One thing I've noticed with Tampa Bay -- and this may be one of the reasons they've been so consistently successful -- when it comes to 2nd contracts -- they go bridge deals.
When a team takes a 21-23 year old player, and locks him up for 7-8 years, that player knows his next contract being negotiated will be when he is older than the league average of 27 years old -- so he has to strike it big; meaning that teams pay for potential, and sign a deal that in years 1 & 2, they're bad deals... with the hope being that by years 3-4, they turn into good ones, and years 4+, great ones. Tampa has never really experienced a "setback", they're always letting their young players play for pennies on the dollar because they're on ELCs or short term RFA deals.
As a result, they've built some very successful teams, have a great culture, and combined with a great lifestyle, have had no concerns over the likes of Stamkos, Kucherov, Hedman, etc looking to pursue unrestricted free agency.
As a GM, the 6+ year deals are actually a bit counter-intuitive, as the super-long game may mean that you're gone before the team comes to fruiton.
With Yzerman gone, one has to wonder whether that trend will continue, although given their current salary structure, they may not have a choice but to sign Point to a 2 year bridge deal.
The question / challenge will be, based on the history of bridge deals, fair is probably in the neighborhood of $5m on a 2 year deal. These bridge deals are becoming less and less popular as we see more 20-22 year olds dominate. Agents and players want security -- Point knows he can go and get an offer sheet where somebody will sign him for 5 years at around $6.5 - $7m; and that would still leave a great 3rd contract on the table at 27-28. Is he prepared to buy into the Tampa approach, turn down $20+ million in guaranteed money, and get another 3 years of future contract to negotiate?