Death of the Bridge Contract and How it Affects Flames

[CliffFletcher]

In an article in the Globe and Mail, James Mirtle calls the end of the bridge contract in the NHL.

Ten years into a salary cap world, GMs unhappy with the quality of UFAs available have finally begun to view offer sheets as a useful tool to pry players away from their teams.

And it’s working...

What the cap has forced GMs to do is find as much value for their $71-million and change as they can. That means eliminating overpays, which means eliminating legacy contracts for veterans who are paid for their name more than their production.

It also means targeting players entering their prime rather than those leaving it.

The NHL is becoming much more advanced analytically speaking, with at least a dozen teams now employing a full-time staffer charged with crunching numbers. Again and again, these analysts have shown that peak performance in the NHL is between age 22 and 27, earlier than many in the game previously believed.

So unlike in the past, when a lot of 22-26 year old players were underpaid (and teams counted on underpaying them to fit under the cap), they're going to be paid much more of the team's payroll. And conversely, that means less money will be available to sign or keep veterans. It's not going to be uncommon in the future to see 33 year olds paid less then they were at 25.

I see this affecting the Flames in two ways:

Gaudreau, Monahan, and Bennet are going to get paid big in their next contracts. Teams will be sniffing around with offer sheets when they reach RFA status, and the Flames will need to pay to keep the wolves away.

Negotations with Gio are going to be very tough. NHL GMs are no longer going to pay players for what they've done in the past, and they've become extremely wary of anchor contracts for 30-something players.

[Vinny01]

I feel signing Hamilton to the big deal (something we had to do) was going to dictate how the Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett contracts get dealt with.

I have no problem going 8 years at big money for all 3 forwards. If Monahan and Gaudreau are still 2/3 of one of the best lines in hockey they deserve to get paid.

[Ozy_Flame]

Would rather pay a player top money in his mid-twenties, rather than mid-thirties. I see this a good thing for matching skill to pay scale. However, the death of the bridge contract will force teams to really identify their core early, and fill with spare veteran parts as peripheral talent.

The only risk is that we are committing big money up front to guys who haven't yet had the consistency to prove their talent can be relied upon.


I see goalies fitting into a different scenario though. They don't usually get really good until their late 20's, unless their elite right out of the gate.

[GreenLantern]

Watching Chicago it appears that they have the model figured out, as Ozy said, identify the core at a young age.. lock them up long term and rotate pieces around them till you find the right fit. As those supplementary players grow, you trade them out and replace them with players from your system or bargain UFA's who want to play for a winning team.

In this model guys like Bouwma are pretty valuable because they can play up and down the roster in all situations and they come at a reasonable price tag. They aren't your game breakers but they are just as essential to help keep the check book and the roster balanced. But you also need your top guys to be elite, you can't be over paying (like ROR for 7.5) because it is like building a house on a crappy foundation.

I think BT is on track to set the Flames up this way, Monahan and Gaudreau will deserve to get paid once they are set to hit RFA and I have no problem locking them up as long as possible.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The only risk is that we are committing big money up front to guys who haven't yet had the consistency to prove their talent can be relied upon.

For the prudent managers, this will mean shorter term contracts and more reliance on new ELC cntributors in the lineup.

Worried about Gaudreau being able to put up points now through his 28 year old year? Sign him to a 3 year deal for a higher cap hit and replace a bottom 6 forward veteran with a bottom 6 forward ELC.

Less resources just means you have to be more efficient; more efficient with both your dollars and with your draft picks.

You're going to need to do a Glencross/Baertschi/Ramo trade yearly, hopefully a couple per year, even as a contender.

This season it looks like it will be Jones on the block and hopefully Giordano as well.

[cofias]

I think this is a good thing and will work out well for the Flames. I am much more comfortable identifying core players early and giving them a good value deal early on for 5-8 years rather than wait until they are contending for major player awards and being forced to give them monster contracts or shipping them out. Bridge deals should be situational and not the standard.

[Bourque's Twin]

I think the Flames should reward Gaudreau and Monahan after this year if they continue to perform as they are. As an organization, it sends a good message to players and it locks players up until they reach a more vulnerable age (early 30's).

Johnny and Monahan, if they can put up roughly 70 pts each, will fetch in the $7 million range for 8 years. I'd rather do this than what the Hawks did with Toews and Kane, signing them to shorter deals and then getting hit with $10.5 million contracts in their prime.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Worried about Gaudreau being able to put up points now through his 28 year old year? Sign him to a 3 year deal for a higher cap hit and replace a bottom 6 forward veteran with a bottom 6 forward ELC.

I agree in principle, but replacing a bottom-six forward with an ELC with no experience is a scary thought. Bottom six guys are just as important and need to have the grit, physical play and backchecking to shut down top-six lines.

This is where I see veterans who have specific skills have opportunities to round out a team. Someone like Stephane Yelle, who blocked shots, was fantastic as a 3rd or 4th line center. If, however, a rookie player's game is suited to 4th line duty (e.g. Ferland), then it would make sense.

It would scare the bejeezuz out of me to rely on Hanowski (no longer a problem haha) or Elson on the bottom-six night in, night out simply because they would be cheap though.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Bottom six guys are just as important

... no they're not. If they were just as important they'd be paid just as much.

Quality bottom six forwards are more about being depth scoring and positive up-ice movement then just banging bodies. As guys get older they get paid more and you can't go dole out money to back end guys because then you won't have money for the top end guys. If you want quality veterans on the back half of the forward ranks the only way you're getting them smartly is as reclamation projects on a 1 year deal.

[undercoverbrother]

I am a fan of the salary cap.

[The Fonz]

I don't agree with this at all. Things are looking much better than they were 2-4 years ago. You never used to see 2-3 yr deals for young stars, but we've witnessed a handful in the last couple years since the new CBA came into play.

The article seems out of date, IMO.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Parallex

... no they're not. If they were just as important they'd be paid just as much.

Quality bottom six forwards are more about being depth scoring and positive up-ice movement then just banging bodies. As guys get older they get paid more and you can't go dole out money to back end guys because then you won't have money for the top end guys. If you want quality veterans on the back half of the forward ranks the only way you're getting them smartly is as reclamation projects on a 1 year deal.

Right. playing solid checking line roles is just not important in today's fast-paced NHL.

You can dole out money proportionate to their skill level and what they bring. I wouldn't advocate paying big bucks in compared to the top-two lines, but at the price point of being a checking line guy, they are just as important.

If they weren't as important, you may as well just role two lines and have forwards play 30 minutes per game. They can't, it's unsustainable.

Using veterans as "reclamation projects" on one-year deals has hardly EVER worked out for any NHL team, let alone the Flames.

[Imported_Aussie]

The bridge contract is not dead per se, it just only applies when the team has enough leverage to force that hand. Columbus did it with Johansen, but couldn't with Saad as they had just acquired him for a hefty price and were up against an offer sheet possibility.

In the case of the Flames ELC crew, Monahan will have 3 full seasons of production and should get paid. Gaudreau will only have 2, but barring a major regression, it is hard to deny a Calder candidate a contract at a higher rate. Bennett will be interesting, as he will be a year later and will only have this season and next (plus his playoffs last year) under his belt.

Bridge contracts around 4M per would allow the Flames to pay more to Giordano on a short term deal (e.g. 2 years @ 9M, 3 years at 8.25M, etc.), then when he expires, change the salary structure. But with Giordano wanting term, it may make sense to forget a bridge and go for a longer deal now, as the cap hits in 2018/19 and 2019/20 may become problematic

What is better?

2 year contracts:
Giordano 9M
Monahan 4M
Gaudreau 4M
=17M
Then you have to take money from the next Giordano deal (or his replacement at that time) and give it to those two on longer deals at 7-7.5M

Longer (5-6 year) deals:
Giordano 7M
Monahan 6M
Gaudreau 5.5M
=18.5M
Pay more now, but insure against bigger raises for Monahan and Gaudreau while Giordano is still being paid

That is also contingent on Giordano being amenable to a short deal. If he wants term or nothing, then you might end up saving $$ in years 1-2, but then getting into real cap trouble in years 3 onwards.

[Slava]

Death of the bridge contract like the Kadri deal? That seems like exactly what the bridge is supposed to be. A player takes a shorter term and hopes to prove themselves worthy of the longer term commitment.

[Erick Estrada]

It is different thinking as in the past players got their big paydays based on past performance and now GM's are looking to pay young players big dollars based on present and projected performance. Both carry risk as you never know when an older player's performance may drop off just as with paying for future potential there's no guarantee the potential will be met. It will be interesting to see if we start seeing older free agents get squeezed out as they are in the NFL.

[Sylvanfan]

I would argue that these so called expensive second contracts, are still bridge contracts, just slightly varied forms. Hamilton has traded his next 4 years or RFA service at a premium rate, for two years of discounted UFA service. I think if he was to sign one year deals each of the next 6 years and stay healthy, he ultimately could have earned more money.

I actually think of it more as salary shifting. Instead of paying your dues as a 18-26 year old than starting to get more money from 27-30 and being overpaid from 31 to 35. Players are now getting the chance to earn a good salary from 21-27, than a lucrative contract from 27-32 than have to discount their pay to stay in the league.

Hudler as an example should have got his big pay day on his last contract, but he's played well, so he maybe earns another one. But the GM who hands it out has to see what he'll do...not what he's done. Which is something NHL GM's used to be able to do. Similar with Giordano...he ended up being a bargain from 28-32 for the Flames. Will they feel bad and back pay him for that on his next contract? When GM's feel the need to back pay a guy, that's when they end up in a lot of cap trouble.

[Jacks]

I prefer bridge contracts, you have to pay the stars a bit more on their 3rd contract but you avoid locking up the Setoguchi's and Penner's long term.

[Itse]

If teams start being more careful about signing older guys to long-term deals, we should end up with many more Jagr-like mercenaries; bouncing around the league on short contracts, going where ever the money is good and filling up holes in lineups.

[Locke]

I agree that they have to be situational.

Personally, I'm a huge fan of the Hamilton deal, I think he short-changed himself, that $5.75 looks awesome now, in 3 years its going to be awesome.

Players want guarantees and safety. They want long term, big-dollar, guaranteed contracts with NTCs and NMCs and teams need to take advantage of that.

The fact is that the cap is going to be increasing over time, even if it doesnt increase significantly it has never gone down.

And with the cap increasing player salaries will rise along with it.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Slava

Death of the bridge contract like the Kadri deal? That seems like exactly what the bridge is supposed to be. A player takes a shorter term and hopes to prove themselves worthy of the longer term commitment.

From the article:

Bridge deals haven’t disappeared; they’ve simply become harder to get done. The Toronto Maple Leafs pulled off one in signing Nazem Kadri to a one-year, $4.1-million deal on Sunday. But the Leafs still have a difficult arbitration case pending in goaltender Jonathan Bernier, whose price will likely be kept down by the team’s midseason implosion.

Whether the others get their massive paydays, from the teams that drafted and developed them, isn’t nearly as certain as it used to be.