Sign Gostisbehere Long Term?

[BrindamoursNose]

I don't understand why people need it explained to them that locking up young talent on long term deals outweigh the negatives 100-1. Let's be real here. What long term contracts have hurt the Flyers. What players have we had that we weren't able to resign that we wanted to keep because there was a guy like Vinny hanging over our head. The Flyers have been able to get out of the long term deals they have handed out in the past either slightly before or when those deals turn sour. And in the process we get great production from those top players at a cheaper cap hit than what that production generally costs on the open market to another team. There is every reason to get him locked in long term at a manageable cap hit. Because you don't have the luxury to do that with every guy. When Provorov comes up next year it will be his 1st pro season, therefore his first year of his ELC. If Provorov is as good as everyone here and in the hockey world thinks he is, when he has 250~ games of NHL Experience plus playoff experience, he will command a huge pay day. And we won't have the luxury of signing him to a long term deal at a cheaper cap hit, again, IF he is THAT great from the moment he steps on NHL ice. If Ghost is willing to sign a long term deal now, at 3.75-4.5 million depending on the years, Hexy should be all over it.

First statement: Now you're just being insulting.

How about this: I am willing to gamble waiting 1 whole year to sign Ghost long term. Let's say he becomes a stud and wants stud money: You then have two choices 1) Sign him to the stud money, or 2) Trade him for a prospect/pick package that studs deserve.

You win in that scenario as well, IMO. I'd rather keep the stud, but I'm also not going to give a 6+ year (where we very, very possibly could overpay by a good amount) to a play who hasn't played a whole year.

Second statement: We got out of Bryz and Briere's contracts through the miracle of 2 "freebies" by the NHL. Also, Mike Richards was a miracle to get out of. Lucky we traded him before his downfall. We had to eat cap space to dump Vinny and we're lucky he's retiring. Umberger, same deal. We're lucky we don't need cap space because we had to eat some of that in a buyout as well. What about McDonald's contract? How are we getting out of that?

I'm just fascinated that all we've talked about dumping long-term, overpaid players and we're so quickly to give a big one to a rookie. I think this kid is one of the best rookies I've EVER seen, but I still don't trust him enough to commit long term to near 4 million a year.

Okay I said I was done in this thread, but you all got me going again. This discussion is like heroin to me.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

They don't hold all the cards. Stop saying it because you are wrong. If he goes out and scores 100 points and the Flyers play hardball with his contract, he elects to go to arbitration. A Judge sees that a defensemen scoring 100 points, at 22 years old, is bonkers and awards him 10 million dollars on a one year deal. At that point the Flyers either offer the 1 year 10 million dollar contract to him and then try to lock him up next year on a long term absurd contract, or they don't offer him the 1 year 10 million dollar contract and he is a UFA. This is nothing like Drouin. Drouin was under contract for last year and next year. Ghost at the end of this season will not be.

Ahh, forgot about arbitration. Still though, if he does come out and have a spectacular season, you can still lock him up long term after the season. We're still in the driver's seat with regard to leverage. The only way we are not, is if he does, in fact light it up and elects arbitration. I've said from the beginning I'm not against locking him up long term, I just don't think I would do it before he gets out there and plays little more.

I don't understand why people need it explained to them that locking up young talent on long term deals outweigh the negatives 100-1. Let's be real here. What long term contracts have hurt the Flyers. What players have we had that we weren't able to resign that we wanted to keep because there was a guy like Vinny hanging over our head. The Flyers have been able to get out of the long term deals they have handed out in the past either slightly before or when those deals turn sour. And in the process we get great production from those top players at a cheaper cap hit than what that production generally costs on the open market to another team. There is every reason to get him locked in long term at a manageable cap hit. Because you don't have the luxury to do that with every guy. When Provorov comes up next year it will be his 1st pro season, therefore his first year of his ELC. If Provorov is as good as everyone here and in the hockey world thinks he is, when he has 250~ games of NHL Experience plus playoff experience, he will command a huge pay day. And we won't have the luxury of signing him to a long term deal at a cheaper cap hit, again, IF he is THAT great from the moment he steps on NHL ice. If Ghost is willing to sign a long term deal now, at 3.75-4.5 million depending on the years, Hexy should be all over it.

Listen, I am usually one of the guys all about signing UFAs, etc. The cap is manageable now and was even when Homer was here, despite the tall tales you hear about the Flyers never being able to make the moves they wanted, despite making all the moves they wanted. I'm just saying, having only played in 66 games, I'm not ready to make a long-term commitment to any player.

 

[Flukeshot]

Sure but if every player thought that would happen and ignored the risks, no one would sign extensions. The risks are much greater in hockey compared to basketball due to the physical nature of the sport.

These deals happen a lot in baseball. Nine times out of ten it benefits the team more than the player but players and agents are stilling signing these extensions with minimum service time. Why? Players and agents like security.

I don't know who Shayne's agent is but there's a chance he's never been offered a $30 million contract. That's a lot of money to pass up when your client has 66 NHL games under his belt, a major injury in the past, and a system of talented young defensemen ready to challenge his spot in the lineup.

I wouldn't argue with you on that, as I'm sure I'm in the minority. I think you nailed it that NHL players prefer security in a physical sport with guaranteed contracts.

I think he's going to be a bonafide top pairing D so being a gambler, that's where my head is at, wait for the money. Similar to PKs bridge deal, he gambled on himself and paid off big.

 

[Random Forest]

So I'm still waiting for someone to tell us what makes a bridge deal less risky than a long term deal here. The only argument I've seen so far simply implies that it's riskier because it's long term which doesn't hold. The argument against a long term deal also ignores the risks associated with a bridge deal which have been outlined several times now without being addressed.

 

[Random Forest]

I wouldn't argue with you on that, as I'm sure I'm in the minority. I think you nailed it that NHL players prefer security in a physical sport with guaranteed contracts.

I think he's going to be a bonafide top pairing D so being a gambler, that's where my head is at, wait for the money. Similar to PKs bridge deal, he gambled on himself and paid off big.

Pretty sure that's not what happened. IIRC, he was willing to sign long term, but the always ultra-conservative Habs wanted him to prove he was legit first. He ended up winning the Norris, and the Habs lost the chance to have a franchise defender for under 6m AAV

 

[explosive skating]

I think this kid is one of the best rookies I've EVER seen, but I still don't trust him enough to commit long term to near 4 million a year.

This is absurd

 

[BrindamoursNose]

This is absurd

You know who was a great rookie? Andrew Raycroft.

What's absurd about it? What does it matter what I think? I could be dead wrong about his future of being great. More evidence would help me understand his projection.

I'm not crazy

 

[BrindamoursNose]

Pretty sure that's not what happened. IIRC, he was willing to sign long term, but the always ultra-conservative Habs wanted him to prove he was legit first. He ended up winning the Norris, and the Habs lost the chance to have a franchise defender for under 6m AAV

Did he play a full season before his Norris campaign?

 

[Random Forest]

You know who was a great rookie? Andrew Raycroft.

What's absurd about it? What does it matter what I think? I could be dead wrong about his future of being great. More evidence would help me understand his projection.

I'm not crazy

Oh, dear lord, you've moved on from Bryz and Briere to compare Ghost to Raycroft now?

The problem is that we're not arguing for a long-term deal on the basis of projection alone. It makes sense because it is LESS risky than a short-term bridge contract given the information we currently have.

This isn't a rash decision made out of impulsiveness-- it's actually the safer, more conservative move to lock in a long-term price on an asset you believe will continue appreciating in value for the foreseeable future. It's like buying freaking commodity futures. If the price of a commodity you use for business is currently low, you're going to want to lock that price in for the long term while you have the opportunity. It has nothing to do with Holmgren-like impulsiveness like some of you are suggesting.

Did he play a full season before his Norris campaign?

Surely there's a point here?

 

[Rebels57]

Oh, dear lord, you've moved on from Bryz and Briere to compare Ghost to Raycroft now?

The problem is that we're not arguing for a long-term deal on the basis of projection alone. It makes sense because it is LESS risky than a short-term bridge contract given the information we currently have.

This isn't a rash decision made out of impulsiveness-- it's actually the safer, more conservative move to lock in a long-term price on an asset you believe will continue appreciating in value for the foreseeable future. It's like buying freaking commodity futures. If the price of a commodity you use for business is currently low, you're going to want to lock that price in for the long term while you have the opportunity. It has nothing to do with Holmgren-like impulsiveness like some of you are suggesting.



Surely there's a point here?

All of this back and forth and yet, Hextall will agree with those that feel they should wait until next summer to extend him, rather than jumping the gun. Considering how revered Hextall rightfully is around here, what does that then say about your idea?

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

All of this back and forth and yet, Hextall will agree with those that feel they should wait until next summer to extend him, rather than jumping the gun. Considering how revered Hextall rightfully is around here, what does that then say about your idea?

And you come to this conclusion how? He brought up Gostisbehere's name along with Schenn's & Gudas' at the presser the other day in regards to upcoming deals. That's what provoked this thread.

On the Umberger/Hartnell trade:
- There were two parts to the trade essentially. The one was the space. I felt like two or three years from then it was going to be good for us, and I feel the same way now. Hartsy’s been a good player in Columbus and R.J. didn’t play as well as we hoped and certainly didn’t play as well as he hoped. There were some health issues there as well, so in terms of the deal right now I feel like it’s a benefit for us. We need space, we’ve got guys that are coming up like Ghost and Schenn and Gudas. We need space. Hartsy played well for Columbus, and we’re essentially going to be out of it. So I’m fine with it.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Tim-Panaccio/What-Hextall-Said-At-Pre-Draft-Presser/2/77603

 

[BrindamoursNose]

Oh, dear lord, you've moved on from Bryz and Briere to compare Ghost to Raycroft now?

The problem is that we're not arguing for a long-term deal on the basis of projection alone. It makes sense because it is LESS risky than a short-term bridge contract given the information we currently have.

This isn't a rash decision made out of impulsiveness-- it's actually the safer, more conservative move to lock in a long-term price on an asset you believe will continue appreciating in value for the foreseeable future. It's like buying freaking commodity futures. If the price of a commodity you use for business is currently low, you're going to want to lock that price in for the long term while you have the opportunity. It has nothing to do with Holmgren-like impulsiveness like some of you are suggesting.



Surely there's a point here?

Why are either of those comparisons a poor one? Explain it to me other than saying "Oh God you're comparing THEM to Ghost?!?!"

I absolutely do think the opinion here is an impulsive one. Just my opinion, apparently (well, and a few others). Your comparison is off. Whatever you'd be buying in a business, its use (well, depending on what the example is) won't change; just its current demand is different. Let's say it's price of gold or something. Gold will always be valuable and will eventually go back up in value. We can't guarantee that with an NHL player. However that's my interpretation of what you're trying to say since you weren't clear.

It has everything to do with Holmgren-like impulsiveness, IMO. Sometimes he hit, sometimes he didn't (i.e. Richards and Carter) with those deals. Richards turned out really bad, Carter is a steal.

and Yes, there is a point. The point is, there was an established body of work before he signed his long deal. They waited as they should've. So what he got paid a ton? Montreal could've decided to trade him instead.

That's the business. You be smart with your contracts if you can, you keep your best players if you can, but if they want too much you can trade them for other incredibly valuable assets. And oh no! If Ghost goes, I guess we'll just have to live with Sanheim, Provorov, Morin, Myers, Hagg, etc.

NO, I'm not saying let's just give away an asset. I'm saying there's a Plan B if Plan A of paying Ghost a good, smart contract doesn't work.

 

[Random Forest]

All of this back and forth and yet, Hextall will agree with those that feel they should wait until next summer to extend him, rather than jumping the gun. Considering how revered Hextall rightfully is around here, what does that then say about your idea?

What?

1) How the hell do you know this?

2) How the hell is this a valid argument?

 

[Random Forest]

Why is either of those comparisons a poor one? Explain it to me other than saying "Oh God you're comparing THEM to Ghost?!?!"

Because none of them even play the same position as Ghost for one. None of them were as highly touted as Ghost. None of them had the pedigree of Ghost coming into the NHL. None of them were the same age as Ghost. None of them were in the same point in development as Ghost.

Literally nothing about those players is comparable.

I absolutely do think the opinion here is an impulsive one. Just my opinion, apparently (well, and a few others). Your comparison is off. Whatever you'd be buying in a business, its use (well, depending on what the example is) won't change; just its current demand is different. Let's say it's price of gold or something. Gold will always be valuable and will eventually go back up in value. We can't guarantee that with an NHL player. However that's my interpretation of what you're trying to say since you weren't clear.

You don't understand. To grossly simplify the analogy, if, say, chicken futures are low, McDonalds can capitalize by locking in that reduced price without exposing itself to the risk of paying a higher price in the future when the price rises. Could the price go down further? Sure! But that risk is far outweighed by the cost savings if the price rises like you suspect it will. But forget about chicken futures laugh. Regardless, the responsible move is to lock in a reasonable price when you have the chance. In our circumstance, if we don't lock in a long-term price, you run the (very real) risk of having a mega-contract on your books in two years when the bridge expires. Again, you've yet to respond to this outcome. You've yet to even acknowledge any risk involved with a short-term contract at all.

It has everything to do with Holmgren-like impulsiveness, IMO. Sometimes he hit, sometimes he didn't (i.e. Richards and Carter) with those deals. Richards turned out really bad, Carter is a steal.

and Yes, there is a point. I'd like you to answer first so I can illustrate the point.

You have yet to tell us how a bridge deal is less risky than a long-term deal. You have yet to acknowledge the risks involved with a short-term contract.

In fact, the only risk you've discussed thus far is the risk of Ghost turning into a complete bust. Which is frankly the least likely scenario right now. I'm sorry, but you're arguments are weaker than wet tissue paper, and you haven't substantively addressed any of the points that have been raised against you.

Not sure how you want to continue this discussion, but I'm getting the feeling that this discussion is a waste of time with you regurgitating the same (nonsensical) lines about unrelated players with almost nothing in common with Ghost.

 

[TheKingPin]

Id sign him after this year. A sophomore slump or at least a lesser year seems very likely.

 

[BrindamoursNose]

Because none of them even play the same position as Ghost for one. None of them were as highly touted as Ghost. None of them had the pedigree of Ghost coming into the NHL. None of them were the same age as Ghost. None of them were in the same point in development as Ghost.

Literally nothing about those players is comparable.

You don't understand. To grossly simplify the analogy, if, say, chicken futures are low, McDonalds can capitalize by locking in that reduced price without exposing itself to the risk of paying a higher price in the future when the price rises. Could the price go down further? Sure! But that risk is far outweighed by the cost savings if the price rises like you suspect it will. But forget about chicken futures laugh. Regardless, the responsible move is to lock in a reasonable price when you have the chance. In our circumstance, if we don't lock in a long-term price, you run the (very real) risk of having a mega-contract on your books in two years when the bridge expires. Again, you've yet to respond to this outcome. You've yet to even acknowledge any risk involved with a short-term contract at all.



You have yet to tell us how a bridge deal is less risky than a long-term deal. You have yet to acknowledge the risks involved with a short-term contract.

In fact, the only risk you've discussed thus far is the risk of Ghost turning into a complete bust. Which is frankly the least likely scenario right now. I'm sorry, but you're arguments are weaker than wet tissue paper, and you haven't substantively addressed any of the points that have been raised against you.

Not sure how you want to continue this discussion, but I'm getting the feeling that this discussion is a waste of time with you regurgitating the same (nonsensical) lines about unrelated players with almost nothing in common with Ghost.

Damnit now you made me have to look up stuff...

He was Rookie of the Year at a younger age than Ghost. Not sure why his position matters in a discussion about locking up a rookie long term? I think many of the things you named aren't relevant to this particular discussion. Raycroft also didn't miss a whole season to an ACL tear, either. Does that go ignored, too? Or is that somehow in Ghost's favor?

I do understand though. And first, I want to take a breath and say: we're fans of the same team. I'm trying to tone down my jerk-ness because it's not necessary. I'm going to continue writing with love in mah heart.

The McDonald's comparison: The difference between this example and the Ghost one is that chickens will continue to only have the same use to McDonald's (to be nuggets or whatever). They're not expected to be more or less. They can't really go up or down in value other than at what price you buy them at. Ghost, however, can. You can buy him now, but he may become massively overpaid if he has an awful sophomore year and never recovers. However, he could gain more value if he becomes a stud.

What I mean is, McDonald's is buying chickens that steadily yield, let's say for making my argument, 10 nuggets per chicken. If those chickens somehow grow much larger to yield 20 nuggets per chicken, then their lock-in purchase was a steal. If those chickens instead get smaller in McDonald's custody to 5 nuggets per chicken, then they screwed themselves and are locked in for 5 more years to that deal with small chickens.

Yes, I just used Mickey D's chicken nugget livestock to compare to Ghost's contract situation. I deserve a medal or something.

You don't understand. To grossly simplify the analogy, if, say, chicken futures are low, McDonalds can capitalize by locking in that reduced price without exposing itself to the risk of paying a higher price in the future when the price rises. Could the price go down further? Sure! But that risk is far outweighed by the cost savings if the price rises like you suspect it will. But forget about chicken futures (). Regardless, the responsible move is to lock in a reasonable price when you have the chance. In our circumstance, if we don't lock in a long-term price, you run the (very real) risk of having a mega-contract on your books in two years when the bridge expires. Again, you've yet to respond to this outcome. You've yet to even acknowledge any risk involved with a short-term contract at all.

I've responded to it a few times, actually. I said wait a year, then see what Ghost says. If Ghost wants anywhere near Subban's money, you then trade him for an incredible prospect/picks package. You don't HAVE to keep him. I want to, but you don't have to. Also: we have other top D prospects. That trade wouldn't bankrupt our pool. OR...you pay him if you think it works out in our future structure. But that'll be a legitimate, calculated risk. This contract would be a lot of hoping that Ghost actually meets or comes near expectations.

You have yet to tell us how a bridge deal is less risky than a long-term deal. You have yet to acknowledge the risks involved with a short-term contract.

I didn't think I had to write it out, but here it goes: If Ghost turns into Freddy Meyer his 3rd year, we'll only have to eat that contract for two years. If we sign him early to the deal you propose, we have Freddy on the backend for 5 more years. That's an incredible risk.

In fact, the only risk you've discussed thus far is the risk of Ghost turning into a complete bust. Which is frankly the least likely scenario right now. I'm sorry, but you're arguments are weaker than wet tissue paper, and you haven't substantively addressed any of the points that have been raised against you.

Not sure how you want to continue this discussion, but I'm getting the feeling that this discussion is a waste of time with you regurgitating the same (nonsensical) lines about unrelated players with almost nothing in common with Ghost.

I can only respond one way to this, and say: You don't know the future, sir. Ghost can bust and that's a reality. I don't think he will, but I'm being cautiously calculated. There's a reason why teams don't hand out long-term deals to players who haven't played a full season yet. Can you name me one in the cap era that has given out such a contract? If you can (which I'm genuinely interested), are they generational talents or top 5 picks?

 

[Curufinwe]

Dallas did with Klingberg.

 

[BrindamoursNose]

Dallas did with Klingberg.

There you go! There's one.

Who else? I'm genuinely curious. My contention is that teams don't do it. So far, we've got one. I hope i'm wrong and just being pig-headed.

 

[Curufinwe]

Klefbom.

 

[BrindamoursNose]

Klefbom.

Another one!

But I want to add, notice the article is riddled with them saying "it's a risk"

http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/edmonton-oilers/oilers-take-risk-signing-defenceman-oscar-klefbom-to-seven-year-contract-extension

 

[whitstifier]

Another one!

But I want to add, notice the article is riddled with them saying "it's a risk"

http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/edmonton-oilers/oilers-take-risk-signing-defenceman-oscar-klefbom-to-seven-year-contract-extension

Of course it's a risk, but it's one worth taking, particularly with a player of Ghost's skill set. The Flyers are in a unique position to build a special D corps.

Also, virtually all NHL players are risky. They play a contact sport after all...

 

[explosive skating]

I think this kid is one of the best rookies I've EVER seen, but I still don't trust him enough to commit long term to near 4 million a year.

This is absurd

What's absurd about it? What does it matter what I think? I could be dead wrong about his future of being great. More evidence would help me understand his projection.

This is absurd because of several reasons. I will tell you about one of them. If you really think Ghost signs a LT contract for about 4M you can't be living on this planet. Look what f...... Oscar Klefbom got for a much less productive season, look what Rielly and Vatanen got (ok they were already established but still less productive).

 

[Rebels57]

What?

1) How the hell do you know this?

2) How the hell is this a valid argument?

I just think thats whats going to happen.

You've never stated what you think is going to happen before?

If i'm wrong, i'll eat crow of course.

 

[FLYguy3911]

The thing with waiting until next year, is even if he has a worse season this upcoming year, his agent is going to be pointing to that historic rookie season he had. You're paying for that season either way.

The only way the Flyers get a "bargain" (feels weird to phrase it like that) is if he totally bombs next season or he gets hurt and misses most of the year. Anyone can get hurt, but I think he showed enough to suggest his play on the ice last year was no fluke.

 

[Curufinwe]

Ghost had his 2nd assist against Carolina taken away and given to Schultz.

That should help a little bit with contract negotiations.