[Signing] Dion Phaneuf signs 7yr $49M deal

[BigTuna]

Originally Posted by strombad

You make the playoffs once your spot is secure. A lot of games left to play.

So Edmonton making the playoffs in 06' and having no shot this year is the same as a team who made it last year and is currently 5th in their conference?

[strombad]

Originally Posted by BigTuna

So Edmonton making the playoffs in 06' and having no shot this year is the same as a team who made it last year and is currently 5th in their conference?

Yes.

[BigTuna]

Originally Posted by strombad

Yes.

LOL. Whatever. Exact same situation!

[strombad]

Originally Posted by BigTuna

LOL. Whatever. Exact same situation!

Yes.

[BigTuna]

Originally Posted by strombad

Yes.

I'm puzzled how you think they're in the same situation.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by BigTuna

I'm puzzled how you think they're in the same situation.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by T@T

7 million per isn't near as bad today as the 6.5 million he got 6 years ago.

Some people have really short memories. The year that Phaneuf signed his extension, he was finishing his third NHL season, was scoring at a .75 point/game pace and was among the scoring leaders for NHL defensemen. He was averaging over 25 mins of ice time per game, and was among the Flames' elders in plus/minus, all at the age of 21-years-old. By the time his contract kicked in, he had scored 54 goals and 159 points in his first three NHL seasons, and was widely considered the best emerging defenseman in the world. He was so highly regarded then that he placed second in voting for the Norris trophy that year, and was named to the NHL first all star team.

He had a regression the following season, and then hip and rib injuries I believe affected him in the longer term. He has never looked the same as he did pre-2009. He never lived up to his last contract, but at the time it was inked, it looked like a near certainty that he would. So no. While it ended up being a bad contract, it wasn't one at the time when he signed it.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Some people have really short memories. The year that Phaneuf signed his extension, he was finishing his third NHL season, was scoring at a .75 point/game pace and was among the scoring leaders for NHL defensemen. He was averaging over 25 mins of ice time per game, and was among the Flames' elders in plus/minus, all at the age of 21-years-old. By the time his contract kicked in, he had scored 54 goals and 159 points in his first three NHL seasons, and was widely considered the best emerging defenseman in the world. He was so highly regarded then that he placed second in voting for the Norris trophy that year, and was named to the NHL first all star team.

He had a regression the following season, and then hip and rib injuries I believe affected him in the longer term. He has never looked the same as he did pre-2009. He never lived up to his last contract, but at the time it was inked, it looked like a near certainty that he would. So no. While it ended up being a bad contract, it wasn't one at the time when he signed it.

This. I believe at the time when they were doing redrafts of the 2003 entry class at that point most people had Dion going anywhere from 1-3 overall. Something happened with the injuries that caused him not just to plateau, but to recede at a really young age. There is a risk with a young defensemen signing that kind of contract but at the time it seemed solid.

That said, I think that this is a terrible term for TO (though I think he would get 7 mil+ on the open market). Wouldn't be surprised to see him shipped out in a couple of years given their cap situation.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

While it ended up being a bad contract, it wasn't one at the time when he signed it.

It was because it was at a time when most 2nd contract players got a bridge contract. Instead we just handed Phaneuf a long term deal with insane dollars.

Along with Rick Nash it was one of the first few large 2nd contracts in an era where that wasn't the norm. It was a bad choice by Sutter.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

It was because it was at a time when most 2nd contract players got a bridge contract. Instead we just handed Phaneuf a long term deal with insane dollars.

Along with Rick Nash it was one of the first few large 2nd contracts in an era where that wasn't the norm. It was a bad choice by Sutter.

Yup and it went right to Phanuefs head, after that contract he thought he was c.ock of the walk and refused to listen to coaches and teammates alike.

Had Sutter bridged this guy it's quite possible he would not only be better but probably still a flame.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

It was because it was at a time when most 2nd contract players got a bridge contract. Instead we just handed Phaneuf a long term deal with insane dollars.

Along with Rick Nash it was one of the first few large 2nd contracts in an era where that wasn't the norm. It was a bad choice by Sutter.

It was also after Lowe let the genie out of the bottle on second contracts. Bad choice, but also the direction the salary trends were going.

[BigTuna]

Originally Posted by T@T

Yup and it went right to Phanuefs head, after that contract he thought he was c.ock of the walk and refused to listen to coaches and teammates alike.

Had Sutter bridged this guy it's quite possible he would not only be better but probably still a flame.

The bridge contract can be risky too., The Habs are likely regretting it with Subban.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by BigTuna

The bridge contract can be risky too., The Habs are likely regretting it with Subban.

That's unlikely.

Originally Subban was reported to have wanted a contract in the range of 6/6, paying him 36 million over the course of 6 years.

Instead, he got just over 5 over two years. To make the Habs regret that contract, they would have to sign him to a contract that is worth well over 7.5 million per year for the next four years.

He might make 7.5, or 8 even. But the ability to control your assets and remain steady in uncertain cap years was an absolute win for Bergevin.

Bridge contracts are never bad. It's win/win for the team, as either you get a fantastic player at a bargain before having to pay up, or you avoid the pain of having signed a flash in the pan to a big ticket.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by strombad

That's unlikely.

Originally Subban was reported to have wanted a contract in the range of 6/6, paying him 36 million over the course of 6 years.

Instead, he got just over 5 over two years. To make the Habs regret that contract, they would have to sign him to a contract that is worth well over 7.5 million per year for the next four years.

He might make 7.5, or 8 even. But the ability to control your assets and remain steady in uncertain cap years was an absolute win for Bergevin.

Bridge contracts are never bad. It's win/win for the team, as either you get a fantastic player at a bargain before having to pay up, or you avoid the pain of having signed a flash in the pan to a big ticket.

His contract was heavily backloaded to counter the lockout though as well. He still made close to 5M in actual salary those 2 years.

If Subban's camp was looking for an evenly distributed 6 million a year for 6 years, the lockout year would have only seen him payed 3.5M for a grand total of 33.5M. Subban will get roughly the same signing a 4 year 7.1 million a year contract.

On the other hand, if the other rumours were true and he was asking for a 5 million a year for 5 years contract, he would have made roughly 23M with that contract, again assuming it was evenly distributed. All Subban would need to beat out that contract would be a 3 year contract worth 6M+ a year.

There's far more at play, obviously the actual contract structure would have played a huge role, but also the cap hit. Instead of dealing with Subban with a cap hit of 2.9M this year and whatever it may be next year they would have had an even 5M or 6M cap hit for 5 or 6 years. Bad for the previous 2 years but much better for the next couple years. And more importantly instead of Subban reaching UFA status as a 28 or 29 year old they have the opportunity to sign him to a contract until he's 33 now. But maybe most importantly would be how the contract actually affected Subban, would he be complacent with a 6 year contract and not end up having to prove something last and this year? Need a time machine to figure that out. There's merit in the bridge contract, a lot of merit, but sometimes it works out for the player.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

It was because it was at a time when most 2nd contract players got a bridge contract. Instead we just handed Phaneuf a long term deal with insane dollars.

Along with Rick Nash it was one of the first few large 2nd contracts in an era where that wasn't the norm. It was a bad choice by Sutter.

the other part about it which struck me was that Phaneuf was the first big signing in a while where the guy took market rate. Other team leaders took less money/cap hit for the home town discount. It seemed to me like it would be a slap in the face to squeeze every nickel that your teammates left on the table.

[BigTuna]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

the other part about it which struck me was that Phaneuf was the first big signing in a while where the guy took market rate. Other team leaders took less money/cap hit for the home town discount. It seemed to me like it would be a slap in the face to squeeze every nickel that your teammates left on the table.

Nash certainly gave no hometown discount.