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

[tsujimoto74]

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 the thing with moving Girgs up the lineup to wing is that it means Bylsma would then have to give those 3C minutes to Legwand or Larsson, neither of whom he seems too fond of this year.

 

[Heraldic]

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

And why is that? You don't get those kind of players for peanuts. There will be teams who will pay for that kind of services. Ask Tallon about Bolland. Doesn't matter which role the player is, you pay them less if you're paying RFA years compared to UFA years. That's what matters.

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

I brought up Bjugstad because he hasn't showed high level of scoring and got 4,1 million cap hit... With lesser scoring you should get lower cap hit.

Gallagher was an example of a player who got extended long term with less than 4 million cap hit.

The point was that I do think it is realistic to get him under that kind of contract, and that's what your objective should be. It might be that Girgs isn't willing to sign one, but that should be your main objective nevertheless.

For example you get him 3,5 -3,75 million for 6 years, you should nail the contract down like a mad man. You don't give a **** that you will pay a little more for the two next seasons compared to bridge deal.

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

Here we disagree, and it's fine.

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 see many quality vets there being ready to come here with a short term contract.

At the moment we have almost 9 millions space on the cap. After McGinn, Weber, Legwand and Johnson contracts expire, it will create another 10 million. The next year after that Gionta's and Franson's contract expires creating 7,5 millions.

I doubt the cap will be an issue during next two years.

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.

If you're in a cap crunch, you will be forced to make moves. We have seen teams being forced to make moves already.

Giving him a bridge deal is not disaster of course, but you just most likely end up paying less when it doesn't matter and end up paying more when it matters. Cap management pov it is not the best move most likely.

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.

You don't remember him explicitly saying Girgs will be switched as a center when he came and Girgs actually being switched as a center during the end of 2013-2014 season?

And I do think they/Bylsma gave Larsson a chance to be that shutdown center, but it seems they/Bylsma weren't happy how he performed. If they would have been, we might have seen Girgs being a winger. Murray's comments about not being happy how Larsson performed as a bottom-6 players indicates that way.

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.

Murray hasn't been asked anything about Girgs. I really would love some of beatwriters to ask Murray about how he sees Girgs and Larsson's role on this team now and in the future, what kind of expectations they both had on them, and how they have answered on those expectations.

So you think it is more likely that Girgs is playing as a shutdown C opposed to what Murray sees his role as?

Of course, it might be that they don't see Girgs as a shutdown C, and were planning Larsson to be that guy, but after he failed (from their pov), they were forced to put Girgs there.

 

[Jame]

Bjugstad scored 24 goals

 

[Heraldic]

Bjugstad scored 24 goals

Exactly. Getting Girgs under 4 million annually shouldn't be impossible. That's been the point. It's another matter do Girgs and his agent want to make a long term contract, but you have very good arguments for getting the cap lower than 4 million.

You said that no long term contracts are made without base production. Bjugstad had one year where he scored 24 goals. Girgs has had one where he scored 15 in 61 games on a lot worse team and having harder assignments. Bjugstad production is better and his offensive upside higher, but the difference is not that you can't offer a long term deal to Girgs. If Girgs scores about 15+15 which should be pretty doable if the team keeps improving, the difference is not fundamental.

 

[Jame]

heraldic
What is the post 2 year bridge deal (that we agree on) that you are thinking of... Term and value please

 

[Heraldic]

heraldic
What is the post 2 year bridge deal (that we agree on) that you are thinking of... Term and value please

Sean Couturier's contract is the best comparable. Of course it depends on how Girgs produces. But if Girgs end up potting +35 points, his contract might be pretty close where it is with Couturier with the same term.

So pretty close to 4,4 million and 6 years.

Giving him now 6 year deal you could get almost one million lesser cap hit, I think.

 

[Jame]

Sean Couturier's contract is the best comparable. Of course it depends on how Girgs produces. But if Girgs end up potting +35 points, his contract might be pretty close where it is with Couturier with the same term.

So pretty close to 4,4 million and 6 years.

Giving him now 6 year deal you could get almost one million lesser cap hit, I think.

I think Couturier is superior on both sides of the ice

Regardless. How the "3rd tier market" grows over the next half decade as the pice for top tier talent explodes.

For example... After my 2 contract, 5 year approach... I don't expect 3rd line center to exceed your 4.6 approach... Your approach expects a lot of growth out of Girgs

 

[Jame]

If you think Girgs will sign for 6x4.6 in 2 years, why wouldn't he sign for 6x4 now?

 

[Jame]

Exactly. Getting Girgs under 4 million annually shouldn't be impossible. That's been the point. It's another matter do Girgs and his agent want to make a long term contract, but you have very good arguments for getting the cap lower than 4 million.

You said that no long term contracts are made without base production. Bjugstad had one year where he scored 24 goals. Girgs has had one where he scored 15 in 61 games on a lot worse team and having harder assignments. Bjugstad production is better and his offensive upside higher, but the difference is not that you can't offer a long term deal to Girgs. If Girgs scores about 15+15 which should be pretty doable if the team keeps improving, the difference is not fundamental.

Bjugstad scored 24 in a role he was drafted to play, Girgs scored 15 in a role he will never ever sniff in buffalo again

It's so far from comparable. You know this.

 

[Jame]

I'd sign 6x3.85 in a heartbeat

Any approach that keeps him under or at 4 for the next 5-6 years is fine by me.

I think bridge to 3-4 year deal does that.

Note: if you sign him for 6 now, you still encounter he "lose him" scenario that you were penalizing my approach for

 

[sba]

I see him and his agent inflating his value - the positive pub, the all-star game stuff, etc. Truth be told his offensive game has completely regressed, and he's not going to be put in situations to improve his numbers. If they can get him longish term for 4ish that would be great...but I think ZG and his agent going to look for a bridge and bank on him getting better.

 

[Jame]

I see him and his agent inflating his value - the positive pub, the all-star game stuff, etc. Truth be told his offensive game has completely regressed, and he's not going to be put in situations to improve his numbers. If they can get him longish term for 4ish that would be great...but I think ZG and his agent going to look for a bridge and bank on him getting better.

Those are two conflicting perspectives

If his agent is smart and sees the "writing on the wall"... Maybe they take the low end 6x4 type deal. Knowing they won't get the minutes/role to improve the payable numbers.... And then hit free agency at ~27?

Lifetime financial security is achieved... And a chance to cash in while still in prime is available

 

[Chad Thundercock]

I see him and his agent inflating his value - the positive pub, the all-star game stuff, etc.

That's what I think happens. Plus, I think his point production numbers last year were a bit fluky, at least the goal numbers. And then taking into account he played 'top line' minutes, was regarded as the best player on the team.

If they accept like 6x4, I wouldn't be opposed to that. But, I think Zemgus has leverage to aim for higher, maybe much higher. So, bridge deal makes the most sense to me.

 

[Clock]

3 x 3.75-or-less.

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

You win cups with guys like Girgensons. I love him. He needs more ice. Why trade him when his numbers are down -- just nuts. Lock him up long-term, he's not close to his ceiling.

 

[Jame]

That's what I think happens. Plus, I think his point production numbers last year were a bit fluky, at least the goal numbers. And then taking into account he played 'top line' minutes, was regarded as the best player on the team.

If they accept like 6x4, I wouldn't be opposed to that. But, I think Zemgus has leverage to aim for higher, maybe much higher. So, bridge deal makes the most sense to me.

What leverage does he have?
(Clue: the answer is none)

 

[Heraldic]

I think Couturier is superior on both sides of the ice

Regardless. How the "3rd tier market" grows over the next half decade as the pice for top tier talent explodes.

For example... After my 2 contract, 5 year approach... I don't expect 3rd line center to exceed your 4.6 approach... Your approach expects a lot of growth out of Girgs

Couturier might end up being superior, but I also think that Couturier signed a contract that he may not should have.

And it's not like Girgs is a ready product. Girgs is more physical and aggressive and a better skater. Girgs positioning needs polishing, but that also comes through experience. Girgs has size, speed and dynamics and physical attitude. You really cannot teach or learn those things too much. But you can learn your positioning. Girgs is also more versatile, because you can use him as a winger unlike Couturier.

If you think Girgs will sign for 6x4.6 in 2 years, why wouldn't he sign for 6x4 now?

Because he doesn't want to sign a contract where his role is "lesser" than he himself views (at least point production wise). Even if he is viewed as a shutdown 3 C, he might get opportunities to play in top-6 to elevate his point totals.

Bjugstad scored 24 in a role he was drafted to play, Girgs scored 15 in a role he will never ever sniff in buffalo again

It's so far from comparable. You know this.

The point wasn't to compare them as players. The point was to compare them as having only two season's base for production that isn't really high. Girgs production isn't a reason he couldn't or shouldn't be extended long term.

I'd sign 6x3.85 in a heartbeat

Any approach that keeps him under or at 4 for the next 5-6 years is fine by me.

I think bridge to 3-4 year deal does that.

Note: if you sign him for 6 now, you still encounter he "lose him" scenario that you were penalizing my approach for

Yes, you do encounter the "lose him" situation after 6 years... But you 1) get one extra year 2) erase the possibility of him elevating his price if he for some reason ends up playing in top-6 more than planned.

 

[Jame]

Bjugstad and Girgensons are not comparable in roles, in production, or as players. There is nothing comparable. Zilch

 

[Heraldic]

Bjugstad and Girgensons are not comparable in roles, in production, or as players. There is nothing comparable. Zilch

I recommend you to read my posts again and then re-visit your own post saying that players without base production don't get long-term contracts.

The differencies are not fundamental, and I also disagree with your opinion about the necessity of somekind of base offensive production in order to be able to give a long term contract.

 

[Jame]

I recommend you to read my posts again and then re-visit your own post saying that players without base production don't get long-term contracts.

The differencies are not fundamental, and I also disagree with your opinion about the necessity of somekind of base offensive production in order to be able to give a long term contract.

I suggest you comprehend 24 goals a little better

 

[Heraldic]

I suggest you comprehend 24 goals a little better

So you actually are going to keep referring to that red herring there and neglect the actual point there?

And you're actually just reinforcing my stance, which is that it is able to get Girgs under 4 million on a long term deal and you shouldn't prefer bridge (your stance) over that long term deal.

 

[Jame]

So you actually are going to keep referring to that red herring there and neglect the actual point there?

Yes, 24 goals is a completely different base.

 

[Heraldic]

Yes, 24 goals is a completely different base.

Were we comparing Bjugstad and Girgs as a goalscorer? Or were we scoping the price of a contract you could get Girgs under with 6 year term?

The more you show that Bjugstad deserves more than Girgs, the more you actually show reasons to try to get him under long term deal rather than a bridge deal.

 

[Jame]

Were we comparing Bjugstad and Girgs as a goalscorer? Or were we scoping the price of a contract you could get Girgs under with 6 year term?

The more you show that Bjugstad deserves more than Girgs, the more you actually show reasons to try to get him under long term deal rather than a bridge deal.

The more you dig, the less sense you make

 

[Jame]

Never mind, done