What's Sam Bennett's RFA contract worth?

[Anduril]

Galchenyuk reached 46 points in his second season, last year of ELC. I don't see Bennett getting more than 2.5m, 2yrs. Closer to Couturier's deal of 1.75m, 2 yrs of getting 36~ points in two season in a 3rd C role.

Flames will probably also try to get 3 years which will coincide with Frolik and Brouwer's deals ending. Bennett's camp will probably aim for 2.

[MarkGio]

The Flames should try for as much term as possible in a bridge. If they're lucky, they sign Bennett to 5yrs at 2.75-3 million. And if Bennett becomes a ppg player or close to one day, he becomes a sweet contract much like Simmonds or Brodie

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

The Flames should try for as much term as possible in a bridge. If they're lucky, they sign Bennett to 5yrs at 2.75-3 million. And if Bennett becomes a ppg player or close to one day, he becomes a sweet contract much like Simmonds or Brodie

5 years? Not a chance. That wouldn't be lucky, that would be stupid. Give him 2 years and if he earns a contract after that, they can start talking long term.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

The Flames should try for as much term as possible in a bridge. If they're lucky, they sign Bennett to 5yrs at 2.75-3 million. And if Bennett becomes a ppg player or close to one day, he becomes a sweet contract much like Simmonds or Brodie

That'd be nice but I can't see it happening with a former 4th overall with the ceiling/potential he has. Those other guys were long shots to even play in the NHL when they were drafted, where as with Bennett the question wasn't really "if?" but more "when?" and "how good will he be?"

Players with that pedigree rarely take deals like that.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

5 years? Not a chance. That wouldn't be lucky, that would be stupid. Give him 2 years and if he earns a contract after that, they can start talking long term.

You have to take chances as a GM. Otherwise you run into Chicago issues where two players take up as much cap as 3-4 players could occupy. In order to sign a big contract to put you over the top like Tavares, you need good guys on cheap contracts.

[ComixZone]

The smart move is a 3 year bridge, as others have pointed out. Even if you have to punch up that cap hit a touch to get that 3rd year. Having Bennett's contract come up when Frolik/Brouwer expire is important, as the year prior to that we have a Tkachuk extension that needs to be done - and we probably won't want to bridge Tkachuk.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

You have to take chances as a GM. Otherwise you run into Chicago issues where two players take up as much cap as 3-4 players could occupy. In order to sign a big contract to put you over the top like Tavares, you need good guys on cheap contracts.

I don't see Bennett's side biting and I don't even think Calgary would want that deal to be honest.

He's not worth $3 million on a bridge deal, closer to $2 million and wouldn't be shocked if it came even a bit lower than $2 million.

So if we assume he signs for $4 million for two years, you're essentially giving him almost $4 million a year for three more seasons. There is no guarantee he will even be a $4 million dollar player when the two year bridge is done.

It's all a moot point because it makes no sense for both sides. Bennett will want to prove he's worth more than that and the Flames will want him to do the same before they hand over $15 million guaranteed.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Hockeyboy2

Most players whether their on ice play shows it are competitive people and in my opinion most players and their agents would be extremely competitive when it comes to securing the most profitable deal they can for the player.

Within the parameters of the term "competitive" I would be more inclined to think a competitive person would not want an 8 year deal for security but want a series of short term "I'll show you what I can do" deals that dictate what the next deal will be from a market value standpoint.

I do think though that you are correct in saying their is an opportunity to get a good deal for potential here, but that is coming from the Flames perspective and isn't necessarily a shared perspective going the other way in any negotiation.

Agreed - which is why I think the potential for a 3y bridge is negligible.

Going long - with my example of 8 x 5.5m - wouldn't be "asking for a discount" but rather combining a 2y bridge with a 6x6.5...that would have the result of lowering the cap hit in future years (which is good for the team), but woudl come at the risk of Bennett not pannning out. Its a big risk, but it potentially saves C$1m/year of cap space down the road when the team is contender

2x2.5 = 5
6x6.5 = 39

39/8 = C$5.5m

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

I don't see Bennett's side biting and I don't even think Calgary would want that deal to be honest.

He's not worth $3 million on a bridge deal, closer to $2 million and wouldn't be shocked if it came even a bit lower than $2 million.

So if we assume he signs for $4 million for two years, you're essentially giving him almost $4 million a year for three more seasons. There is no guarantee he will even be a $4 million dollar player when the two year bridge is done.

It's all a moot point because it makes no sense for both sides. Bennett will want to prove he's worth more than that and the Flames will want him to do the same before they hand over $15 million guaranteed.

The cap is always rising and either stagnates or slightly decreases when it's not rising, so each player occupy a higher percentage of the cap. Let's just say Bennett signs a 5 yr, 18 million dollar contract. His first year occupies about 5% of the teams allowable cap space. By year 5 it's closer to 2%. If you believe that by 5 years Bennett will be in your top 6, then you have some flexibility because depending on team needs 5yrs from now, maybe you need your back-up to occupy a larger percentage than otherwise.

[Hockeyboy2]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Agreed - which is why I think the potential for a 3y bridge is negligible.

Going long - with my example of 8 x 5.5m - wouldn't be "asking for a discount" but rather combining a 2y bridge with a 6x6.5...that would have the result of lowering the cap hit in future years (which is good for the team), but woudl come at the risk of Bennett not pannning out. Its a big risk, but it potentially saves C$1m/year of cap space down the road when the team is contender

2x2.5 = 5
6x6.5 = 39

39/8 = C$5.5m

I see the intent (2X2.5) for bridge years and (6X6.5) for none bridge years. Idealistically if the player progresses as he should (remember he is only 20) would provide stability to the player and cap management certainty to the team.

Unfortunately there is a large amount of risk with giving a player who has not proved himself beyond draft pedigree and earning a roster spot with regular playing minutes (and one 4 goal game which was awesome) an 8 year deal. As you touched on earlier the Flames would be taking on the risk and this would definitely be a risk reward contract for the flames, because he could turn out to be great, but he could also turn out to be a solid 3rd line player whose play belies his contract (hope I said that right).

There is also risk to a long term contract for Sam Bennett, why sell yourself short if in 3 years you turn into a scoring star? Which could also happen as well. Actually you know what, I can defeat my own argument because he would already be getting paid in your scenario for his bridge years.

So yes 8 year deal would be great for Sam Bennets perspective because as you say he is very competitive so that means he is not going to just mail it in because he is getting paid really well.

However for the Flames 8 year deal at 5.5 million per year is a tremendous risk to the flames because he still has not proven he is a standout player and if he never achieves that level he would be overpaid.

Anyways yah I like your idea, wouldn't be what I would recommend if I were to make a recommendation due to risk, but I still like the concept.

[TheScorpion]

Absolutely a bridge. Under 3 mill, 3 years. Allows them to keep Versteeg and hopefully sign Michael Stone

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

The Flames should try for as much term as possible in a bridge. If they're lucky, they sign Bennett to 5yrs at 2.75-3 million. And if Bennett becomes a ppg player or close to one day, he becomes a sweet contract much like Simmonds or Brodie

You don't seem to understand.

'The Flames should try for as much term as possible in a bridge'. What do you think a bridge deal is?

Bennett will be looking for a 2 year deal, the Flames might push for 3.

5? Out of the question.

[Strange Brew]

A 5 year deal for Bennett is ridiculous. Everybody loses. Why would you encourage a young player like that to essentially bet against himself?

I want the kind of player who knows he will be much better than he is today and wants to prove it.

[dying4acup]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

A 5 year deal for Bennett is ridiculous. Everybody loses. Why would you encourage a young player like that to essentially bet against himself?

I want the kind of player who knows he will be much better than he is today and wants to prove it.

A 5yr deal gets him to UFA at youngest possible age I think.

[BruceCody]

trade for couple second round draft picks

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by dying4acup

A 5yr deal gets him to UFA at youngest possible age I think.

why would a player with the talent and potential he has take a 5 year low dollar deal? you'd think he'd bet on himself and prefer 2 years and then make some good money.

someone actually suggested the flames try to get him 5 years at less than 3 per year. he'd be the stupidest player in the league to sign that deal. it would take him 5 seconds to laugh in the flames faces.

would a 2 year bridge deal at 2.5 per year be fair for both sides?

[jlh2640]

2.5 m at most

[FanIn80]

If I was currently playing NHL 17, I would do Bennett + Wideman to ST. Louis for Shattenkirk + 2nd. Re-sign him for Wideman's current cap ($5M) and then shop the 2nd for a top-9 F and slot him in somewhere.

Gaudreau Monahan Versteeg
Tkachuk Backlund Frolik
Ferland Hamilton Brouwer
Bouma Stajan Hathaway

Giordano Brodie
Skattenkirk Hamilton
Jokipakka Engelland


Edit: I should note that I'm currently of two opinions... 1) The huge dropoff between our #3D and #4D is our most glaring weakness, and 2) Shattenkirk isn't going to re-sign in St. Louis. If I'm wrong about either of those, then forget the whole thing and give me another solid helping of crack.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Shattenkirk is going to get paid this off season, big time money. Five million won't cut it.

[FanIn80]

That's a fair point. I didn't (for some reason) consider the whole reason he's available is because he's about to get paid.

I really believe Bennett's biggest value to us right now is in getting us a solid top-4 D with top-2 potential, though.