Toggle sidebar

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

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
nyr2k2 said:
The market dictates a player's worth. You might not want to give the guy what he's worth, or you might think the market is out of whack, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

The hit itself isn't the biggest problem, it's the term.

They needed Brassard this upcoming season, but there is no reason to suggest that the need would continue to be dire 4 years from now.

Brassard doesn't strike me as the kind of player you give a 5 year deal to. I don't think that he would have had any issue taking a one year deal so he could test the UFA market.
 
I can't wait till Zucc extends during the season so people will stop worrying so much about it....Staal will be traded at some point this season to free up salary to keep Zuccarello
 
Fitzy said:
The hit itself isn't the biggest problem, it's the term.

They needed Brassard this upcoming season, but there is no reason to suggest that the need would continue to be dire 4 years from now.

Brassard doesn't strike me as the kind of player you give a 5 year deal to. I don't think that he would have had any issue taking a one year deal so he could test the UFA market.
Click to expand...

This. it's not all about the cap hit (which is also bad), but the fact that we gave him that cap hit long term. For a year or two, I wouldn't have minded it.
 
Fitzy said:
The hit itself isn't the biggest problem, it's the term.

They needed Brassard this upcoming season, but there is no reason to suggest that the need would continue to be dire 4 years from now.

Brassard doesn't strike me as the kind of player you give a 5 year deal to. I don't think that he would have had any issue taking a one year deal so he could test the UFA market.
Click to expand...

That's fine, I understand not liking the term. I just take issue with the idea that his cap hit is some completely insane figure. It looks pretty reasonable in the current market.

What makes you think he was willing to take a short deal? Has he ever said anything to indicate that?
 
JeffMangum said:
This. it's not all about the cap hit (which is also bad), but the fact that we gave him that cap hit long term. For a year or two, I wouldn't have minded it.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you rather get 2 years out of him then trade him rather than lose him for nothing?

If he has 2 seasons with the production hes given us for the last 1 1/2 seasons + playoffs its a contract that can easily be moved should we choose to, and its likely we will if you take a look at our roster 5 years ago.

Gomez was traded. Rozey was traded when he made 5M and 5M was a bigger contract then than it is now and will be in the future.
 
nyr2k2 said:
That's fine, I understand not liking the term. I just take issue with the idea that his cap hit is some completely insane figure. It looks pretty reasonable in the current market.

What makes you think he was willing to take a short deal? Has he ever said anything to indicate that?
Click to expand...

We could have just took him to arbitration and we would have been able to make him sign a short deal.
 
nyr2k2 said:
That's fine, I understand not liking the term. I just take issue with the idea that his cap hit is some completely insane figure. It looks pretty reasonable in the current market.

What makes you think he was willing to take a short deal? Has he ever said anything to indicate that?
Click to expand...

Generally, if a player is one year away from UFA status in a rising cap market, they are happy to take the one year deal. The other end of the coin would be concern about injury, but usually players are happy to hit UFA as young as possible.
 
JeffMangum said:
We could have just took him to arbitration and we would have been able to make him sign a short deal.
Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining to me things I know.

Fitzy said he didn't think Brassard would have a problem with it. I want to know why he thinks that.

Fitzy said:
Generally, if a player is one year away from UFA status in a rising cap market, they are happy to take the one year deal. The other end of the coin would be concern about injury, but usually players are happy to hit UFA as young as possible.
Click to expand...

Didn't he basically sign a UFA deal though? He gave up 4 years of UFA and earned himself a pretty penny.

I mean if this deal it as outrageous as some of you are making it out to be, Brassard's gotta be pretty thrilled, right?
 
Fire Sather said:
Wouldn't you rather get 2 years out of him then trade him rather than lose him for nothing?

If he has 2 seasons with the production hes given us for the last 1 1/2 seasons + playoffs its a contract that can easily be moved should we choose to, and its likely we will if you take a look at our roster 5 years ago.

Gomez was traded. Rozey was traded when he made 5M and 5M was a bigger contract then than it is now and will be in the future.
Click to expand...

I mean, looking at it like that, it sounds better. That said, I'm worried that it will hinder our ability to keep Zuccarello long term.
 
nyr2k2 said:
Thanks for explaining to me things I know.

Fitzy said he didn't think Brassard would have a problem with it. I want to know why he thinks that.
Click to expand...

I don't think whether or not Brassard has a problem with it is relevant, but he kind of did explain why. Hitting the UFA market is definitely enticing to players, especially a center like Brassard who knows he could get a ridiculous payday.
 
People are *****ing about this? Really? I think this is an extremely good deal, given that they bought four UFA years of a legitimate #2 center (based both on his actual point totals and his importance to the Stanley Cup runners up) entering his prime. What did you people think Brassard was going to cost? I was expecting one year at his QO, 2 years at $4.4-4.7 or 3 years at 4.7-5.0. To get 5 years at $5.0MM is brilliant IMO.

I will also go on record saying I expect him to break 50 points this year.
 
JeffMangum said:
I mean, looking at it like that, it sounds better. That said, I'm worried that it will hinder our ability to keep Zuccarello long term.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why the team would pay Brass before Zucc either, but if I put aside the fact that I'm upset about that then this deal itself isn't that bad.

However, as I said, I think this is a deal we could've given Brass after this season.

We won't be able to get Zucc for the 4.5 he wanted long term.

Thats the only thing I'm upset about.
 
Looks like Brassard is in the mix as the long-term 2C option. Don't hate it, don't love it. $5m is a big sum of money. Worth it if he continues his playoff performance.

That'll be a hard contract to move if the time comes for that, though.

Very in the middle about this.
 
JeffMangum said:
I don't think whether or not Brassard has a problem with it is relevant, but he kind of did explain why. Hitting the UFA market is definitely enticing to players, especially a center like Brassard who knows he could get a ridiculous payday.
Click to expand...

Yeah he'd get a ridiculous pay day because he's a good player. We got that player for five seasons paying him less than he'd potentially be worth a year from now.
 
I'm not so happy with Stepan and Brassard being our 1 & 2 centers for the foreseeable future. A little too soft and play more of a passive style. It appears that we will not be strong down the middle for a long time.....
 
If Brassard puts up 250 points over the next five years then yeah, it's a fine deal.

I guess it's a matter of preference, I don't exactly have supreme confidence in the player to produce career highs. It's possible that more PP time in Richard's absence will see him do it. It's also possible that he could be supremely frustrating as he was in Columbus when asked to play consistently in a top 6 role.
 
Fire Sather said:
I don't understand why the team would pay Brass before Zucc either, but if I put aside the fact that I'm upset about that then this deal itself isn't that bad.

However, as I said, I think this is a deal we could've given Brass after this season.

We won't be able to get Zucc for the 4.5 he wanted long term.

Thats the only thing I'm upset about.
Click to expand...

If I were to guess it's probably a combination of
A. Zucc on 1 year deal + Brass long term would be cheaper than Brass 1 year deal than Zucc longterm since Brass had a higher arbitration value and Zucc might get more longterm.

B. More confident they could resign Zucc midseason than Brassard and he's shown twice that he would take a discount to be here.
 
BrooklynRangersFan said:
People are *****ing about this? Really? I think this is an extremely good deal, given that they bought four UFA years of a legitimate #2 center (based both on his actual point totals and his importance to the Stanley Cup runners up) entering his prime. What did you people think Brassard was going to cost? I was expecting one year at his QO, 2 years at $4.4-4.7 or 3 years at 4.7-5.0. To get 5 years at $5.0MM is brilliant IMO.

I will also go on record saying I expect him to break 50 points this year.
Click to expand...

Very good post I agree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom