Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
You proposed this - what do you think is fair? Propose a deal that the Flames and Bennett would both be interested in.
|
Barkov's contract seems a good comparable. Maybe add a year to compensate for the lack of service and adjust for inflation. So 42M over 7 years.
Why for Bennett - If he only has, oh, 49 points next year, he will lose money on a bridge deal long term. He knows he is not getting term unless he breaks the 60pt barrier and even then might need to "prove" it was not a fluke. If he signs a 7M x 2Y bridge which is very likely in that scenario, he will need to make up 35 million over the final 5 years of that span. Even with cap inflation, he has no guarantee he can earn a 7x5 on his third contract.
Why for Flames - First of all the above third contract 7x5 will be a cap killer without actually saving you real dollars over the same span. Bridge is high risk for a high end piece. Second if this year Bennett has 60, 65 pts, afterwards you either have sign him to reduced term (5-6years), a slightly higher cap hit to get term (See Scheifele and then inflate for cap) or an expensive bridge (5.0+M) which will likely be followed by the same third contract.
Just my opinion, but while Gaudreau would have still been expensive after his rookie season, I think he would nonetheless have been cheaper than he will be after his Sophomore season. I imagine the Flames did offer a lowball extension, but beyond that I believe a fair extension would have been cheaper than a fair contract will be now.