We need more to win. We need cash to get it. We don't really have the assets to trade. That means we have to sign them relatively cheap to do so.

#2 - We are guaranteed to have them longer - If we sign them to 8 years now, they will be 29ish when the contract ends. Then they will be unrestricted free agents. They will be at the age when free agents are generally at their most expensive. If we sign them to 3 year bridge deals now, we still have exclusive rights after. Then we can keep them for 8 more. We'd have them locked up until they are 32ish.

#3 - Don't want to pay them when they are old - As a corollary to point 2, when we sign them at 29, we'll have to pay top dollar and extend the contract into their late 30s. Signing at 32, you tend to get more of a discount for the older years.

$4 - The difference before and after the bridge is not that much - Look at topnotch's post. He lists contracts by top notch (pun not intended) young players. 2 of those listed are after the bridge contract. They are not very much more. In fact, for Colorado, the difference is between Landeskog and Duchene is only half a million for similar players with or without a bridge. Now there is risk if a player puts up a monster season, and that will cost you a lot. Subban winning the Norris could cost Montreal huge, but we shall see. However, if one of our guys wins the Hart or Richard, I wouldn't care about the money. That would be awesome. It can also go the other way as well. Players can fail to meet expectations. You don't want to be saddled with a huge contract if the guy never reaches his potential. I don't think it would happen here but who knows. What if one got injured and was never the same player? (Knock on all sorts of wood but it could happen). If players live up to their expected potential/development, a bridge deal does not end up costing the team all that much more.

Much can change in 3 years of a bridge deal. It might be a mistake. However, if we can get a $3.5ish contract for 3 years for both, it would almost pay for Stasny's contract in savings over the $6.5 that could earn.

You make some valid points, and I can definitely understand where you're coming from. Having said that, giving them a bridge deal could potentially bite us in the ass. I don't really see them getting 6 million. That's a lot of money for what they've shown so far, even given their progress. I know paying them 5 million now seems like a lot, but with what we've seen from them and where most of us see them going, that will be a bargain in 3 years. We can pay them a little more now to save in the long run. Going short term now could potentially see us paying through the nose at the end of a three year deal. Also, signing them to 8 year deals essentially locks them up through almost all of their prime years. I'd rather lock them up long term through their primes at a reasonable price now, than have to pay more in three years.

 

[Majorityof1]

You make some valid points, and I can definitely understand where you're coming from. Having said that, giving them a bridge deal could potentially bite us in the ass. I don't really see them getting 6 million. That's a lot of money for what they've shown so far, even given their progress. I know paying them 5 million now seems like a lot, but with what we've seen from them and where most of us see them going, that will be a bargain in 3 years. We can pay them a little more now to save in the long run. Going short term now could potentially see us paying through the nose at the end of a three year deal. Also, signing them to 8 year deals essentially locks them up through almost all of their prime years. I'd rather lock them up long term through their primes at a reasonable price now, than have to pay more in three years.

No doubt a bridge deal could end up biting us in the ass. I said so in my post and even referenced Subban. However, it could also bite us in the ass the other way. Look at Tyler Myers. He was in his first year of a 7 yr, $5.5M deal and was awful. Or Jordan Staal. He got a 10 yr, $6M contract and has 71 pts in 130 games (44 pts over 82 game avg). Those teams wish they had signed bridge deals. I know there are worse examples, but I am drawing a blank. Oh wait, DiPietro

If we can sign them to 8 yr, $5M deals. I'd definitely be tempted and would probably do it. I just don't see it happening. The cap is going up, and previous deals for potential stars have been in the $6-6.5 range for 6 years. They haven't had quite the statistical start as say Landeskog or Benn, but they also play in a more defensive system. I think the deals will be similar or more. Add years and it is more still.

 

[bluesman11]

I would lean toward going long-term for both, but if they don't and they end up doing a bridge deal doesn't mean The Blues didn't offer one, and it still doesn't mean they didn't offer one no matter what's the spin from either side. One or both could want to gamble on a bigger deal later, or they just want to test free agency and move on when they become a URF.

 

[bluemandan]

Long-term on Tarasenko.

Bridge contract on Schwartz.

 

[Megalodan]

the correct answer is giving them bridge contracts so you can keep 'em for cheap as RFAs and lock them up long-term before they hit UFA.

holla

 

[Vladys Gumption]

No doubt a bridge deal could end up biting us in the ass. I said so in my post and even referenced Subban. However, it could also bite us in the ass the other way. Look at Tyler Myers. He was in his first year of a 7 yr, $5.5M deal and was awful. Or Jordan Staal. He got a 10 yr, $6M contract and has 71 pts in 130 games (44 pts over 82 game avg). Those teams wish they had signed bridge deals. I know there are worse examples, but I am drawing a blank. Oh wait, DiPietro

If we can sign them to 8 yr, $5M deals. I'd definitely be tempted and would probably do it. I just don't see it happening. The cap is going up, and previous deals for potential stars have been in the $6-6.5 range for 6 years. They haven't had quite the statistical start as say Landeskog or Benn, but they also play in a more defensive system. I think the deals will be similar or more. Add years and it is more still.

Can't really count Staal in there. He'd already had 7 years of service by the time he signed that deal. That's a little different situation than what we've got. The Myers contract was awful from the start. He got extremely overrated after his rookie year, and was pretty terrible the next year. If we get them long term, I'm thinking it'd be around 5 million per year for 8 years. They just don't quite have the pedigree that some of the other young guys had when they signed their deals.I don't count Edmonton because they are just dumb.

Long-term on Tarasenko.

Bridge contract on Schwartz.

Just out of curiosity, any reason for that?

the correct answer is giving them bridge contracts so you can keep 'em for cheap as RFAs and lock them up long-term before they hit UFA.

holla

Or you could see if they'll take a long term deal in the 5 million range and have them locked up through most of their primes for a very reasonable price. Keeping them cheap for now, could bite us if they explode like most of us expect them to.

 

[Alklha]

No doubt a bridge deal could end up biting us in the ass. I said so in my post and even referenced Subban. However, it could also bite us in the ass the other way. Look at Tyler Myers. He was in his first year of a 7 yr, $5.5M deal and was awful. Or Jordan Staal. He got a 10 yr, $6M contract and has 71 pts in 130 games (44 pts over 82 game avg). Those teams wish they had signed bridge deals. I know there are worse examples, but I am drawing a blank. Oh wait, DiPietro

If we can sign them to 8 yr, $5M deals. I'd definitely be tempted and would probably do it. I just don't see it happening. The cap is going up, and previous deals for potential stars have been in the $6-6.5 range for 6 years. They haven't had quite the statistical start as say Landeskog or Benn, but they also play in a more defensive system. I think the deals will be similar or more. Add years and it is more still.

Your longer post has a number of misconceptions in it and argue everything from the team's point of view and not really looking at both sides.

To start with, forget about a 3 year deal. A bridge deal is 2 years and an agent should be fired for even putting a 3 year deal in front of his client. The structure of RFA contracts are almost exclusively a higher salary in year 2, because that is the salary the team has to match to retain the players rights. Even if he disappoints, his cap hit would likely go up on the expiry of a 2 year bridge deal.

You said that we should offer them a bridge deal because we retain their rights longer, and then later point to the previous contracts handed out. You completely ignore that deals signed after bridge deals are typically not full term (both Duchene & Couture only signed for 5 years). Agents typically want their players to be UFA's around the age of 30, it maximises their earning potential. Sign Schwartz and Tarasenko to 2 year bridge contracts, and you are looking at 5-6 year contracts at the end of the bridge deal. It is unlikely to retain their rights for longer.

Also, when looking back on prior contracts you can't ignore the cap situation. We've been in a strange situation with the cap over the past few years. In 2012 teams went out and spent money as though they had a $70m cap, that inflated player prices. When the cap fell in 2013, players salaries were still working as though we had a $70m cap and the UFA suffered because of that. This summer we're at $70m. That is 3 years where player prices have been static. Projections have the cap in the floating around $80m (little under then a little over) in the summer of 2016 and 2017. Use $70m -vs- $80m and that is a 14% rise. That means in 2 years what is now a $6m could very easily be a $6.85m contract.

Now... as you say, Landeskog is the best comparison. He is getting a little over $5.5m for 7 years. Schwartz is older, less draft pedigree, less numbers and he still has 5 years of RFA remaining (Landeskog only had 4). I think it is safe to assume that he would cost a little less than $5.5m on an 8 year contract and that he'd take the contract considering agents are desperate to get players these deals now.

I think we could go round in circles with the financial risks and benefits, there isn't a right or wrong answer. My main point for going long term with some of our younger players in recent years has been about sending a clear message. For the past decade everyone has known our ****** situation when it comes to finances. Sign our top young players long term, make it clear to the UFA's we are targeting that our ownership is absolutely committed to this team being competitive for the long term and they don't have to worry about that if they sign.

 

[Mzeppelin1]

just give them contracts lasting up to her last year of RFA, then sign them long term.

 

[Majorityof1]

Your longer post has a number of misconceptions in it and argue everything from the team's point of view and not really looking at both sides.

To start with, forget about a 3 year deal. A bridge deal is 2 years and an agent should be fired for even putting a 3 year deal in front of his client. The structure of RFA contracts are almost exclusively a higher salary in year 2, because that is the salary the team has to match to retain the players rights. Even if he disappoints, his cap hit would likely go up on the expiry of a 2 year bridge deal.

You said that we should offer them a bridge deal because we retain their rights longer, and then later point to the previous contracts handed out. You completely ignore that deals signed after bridge deals are typically not full term (both Duchene & Couture only signed for 5 years). Agents typically want their players to be UFA's around the age of 30, it maximises their earning potential. Sign Schwartz and Tarasenko to 2 year bridge contracts, and you are looking at 5-6 year contracts at the end of the bridge deal. It is unlikely to retain their rights for longer.

Also, when looking back on prior contracts you can't ignore the cap situation. We've been in a strange situation with the cap over the past few years. In 2012 teams went out and spent money as though they had a $70m cap, that inflated player prices. When the cap fell in 2013, players salaries were still working as though we had a $70m cap and the UFA suffered because of that. This summer we're at $70m. That is 3 years where player prices have been static. Projections have the cap in the floating around $80m (little under then a little over) in the summer of 2016 and 2017. Use $70m -vs- $80m and that is a 14% rise. That means in 2 years what is now a $6m could very easily be a $6.85m contract.

Now... as you say, Landeskog is the best comparison. He is getting a little over $5.5m for 7 years. Schwartz is older, less draft pedigree, less numbers and he still has 5 years of RFA remaining (Landeskog only had 4). I think it is safe to assume that he would cost a little less than $5.5m on an 8 year contract and that he'd take the contract considering agents are desperate to get players these deals now.

I think we could go round in circles with the financial risks and benefits, there isn't a right or wrong answer. My main point for going long term with some of our younger players in recent years has been about sending a clear message. For the past decade everyone has known our ****** situation when it comes to finances. Sign our top young players long term, make it clear to the UFA's we are targeting that our ownership is absolutely committed to this team being competitive for the long term and they don't have to worry about that if they sign.

You make some fair points. I definitely was looking at it from one side. As much as I love both players, I want the team to be as strong as possible for as long as possible. The players, if smart, should be set for life regardless of their contracts. However, you do have to look at what you can get done, and that requires looking at the player/agent.

Saying that, a 3 yr deal is not out of the question. Maybe it wouldn't technically be called a bridge deal. The 2 year deal you are talking about has a low cap hit, ala Stepan's $3M cap hit or Subban's under $3M. I am talking $3.5 to $4M for the extra year. Krejci got a 3 yr $3.5 coming off of a 70 point season and Giroux also got a 3 yr $3.75 deal, so it is not unheard of. An 8 year deal is probably less common.

With the RFA rules and a lack of teams giving offer sheets, Teams really have the power. They have the upper hand in bargaining. This off season was a great example. Petro was really the only guy in a contract stand-off that got close to what he wanted. He didn't get all of it either as he wanted $7M+.

So maybe an 8 year after a 3 is unlikely, but so is an 8 for $5M. I just don't want deals like Kane, Toews and Stamkos where they hit UFA at 27. I also don't want 2 $6M plus cap hits while Steen is being overpaid and we need to sign a big name center. I want to find a way to lock them up until 30 or so and have a few years cap relief at the outset. I think we can figure something like that out, but it would require negotiations which I am not privy to.

 

[thedustman]

i'm all for a turris-like deal. 5 years for less than a $4mil cap hit. The numbers of turris, schwartz, and tarasenko all support this.

 

[Majorityof1]

i'm all for a turris-like deal. 5 years for less than a $4mil cap hit. The numbers of turris, schwartz, and tarasenko all support this.

Those would be horrible deals. I'd rather pay more for 8 years. Hell, I'd rather pay more for 3. Both would be unrestricted free agents at the end of those contracts and we'd have to pay through our teeth to keep them. Schwartz would turn 27 that summer. I am not sure when you have to hit 27, but it wouldn't matter as he'd have 7 years of NHL experience. Tarasekno would be 28 when the contract expired (he is a half a year older with a year left on contract). That is the same problem most people have with Shattenkirk's deal. We signed him relatively cheaply, but he goes UFA at the end. He'll be (I believe) 28 years old.

Once players go UFA, teams lose 95% of their bargaining power. Prices of the next contract shoot sky high. Other teams have an almost equal chance at signing them. The only advantage is the current team can negotiate and sign them before the draft, and can off an 8 year deal (new teams capped at 7). I don't want to be in a situation with them in their late 20 where a team with a ton of cap space takes a liking and gives them a ridiculous contract we'll have to match.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

Yeah, if we go long term we need to go all out and give them max term deals. Eat up as much of their prime UFA years as you can. 8 years at 5 million is much better than 5 years at 3.5. Plus you have to keep in mind the situations are a little different. Turris was coming off of that entire Phoenix debacle and hadn't really shown on his potential. Schwartz and Tarasenko have already started taking over this team after just two seasons. There's a pretty big difference right there.

 

[Majorityof1]

With Schwartz's RFA signing coming soon, our budget set (cap team, yay!!!), and our free agents signed, I wanted to revisit this topic. It looks like a bridge deal for Schwartz for sure. We would 100% have to trade Berglund to go long term. As the overwhelming majority wanted a long term $5Mish deal. What are your thoughts now that we have more info. Are you ok with a bridge to fit under the cap and keep Berglund, or do you want to jettison the big Sweede to keep the Schwartz with us for many more seasons?

As a side note, when looking for this thread, I saw one entitled "What makes Blues fans think they can sign Stasny?"

 

[Vladys Gumption]

What's really funny? I've kind of changed my stance a bit. If Stillman can afford to pay them premo salaries, going bridge deals could be beneficial. We could end up locking them in for 10 years before they hit free agency. If Schwartz signs a bridge deal, I'm willing to be we'll be doing the same for Tarasenko. Still, if Frank's agent came to us today and said we'll sign for 8 years at 5 per, I think you sign that contract without thinking twice.

 

[STL fan in MN]

Most responses seem to be assuming that the bridge/long-term decision rests solely with Army. It doesn't. The players have their day too. Jaden isn't eligible for arbitration or an offer sheet so he has next to no leverage. Even if Army offers a long-term deal, Jaden would probably be silly to take it unless he's unconfident about his abilities to progress his NHL career. He's almost guaranteed to make more by signing a bridge deal and then a long term deal 2-3 years from now than to sign a long-term deal now. IMO, Army would likely be glad to sign Schwartz to a longer 5 or so year deal but he's not going to give Jaden the moon so my guess is that we end up with a 3 year deal.

 

[Chojin]

Bridge deal. Get him cheap for a few years.

 

[42]

My guess is Schwartz will get something similar to Palat's deal. 3 years 10 million.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Evidently. The Blues are a Cap team these days, so there are a couple ways Armstrong could play this. But I expect a 3y deal ramping up annual salary.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

I'd prefer bridge deals for now.

If I go long term, I'm going 8 years right now. And we don't have the cap space for this at the moment.

If in a couple years, we are in a position where it is "biting us in the ass", it means that Schwartz and/or Tarasenko have stepped up their game BIG TIME to earn such a contract and we likely have reached a level of success that we have not yet reached.

 

[gumption]

i'd say lock schwartz up until he's a ufa. check out how the free agency pool will be by that time, and if it's deep, let him wander if he wants. if it's poor, lock him up a little longer.

 

[JustOneB4IDie]

I've had a change in heart, Bridge deals for both now, especially Schwartz, who has no leverage whatsoever. Tarasenko is a topic for this time next year.