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

[Heraldic]

To put it in a nutshell...

I was advocating giving Girgs long term contract now because his stats most likely don't look good. By doing that you get the cap hit down and get 6 years with no risk of him elevating his price.

I (and you!) also reasoned why you could get him under that kind of contract with less than 4 million cap hit. And I think you agree that he is not likely getting more than Bjugstad, so if he is willing to sign long term with the price suited for his role, you do that.

You said that a bridge deal would be preffered, because you get some cap room (2 - 2,5) for veteran signings - with the expense of losing one year from the contract. I don't see too much sense in that.

What if after next season Martin Hanzal comes and says that he likes our team and it's depth and is willing to come to play here as a 2-3 C shutdown role with 4 years 4,75 millions? You decline because you have Girgs? No. You put Girgs as a winger and take Hanzal. Then if Girgs plays with ROR and Eichel and pots +50 points? You think you could get him less than 4 million a year after his two year bridge? I doubt really hard...

You had pretty expensive 3 C (but extremely good), but you had Girgs as a winger relatively cheap.

 

[Jame]

To put it in a nutshell...

I was advocating giving Girgs long term contract now because his stats most likely don't look good. By doing that you get the cap hit down and get 6 years with no risk of him elevating his price.

You advocated giving him a contract that you also stated he and his agent wouldn't accept.

I (and you!) also reasoned why you could get him under that kind of contract with less than 4 million cap hit. And I think you agree that he is not likely getting more than Bjugstad, so if he is willing to sign long term with the price suited for his role, you do that.

I see the revisionist history beginning to emerge

You said that a bridge deal would be preffered, because you get some cap room (2 - 2,5) for veteran signings - with the expense of losing one year from the contract. I don't see too much sense in that.

What if after next season Martin Hanzal comes and says that he likes our team and it's depth and is willing to come to play here as a 2-3 C shutdown role with 4 years 4,75 millions? You decline because you have Girgs? No. You put Girgs as a winger and take Hanzal. Then if Girgs plays with ROR and Eichel and pots +50 points? You think you could get him less than 4 million a year after his two year bridge? I doubt really hard...

You had pretty expensive 3 C (but extremely good), but you had Girgs as a winger relatively cheap.

What if Hanzal doesn't come here, and Girgs stays in a 3rd line role. And you are paying 1st line Bjugstad money to a 3rd line 25-30 point center... For 6 years. And then you are not actually able to keep the guys who really do emerge as the 50+ point scorers in the top 6?

As a Girgs homer, it seems you didn't consider this.

I'll go with the bridge. If he puts up Bjugstad numbers because he moves into a top 6 scoring role... Then I'll trade Ennis and shift the cap dollars to Girgs

if he remains in the 3c after my 2 year cheap bridge... I'll re-sign him for significantly less than the Bjugstad/Ennis figures

 

[Heraldic]

You advocated giving him a contract that you also stated he and his agent wouldn't accept.

Yes, my first objective would be getting him under that contract. It might be that he doesn't want to sign that, but it would the first objective. First objective wouldn't be the bridge, and there we differ.

I see the revisionist history beginning to emerge

Care to elaborate?

What if Hanzal doesn't come here, and Girgs stays in a 3rd line role. And you are paying 1st line Bjugstad money to a 3rd line 25-30 point center... For 6 years. And then you are not actually able to keep the guys who really do emerge as the 50+ point scorers in the top 6?

What? Since when is 3,5 - 3,75 1st line money and since when has Bjugstad been a 1st line player?

If Hanzal doesn't come you keep Girgs with his 3,5 - 3,75 cap hit as a shutdown 3 C and the value for that money is right there...

As a Girgs homer, it seems you didn't consider this.

What?

I'll go with the bridge. If he puts up Bjugstad numbers because he moves into a top 6 scoring role... Then I'll trade Ennis and shift the cap dollars to Girgs

In overall ending up paying him more than you would with the long term contract... Meaning the money is taken from somewhere else...

if he remains in the 3c after my 2 year cheap bridge... I'll re-sign him for significantly less than the Bjugstad/Ennis figures

He would have only 2 RFA years left on him, meaning bigger price.

 

[Jame]

Making your argument in to Girgensons signing long term for 3.5 to 3.75, after admitting he wouldn't sign for 4.0 long term is revisionist arguing

I'll sign Girgs for 2 yrs at 2.25-2.75 per, and then I'll sign him for 3-4 years at 3.5-4.0 per.

That's a realistic approach

And I'll save cap dollars every year over the contract it would take to sign him for 6 years now.

You would overpay now, based on the possibility that he'll be in a different and more productive role.

I'll mitigate your low probability risk, with other roster moves down the line if necessary.

 

[sabrebuild]

Making your argument in to Girgensons signing long term for 3.5 to 3.75, after admitting he wouldn't sign for 4.0 long term is revisionist arguing

I'll sign Girgs for 2 yrs at 2.25-2.75 per, and then I'll sign him for 3-4 years at 3.5-4.0 per.

That's a realistic approach

And I'll save cap dollars every year over the contract it would take to sign him for 6 years now.

You would overpay now, based on the possibility that he'll be in a different and more productive role.

I'll mitigate your low probability risk, with other roster moves down the line if necessary.

I think it's fascinating to think girgs will take a sub 4 a year deal in two years. In your two year deal, are we really thinking that Girgs will have not produced, either fancy stats or regular numbers, to garner a bigger deal? Not to mention the likely rise of the cap.

I think its likely that Girgs closes on 40 pts this year, despite the slow start and injury. At this point it is painfully clear that they have a limited amount of forwards who are effective offensively. Girgs has shown he is one of those guys. He should be either centering eichel or on his wing.

Unfortunately bylsma is the only thing stopping this. Let larsson anchor the third line and build two top lines to score.

Damn you bylsma.

 

[Jame]

I think it's fascinating to think girgs will take a sub 4 a year deal in two years. In your two year deal, are we really thinking that Girgs will have not produced, either fancy stats or regular numbers, to garner a bigger deal? Not to mention the likely rise of the cap.

I think its likely that Girgs closes on 40 pts this year, despite the slow start and injury. At this point it is painfully clear that they have a limited amount of forwards who are effective offensively. Girgs has shown he is one of those guys. He should be either centering eichel or on his wing.

Unfortunately bylsma is the only thing stopping this. Let larsson anchor the third line and build two top lines to score.

Damn you bylsma.

I'll think he'll need top 6 minutes and significant PP time to crack 20 and 40. I expect KOR to stay together. It has all the top line elements you could ever hope for, and the chemistry is just beginning.

The Eichel line is a mess, but BylsDuh doesn't seem to have any interest in moving Girgs there.

Given that Bylsma has a dislike for Larsson, I simply don't see Firgs moving off that 3C role anytime soon.

So yes, I could see him playing a low end 2 year bridge, and then Signing for aroubd 4 on the next deal as a RFA 3C with nary a 20 goal or 40+ on his resume.

Which is also why I stated before if a 6 x 4 deal was on the table he should jump at it.

 

[sabrebuild]

I'll think he'll need top 6 minutes and significant PP time to crack 20 and 40. I expect KOR to stay together. It has all the top line elements you could ever hope for, and the chemistry is just beginning.

The Eichel line is a mess, but BylsDuh doesn't seem to have any interest in moving Girgs there.

Given that Bylsma has a dislike for Larsson, I simply don't see Firgs moving off that 3C role anytime soon.

So yes, I could see him playing a low end 2 year bridge, and then Signing for aroubd 4 on the next deal as a RFA 3C with nary a 20 goal or 40+ on his resume.

Which is also why I stated before if a 6 x 4 deal was on the table he should jump at it.

Bylsma ruins everything. Especially if he refuses to put girgs in the top 6.

Edit: realistic countdown for moving on from bylsma is based in years or an ideal candidate showing up? I hope murray is looking for potential coaches already.

 

[Jame]

Bylsma ruins everything. Especially if he refuses to put girgs in the top 6.

Edit: realistic countdown for moving on from bylsma is based in years or an ideal candidate showing up? I hope murray is looking for potential coaches already.

Yea

How bout Jakob Silfverberg
He played a 1 year bridge
And then got 4 at 3.75 per

 

[sabrebuild]

Yea

How bout Jakob Silfverberg
He played a 1 year bridge
And then got 4 at 3.75 per

Under the assumption that girgs is the 3c the rest of the year with subpar wingers. Sure.

 

[ozpensfan]

Absolute bridge deal. In fact I wouldn't be suprised if TM trades him, most GMS want "their" guys and seeing he is from and old regime I think it's likely. Could be used to move up a few spots in this year's draft

 

[Jim Bob]

I think the debate should be about whether the bridge deal should be one year or two and what the max money it should be for.

Girgensons has averaged less than 0.4 pts/gp over his first 155 NHL games played.

I wouldn't want to lock him up for significant amount of money.

 

[Shmuffalo]

Bridge him