Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
I'm just as weary of bridge contracts as a slightly shorter term that brings them at or just past free agent eligibility.
Without using specific numbers, let's say you avoid 6 year deals because they're contract after will cost so much or they'll bolt to another team after this contract - sure that sucks, but bridging isn't some magical thing to prolong paying them a similar 8 year deal in two years.
It could very easily end up being like PK Subban where both players take even bigger steps than they've already taken, two years go by, and now you're looking at two $8.5-$9.5mil AAV players that you can't fit into our cap. All of a sudden, bam, what's been an incredible rebuild turns on it's ass because we didn't want to screw ourselves 6 years down the road.
You've got to think long term, I get that, but the time in between matters as well, and we should be contending in two to three years, what a horrible time to have your two stars likely lighting up the league, but requiring a new contract.
You think this contract hesitation has the fan base in a tizzy, the end of a two year bridge deal for these guys would be this times a million.
|
Obviously a bridge deal isn't ideal. The Subban deal is an example of a team shooting themselves in the foot. But I think it's way overblown the impact it might have if they sign for less term such as 5 or 6. I'd like Monahan and Gaudreau to sign on for 8 years as much as the next guy. But the Flames have never had a contract for longer then 6 years in franchise history. Where was all this talk of UFA bolting when Hamilton signed for 6 years at age 22? Or Brodie for 5 years at age 24? Even the greatest player in franchise history in Iginla never signed for longer then 5. Coming out of the '05 lockout he only signed a 3 year contract. Where was the uproar then?
I get the sense that some people will view Monahan or Gaudreau signing for anything less then 7-8 years as a disappointment. So much can happen in between then.