Zemgus Girgensons Next Contract (Long Term or Bridge) - or Trade Bait?

[Sabre the Win]

Im in the camp to sign him; curious as to what others opinions are but we may be able to lock him up long term for cheaper if his point totals aren't trending upwards from last year. Having a down a year this year may be a blessing in disguise cap wise. We all know he's a solid player and can very easily play as our 3rd line center. I would say lock him up for 6 years @ 4 or 4.5 AAV. Reasoning rather than 8 years is; if he doesn't work out; the contract isn't longer than it needs to be and would work for other teams interested in a reclamation project 3 years down the road if he perhaps needs a change of scenery.

Click to read more...

 

[dkollidas]

If he continues like this for the year (productive but not on the score sheet a ton) I'd try to sign him to a cheaper long term deal. Something like Hanzal has now. That's the player I want and believe Girgensons can be.

 

[Ace]

If his production stays down I can't see any way he signs a long deal. Players that work like him and are positive players for you even when not producing are low risk...so I'd sure like to try to get him locked down.

They should avoid 2 year bridges at least with him and Ristolainen (who I think they'd be insane to not sign for as long as they can). Eichel, Reinhart and Kane are already up that day.

 

[gallagt01]

If my memory serves me right, during the offseason, I believe Girgensons told media in Latvia that he expects Buffalo to come at him with a long-term contract offer (Girgensons didn't speculate how much said offer would be worth, but I'd wager it'd be around $4 million per), and that he and his agent will likely want something with shorter term. He wants a bridge deal (can't say I fault him).

3 years, $9 million is my guess.

 

[tsujimoto74]

If my memory serves me right, during the offseason, I believe Girgensons told media in Latvia that he expects Buffalo to come at him with a long-term contract offer (Girgensons didn't speculate how much said offer would be worth, but I'd wager it'd be around $4 million per), and that he and his agent will likely want something with shorter term. He wants a bridge deal (can't say I fault him).

3 years, $9 million is my guess.

He said he wanted something "medium" term, eg, 5 years.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Sabres went for a bridge with him. It's up in the air at this point whether he'll have a prominent offensive role on this team going forward or not.

 

[Jame]

Bridge

He's not likely to get enough opportunity (top line) to drive his value up through a bridge deal.

 

[TehDoak]

Bridge

He's not likely to get enough opportunity (top line) to drive his value up through a bridge deal.

Pretty much this. Though, Girgs and Eichel seemed to have pretty decent chemisty the short bursts they've been together, I don't think its unthinkable that Girgs gets top 6 forward minutes and PP time if he clicks with Eichel.

 

[Heraldic]

Bridge

He's not likely to get enough opportunity (top line) to drive his value up through a bridge deal.

But you nevertheless pay him more after his bridge deal...

The rationality of giving long term contracts to your recognized core pieces after their ELC is not only to prevent them upping their relative value during their bridge - it also means you're paying them a lot less during their third, fourth, fifth etc. year than you would with a bridge deal. Do we need cap space next two years or after that? If the latter, you don't offer a bridge contract. Ufa years are always more expensive than rfa-years, no matter has the player improved between them.

But I doubt Girgs and his agent accepts a long term contract. It most likely would be the worst possible situation to sign one, because your stats don't look good. When the team gets better overall, so will the stats of players. Girgs is most likely playing with better players then than he is now.

Bridge deal is the most likely one, yet not the best for the franchise. Unless Girgs falls off a cliff, which is unlikely IMO.

 

[Zman5778]

Bridge

He's not likely to get enough opportunity (top line) to drive his value up through a bridge deal.

Came here to post exactly this.

I'm sure the Sabres will WANT to sign ZG long term at a cheap rate.....but I think it's going to be a bridge deal.

3 years in the $7m range is my guess.

 

[sabrebuild]

Offer him 8 years 4 a year. See if he bites. No concern about zemgus ethic, and you bought his entire prime cheap.

 

[Jame]

But you nevertheless pay him more after his bridge deal...

The rationality of giving long term contracts to your recognized core pieces after their ELC is not only to prevent them upping their relative value during their bridge - it also means you're paying them a lot less during their third, fourth, fifth etc. year than you would with a bridge deal. Do we need cap space next two years or after that? If the latter, you don't offer a bridge contract. Ufa years are always more expensive than rfa-years, no matter has the player improved between them.

But I doubt Girgs and his agent accepts a long term contract. It most likely would be the worst possible situation to sign one, because your stats don't look good. When the team gets better overall, so will the stats of players. Girgs is most likely playing with better players then than he is now.

Bridge deal is the most likely one, yet not the best for the franchise. Unless Girgs falls off a cliff, which is unlikely IMO.

Sorry, sub 20 goal/40 point players don't drive their value up much at all through bridge deals. They also don't get long term deals coming off of ELCs without baseline scoring.

I would do a short 2 year deal with Girgs. Something like 2 yrs / 4.5 million. Using couturier's 2 year / 3.5 as a barometer. Couturier came out of that 2 yr deal with a 6 year deal at 4.33. Do you expect to get Girgensons inked to a long term deal at under 4.0? Obviously not

I would use the Extra cap space in those first 2 years to add "a piece" that helps with the playoff push.

 

[Jame]

Brandon Sutter after ELC
3 yrs at 2.0
Then 2 years at 3.3
Then 5 yrs at 4.375

If Girgs is going to be the 3rd line shutdown center... Then I'd have no problem with this type of approach to contracts (and letting someone else pay the top 3rd line money after we get the first 5 years of cost effectiveness

Maybe something like
2 yrs at 2.5
Then 3 yrs at 4.0
Then decide (trade, sign, walk ufa)

 

[Heraldic]

Sorry, sub 20 goal/40 point players don't drive their value up much at all through bridge deals. They also don't get long term deals coming off of ELCs without baseline scoring.

I would do a short 2 year deal with Girgs. Something like 2 yrs / 4.5 million. Using couturier's 2 year / 3.5 as a barometer. Couturier came out of that 2 yr deal with a 6 year deal at 4.33. Do you expect to get Girgensons inked to a long term deal at under 4.0? Obviously not

I would use the Extra cap space in those first 2 years to add "a piece" that helps with the playoff push.

I think Girgs scoring will be around 30 points this season (at least with adjusted to his games played). Nick Bjugstad got a long term contract with pretty similar scoring (role adjusted). Brendan Gallagher got a long term contract with less than 4 million a year (a different role and a player though).

So yes, I do believe you could get him a little less than 4 million a year based on his scoring. It's not that common to see longer contracts given to players outside of regular scoring, but you do see those kind of deals. I think getting Girgs under that kind of contract would be in a sense similar move that Kings made by extending Clifford - giving long term, low cap hit deal to a bottom-6 player. Of course Girgs would be more expensive because he is better, but the idea is the same.

I don't think you could use the extra cap space any way.We're not going to be in a cap crunch. Or you think we're going to be able to get quality veterans here with short term contracts?

Brandon Sutter after ELC
3 yrs at 2.0
Then 2 years at 3.3
Then 5 yrs at 4.375

If Girgs is going to be the 3rd line shutdown center... Then I'd have no problem with this type of approach to contracts (and letting someone else pay the top 3rd line money after we get the first 5 years of cost effectiveness

Maybe something like
2 yrs at 2.5
Then 3 yrs at 4.0
Then decide (trade, sign, walk ufa)

Sutter is a good example and a comparison that I didn't for some reason remember. His role has been pretty much the same as what Girgs has been used this season and I think his offensive production has been pretty similar what we should expect from Girgs on his current role.

But giving Girgs contracts like above is not a good idea IMO. After his contract after the bridge, we most likely would be forced to trade him, because his next contract would be pure UFA years. He fits the age profile of this team, so the best way to have a great team on a cap era, is to get your core guys under long term contracts.

Penguins were in a cap hell when they were operating with Sutter. I don't think they wanted to give Sutter contracts like that and then trade him away. But they were forced to do so. We're not in a similar situation.

And if you want to have as cap friendly 5 years as possible and as low cap hit as possible on those years we actually contend... You give him straight away 5 year deal with as low cap hit as possible. That way you pay him more when it doesn't matter in order to pay him less when it matters.

I think we're going to see a bridge deal with 2 years and 1,5 - 2,0 million cap hit. And after that hopefully see him extending longer contract, so we can benefit from those RFA years on a contract that is still active when our contending window opens up as best as possible.

 

[couture23]

3 years for $8.25M.

 

[sabrebuild]

I think Girgs is superior to Sutter. I think if you bridge him and he gets consistent minutes with one of Eichel, ROR or Reinhart, he will put up big numbers.

Maybe that won't happen. Maybe he just gets the 3c role and defensive minutes. But even then his value will climb. No reason to play games with girgs. Keep him at a reasonable rate until he hits 30 and begins to decline.

 

[Jame]

I think Girgs scoring will be around 30 points this season (at least with adjusted to his games played). Nick Bjugstad got a long term contract with pretty similar scoring (role adjusted). Brendan Gallagher got a long term contract with less than 4 million a year (a different role and a player though).

So yes, I do believe you could get him a little less than 4 million a year based on his scoring. It's not that common to see longer contracts given to players outside of regular scoring, but you do see those kind of deals. I think getting Girgs under that kind of contract would be in a sense similar move that Kings made by extending Clifford - giving long term, low cap hit deal to a bottom-6 player. Of course Girgs would be more expensive because he is better, but the idea is the same.

I don't think you could use the extra cap space any way.We're not going to be in a cap crunch. Or you think we're going to be able to get quality veterans here with short term contracts?



Sutter is a good example and a comparison that I didn't for some reason remember. His role has been pretty much the same as what Girgs has been used this season and I think his offensive production has been pretty similar what we should expect from Girgs on his current role.

But giving Girgs contracts like above is not a good idea IMO. After his contract after the bridge, we most likely would be forced to trade him, because his next contract would be pure UFA years. He fits the age profile of this team, so the best way to have a great team on a cap era, is to get your core guys under long term contracts.

Penguins were in a cap hell when they were operating with Sutter. I don't think they wanted to give Sutter contracts like that and then trade him away. But they were forced to do so. We're not in a similar situation.

And if you want to have as cap friendly 5 years as possible and as low cap hit as possible on those years we actually contend... You give him straight away 5 year deal with as low cap hit as possible. That way you pay him more when it doesn't matter in order to pay him less when it matters.

I think we're going to see a bridge deal with 2 years and 1,5 - 2,0 million cap hit. And after that hopefully see him extending longer contract, so we can benefit from those RFA years on a contract that is still active when our contending window opens up as best as possible.

That's were we differ, I expect to be contending relatively soon. If we are in cap hell in 6 years and forced to move on from Girgs, that means things went perfectly.

I think you get more cap flexibility over the next 5 years using the short term approach.

And yes, I expect to sign key vets to short term deals in those that window

Ps Nick Bjugstad is a pretty terrible contract comparison... Seriously

Like Chicago, we are going to need to be judicious with some players, even as they play core roles (Bolland-Girgs). even as the provide secondary scoring (Versteeg-Ennis), or become top players (Ladd-Kane).

 

[Heraldic]

That's were we differ, I expect to be contending relatively soon. If we are in cap hell in 6 years and forced to move on from Girgs, that means things went perfectly.

I think you get more cap flexibility over the next 5 years using the short term approach.

And yes, I expect to sign key vets to short term deals in those that window

Okay. I expect our window to really open after two years. So I do not think we need cap space for the next two years (and we already have a lot cap space).

Who key vets, just in theory, you think we could be able to sign on short term deals during these two next seasons?

And you should also include the fact that if you use the 5 year short term factor, you're basically forced to move a core piece as a pending UFA or even let walk. I wouldn't call it the smartest move, because the replacement alone would cost you assets/cap or both.

Ps Nick Bjugstad is a pretty terrible contract comparison... Seriously

Bjugstad had two productive season as a center (his first was eaten by playing only 11 games). On his first season he shared top-6 duties and role with Barkov, on the second he played in a more sheltered role behind Barkov and Bolland.

Bjugstad offensive potential is bigger, and he had produced offense better. But overall he has been playing more beneficial role. Overall I expect Girgs getting lesser salary.

Like Chicago, we are going to need to be judicious with some players, even as they play core roles (Bolland-Girgs). even as the provide secondary scoring (Versteeg-Ennis), or become top players (Ladd-Kane).

There is no need to try to model every single move from Chicago or Kings. It's a lot more effective try to just think how you can build a winning team on salary cap era. The best way to do it is to recognize your core players, and get them as fast as possible to under a contract which eats as much as possible RFA years. That is the way you end up getting "steal" contracts.

 

[Jame]

I think Girgs is superior to Sutter. I think if you bridge him and he gets consistent minutes with one of Eichel, ROR or Reinhart, he will put up big numbers.

Maybe that won't happen. Maybe he just gets the 3c role and defensive minutes. But even then his value will climb. No reason to play games with girgs. Keep him at a reasonable rate until he hits 30 and begins to decline.

I hope Murray and Bylsma get on the same page about that.

In a 3C role, I'm not sure Girgs is superior to Sutter. I think Girgs can bring a lot more offensively (and be more effective overall) in a top 6 wing role... But Bylsma disagrees

 

[Jame]

Okay. I expect our window to really open after two years. So I do not think we need cap space for the next two years (and we already have a lot cap space).

Who key vets, just in theory, you think we could be able to sign on short term deals during these two next seasons?

And you should also include the fact that if you use the 5 year short term factor, you're basically forced to move a core piece as a pending UFA or even let walk. I wouldn't call it the smartest move, because the replacement alone would cost you assets/cap or both.

I expect the window to open next year as resources are shifted to the blue line (Dream Scandella, Enstrom, Fowler).

I haven't parsed the UfA lists enough and given that many will be resigned before, it's mostly pointless. Cap space can be used in free agency and via trade, obviously

I don't feel that we would be forced in to anything. And I'm perfectly comfortable with a 2 year bridge and re-assessing at that point.

 

[Heraldic]

I hope Murray and Bylsma get on the same page about that.

In a 3C role, I'm not sure Girgs is superior to Sutter. I think Girgs can bring a lot more offensively (and be more effective overall) in a top 6 wing role... But Bylsma disagrees

I think Murray sees Girgs as a shutdown center.

Under Darcy they played Girgs as a power forward winger. Darcy even said that they see him as that kind of player. When Murray came, he wanted Girgs to play as a center, and said that he sees Girgs as a center. So far he has been pretty consistently a center. Murray said during the off-season that Girgs might be a winger or center. That is the only indication him seeing Girgs as a winger rather than a center, and it's not much.

I doubt that Bylsma is using young projected core guys in a way that is against the way Murray is building the team. We're not yet seeking for wins, we're in situation developing the team. There might be situations, where coaching wants to use the players in short term gains at the expense of long term gains, and in our situation GM should overview the long term gains. When we're in the contending phase, I think coaching staff should have more freedom.

 

[Jame]

I think Murray sees Girgs as a shutdown center.

Under Darcy they played Girgs as a power forward winger. Darcy even said that they see him as that kind of player. When Murray came, he wanted Girgs to play as a center, and said that he sees Girgs as a center. So far he has been pretty consistently a center. Murray said during the off-season that Girgs might be a winger or center. That is the only indication him seeing Girgs as a winger rather than a center, and it's not much.

I doubt that Bylsma is using young projected core guys in a way that is against the way Murray is building the team. We're not yet seeking for wins, we're in situation developing the team. There might be situations, where coaching wants to use the players in short term gains at the expense of long term gains, and in our situation GM should overview the long term gains. When we're in the contending phase, I think coaching staff should have more freedom.

If he remains a center, in a suppressed scoring role... There is no reason to ever go long term.

I compared to Sutter for that reason, you compared to top 6 scorers... For what reason?

 

[joshjull]

I think Murray sees Girgs as a shutdown center.

Under Darcy they played Girgs as a power forward winger. Darcy even said that they see him as that kind of player. When Murray came, he wanted Girgs to play as a center, and said that he sees Girgs as a center. So far he has been pretty consistently a center. Murray said during the off-season that Girgs might be a winger or center. That is the only indication him seeing Girgs as a winger rather than a center, and it's not much.

I doubt that Bylsma is using young projected core guys in a way that is against the way Murray is building the team. We're not yet seeking for wins, we're in situation developing the team. There might be situations, where coaching wants to use the players in short term gains at the expense of long term gains, and in our situation GM should overview the long term gains. When we're in the contending phase, I think coaching staff should have more freedom.

I haven't heard that from Murray. The only comments I've heard from Murray about Girgs is he views him as a center or wing in the top 6. Murray went on to say depending in how things shake out with the roster would determine which position he plays.

The only person that talks about him in his current role has been Disco.

I also wouldn't go too far down the path of thinking everything Disco does is how Murray wants it.

 

[Rhett4]

Bridge for sure. They're going to be tying up a chunk of change in Risto this summer (hopefully long-term) and then Eichel and Reinhart in three years. I'd rather they give themselves some flexibility with guys of Girg's caliber coming off their ELC. No use handing out 8-year deals to every player.

 

[sabrebuild]

I hope Murray and Bylsma get on the same page about that.

In a 3C role, I'm not sure Girgs is superior to Sutter. I think Girgs can bring a lot more offensively (and be more effective overall) in a top 6 wing role... But Bylsma disagrees

Bylsma blows.

 

[BananaSquad]

Bridge or trade, no thanks to long term