He hasn't earned the right to play where he wants, no questions asked, for the next 8 years. That's just not an intelligent way to operate a franchise.
The Blues have been upfront they don't offer bonus money. I don't totally blame him for asking, but I also don't see a 31 year old defenseman as being the guy you make an exception for. If you're going to change how the org functions, make it for a younger player who's best hockey is ahead of him.
I like the guy, and hope he resigns because we're better with him, I just don't see him as a player you have to sign at any cost in a salary cap world.
If you look at the list of 21 defensemen who have NMC contracts, it suggests that yes, he has in fact earned one. A significant number of his peers by performance at his position have one. He can likely land one on the open market. In your opinion it may not be an intelligent way to run a franchise, but that opinion has no bearing on whether or not it is fair for him to ask for that. It's a completely reasonable contract demand.
I don't have any problem with him asking for signing bonus money, either. The last CBA negotiation cycle the league locked out the players, which resulted in lost wages and more pressure on the players to cave to the owners' demands. This CBA expires in just a few years, and it's entirely possible the owners will do the same thing again. Signing bonuses are the players insurance against that negotiating tactic. They're not asking for more money, they're just asking for a guarantee they'll be paid the money the franchise is agreeing to pay them. I have zero sympathy for the owners on this issue, and if the Blues won't give him signing bonus money, then someone else likely will.
Younger players don't get to ask for these things because of how the CBA is set up to benefit owners over players during the first half of the careers. Players have almost zero leverage in their first several contracts, and even arbitration is set up to artificially depress their earnings below what they could get on the open market. Very few players who sign their first big deal after those early cost controlled ones get those bonuses and perks, either. The players get the first real financial and job security of their careers, but it comes at the expense of hitting the open market as those deals usually cover the last few years of team control and a number of the players prime UFA years. Forgoing that contract means playing for a lower wage during your last team controlled years, and risking some sort of career impacting injury. Tough to do when you've been earning pennies on the dollar for the first 5-7 years of your career and you have financial security staring you in the face. Organizations use that leverage to the fullest, and have little need to hand out NMCs or signing bonuses at that stage.
It's only for this last major UFA deal that most (really good) players have the sort of leverage to ask for those things, and so that's when teams are finally forced to hand them out. It's not optimal for organizations at that point, but that's just too darn bad. The CBA gives them the better end of the stick over players for the majority of most players prime years. If you want to benefit from the second half of those careers, you have to pay what the market will bear for their services.
You can argue that those players aren't "worth" it, but they're
supposed to be paid a premium for their services at that point in their careers. Good organizations balance out those expected cap burdens by managing their caps well elsewhere (drafting good young talent, signing good deals while players are under team control, and not handing out bad contracts to marginal players). It's incredibly difficult for a team to be competitive if they won't hand out open market value contracts to elite players at key positions.
