Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
The fact that the Flames need another big time, big money player is exactly why you don’t pay Sam Bennett $3.6 million IMO. Your top guys are going to make way more than the average so your third line guys have to come in under. There is no other way to do it.
The Flames have had overpaid bottom of the roster players for quite some time now. I’m really hoping that trend reverses.
|
Yeah, I wasn't pointing to $3.6 as being the ideal contract. I think it very much
could happen, but only if the term is super long and the Flames feel that they can get good value on the back half of a long-term deal if they project Bennett as improving substantially. Look at Barkov's last contract, for instance (although he is much much better) -- they locked in a guy with only one 40+ point season to his name to a bigger deal than maybe some people expected, but him getting $5.9 million now as a 96-point-scoring two-way machine is one of the best contracts around. Bennett will 99.99% likely never reach those heights, but if the Flames look at him maybe being a 55- or 60-point winger with energy in three or four years, maybe it'd be prudent to lock him up at significant term now. It's all gonna be an exercise in measuring the floor against the ceiling. Is paying Bennett over $3 million to score around 30 points and throw hits ideal? Probably not. But will it overwhelmingly break the bank a la James Neal? Certainly not even close to that same extent. And the upside provided by Bennett progressing is very attractive. If he becomes a top-six forward (which I think is entirely possible), then a deal around or above $3 million could quickly look like a bargain.
Either way, I think a short-term contract is a great deal more likely, but it still likely clocks in above $2.5 million, perhaps closer to $3.