Speculation: Will Treliving Show Bennett the Money?

[CraigsList]

Why do you say that?

Because Bennett doesn't deserve 3m... he's a 2-2.5m for 2 years.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Because Bennett doesn't deserve 3m... he's a 2-2.5m for 2 years.

Based on just this past season, sure. If you factor in his rookie year though it makes 3M a reasonable ask in my opinion.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Based on just this past season, sure. If you factor in his rookie year though it makes 3M a reasonable ask in my opinion.

I get he's young and we have to pay the "potential" tax on RFA's, but at the same time, how many 26-36 point forwards are making 3 million plus?

Alex Galchenyuk put up superior numbers for the offensively anemic Habs and got 2.8 for two years after his ELC.

 

[InfinityIggy]

I get he's young and we have to pay the "potential" tax on RFA's, but at the same time, how many 26-36 point forwards are making 3 million plus?

Alex Galchenyuk put up superior numbers for the offensively anemic Habs and got 2.8 for two years after his ELC.

That was also 2 years ago though, so you have to take some inflation into account. Bennett is also better away from the puck than Gally was when he came off his ELC. Gally if I remember correctly, had also been mostly playing wing up to that point.

Maybe Bennett gets 2.8M or something like that, I think my point is more so that I don't see him only getting 2-2.5m. If Treliving can sign him for that amount, that'd be great though.

And to put it in another context, how many 3rd line centers make less than 3M?

 

[Anglesmith]

I know it's a while ago now, but Backlund scored at 22 point pace in the third year of his ELC, and got a 1-year show-me contract less than $1M. He scored at 40 point pace the next season, and earned himself 2 years at $1.5M.

Bennett has pedigree going for himself, but that's about it. He got himself into the doghouse last year for his poor discipline, and didn't produce offensively to make up for it. The organization clearly still believes in himself, but you don't pay for hope. I expect him to sign for less than $3M, unless bizarrely he agrees to a long-term deal.

 

[Calculon]

If the Flames had any confidence in their projection capabilities, really truly believed in Bennett's abilities and were more proactive than reactive, they'd be pushing to get a longterm deal right now. Yeah, Bennett might be overpaid (*gasp*; oh the humanity!) in the first year or two but in the longterm, they'd have an excellent player locked in at team friendly rate. That's how organizations get ahead in the cap world. Just look at Poile.

Imagine for example, if the Flames had shown some foresight and courage two years ago and signed Backlund to a longterm deal (i.e., 6 years at ~4.5). He would have been "overpaid" for the entirety of summer before becoming fair value and then a steal. But most importantly, they'd have Backlund locked up for another four years at excellent value instead of looking at a 5 to 6M extension right now. That's potentially 1.5M in cap savings that helps when the Flames need it the most, right in the midst of the cup window.

And the same logic applies to the Brodie deal and most probably, the deal Ferland just signed. And no, none of this is revisionist history; people were pushing for longer deals before any of these contracts were even signed.

These are the kind of risks organizations need to take if they want to get ahead in the cap world and separate themselves from the rest of the pack. Because the reality is, if Bennett breaks out and puts up 50+ points during what will in all likelihood be a two year bridge deal, he'll be looking at something closer to 6M in his next contract, if not more. And that's not even that much of a risk; worst case scenario you're paying 4.5M for a 40 to 50 point top six left winger. It's not like that'd be a hard contract to move.

And to be honest, it's not as though they're wholly incapable of doing something like this. They more or less already did something similar with the Monahan contract by giving him seven years. They just need to expand the thought process to players that aren't horribly obvious but merely obvious.

 

[InfinityIggy]

I don't necessarily disagree with you Calculon. It also takes both parties wanting that kind of contract though.

Backlund maybe would've taken a 4.5mx6y deal had it been offered. Is Bennett or his agent going to want a 4mx7y deal though? I'm not so sure.

 

[herashak]

it was also backlunds injury troubles that kept him from getting a longer term deal a few years back.

 

[djpatm]

People need to stop assuming Bennett is a lock to follow Backlunds career path.

It is not the norm. What will most likely happen is either he breaks out within the next two seasons or he remains this 25-35 point player who could be out of the league before 25.

Simply assuming that he's going to break out and paying him accordingly is a big risk for a team in win now mode. It will make signing Tkachuk, Jankowski and whoever else graduates a challenge and if he's overpaid you're most likely not going to be able to get rid of him.

If you are conservative with his projection and sign him to a bridge, sure you risk him being too expensive to re-sign, but at least in that case you can trade him or whoever else to make it work and recoup some assets.

One option, ruins an asset if he doesn't perform to lofty hopes, the other protects you if he doesn't perform and if he does, still gives you plenty of options.

I really hope Treliving isn't paying based on fandom and draft hype.

 

[Anglesmith]

I don't necessarily disagree with you Calculon. It also takes both parties wanting that kind of contract though.

Backlund maybe would've taken a 4.5mx6y deal had it been offered. Is Bennett or his agent going to want a 4mx7y deal though? I'm not so sure.

That's one obvious counterpoint.

The other is that you can't just take players who have panned out and say "this is what you get when you sign a long term deal." You also get cap headaches. They were confident in projecting Mason Raymond as a key player, and it turned into a buyout. He was a UFA, of course. In terms of another RFA, they were confident in projecting Lance Bouma, and it turned into a buyout. What if they'd put their money where their mouth was with Joe Colborne and signed him to a bargain 7-year contract at $4M in the summer of 2014?

With Brodie, they signed him to a long-term deal (probably as long as he was willing to agree to) with great value, but don't pretend that he was as unproven at that point as Bennett is right now.

I don't think it's fair to paint Bennett as a no-risk signing. There have been too many question marks in his play for me to think he's a slam-dunk, and I'm typically optimistic about our players.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

That was also 2 years ago though, so you have to take some inflation into account. Bennett is also better away from the puck than Gally was when he came off his ELC. Gally if I remember correctly, had also been mostly playing wing up to that point.

Maybe Bennett gets 2.8M or something like that, I think my point is more so that I don't see him only getting 2-2.5m. If Treliving can sign him for that amount, that'd be great though.

And to put it in another context, how many 3rd line centers make less than 3M?

Not sure how you can count for inflation when he's proven less than the player in questions, even if his 2-way game is better.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Not sure how you can count for inflation when he's proven less than the player in questions, even if his 2-way game is better.

See I am not sure that is true. Like I said Gally played wing for almost all of his ELC. Bennett has been playing C since he more or less entered the league, with only some streches at wing. That is a significant difference in how 'proven' they both were at the same age.

Bennett almost certainly produces more if he plays on the wing for his first 2 seasons. We saw as much when he played with Backlund.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Guy is as of right now our third line centre, and we have another guy knocking on the door who could likely fill that role as early as this year. The idea behind a bridge contract is for the team to say, "look, you have this many years to prove you're indispensable to this team and more than a bottom-six player, or we have to move on and give the job to someone else." In hockey you don't gamble and commit to a 3C through the middle of the next decade.

I'm also not sure why people think a three-year deal would be problematic for the team. He'd come off the books at the same time as Frolik and Brouwer.

 

[Fig]

In this movie, there is friction. Jerry keeps telling his client to prove he's worth the contract and ultimately the player (client) ends up with more than he asked for.

Does this situation end similarly for Sam as Rod Tidwell? Or do we go down a different path?

Does Treliving actually want to deal with half a dozen guys on expiring contracts in 3 seasons? I don't know.

Time will tell.


Now excuse me... I suddenly desire to re-watch Jerry Maguire

 

[Mobiandi]

I'm also not sure why people think a three-year deal would be problematic for the team. He'd come off the books at the same time as Frolik and Brouwer.

And Brodie, Hamonic, Stone.

 

[Mr Snrub]

And Brodie, Hamonic, Stone.

There's no way more than two of those guys are getting re-signed imo. We'll have a lot of cap space.

 

[Dertell]

One option, ruins an asset if he doesn't perform to lofty hopes, the other protects you if he doesn't perform and if he does, still gives you plenty of options.

No, it doesn't. It forces you to trim cash one way or the other. You can expect every other GMs to be as dumb as McPhee, but stupidity is not always convenient. Not every idiot is always a useful one. or at the very least, to anyone specifically. Should Bennett performs at the rate we'd expect from a #4 in the future (which fancy stats doesn't forecast), his value as a asset will go up as an asset because he'd be cap friendly as hell for a while. His value will be much worse as an RFA, especially if the team's in cap hell.

As far as I'm concerned, either you sign him long-term or you trade him now. A 2 years deal is worst case scenario, even if I think that's what'll happen.

 

[DFF]

No, Bennett needs a 1 or 2 yrs prove it contract

No trade, no long term

He has potential but hasnt shown ****. Last year was more bad than good.

 

[InfinityIggy]

No, it doesn't. It forces you to trim cash one way or the other. You can expect every other GMs to be as dumb as McPhee, but stupidity is not always convenient. Not every idiot is always a useful one. or at the very least, to anyone specifically. Should Bennett performs at the rate we'd expect from a #4 in the future (which fancy stats doesn't forecast), his value as a asset will go up as an asset because he'd be cap friendly as hell for a while. His value will be much worse as an RFA, especially if the team's in cap hell.

As far as I'm concerned, either you sign him long-term or you trade him now. A 2 years deal is worst case scenario, even if I think that's what'll happen.

Trading him now honestly is probably worst case scenario, as much as I haven't been against the idea.

Bennett just isn't going to have a ton of value around the league right now. I feel pretty confident he would have more value next off season, even with only 1 year left on his deal.

 

[Dertell]

Trading him now honestly is probably worst case scenario, as much as I haven't been against the idea.

Bennett just isn't going to have a ton of value around the league right now. I feel pretty confident he would have more value next off season, even with only 1 year left on his deal.

I get what you're saying but, if he's actually not good and thus play another mediocre season, the shiny #4 overall attribute should wear off.

Of course, if he's actually very good, keep and sign him long term.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I'd sign Bennett to a Klefbom type of deal all day. Look at how genius that signing is looking now and all they did is make a calculated risk. I think Calc is right, it's what I would do but I don't expect the Flames to do it. We are looking at a 2 or 3 year deal IMO.

@ AS, I hear what you're saying. But those players are literally awful comparisons to Bennett, I mean Raymond? Colborne and Bouma also have always been considered bottom 6 role players, and while they got rewarded for having outlying years, Bennett is projected as having somewhere between 2C to franchise player upside. If he bottoms out as a 40pt forward, and you're paying him 4 million per for a long time, it's no big deal. You have a young player, signed for his prime years with lots of intangibles. Conversely if he becomes a 60-70pt forward and you're paying him 4 million per, then you have arguably the best contract in the NHL. Now factor you have this intel since drafting him, it's an educated gamble that's likely to payoff.

I know you're using an extreme to prove a point, but the players are not comparable to Bennett.

 

[CraigsList]

I'd sign Bennett to a Klefbom type of deal all day. Look at how genius that signing is looking now and all they did is make a calculated risk. I think Calc is right, it's what I would do but I don't expect the Flames to do it. We are looking at a 2 or 3 year deal IMO.

@ AS, I hear what you're saying. But those players are literally awful comparisons to Bennett, I mean Raymond? Colborne and Bouma also have always been considered bottom 6 role players, and while they got rewarded for having outlying years, Bennett is projected as having somewhere between 2C to franchise player upside. If he bottoms out as a 40pt forward, and you're paying him 4 million per for a long time, it's no big deal. You have a young player, signed for his prime years with lots of intangibles. Conversely if he becomes a 60-70pt forward and you're paying him 4 million per, then you have arguably the best contract in the NHL. Now factor you have this intel since drafting him, it's an educated gamble that's likely to payoff.

I know you're using an extreme to prove a point, but the players are not comparable to Bennett.

The problem with Bennett is if he wants a 7-8 year deal, I would probably be asking for about 4.5-5m... Maybe he hasn't shown it yet, but if management truly has the confidence that Bennett can turn it around, he's going to want to get paid good money. The problem with management and Bennett right now is that we want to pay him well, but Bennett has not proven anything past 3m. 3m would even be a stretch. And Bennett is one of my favorite players.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

The problem with Bennett is if he wants a 7-8 year deal, I would probably be asking for about 4.5-5m... Maybe he hasn't shown it yet, but if management truly has the confidence that Bennett can turn it around, he's going to want to get paid good money. The problem with management and Bennett right now is that we want to pay him well, but Bennett has not proven anything past 3m. 3m would even be a stretch. And Bennett is one of my favorite players.

I mean some factors have to come together. Bennett needs to be told he's a part of the core, he wants to have to win with the Flames, he needs to like the idea of getting a long term deal now. I could totally see Bennett being against it and wanting 5 because he would be leaving money on table over his prime years. But as much as I love Bennett, I wouldn't go over 4.5 for 7-8 years. But that would end up being a steal in 2 seasons. Klefbom and Larsson both have amazing deals.

 

[JPeeper]

7 year 4AAV is what I would do

Nah man, 8 years 4.5AAV.

Don't care if people say "he hasn't proven anything yet", or "it's a huge risk".

By year 3 that contract would be a steal.

 

[Anglesmith]

I'd sign Bennett to a Klefbom type of deal all day. Look at how genius that signing is looking now and all they did is make a calculated risk. I think Calc is right, it's what I would do but I don't expect the Flames to do it. We are looking at a 2 or 3 year deal IMO.

@ AS, I hear what you're saying. But those players are literally awful comparisons to Bennett, I mean Raymond? Colborne and Bouma also have always been considered bottom 6 role players, and while they got rewarded for having outlying years, Bennett is projected as having somewhere between 2C to franchise player upside. If he bottoms out as a 40pt forward, and you're paying him 4 million per for a long time, it's no big deal. You have a young player, signed for his prime years with lots of intangibles. Conversely if he becomes a 60-70pt forward and you're paying him 4 million per, then you have arguably the best contract in the NHL. Now factor you have this intel since drafting him, it's an educated gamble that's likely to payoff.

I know you're using an extreme to prove a point, but the players are not comparable to Bennett.

The fundamental argument, though, is that if he doesn't improve from this year.... just imagine the bind the Flames would have been in this last season if he was making $4M and playing the way he was. You have to realize that your analysis here is being coloured by the fact that you essentially have no doubt he's going to improve greatly.

If you want a better comparable, you have to look outside the organization. You're the Edmonton Oilers in 2015. You look at Nail Yakupov, see he's hit 30 points a couple of times, and he's a first overall pick, so of course he's got a lot more potential. 7 years at $4M per is going to be a complete steal once he fulfills that massive potential that got him drafted. You sign that contract without thinking twice?

Klefbom and Larsson, and Brodie for that matter, are great deals, but are puzzling comparables if your point is that Bennett should be handed a long-term deal right now. Those are players who had very positive tenures during the contract before the contract they signed. Larsson got a prove-it contract coming out of his ELC, and showed great promise, so he got paid. Brodie got a two-year bridge contract coming out of his ELC, and showed great promise, so he got paid. Klefbom played great during his ELC, and earned his extension based on his play. But with Bennett, you want to pay him for potential, as opposed to what he's shown. None of these comparables help support that proposal.

If anything, pointing to Larsson and Brodie undermines the doomsday picture being painted of bridge deals. Those are guys who got a short extension to prove themselves, played well, and still ended up on affordable long-term contracts, due to the fact that they still were being paid for a few RFA years. Really, the only way the Flames end up hosed by giving a bridge right now is if Bennett blows up Draisaitl-style next season. And I don't see that happening, because he won't have McDavid to play with.