Confirmed with Link: Brassard re-signed (5 years, $5M per)

[darko]

Maybe a little steep for my liking but it is what it is.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Here are the regular season numbers: http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...7=60-&f20=1.46-9&c=0+1+3+5+17+18+19+20#snip=f

Brassard ranks 87th in the league among all centers in even strength scoring. He is what he is: A powerplay specialist with no other good qualities.

Contractually, His peers aren't all centers. His peers are 3rd line centers who play less than 16 mins a game. If you look at every teams depth chart, where does Brassard rank in scoring among those considered 3rd line centers, being that that's what he was last season.

Besides, even if Brassard is just a power play specialist, being one dimensional didn't hurt the team. The Rangers had one of best records in the league after Christmas and went to the SCF.

Nobody is arguing that Brassard isnt one dimensional. The problem is you think there are better available options out there.

Are you honestly going to try and tell me that one series outweighs every other series he's played combined, not to mention his regular season track record? He put up 47, 41, 29, and 45 points in the last four years. Last year he scored at a 42 point pace in the playoffs and finished in a three-way tie for sixth in playoff points on the team. Outliers happen. The Washington series was an outlier. He's not some playoff God. There's no such thing as a playoff God. There is such a thing as small sample size magic. And that is what you're glomming onto.

He actually led or tied for the lead in scoring in the Washington series, the Pens series and the Boston series. He was second in scoring in the SCF and tied Kreider for most points by a forward.

Breakdown by centers and round:

2014
Stepan: 2-2-4 (PHI) /0-2-2 (PIT)/ 3-4-7 (MTL) / 0-2-2 (LAK)
Richards: 2-4-6 (PHI) /2-1-3 (PIT)/ 1-1-2 (MTL) / 0-1-1 (LAK)
Brassard: 0-2-2 (PHI) /4-2-6 (PIT)/ 1-1-2 (MTL) / 1-2-3 (LAK)

2013
Stepan: 2-0-2(WSH) /2-1-3 (BOS)
Richards: 1-0-1 (WSH) / 0-0-0 (BOS)
Brassard: 2-7-9 (WSH) / 0-3-3 (BOS)

Brassard outproduced all Rangers centers in three of the six series he played in and tied for another. Only the Philly series and the Montreal series was he outperformed, but he only played in three games in the Montreal series and had two points, including a go-ahead goal in Game 5.

He was either tied or led all forwards in scoring in four playoff series of the six he's particiapted in since he joined the team.

Is that a big enough "sample size" for you?

You argue in the most arbitrary, convoluted fashion possible. I make a side point that someone in the system like Tambellini or Nieves could break out and you go off on a rant about how they haven't broken out yet. First off, duh. That's why I didn't say they've broken out. Second, no that's not what I'm counting on. It's one of the things that I said could happen. Other things that could happen: Miller breaks out. O'Reilly reaches free agency, which seems very, very likely given their relationship right now. Someone becomes available in trade.

Woulda coulda shoulda. Mel Hall could come back to the Yankees, Bernard King would score 100 points a game against 5-year-olds and the KIngs should have been called for diving and interference.

You're living in a fantasy world. The reality of the present day is that the Rangers DONT have a center to make plays after Stepan and Brassard, and it would cost the. The same amount of money and term to get someone to replicate (in a perfect world) what Brassard has already done.

My point is that you don't lock yourself in long-term with someone like Brassard on a contract that pays him to be an effective number two center on a contender, when he is anything but that.

Its not. What part of UFA years dont you understand. You're basing his 2015 salary on contracts second line centers signed years ago. Third line centers received 4-5 million this season. As the cap goes up, so do the offers.

Again, your solution to what you think is a center problem is some prospect or the classic "Crosby's a UFA in nine years".

 

[Tawnos]

I've already mentioned the optics of $5.0 vs. $4.9 and how I think that's affected people's thinking.

Optics are such a big part of this. $5m compared to $4.9m. Using cap hits on backdiving deals as a basis for comparison. I mean... we gave Brad Richards $6.67m when he just came off a PPG+ season! How could we give Brassard just 25% less when he produces at 50% of the rate?!? The optics of these deals has been completely screwed up by those backdiving deals. No matter that the part of the contract that would be legal under the new CBA would have had Richards at $9.5m AAV for 6 years.

The other part of the optics is that people can't seem to adjust to the inflationary aspect of a rising cap. Always judge contracts against others signed under a lower limit. Brad Richards' $9.5m would have been 14.77% of the cap when he signed. Derick Brassard's $5m is 7.25% of the current cap. Brassard is effectively paid at 49% of the rate that Richards was. Brad Richards scored 1.07 PPG in the season before free agency. Derick Brassard scored 0.56 PPG in the season before free agency. Brassard scored at 52% of the rate Richards did. 49% of the pay... 52% of the production. That sounds like Brassard gets paid pretty much what he should be paid.

By the way, I'm aware of the RFA vs UFA issue there, but a 5 year deal that has 4 years of UFA eligibility is barely an RFA contract.

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

What if this contract lights a fire under him and he turns into a monster#2. See it goes both ways

 

[Infinitum Vitae*]

I've never seen this board split this much down the middle

 

[NYRFANMANI]

I just realized that Brassad makes more money than McD now ... this went from "a little bit too much" (since I dont expect Brass to go 60 pts on us) to "well we ripped off of McD"

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Optics are such a big part of this. $5m compared to $4.9m. Using cap hits on backdiving deals as a basis for comparison. I mean... we gave Brad Richards $6.67m when he just came off a PPG+ season! How could we give Brassard just 25% less when he produces at 50% of the rate?!? The optics of these deals has been completely screwed up by those backdiving deals. No matter that the part of the contract that would be legal under the new CBA would have had Richards at $9.5m AAV for 6 years.

The other part of the optics is that people can't seem to adjust to the inflationary aspect of a rising cap. Always judge contracts against others signed under a lower limit. Brad Richards' $9.5m would have been 14.77% of the cap when he signed. Derick Brassard's $5m is 7.25% of the current cap. Brassard is effectively paid at 49% of the rate that Richards was. Brad Richards scored 1.07 PPG in the season before free agency. Derick Brassard scored 0.56 PPG in the season before free agency. Brassard scored at 52% of the rate Richards did. 49% of the pay... 52% of the production. That sounds like Brassard gets paid pretty much what he should be paid.

By the way, I'm aware of the RFA vs UFA issue there, but a 5 year deal that has 4 years of UFA eligibility is barely an RFA contract.

Seriously. I'd actually argue that you'd have to pay a good $1.0MM more to get a center of Brassard's resume and age in UFA.

Honestly, if I'd posted a rumor the day after the SCF ended (and before we'd signed Glass, Zuccarello, Boyle, etc.) that Brassard and the Rangers were closing in on a 5 year $4.9MM deal, I'm pretty sure that the reaction would have been much different.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I just realized that Brassad makes more money than McD now ... this went from "a little bit too much" (since I dont expect Brass to go 60 pts on us) to "well we ripped off of McD"

For the umpteenth time, look at the number of RFA years and UFA years bought out in each case.

Holy cow, somehow the Panthers got Barkov for only $925K per year! Dale Tallon must be the best GM in hockey!!!

 

[Tawnos]

I just realized that Brassad makes more money than McD now ... this went from "a little bit too much" (since I dont expect Brass to go 60 pts on us) to "well we ripped off of McD"

McDonagh's cap hit % when he signed his deal was actually slightly higher than Brassard's. It was also his McD's 2nd contract compared to Brassard's 3rd. McD's also includes an NTC for the last 3 years and, as far as we know right now, Brassard's doesn't include one at all. McDonagh will be a UFA at 30, while Brassard will be a UFA at 32 (well, 31 and 10 months).

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

Brassard....

wait for it...

SHOWS UP IN BIG GAMES.

This notion that "OMG he's not a 2 way center we can't pay him any money" is ridiculous.

He's a center. They don't grow on trees. He fits the system. He shows up in big games (unlike stupid Rick Nash). He loves being a Ranger.

I like the deal, and you people should, also. Be glad we have at least 1 center locked up for the foreseeable future.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

You'd think this fanbase would have learned from all the mistakes the team has made trying to fill the center void with other teams players, and how playing in New York has a tendency to sap a guy's abilities.

Brassard has nothing to prove. He's played here two years, and played center for all three lines. Hes delivered in the postseason, proven power-play playmaking and he's got chemistry with Zuccarello.

They lucked out with Stepan. He's still young and will be the top center. As the cap goes up and Brassard's salary seems more manageable, they can explore finding a better option and moving Brassard back to the third line.

There were not better options. Stick with what you know and whats worked.

 

[Levitate]

we'd all love to get the guys who sign for much less and pay much more for the guys who either do not sign or sign to shorter contracts. Nobody will be happy. Think many thought it would be a lower contract, but in the end, if Brassard continues to produce as he has, and he's done that consistently for years, it will be a good contract over five years and for once we need to look at this as something over five years and not just today. It's a moveable contract and it will fit in nicely within the cap structure each year. Why does Brassard get the long-term contract and not Zucc? I can only guess that a centerman has a bit more value than a winger. Heck, most in here worried about the center position all Summer and have worried less about the wing position, including putting a centerman (Miller) on the wing to lessen his responsibilities. Seems like a lot of money, but it's moveable and over the course of the term it should look fine.

Well said. It's not a bad contract, it's not a good contract, it just more or less "is". In a few years it'll probably be pretty good

Also I suspect Sather will be looking to sign Zucc long term pretty quickly as long as he doesn't implode next year

I just realized that Brassad makes more money than McD now ... this went from "a little bit too much" (since I dont expect Brass to go 60 pts on us) to "well we ripped off of McD"

McDonagh's deal is great but he also hadn't completely broken out at the time he signed it. He was still looked at as a defensive defenseman with limited offensive upside at that point. Funny now I see people on the main boards saying he's a high risk flashy defenseman whos defense isn't as solid as someone like Subban or Doughty when just a year ago the comments about him were that he was a stay at home defenseman who didn't have the offensive potential of Subban or Doughty

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I just realized that Brassad makes more money than McD now ... this went from "a little bit too much" (since I dont expect Brass to go 60 pts on us) to "well we ripped off of McD"

Not understanding how many UFA years were bought out in each deal would have you arrive at such a conclusion.

 

[Emptyvoid]

Well said. It's not a bad contract, it's not a good contract, it just more or less "is". In a few years it'll probably be pretty good

Also I suspect Sather will be looking to sign Zucc long term pretty quickly as long as he doesn't implode next year



McDonagh's deal is great but he also hadn't completely broken out at the time he signed it. He was still looked at as a defensive defenseman with limited offensive upside at that point. Funny now I see people on the main boards saying he's a high risk flashy defenseman whos defense isn't as solid as someone like Subban or Doughty when just a year ago the comments about him were that he was a stay at home defenseman who didn't have the offensive potential of Subban or Doughty

I don't know how people go into any of the main boards, there's no intelligible conversation to be had.

The main boards are just one big dick wagging contest as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding brassard, my thoughts coincide with BRF's exactly. Very reasonable contract for someone with Brassard's production, age and injury history. The fact that it's frontloaded was a fantastic way to structure it so that it's more tradeable down the line.

 

[Fletch]

Brassard has done literally nothing to earn 5 x 5. Nothing. He may be "worth it" due to market factors but he has proven nothing on the ice to earn that kind of coin.

This is confusing. What does one have to do to "prove" he is worth a contract that is within what the market would pay (meaning, worth it due to market factors)?

 

[nyr2k2]

I'm glad to see so many reasonable posters giving us breakdowns on his number relative to the cap and all that. This stuff MUST be kept in perspective. I'm going to bookmark this thread so I can look at it in two years and laugh at the overreactions, when second/third line centers are signing UFA deals for $7M.

The money is all relative, folks. If Brassard maintains his level of production we'll all be very happy with his cap number in a few years.

It's funny, I seem to remember predicting big time inflation for lesser players around the time the CBA was signed. A few people said I didn't understand economics.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

This is confusing. What does one have to do to "prove" he is worth a contract that is within what the market would pay (meaning, worth it due to market factors)?

Well for starters my post doesn't make a ton of sense because I was over-served at the bar.

It's not a "bad contract" when viewed in the context of the market. If Toews is a $10M center Brassard is a $5M center.

But is is insane that a guy who has never hit 50 points, is at his best passable defensively and at worst a liability, who is poor on faceoffs gets 5M and 5 years. The Rangers had no choice becuSe of their organizational center depth. But if Brassard is still the 2C (aka worth his $5M) 3-5 years from now, that does not bode well. Again, not saying they had any other choice or "overpaid", at least on terms of right now.

 

[JimmyG89]

This is why keeping your #1 draft picks and not trading them away for 39 year olds is important. Now you are forced to overpay for marginal centers instead of getting nothing.

Those #1s don't impact this franchise until 3-5 years down the road, and even then, it can take longer. Look at Miller, who was taken 3 drafts ago at pick #15. Same with McIlrath. It has not worked yet. You cannot predict the future with these guys who aren't top 3 picks. We can talk about those #1s in 3-5 years and a dearth of something we lack because of it. Signing Brassard is because of not having another center. You could argue keeping one of Dubi or AA would allow you to bargain him down or get a 1 year deal.

 

[Fletch]

Well for starters my post doesn't make a ton of sense because I was over-served at the bar.

It's not a "bad contract" when viewed in the context of the market. If Toews is a $10M center Brassard is a $5M center.

But is is insane that a guy who has never hit 50 points, is at his best passable defensively and at worst a liability, who is poor on faceoffs gets 5M and 5 years. The Rangers had no choice becuSe of their organizational center depth. But if Brassard is still the 2C (aka worth his $5M) 3-5 years from now, that does not bode well. Again, not saying they had any other choice or "overpaid", at least on terms of right now.

those damn bartenders; get you every time. Yes, if Miller doesn't pass Brassard, the center position will not be a strength of the Rangers, and if he does, Brassard may not be here for the entire term of his contract. I think the length is actually appealing and his value may increase as the term plays out, assuming a rising cap and assuming steady production (and given his history, which is pretty predictable, his production should be steady). His age helps too. Would always love to see guys sign for less, but it does seem to approximate the market and it likely gets better in future years.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Well for starters my post doesn't make a ton of sense because I was over-served at the bar.

It's not a "bad contract" when viewed in the context of the market. If Toews is a $10M center Brassard is a $5M center.

But is is insane that a guy who has never hit 50 points, is at his best passable defensively and at worst a liability, who is poor on faceoffs gets 5M and 5 years. The Rangers had no choice becuSe of their organizational center depth. But if Brassard is still the 2C (aka worth his $5M) 3-5 years from now, that does not bode well. Again, not saying they had any other choice or "overpaid", at least on terms of right now.

I agree.

But given the Rangers "luck" with centers of the past 2 decades, Im not holding my breath that they'll find a better option

 

[Nyrvana]

5 prime-time years at $5 million will look like a bargain in 2016

 

[Loff]

I like Brass, but u wot Sather?

 

[Cassano]

Playoff performers don't really exist. It's a connotation being used to justify this bad contract. Especially because we're justifying Brassard as a good playoff performer based on a ridiculously small sample size.

In sports we've seen great playoff performers - Cody Ross, Fernando Pisani, Ville Leino. All faded away over the years.

 

[AHB*]

Playoff performers don't really exist. It's a connotation being used to justify this bad contract. Especially because we're justifying Brassard as a good playoff performer based on a ridiculously small sample size.

In sports we've seen great playoff performers - Cody Ross, Fernando Pisani, Ville Leino. All faded away over the years.

Outliers will always revert to their norms, just as Brass did this year. There's always a few cases that never do but generally it's guys who can't handle pressure and end up sucking, more so then turning it up.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Playoff performers don't really exist. It's a connotation being used to justify this bad contract. Especially because we're justifying Brassard as a good playoff performer based on a ridiculously small sample size.

In sports we've seen great playoff performers - Cody Ross, Fernando Pisani, Ville Leino. All faded away over the years.

Much to your chagrin, $5M annually through the prime years of his career is just about the market rate for a center like Brassard -- with or without his playoff performances of the last 2 runs.