When should the RFA's be extended?

When should RFAs be extended? Assuming they are thought to be a core piece.


  • Total voters
    8

EspenK

Registered User
Sep 25, 2011
15,581
4,147
There has been some debate in various threads that have not been in keeping with the thread title so I thought we should give this topic its own.For purposes of discussion the RFA's I'm thinking about are Zach (who is now a definite after the season), PLD & Andy,(eligible to be extended now) and OB (next year)and Jones in a couple of years.
 

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
53,660
30,951
40N 83W (approx)
Even with the baked-in assumption, I think there's still a bit of nuance to it that's situational that I can't let go of. To use PLD as an example that I totally came up with out of thin air ;) at the moment I'd extend him as soon as possible, long-term, because I legit believe in the guy and think that at worst he's going to be a major player here for some time to come. But some folks may still be skeptical, especially after similar assumptions were made about Wennberg, and that's arguably a valid position to take (albeit one with which I rather thoroughly disagree. ;) )

Now, if we had another guy like PLD waiting in back and ready to take over? Then I might consider a bridge contract so as to inspire a little competition, depending on how much I believed in The Other Guy. Odds are I'd want to go for the long-term lockup regardless in PLD's case because he's PLD and I love him, tho. The point being, I hesitate to try to put up a "rule of thumb" in this particular category just because of the amount of nuance that goes into those decisions.
Or, at the very least, I object to condemning front office personnel for not following such rules of thumb. Condemning them for, in one's perspective, not following the nuance of the situation correctly? Go right ahead.
 

EspenK

Registered User
Sep 25, 2011
15,581
4,147
No brainer for me regarding the guys I mentioned. Guys like the Goalies I don't know. Even if a guy goes all Binnington next year I think you have to wait till the season is done. That is one of the problems with contracts like Elvis & Gav received. You almost have to wait.
 

EspenK

Registered User
Sep 25, 2011
15,581
4,147
For the record, I agree with the "lock up Dubois long-term" suggestion. That said, this is the Werenski thread, not the Dubois/general offseason thread. Let's try and stay on-topic. :thumbu:

Even with the baked-in assumption, I think there's still a bit of nuance to it that's situational that I can't let go of. To use PLD as an example that I totally came up with out of thin air ;) at the moment I'd extend him as soon as possible, long-term, because I legit believe in the guy and think that at worst he's going to be a major player here for some time to come. But some folks may still be skeptical, especially after similar assumptions were made about Wennberg, and that's arguably a valid position to take (albeit one with which I rather thoroughly disagree. ;) )

Now, if we had another guy like PLD waiting in back and ready to take over? Then I might consider a bridge contract so as to inspire a little competition, depending on how much I believed in The Other Guy. Odds are I'd want to go for the long-term lockup regardless in PLD's case because he's PLD and I love him, tho. The point being, I hesitate to try to put up a "rule of thumb" in this particular category just because of the amount of nuance that goes into those decisions.
Or, at the very least, I object to condemning front office personnel for not following such rules of thumb. Condemning them for, in one's perspective, not following the nuance of the situation correctly? Go right ahead.

Even if we had a solid guy waiting in the wings I still think you lock PLD up now because it is hard to believe he's going to pull a Wennie and because I fully expect Wennie to flunk out & Foudy isn't ready or a sure shot. Even if they all pan out having 4 core centers (including the mythical solid guy in the wings) is not a bad problem as long as you manage the contracts correctly. Granted there is some luck to this but other teams historically have done it. Damn Auston Matthews for screwing this up.
 

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
53,660
30,951
40N 83W (approx)
Even if we had a solid guy waiting in the wings I still think you lock PLD up now
Very probably. I'm, like, 95% behind that. I just can't help but think "but WHAT IF..." on some hypothetical other franchise savior. ;)
And no, I'm not talking about Foudy or Stenlund or Texier or any of the other guys; it's just some part of my brain going "but but but but THERE COULD BE SOMEBODY SOMEDAY, nitpick nitpick nitpick" :( :D
 

Monk

Registered User
Feb 5, 2008
7,495
5,392

I mean yeah, in a lot of cases it'd be ideal if they'd be locked up as early as possible for as cheap as possible. I just don't think that's always realistic and not ALWAYS the right move depending on the player/team's situation.

And again, what if the player doesn't want to?
 

Cyclones Rock

Registered User
Jun 12, 2008
10,482
6,370
At this point, it appears that the entire landscape is changed and that it's going to take a while for things to sort out.

Until this off season (and possibly last year if Nylander is enough evidence), it was pretty standard to lock up your top UFAs to 6 year deals prior to the last season of their ELCs. MacKinnon, Hall, Skinner, etc., etc. almost all were on 6 year deals.

While I think that locking up top RFAs coming off their ELCs to 8 year deals is rational because a player is going to generally be more productive in his late 20s than in his mid to late 30s, there has to be a lot of discretion on this. 8 years is a huge time commitment and with the number of contracts having the last few seasons very bonus heavy, these deals become essentially buyout proof.

As far as your list goes, I'd agree with locking up 4 of the 5 to long term deals. I'd go 6-8 years on PLD and probably the same on Jones-it's a few years to go before he's due so I'd reassess when appropriate. Anderson I'd go 5-6 years and ZW probably 6.

I'm not sold on a long term Bjorkstrand commitment yet.

As far as the exact time frame, I don't have any opinion. Case by case approach would seem to be the best strategy to me instead of getting locked into a particular date.


In any case, Jarmo had best get up to speed on RFAs. His previous strategy of 'using his CBA leverage' was an incoherent and ineffective approach. Other than the Jones steal, he's probably got as poor a record dealing with RFAs as any GM during a similar time frame. I'm not very confident that he'll make the necessary adjustments to the new RFA market. I know that will shock many here.:laugh:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Viqsi

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
53,660
30,951
40N 83W (approx)
At this point, it appears that the entire landscape is changed and that it's going to take a while for things to sort out.

Until this off season (and possibly last year if Nylander is enough evidence), it was pretty standard to lock up your top UFAs to 6 year deals prior to the last season of their ELCs. MacKinnon, Hall, Skinner, etc., etc. almost all were on 6 year deals.

While I think that locking up top RFAs coming off their ELCs to 8 year deals is rational because a player is going to generally be more productive in his late 20s than in his mid to late 30s, there has to be a lot of discretion on this. 8 years is a huge time commitment and with the number of contracts having the last few seasons very bonus heavy, these deals become essentially buyout proof.

As far as your list goes, I'd agree with locking up 4 of the 5 to long term deals. I'd go 6-8 years on PLD and probably the same on Jones-it's a few years to go before he's due so I'd reassess when appropriate. Anderson I'd go 5-6 years and ZW probably 6.

I'm not sold on a long term Bjorkstrand commitment yet.

As far as the exact time frame, I don't have any opinion. Case by case approach would seem to be the best strategy to me instead of getting locked into a particular date.


In any case, Jarmo had best get up to speed on RFAs. His previous strategy of 'using his CBA leverage' was an incoherent and ineffective approach. Other than the Jones steal, he's probably got as poor a record dealing with RFAs as any GM during a similar time frame. I'm not very confident that he'll make the necessary adjustments to the new RFA market. I know that will shock many here.:laugh:
Still not totally there with your overall assessment of Kekalainen (I frankly think everybody was screwed up by the whole "but but but the second contract, what happened to the second contract" thing), but otherwise, well put.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclones Rock

majormajor

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
24,179
28,651
It always depends on the price. We don't know what the player asks are. But I can spell out what I think the Jackets offers should be:

With Werenski I'd offer $6.75m x 8. I'm a big believer that Werenski is going to continue to improve. I loved the quality of his defensive play down the stretch. I'm guessing Werenski's camp is looking for a shorter term, but I'd hold out to get UFA years at that price. Up to $7.1m x 8.

With Anderson you offer 5.5m x 6 now. It's basically the Wilson contract. We're not going to be able to keep Anderson into his UFA years at a lower price than that, and if we wait a year his price will go up. I could budge to $5.7m per.

With Dubois you offer 6m x 6+ immediately. With the new landscape all he needs is one good post-Panarin season and his price will be $8m+. If it turns out he's more of a strong two-way presence with 2C production, that will cost us $6m anyways. A $6.5m deal would be acceptable to my mind.

Even if we had a solid guy waiting in the wings I still think you lock PLD up now because it is hard to believe he's going to pull a Wennie and because I fully expect Wennie to flunk out & Foudy isn't ready or a sure shot. Even if they all pan out having 4 core centers (including the mythical solid guy in the wings) is not a bad problem as long as you manage the contracts correctly. Granted there is some luck to this but other teams historically have done it. Damn Auston Matthews for screwing this up.

I want to clarify "pulling a Wennie" here. The reason Wennberg's failure sucks for us is because he isn't the top six C that we need. His contract is another matter. We could move it with minimal retention, or perhaps none. Victor Rask (a worse contract) got moved for a good player, and though I'm not expecting that kind of good fortune with Wennberg, it's a good sign he could be moved at zero or close to zero cost. What this means for Dubois is that if he disappoints us, it's not his contract that is going to be the big problem.
 

EspenK

Registered User
Sep 25, 2011
15,581
4,147
At this point, it appears that the entire landscape is changed and that it's going to take a while for things to sort out.

Until this off season (and possibly last year if Nylander is enough evidence), it was pretty standard to lock up your top UFAs to 6 year deals prior to the last season of their ELCs. MacKinnon, Hall, Skinner, etc., etc. almost all were on 6 year deals.

While I think that locking up top RFAs coming off their ELCs to 8 year deals is rational because a player is going to generally be more productive in his late 20s than in his mid to late 30s, there has to be a lot of discretion on this. 8 years is a huge time commitment and with the number of contracts having the last few seasons very bonus heavy, these deals become essentially buyout proof.

As far as your list goes, I'd agree with locking up 4 of the 5 to long term deals. I'd go 6-8 years on PLD and probably the same on Jones-it's a few years to go before he's due so I'd reassess when appropriate. Anderson I'd go 5-6 years and ZW probably 6.

I'm not sold on a long term Bjorkstrand commitment yet.

As far as the exact time frame, I don't have any opinion. Case by case approach would seem to be the best strategy to me instead of getting locked into a particular date.


In any case, Jarmo had best get up to speed on RFAs. His previous strategy of 'using his CBA leverage' was an incoherent and ineffective approach. Other than the Jones steal, he's probably got as poor a record dealing with RFAs as any GM during a similar time frame. I'm not very confident that he'll make the necessary adjustments to the new RFA market. I know that will shock many here.:laugh:

Who do you think you are actually discussing the concept of the poll rather than nitpick all the grey areas.:sarcasm:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclones Rock

EspenK

Registered User
Sep 25, 2011
15,581
4,147
It always depends on the price. We don't know what the player asks are. But I can spell out what I think the Jackets offers should be:

With Werenski I'd offer $6.75m x 8. I'm a big believer that Werenski is going to continue to improve. I loved the quality of his defensive play down the stretch. I'm guessing Werenski's camp is looking for a shorter term, but I'd hold out to get UFA years at that price. Up to $7.1m x 8.

With Anderson you offer 5.5m x 6 now. It's basically the Wilson contract. We're not going to be able to keep Anderson into his UFA years at a lower price than that, and if we wait a year his price will go up. I could budge to $5.7m per.

With Dubois you offer 6m x 6+ immediately. With the new landscape all he needs is one good post-Panarin season and his price will be $8m+. If it turns out he's more of a strong two-way presence with 2C production, that will cost us $6m anyways. A $6.5m deal would be acceptable to my mind.

I generally agree with your numbers but I think I'd try for 8 years on all three. Werenski up to 7, Andy 6-6.5 and PLD I'd definitely go 7x8 and and even to 7.5 if necessary. All three can be handled within the cap now and as it grows any incremental dollars over yours will be insignificant.

The kicker in all of this is the structure of the deal as CR points out. Front loaded bonuses and lockout protection are going to be sticky points here. The main point is to try and get them done now because they ain't getting cheaper barring a complete falloff in production.
 

majormajor

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
24,179
28,651
I generally agree with your numbers but I think I'd try for 8 years on all three. Werenski up to 7, Andy 6-6.5 and PLD I'd definitely go 7x8 and and even to 7.5 if necessary. All three can be handled within the cap now and as it grows any incremental dollars over yours will be insignificant.

The kicker in all of this is the structure of the deal as CR points out. Front loaded bonuses and lockout protection are going to be sticky points here. The main point is to try and get them done now because they ain't getting cheaper barring a complete falloff in production.

8 years for Anderson would take him until he's 34 years old. With his playstyle that ups the risk level substantially. We can't be certain he'd be a top 9 forward in the last couple years, it's very much a Lucic possibility. I also don't think he commands $6.5m, so I wouldn't offer that this year. I hope not, but if he wants to risk banging his head for a year to get that kind of money, then that's his call.

With Dubois I hope to go 8 years but I can understand if the player balks at that. 8 years would mean he wouldn't get his next contract until age 30, instead of 28. And he'd get a much better deal at age 28. $7.5m for Dubois now seems uncalled for. Again, if he is that confident that he wants to gamble on himself being worth that much, then let him play this year and negotiate next year. I don't think he would take that gamble, my guess is he would sign a $6.5m x 6 if it's on the table now. And if he does take the gamble it isn't going to cost us much more than $8m per. Aho only got that much by virtue of an offer sheet and at this point Dubois has a long way to go to even get to an Aho level of play.
 

MoeBartoli

Checkers-to-Jackets
Jan 12, 2011
13,944
10,150
Whenever the team and the RFA want to discuss a contract and can come to an agreement.

I’m someone in this camp but tend to phrase it as the time frame is not a cookie cutter; one size does not fit all.

At this point, it appears that the entire landscape is changed and that it's going to take a while for things to sort out.

Until this off season (and possibly last year if Nylander is enough evidence), it was pretty standard to lock up your top UFAs to 6 year deals prior to the last season of their ELCs. MacKinnon, Hall, Skinner, etc., etc. almost all were on 6 year deals.

While I think that locking up top RFAs coming off their ELCs to 8 year deals is rational because a player is going to generally be more productive in his late 20s than in his mid to late 30s, there has to be a lot of discretion on this. 8 years is a huge time commitment and with the number of contracts having the last few seasons very bonus heavy, these deals become essentially buyout proof.

As far as your list goes, I'd agree with locking up 4 of the 5 to long term deals. I'd go 6-8 years on PLD and probably the same on Jones-it's a few years to go before he's due so I'd reassess when appropriate. Anderson I'd go 5-6 years and ZW probably 6.

I'm not sold on a long term Bjorkstrand commitment yet.

As far as the exact time frame, I don't have any opinion. Case by case approach would seem to be the best strategy to me instead of getting locked into a particular date.


In any case, Jarmo had best get up to speed on RFAs. His previous strategy of 'using his CBA leverage' was an incoherent and ineffective approach. Other than the Jones steal, he's probably got as poor a record dealing with RFAs as any GM during a similar time frame. I'm not very confident that he'll make the necessary adjustments to the new RFA market. I know that will shock many here.:laugh:

Ah, CR....I’m going to have to give you a @thebus88 response regarding Bjorkstrand. “How do you like your crow?” :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I’ll be cookin!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclones Rock

blahblah

Registered User
Nov 24, 2005
21,327
972
There is no correct answer, as much as some would like to force their opinion that there is down our throats.

There are two sides to the negotiation. In a lot of cases they do not have the same goals. A team has to consider the cap, agents and their players don't. We aren't even getting into factors like signing bonuses, or when they are going to become a UFA (how many UFA years is the player going to give up). Some players recently want to test UFA ASAP. Some players want to have stability. Some players have jerks for agents. You take each situation and deal with them individually.

I rarely get upset about time required to negotiate with a RFA, UFA's can be different as you have to figure out if you're going to be able to keep them. Now when the deal is done for a RFA, I can look at the contract and give my thoughts on that. I tend to find JK a mixed bag, some of his FA deals have been outstanding some have been what I consider horrible. Having said that I think he makes up a bit for any issues with some of his trades. I
 

DarkandStormy

Registered User
Apr 29, 2014
7,065
3,308
614
It always depends on the price. We don't know what the player asks are. But I can spell out what I think the Jackets offers should be:

With Werenski I'd offer $6.75m x 8. I'm a big believer that Werenski is going to continue to improve. I loved the quality of his defensive play down the stretch. I'm guessing Werenski's camp is looking for a shorter term, but I'd hold out to get UFA years at that price. Up to $7.1m x 8.

With Anderson you offer 5.5m x 6 now. It's basically the Wilson contract. We're not going to be able to keep Anderson into his UFA years at a lower price than that, and if we wait a year his price will go up. I could budge to $5.7m per.

With Dubois you offer 6m x 6+ immediately. With the new landscape all he needs is one good post-Panarin season and his price will be $8m+. If it turns out he's more of a strong two-way presence with 2C production, that will cost us $6m anyways. A $6.5m deal would be acceptable to my mind.

I'm sure Zach & agent are saying, "Ekblad contract," in which case 6.75x8 isn't close.
Andy - I agree, though I'm guessing his agent will want to squeeze a bit more out after Jarmo's hardball a couple years ago.
PLD - why would he/his agent accept an identical contract (or slightly worse as a % of the cap) that Wennberg got?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->