Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoFleury
The player might make roughly the same but it is the team that should want to avoid this situation. Had Montreal just signed him for 7/8 years to begin with they could've saved $2-2.5m on the AAV from years 3-8. The fact that they saved $6.2m on the AAV for years one and two mean nothing now because Montreal has nothing to show for it. The Flames are in the same situation (being an aveage team) so signing a bridge is a bad, bordering on terrible, idea. I want the cap savings later when the cup window might actually open. Getting a great 'value' two or three year deal is a gigantic waste of time, it's a classic high risk, low reward move.
|
(assuming a player stay with the team the entire time)...
The team saves in years 1 and 2
The team loses in years 3 - 8
The team saves in years 9 and 10
If the total amount will be roughly the same, then the seasons have to average out as well.
The difference of course, is that the bridge, followed by a bigger contract, means more variance for the team, which sucks.
Getting the longer term deal now means more consistent cap hits, which is obviously easier to manage.