Ristolainen Signed, 6yrs 5.4mil per

[TrueBlueGED]

neither did Tyler Myers.

 

You simply don't give a 20 year old defenseman a 6-8 year deal unlesd he's a top 5 player at his position. Risto still has a ways to go to get there, keep him motivated.

False. Not everyone agreed, but there were absolutely people raising questions about Myers' development trajectory.

[Cereal]

I kinda forgot about Risto's contract... I thought we were all supposing that Risto (or any player without a pro contract) wouldn't risk playing in the World Cup?

 

Are there any other players doing this?  And why risk it?

 

Answered my own question, thanks to BRAWNDO's buffalo news link... Gaudreau and Trouba are among the other contract-less players in the WC:

 

Ristolainen is one of a handful of prominent players with a deal in the tournament. Like Team North America forward Johnny Gaudreau and defenseman Jacob Trouba, they're playing with insurance from the NHL and NHLPA. Ristolainen and agent Mike Liut, the former NHL goalie, are expected to be looking for a deal of 5-6 years. Ristolainen wrapped up his entry-level deal last season at the maximum cap hit of $925,000.

 

So, new question: How does insurance from the NHLPA work?  Any ideas?

[pi2000]

I kinda forgot about Risto's contract... I thought we were all supposing that Risto (or any player without a pro contract) wouldn't risk playing in the World Cup?

 

Are there any other players doing this?  And why risk it?

 

Answered my own question, thanks to BRAWNDO's buffalo news link... Gaudreau and Trouba are among the other contract-less players in the WC:

 

So, new question: How does insurance from the NHLPA work?  Any ideas?

 

You have to assume they're covering not only immediate health needs, but future earning potential should they suffer a career ending injury.    How much of those future earnings they would actually receive in a payout is something that would likely be decided in the courts.    It's not an ideal situation, but certainly a better proposition than not providing any coverage whatsoever.  

 

I'll predict Risto gets 5 years at $5.5m/yr.

[LGR4GM]

You have to assume they're covering not only immediate health needs, but future earning potential should they suffer a career ending injury.    How much of those future earnings they would actually receive in a payout is something that would likely be decided in the courts.    It's not an ideal situation, but certainly a better proposition than not providing any coverage whatsoever.  

 

I'll predict Risto gets 5 years at $5.5m/yr.

That contract would make Murray and idiot. If my math is correct won't Ristolainen be a UFA in another 4 years? That would mean that Murray only buys 1 year of UFA status from Rasmus which is at this point probably a terrible idea. Kid is eating large minutes for the Finnish National Team. Either sign him to a 3 year deal or to a 8 year deal, whichever is more comfortable. I think that 5.5mil is a good starting number though and I could see anything from 5.25-6mil average.

[pi2000]

That contract would make Murray and idiot. If my math is correct won't Ristolainen be a UFA in another 4 years? That would mean that Murray only buys 1 year of UFA status from Rasmus which is at this point probably a terrible idea. Kid is eating large minutes for the Finnish National Team. Either sign him to a 3 year deal or to a 8 year deal, whichever is more comfortable. I think that 5.5mil is a good starting number though and I could see anything from 5.25-6mil average.

 

Disagree.   An 8 year deal for a 21 year old defensemen who is a career -68 in 3 NHL seasons could turn out to be a huge mistake.    Sure he's eating big minutes on Team Finland, but there are still areas of his game he needs to improve.    Giving him a 6-8 year deal and you put yourself at risk should he regress due to a comfortable contract.    

 

5-years seems fair, 3 would be even better IMO, but Bogo's $5mil doesn't come off the books for 4 more years, and you'll have guys like Eichel and Reinhart with new deals in 2 years...   the money simply might not be there in 3-4 years... 5 years, definitely.   

[LGR4GM]

Disagree.   An 8 year deal for a 21 year old defensemen who is a career -68 in 3 NHL seasons could turn out to be a huge mistake.    Sure he's eating big minutes on Team Finland, but there are still areas of his game he needs to improve.    Giving him a 6-8 year deal and you put yourself at risk should he regress due to a comfortable contract.    

 

5-years seems fair, 3 would be even better IMO, but Bogo's $5mil doesn't come off the books for 4 more years, and you'll have guys like Eichel and Reinhart with new deals in 2 years...   the money simply might not be there in 3-4 years... 5 years, definitely.   

Again,  you don't give a guy who will be a UFA after year 4, a 5 year contract. That means instead of buying any of his UFA years, you bought 1 of them, that's it. That contract length is terrible. either you keep it short so you control the cost again when he becomes an RFA (3 years) or you believe he is the guy and you sign him for 7 or 8. 

 

+/- is a metric of how good a team is. Good teams have most of their players in the positive on +/-

 

The money won't be there in 2-3 years but you are giving him a 3 year deal and expect to re-sign in 3 years with the money that won't be there... I am confused. Or the money is only there if you give him a 5 year deal? Either they can afford a 5.5mil cap it in 3 years or they can't. Extending that to year 8 doesn't matter. You know who comes off the books in 3 years if not sooner, Matt Moulson and his 5million. Tyler Ennis and his 4.6million. Josh Gorges and his 3.9 million come off in 2 years. I might agree a 3 year deal makes sense because it protects the Sabres but a 5 year deal still makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

 

5 years means GMTM is an idiot who doesn't think ahead.

Edited September 19, 2016 by LGR4GM

[pi2000]

Again,  you don't give a guy who will be a UFA after year 4, a 5 year contract. That means instead of buying any of his UFA years, you bought 1 of them, that's it. That contract length is terrible. either you keep it short so you control the cost again when he becomes an RFA (3 years) or you believe he is the guy and you sign him for 7 or 8. 

 

+/- is a metric of how good a team is. Good teams have most of their players in the positive on +/-

 

The money won't be there in 2-3 years but you are giving him a 3 year deal and expect to re-sign in 3 years with the money that won't be there... I am confused. 

 

5 years means GMTM is an idiot who doesn't think ahead.

 

Let's compare Risto's first 3 season to Tyler Myers:

 

Risto:   194gp 19g 46a 65pts -68

Myers: 217gp 29g 69a 98pts +18

 

That's a +/- differential of 86 goals....Myers got a 7-year deal and got run out of town.    You want to give Risto 8-years?   What makes you think Risto is any different than Myers?   If anything, he's shown much less his first 3 years than Myers did, and you're willing to bet the farm on him?  

 

So you give him an 8-year deal, and he regresses, what do you do?   You're stuck with an untradeable contract.    He's taking money away from guys like Eichel, Reinhart, Nylander, McCabe, maybe even guys like Lehner and O'Reilly.    It could be a franchise alerting mistake unless you are 1000% sure that he'll be a top-10 defenseman in the league for years to come.   And at 21 with < 200 NHL games played, you don't know the answer to that question unless he's Bobby Orr.   

Edited September 19, 2016 by pi2000

[LGR4GM]

I think it would be beneficial to talk about his contract length in a more structured way based off of the ideas of a 3yr, 5 yr, and 8yr deal

 

3 year contract:

Under this contract Rasmus is locked up for the short term. He probably would require a little more money up front to agree to this deal but it gives everyone an opportunity to prove things. Rasmus can prove he won't regress like Myers, the Sabres can see if Rasmus has the hard work and fire to continue to improve without a cushy contract. It allows the Sabres to have a cost controlled asset in 3 years who should still be an RFA. The downside is that if Rasmus becomes a constant 35-45pt producer and all around #1 defender, in 3 years he will command a lot more money. He could command upwards of 8million depending on the cap if not more. That is very dangerous and something to consider. So in this case, you would want to have Rasmus prove he can improve his game and be the #1 guy and you give him 3 years to do it or you can simply get out.

 

5 year contract:

Under this contract Rasmus is locked up medium term. He won't require a ton of extra cash because the deal is short or long. He gives him time to prove that he is a legit #1 defender or if he regresses you can trade this shorter deal. However if he continues to be a 35-45 point producer and becomes a solid #1 defender, in 5 years he would hit UFA. This could result in a bidding war with you and everyone else. What if because of this you lose the asset for nothing? 

 

8 year contract: 

Under this contract Rasmus is locked up long term. You are basically saying he is the guy. You are going to pay him but the cap hit might be slightly better than under a shorter deal. There is no "prove it" period, he is either the #1 guy or he is not. If he continues to produce at a 35-45pt pace then you probably have a good deal. Under this contract you buy several years of his UFA status giving you his services for longer. If he regresses and is not a #1 you could be stuck with an asset this is difficult to trade and 5-6million in cap taken away by a player that isn't giving you that level of play. Myers syndrome is a concern, does the long term deal make it easier for Rasmus to be less motivated for improvement. 

 

Each contract comes with risks and rewards. The length that comes with the most issues IMPO is 5 years. You are setting yourself up for issues. Even if Rasmus is only okay through the length of the deal, because of contract and cap inflation he will be worth more in 5 years than he is now. Also you don't want an asset like Rasmus to hit UFA, you just don't. Either you sign him to a 3yr prove it deal or an 8yr not worried about it deal.

[LGR4GM]

Let's compare Risto's first 3 season to Tyler Myers:

 

Risto:   194gp 19g 46a 65pts -68

Myers: 217gp 29g 69a 98pts +18

 

That's a +/- differential of 86 goals....Myers got a 7-year deal and got run out of town.    You want to give Risto 8-years?   What makes you think Risto is any different than Myers?   If anything, he's shown much less his first 3 years than Myers did, and you're willing to bet the farm on him?  

 

So you give him an 8-year deal, and he regresses, what do you do?   You're stuck with an untradeable contract.    He's taking money away from guys like Eichel, Reinhart, Nylander, McCabe, maybe even guys like Lehner and O'Reilly.    It could be a franchise alerting mistake unless you are 1000% sure that he'll be a top-10 defenseman in the league for years to come.   And at 21 with < 200 NHL games played, you don't know the answer to that question unless he's Bobby Orr.   

They aren't the same players. Myers is an offensive defender with clear mental gaps in his game. Also other teams learned to play pucks at his feet because he is terrible at getting the puck in his feet. Myers also had the benefit of playing on better Sabres teams than Risto has ever seen (until this season). Again, +/- doesn't mean a lot but we can work with it. Myers, clearly does not process the game at a high speed which leads to some of his issues. Myers mean streak is unpredictable and he often takes bad penalties because he doesn't know when to be a force and when not to.

 

Tyler Myers has never been as good as his rookie year. That +18 stat you tossed out is fun, considering he was a +13 in his rookie year which if you want to use +/- is a number he has yet to ever come close to again. In his 3 years before being traded away from Buffalo, his +/- was a -49 which again, team stat. Tyler Myers scored 48points once as a rookie, he declined in ever season after that.

 

Rasmus Ristolainen had a mediocre rookie campaign in his first 34 game season he was a -15 and only scored 4 points, it was also his first year on NA ice. Risto in his first full season (78games) managed to jump up to 20points but also saw his +/- climb to a -32 which is not good. However, if you extrapolate his rookie +/- out over 78 games, than you get a -34.4 which means he technically improved a touch although an improvement of 2.4 is not statistically significant here. His -0.41 per games average drops to a -0.256 average between year 2 and year 3. His point total goes from 20 to 41 points from year 2 to year 3.  

 

All in all I see very few parallels with Myers. I think Rasmus has been overwhelmed at times but I don't see the same mental mistakes. Also Myers steadily regressed back to a mean level where as Rasmus has managed to improve each year.  Rasmus also has a mean streak that is appreciative and I personally think a better understanding of the defensive side of the game. While I do understand anyone who is concerned with Rasmus pulling a Myers and regressing after a long term deal, I personally have less fears. If you have faith in Ristolainen sign him to an 8yr deal, if you want him to prove himself sign him to a 3 year deal. Anything in between seems silly to me for reasons I have expressed. 

 

ps. I don't think an 8yr contract that will no doubt include a large signing bonus is un-tradeable in year 5-8. Some team somewhere will need to reach the floor. 

 

pss. Rasmus has played 194 games so while less than 200, I don't think that <200 games stat means much. Either you think he is good and you take the 8 year deal or you want to see more and give him the 3 year. Either one is fine with me. 5 years though, makes absolutely no sense. 

Edited September 19, 2016 by LGR4GM

[Randall Flagg]

One of those players was a rookie on a division winning team. The other was a rookie on a roster intentionally manipulated to be as bad as possible. Comparing their points and plus minus, of all things, tells me nothing.

[MattPie]

And in the end, Buffalo wasn't saddled with Myers until the end of his "optimistic" contract. Residents of the Bogo Bunker and Conference Center may argue they just exchanged bad contracts (and maybe that's even true), but it's not like an 8yr $6M contract is necessarily going to hamstring the team forever.

[Samson's Flow]

I for one want this deal done yesterday. Every game I watch him eat minutes as the #1 D for the Finland team makes me think he has the right stuff for a long term 7-8 year deal. Let's commit to the young players and hope for bargains in 2-3 years when they hit their stride. 

[TrueBlueGED]

Let's compare Risto's first 3 season to Tyler Myers:

 

Risto:   194gp 19g 46a 65pts -68

Myers: 217gp 29g 69a 98pts +18

 

That's a +/- differential of 86 goals....Myers got a 7-year deal and got run out of town.    You want to give Risto 8-years?   What makes you think Risto is any different than Myers?   If anything, he's shown much less his first 3 years than Myers did, and you're willing to bet the farm on him?  

 

So you give him an 8-year deal, and he regresses, what do you do?   You're stuck with an untradeable contract.    He's taking money away from guys like Eichel, Reinhart, Nylander, McCabe, maybe even guys like Lehner and O'Reilly.    It could be a franchise alerting mistake unless you are 1000% sure that he'll be a top-10 defenseman in the league for years to come.   And at 21 with < 200 NHL games played, you don't know the answer to that question unless he's Bobby Orr.   

 

Well, this is a poorly constructed argument. For starters, O'Reilly is locked in for 7 years...are we really worried what 1 year, 8 years into the future, could mean for then-33 O'Reilly? That aside, Risto wouldn't be taking money away at all, unless you believe we'd lose one of those players because we're paying Risto. Even if Risto's contract hit the worst case scenario, it's still not costing us our best players--it'd be our depth that would take a hit. That's not something to ignore, but throwing out names like Eichel and Reinhart when we're talking about probably a ~$2 million marginal difference in contract is pretty weak. 

 

What is Risto worth right now on a 3 year bridge? $3.5 million (which is under market value due to RFA)? Long term, ~$5.5-6 million? That $2-2.5 million difference means nothing for the next two seasons So let's say a bridge saves us $6 million total over the next three years relative to a long-term deal. If he regresses and he's only worth say $4 million (considering inflation) at the end of it, great, we're not locked in long term for $5.5 million. So he signs a 5-year, $20 million contract. Over the course of that plus the bridge, we've saved a total of $12 million for an average of $1.7M per year. But...now bear with me, as I know such optimism is against your nature...what if he gets better? What if in 3 years he's more like a $7 million player? Coming off a bridge, we'd be responsible for the full market value, costing over the next 4 years $6 million over signing him to $5.5m x8 right now, effectively wiping out all savings during the bridge years. A bridge deal saves more now at the possible expense of paying more later, while a long term deal costs more now at the potential benefit of saving more later.

 

The dollars over the life of the contract work out about the same, but not all dollars are equal--when we spend those dollars is important. A $1.5 million annual savings three years from now is much more valuable than an annual savings of the exact same amount right now, because our young stars are still on their ELCs. The back half of the contract is when Eichel, Reinhart, et al. are going to be due big raises and that's when we should want to be getting Risto below market value. Yes, there's risk with a long-term deal in that we're overpaying if he regresses...but what you seem to ignore is that there's also risk to a bridge deal if he progresses. It really comes down to whether you think he's more likely to regress or progress, because the overall value of the money over the next 8 years is going to be about equal under an average outcome. The worst case scenario hurts more if you go long term, but the best case scenario is even better with a long-term deal. Vice-versa for going bridge: the worst case outcome is mitigated, but the best case outcome (Risto becomes a legit #1) is considerably more costly.

 

So I ask again, do you think he is more likely to progress or regress? Answer that, and you have your answer, as the rest is just noise.

[pi2000]

They aren't the same players. Myers is an offensive defender with clear mental gaps in his game. Also other teams learned to play pucks at his feet because he is terrible at getting the puck in his feet. Myers also had the benefit of playing on better Sabres teams than Risto has ever seen (until this season). Again, +/- doesn't mean a lot but we can work with it. Myers, clearly does not process the game at a high speed which leads to some of his issues. Myers mean streak is unpredictable and he often takes bad penalties because he doesn't know when to be a force and when not to.

 

Tyler Myers has never been as good as his rookie year. That +18 stat you tossed out is fun, considering he was a +13 in his rookie year which if you want to use +/- is a number he has yet to ever come close to again. In his 3 years before being traded away from Buffalo, his +/- was a -49 which again, team stat. Tyler Myers scored 48points once as a rookie, he declined in ever season after that.

 

Rasmus Ristolainen had a mediocre rookie campaign in his first 34 game season he was a -15 and only scored 4 points, it was also his first year on NA ice. Risto in his first full season (78games) managed to jump up to 20points but also saw his +/- climb to a -32 which is not good. However, if you extrapolate his rookie +/- out over 78 games, than you get a -34.4 which means he technically improved a touch although an improvement of 2.4 is not statistically significant here. His -0.41 per games average drops to a -0.256 average between year 2 and year 3. His point total goes from 20 to 41 points from year 2 to year 3.  

 

All in all I see very few parallels with Myers. I think Rasmus has been overwhelmed at times but I don't see the same mental mistakes. Also Myers steadily regressed back to a mean level where as Rasmus has managed to improve each year.  Rasmus also has a mean streak that is appreciative and I personally think a better understanding of the defensive side of the game. While I do understand anyone who is concerned with Rasmus pulling a Myers and regressing after a long term deal, I personally have less fears. If you have faith in Ristolainen sign him to an 8yr deal, if you want him to prove himself sign him to a 3 year deal. Anything in between seems silly to me for reasons I have expressed. 

 

ps. I don't think an 8yr contract that will no doubt include a large signing bonus is un-tradeable in year 5-8. Some team somewhere will need to reach the floor.

 

pss. Rasmus has played 194 games so while less than 200, I don't think that <200 games stat means much. Either you think he is good and you take the 8 year deal or you want to see more and give him the 3 year. Either one is fine with me. 5 years though, makes absolutely no sense. 

 

First, just because you sign him to a 5-year deal doesn't mean he will undoubtedly hit free agency.    If he continues his upward projection in years 1 to 3 and 4 of the 5-year contract, then you have more than enough time to start negotiating an extension.    If he regresses in years 1-3, you're not locked in for 5 more years, you can either sign him for market value after year 5, or move him if some other team makes an acceptable offer.

 

To your points (in bold)....

 

Myers scored 37 points his second year, only 4 points fewer than Risto's 3rd year, and 10 points better than his second year.    Risto's hasn't yet reached Myers rookie mark of 48 points in a season.    Myers also won the Calder, I don't think anybody saw his decline coming.    

 

What is it about Risto's character that make you less concerned about him if he's granted life-long financial security at the age 21?

 

I agree you can likely trade that deal to some team that needs to hit the floor.    There's also the concern about how a long term deal will affect his mindset.  I wonder what Myers could've become if he wasn't given that large deal at a young age.    I'm a strong believer in dangling that carrot in front of these guys at a young age until they reach their full potential.    You see it happen in every sport, young guy comes in lights the world on fire or everybody tells him how great he's gonna be.   He gains financial security at a young age and suddenly stops developing and everybody wonders what's wrong with him.    

So I ask again, do you think he is more likely to progress or regress? Answer that, and you have your answer, as the rest is just noise.

 

If you give him an 8-year deal you increase the chance that he regresses (comfy cozy financial security for life, additional burden as presumed future franchise defenseman).  

 

IMO if you offer only a 3-year bridge, it will likely rub him the wrong way and would be a bad message to the rest of the league on how Buffalo treats their star prospects.    

 

A 5 year deal is a nice compromise.   You buy 1 year of UFA status, you keep him motivated for his next deal, and you don't put the burden of "future all-star defenseman" on his shoulders.

 

All money aside, if Risto continues to work like he has, the sky is the limit for him, I truly believe that.   But saddling him with a monster contract could backfire in a big way, not just for his development, but for the Sabres as a franchise.

Edited September 19, 2016 by pi2000

[LGR4GM]

First, just because you sign him to a 5-year deal doesn't mean he will undoubtedly hit free agency.    If he continues his upward projection in years 1 to 3 and 4 of the 5-year contract, then you have more than enough time to start negotiating an extension.    If he regresses in years 1-3, you're not locked in for 5 more years, you can either sign him for market value after year 5, or move him if some other team makes an acceptable offer.

 

To your points (in bold)....

 

Myers scored 37 points his second year, only 4 points fewer than Risto's 3rd year, and 10 points better than his second year.    Risto's hasn't yet reached Myers rookie mark of 48 points in a season.    Myers also won the Calder, I don't think anybody saw his decline coming.    

 

What is it about Risto's character that make you less concerned about him if he's granted life-long financial security at the age 21?

 

You are missing the point. Right here right now Tim Murray holds the cards. Ristolainen is a protected asset. If you sign him to a 5 year deal, much like your favorite player Vesey, the player will be set to become a UFA which means even if he never reaches UFA status, you have fundamentally changed the negotiations for that next contract. GMTM "Well Rasmus you are going into the last year of your deal and i want to sign you to X." Rasmus "Well idk, in a year I can do whatever I want with any team, I feel you can up your offer because I am worth more on the market." Right there the fundamentals have changed because sign him or not he has leverage that he does not have today. I am baffled by how you do not understand the fact that a 5 year contract is the worst possible deal unless Ristolainen completely sucks over the course of the deal.

 

By inflation alone he should be worth more at 27 then he is at 22 let alone if he solidifies his top 10 potential.  And yet you have repeatedly championed the idea we should sign him to a deal that not only could result in us overpaying to keep Rasmus but also could result in him walking away for nothing. A 5 year deal makes absolutely no sense. In 5 years Risto has leverage, in 3 years he doesn't and in 8 years well, thats the max. I can't explain this any other way. Your idea gives Ristolainen and his agents leverage, a lot of leverage unless Risto is hot garbage for the next 5 years which seems highly unlikely. 

 

Now to the rest. Myers played his rookie year 8 years ago in a time when in 2008/2009, 17 players had 80 or more points in a season compared to 2015/16 where 5 players did. League scoring is down. Everyone on this board can agree that the first 3 years of Myers career were played on better Sabre teams than anything Risto had until last season. Myers played all of his prior seasons on NA ice. Risto came from Europe and had to adjust. Risto played for 2 Sabres teams that were historically bad, Myers never did. 

 

Lets talk scoring because saying well Myers scored only 4points less than Rasmus in his second season is not putting in context what happened with either player. Myers scored 23% less in his Sophomore season. Rasmus saw a 105% increase in his production. So yes, Myers scored just 4 fewer points than Rasmus but Rasmus increased his scoring significantly. Just something to consider. 

 

Myers did win the calder. After his 2nd year people talked about the sophomore slump, then after his 3rd year, eyebrows went up, year 4 alarms started to sound, 5 years panic set in. He steadily trended down as the Sabres sank. Ristolainen on the other hand started mediocre, become serviceable and then did it all last season. That is a steady increase, could he regress? Absolutely which is why I have repeatedly said "I am fine with a 3yr deal". I understand the hesitation.

 

It isn't about Risto's character or Myers character. They are both dedicated hockey players. I don't see the same mental lapses in Risto that Myers was prone to time and time and time again. You either believe Ristolainen is the guy and you sign him to 8 years or you want to see more and sign him to 3years. You do not sign him to 5 years, under any circumstances we have today.

Edited September 19, 2016 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

If you give him an 8-year deal you increase the chance that he regresses (comfy cozy financial security for life, additional burden as presumed future franchise defenseman).  

 

IMO if you offer only a 3-year bridge, it will likely rub him the wrong way and would be a bad message to the rest of the league on how Buffalo treats their star prospects.    

 

A 5 year deal is a nice compromise.   You buy 1 year of UFA status, you keep him motivated for his next deal, and you don't put the burden of "future all-star defenseman" on his shoulders.

 

All money aside, if Risto continues to work like he has, the sky is the limit for him, I truly believe that.   But saddling him with a monster contract could backfire in a big way, not just for his development, but for the Sabres as a franchise.

I am not sure I have ever disagreed so completely with a hockey idea on this board. A 5yr deal is the absolute worst outcome for us. If Rasmus can't handle the pressure of being a #1 or he can't handle getting just a bridge deal, then he clearly isn't cut out to be a star NHL defender. Considering he has ice in his veins and clearly has a ridiculous competitive level, I am less concerned than you on the subject. 

 

Picture this scenario. You get your wish and we sign Ristolainen to 5years 5.5million. We go along and over the next 5 years we get a couple of shots at the cup but say we miss out. Risto improves and is considered a top 10 defender in the NHL, no question. Now year 5 ends and you have all these players tied up and under contract as you try to push your team over that final edge, Rasmus needs a new deal and he goes I want 8 years, 10mil or I walk, what do you do? You signed him to only a 5 year deal so he can do that, he's clearly desirable, he can easily get that on the open market, what do you do? If you had signed him to 3years, he has no leverage because RFA, you signed him to 8 years, he is 30 and you should have won the cup in that span anyways. 5 years, worst contract length I can imagine for Risto outside of 4 years.

 

Also which is it? You sign him to a 8 year deal and he gets cozy and does nothing or he freaks out and cracks because franchise defender? Why can't he just be happy and decide to continue to work hard and continue to earn his deal. 

Edited September 19, 2016 by LGR4GM

[Eleven]

Again, there is no reason not to take the very slight gamble that he'll turn into something other than what he looks like.

[pi2000]

I am not sure I have ever disagreed so completely with a hockey idea on this board. A 5yr deal is the absolute worst outcome for us. If Rasmus can't handle the pressure of being a #1 or he can't handle getting just a bridge deal, then he clearly isn't cut out to be a star NHL defender. Considering he has ice in his veins and clearly has a ridiculous competitive level, I am less concerned than you on the subject. 

 

Picture this scenario. You get your wish and we sign Ristolainen to 5years 5.5million. We go along and over the next 5 years we get a couple of shots at the cup but say we miss out. Risto improves and is considered a top 10 defender in the NHL, no question. Now year 5 ends and you have all these players tied up and under contract as you try to push your team over that final edge, Rasmus needs a new deal and he goes I want 8 years, 10mil or I walk, what do you do? You signed him to only a 5 year deal so he can do that, he's clearly desirable, he can easily get that on the open market, what do you do? If you had signed him to 3years, he has no leverage because RFA, you signed him to 8 years, he is 30 and you should have won the cup in that span anyways. 5 years, worst contract length I can imagine for Risto outside of 4 years.

 

Also which is it? You sign him to a 8 year deal and he gets cozy and does nothing or he freaks out and cracks because franchise defender? Why can't he just be happy and decide to continue to work hard and continue to earn his deal. 

 

You lost me at "year 5 ends and you have all these players tied up..... Rasumus needs a new deal".   If he's all that and a bag of chips, you don't let it get that point (unless you're Darcy).   You either re-sign him to extension after year 4, try to sign him throughout year 5, or move him at the deadline for a nice return.    There is ZERO chance GMTM would let it get to the point where he walks away for nothing.

 

That said, let's say you offer a 3 year bridge.  Rasmus is like "WTF Tim? Don't you believe in me?".    3 years go by, he gets moderately better then tells his agent he doesn't want to play in Buffalo for fear of another low-ball RFA deal.   I don't see Rasmus accepting a 3 year bridge deal in any scenario. 

 

Also, the scenario about comfy cozy financial security and too much pressure are not mutually exclusive.    He'll feel pressure to perform, to live up to expectations, feel like he has to do too much on the ice, but at the same time when he should be training in the offseason he might just decide he'd rather spend time enjoying his money.    

 

When you were 21, what decisions would you have made knowing you had financial security for life, with nearly $50mil coming your way over the next 8 years or so... GUARANTEED, no matter what you did with your life.     But who knows, maybe he really is a hard-working type of person who doesn't value money... but are you willing to bet $50mil on it, when you could wager half that amount to find out?

Edited September 19, 2016 by pi2000

[Eleven]

You lost me at "year 5 ends and you have all these players tied up..... Rasumus needs a new deal".   If he's all that and a bag of chips, you don't let it get that point (unless you're Darcy).   You either re-sign him to extension after year 4, try to sign him throughout year 5, or move him at the deadline for a nice return.    There is ZERO chance GMTM would let it get to the point where he walks away for nothing.

 

That said, let's say you offer a 3 year bridge.  Rasmus is like "WTF Tim? Don't you believe in me?".    3 years go by, he gets moderately better then tells his agent he doesn't want to play in Buffalo for fear of another low-ball RFA deal.   I don't see Rasmus accepting a 3 year bridge deal in any scenario. 

 

Also, the scenario about comfy cozy financial security and too much pressure are not mutually exclusive.    He'll feel pressure to perform, to live up to expectations, feel like he has to do too much on the ice, but at the same time when he should be training in the offseason he might just decide he'd rather spend time enjoying his money.    

 

When you were 21, what decisions would you have made knowing you had financial security for life, with nearly $50mil coming your way over the next 8 years or so... GUARANTEED, no matter what you did with your life.     But who knows, maybe he really is a hard-working type of person who doesn't value money... but are you willing to bet $50mil on it, when you could wager half that amount to find out?

 

There's a problem with a bridge deal, too.  Let's say he wants more dollars for shorter term (that's normal).  So they sign him at 3 x 6 or 6.5.  And he absolutely kills it.  He's the best defenseman in the league.  He's going to want a raise for the next deal!  But they've got Eichel and Reinhart coming up then, too.

 

Sign him now to 8 x 5.5 or 8 x 6.

 

If he doesn't pan out, there's always Phoenix.

[LGR4GM]

You lost me at "year 5 ends and you have all these players tied up..... Rasumus needs a new deal".   If he's all that and a bag of chips, you don't let it get that point (unless you're Darcy).   You either re-sign him to extension after year 4, try to sign him throughout year 5, or move him at the deadline for a nice return.    There is ZERO chance GMTM would let it get to the point where he walks away for nothing.

 

That said, let's say you offer a 3 year bridge.  Rasmus is like "WTF Tim? Don't you believe in me?".    3 years go by, he gets moderately better then tells his agent he doesn't want to play in Buffalo for fear of another low-ball RFA deal.   I don't see Rasmus accepting a 3 year bridge deal in any scenario. 

 

Also, the scenario about comfy cozy financial security and too much pressure are not mutually exclusive.    He'll feel pressure to perform, to live up to expectations, feel like he has to do too much on the ice, but at the same time when he should be training in the offseason he might just decide he'd rather spend time enjoying his money.    

 

When you were 21, what decisions would you have made knowing you had financial security for life, with nearly $50mil coming your way over the next 8 years or so... GUARANTEED, no matter what you did with your life.     But who knows, maybe he really is a hard-working type of person who doesn't value money... but are you willing to bet $50mil on it, when you could wager half that amount to find out?

Sure if he is good and won't sign you can move him. I would bet money you won't get equal value if he is indeed good. Jack and Sam won't be young forever. Also in 3 years if he is all pissy about the bridge deal guess what? You still control his rights. That's right kids you own him. Also even if he is annoyed about it, if he is good you can be like, hey you proved yourself here is the money and the term, 7mil X8 years wooo! 3years or 8, either crap or get off the pot.

 

When I was 21 if someone gave me that opportunity I would have done everything within my ability to prove them right for believing in me. 

 

What makes a 5 year deal good? I have yet to hear any real reason it makes any sense. 

 

To the bolded, half of that would imply a 4 year deal which would be the absolute worst thing Murray and company could do. You are clearly someone who is motivated by money or been hurt somehow but someone who is. Some professionals see getting more cash with earning more responsibility. Myers didn't slack off, he just isn't that good. Risto won't slack off either. Again 3 years or 8 or you can present some kind of argument for why you think 5 should be the case.

[pi2000]

There's a problem with a bridge deal, too.  Let's say he wants more dollars for shorter term (that's normal).  So they sign him at 3 x 6 or 6.5.  And he absolutely kills it.  He's the best defenseman in the league.  He's going to want a raise for the next deal!  But they've got Eichel and Reinhart coming up then, too.

 

Sign him now to 8 x 5.5 or 8 x 6.

 

If he doesn't pan out, there's always Phoenix.

 

Eichel and Reinhart have 2 years remaining.... Bogo is on the books at $5mil for 4 more years.   Moulson and Ennis both around $5mil for 3 more years.   

 

UFAs coming off the books in 3 years or less... Kane (5.2),  Gionta (4.2),  Kulikov (4.3),  Gorges (3.9), Franson (3.3).    Some of those guys will be resigned, others won't, but they're all be replaced by another contract in some way shape or form.    

 

I'd go 4-years for Risto, but that doesn't buy any UFA years.   5-years seems like the sweet-spot, gives BUF time to evaluate his progress, keeps him motivated, gives them a likely solid piece moving forward they don't need to worry about resigning while taking care of guys like Eichel, Reinhart, Lehner, McCabe, Nylander when his ELC expires within 5 years, etc..   Also gives Risto some financial security, but not too much pressure of being the future franchise defenseman as BUF will have flexibility to be active on the free agent market... and when that deal is up, or after year 4 if Risto has taken his game to the next level he can get paid accordingly, if he sputters out, then move him or let him walk, but atleast you're not on the hook for another 3-4 years hoping to send the contract to Vegas or wherever.    

 

Again, it's not just numbers and wether or not it makes sense from a salary cap persepective, it's how an 8-year deal will affect his development vs a shorter deal that gives him plenty of motivation to continue developing his game.     He's 21, not even he probably knows how he would react to a $50mil guaranteed payday.     Money does strange things to people, let's not take the chance of ruining this young man's career.

Edited September 19, 2016 by pi2000

[Eleven]

There's no convincing you, is there?  There is no downside to the big deal now.  None. Only upside.

[pi2000]

There's no convincing you, is there?  There is no downside to the big deal now.  None. Only upside.

 

Disagree.   If he regresses you're stuck with his contract for at least 6-7 years.     No team is willing to take on that contract in years 1-5.   You better be damn sure he's the real deal and not another Tyler Myers.

[Eleven]

Disagree.   If he regresses you're stuck with his contract for at least 6-7 years.     No team is willing to take on that contract in years 1-5.   You better be damn sure he's the real deal and not another Tyler Myers.

 

Again, there's always Phoenix.  And Columbus, for that matter.

 

, even Myers got us Kane.

[pi2000]

Again, there's always Phoenix.  And Columbus, for that matter.

 

######, even Myers got us Kane.

 

So why not give every RFA on the team 8 year deals?    No downside because you can just trade them right?    Lock them up before they blossom?