Bridge Deals

[bbfan419]

How is it the Habs can get their guys to keep signing these deals, Subban couple years go and now Galchenyuk just signed for 2 years at an AAV of $2.8M, they also locked up Gallagher long term at a good rate. The Bruins however can't seem to do it, for example Hamilton should have signed a 2 year deal around $3M per then cashed in a couple years down the road?

Click to read more...

 

[LouJersey]

How is it the Habs can get their guys to keep signing these deals, Subban couple years go and now Galchenyuk just signed for 2 years at an AAV of $2.8M, they also locked up Gallagher long term at a good rate. The Bruins however can't seem to do it, for example Hamilton should have signed a 2 year deal around $3M per then cashed in a couple years down the road?

Hamilton is obviously a me first player . It happens .

 

[Gee Wally]

How is it the Habs can get their guys to keep signing these deals, Subban couple years go and now Galchenyuk just signed for 2 years at an AAV of $2.8M, they also locked up Gallagher long term at a good rate. The Bruins however can't seem to do it, for example Hamilton should have signed a 2 year deal around $3M per then cashed in a couple years down the road?

Rask

Krug

Smith

Connolly

Off the top of my head.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

How is it the Habs can get their guys to keep signing these deals, Subban couple years go and now Galchenyuk just signed for 2 years at an AAV of $2.8M, they also locked up Gallagher long term at a good rate. The Bruins however can't seem to do it, for example Hamilton should have signed a 2 year deal around $3M per then cashed in a couple years down the road?

You answered the question yourself. A bridge deal is just that. The player takes it because they have not quite proven themselves yet (for the amount of $$$ they want), and they get a short term deal to "prove it" to the team.

Both parties are taking a risk. If the player lights it up, like PK did, the team now has to pay him more than they would have if they had signed him to a longer term deal initially. If he under-performs, the team makes out to a certain extent because the next deal will be cheaper.

Montreal is not the only team that's doing it. Schwartz in STL and Zibanejad in OTT have deals similar to Galchenyuk's, and will likely get paid big $$$ when their current deals expire. In Gallagher's case, I suspect it was because he was a 5th round choice and had one decent year, one very good year when his contract was up, so he was willing to take a little less for the security (6 years). When you look at a guy like Marchand, BG's deal actually looks right in line. 63 makes a little more, but he also gave the B's two very productive seasons in 11-12 and 12-13 while on his bridge deal. This was one of Chia's best deals IMO.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Rask

Krug

Smith

Connolly

Off the top of my head.

Marchand on the two year deal prior to his current one.

Two year deal @ $2.5m per and put up 55 pts one year (28g/27a in 76 games) and 36 the next (18g/18a in only 45 games).

 

[BruinsCupNow]

Important to remember GloryDaze's point about there being risk on both sides.

Just look at Subban. The Habs got Subban cheap for a couple years, yes. But now they're paying him $9-million/year instead of the $6-7 it would have cost without a bridge.

Still, agreed that Galchenyuk's deal looks good for Montreal the next couple years.

--BCN

 

[chizzler]

Important to remember GloryDaze's point about there being risk on both sides.

Just look at Subban. The Habs got Subban cheap for a couple years, yes. But now they're paying him $9-million/year instead of the $6-7 it would have cost without a bridge.

Still, agreed that Galchenyuk's deal looks good for Montreal the next couple years.

--BCN

They paid him 9mil because they wanted to. They could have gotten him for less. He's not worth that.

 

[Banded Peak]

They paid him 9mil because they wanted to. They could have gotten him for less. He's not worth that.

You can't honestly believe that can you? What business pays an employee a premium wage because they want to? Subban held out once he would've done it again or taken another short deal and walked. Bergevin painted himself into a corner on that one no question.

 

[MtlBoxFan]

I wouldn't be too jealous. In retrospect, before signing the bridge deal, the habs probably could have locked Subban in for 5-6 million for 8 years. Now they are paying him 9 million because he turned out to be PK Subban.

Pre-empting a bridge deal with a long term decent money deal makes so much more sense. Pacioretty costs 4 to 4.5 million. Had he signed a 2 year deal, exploded for 39 goals, he would have cost the habs 7-8 million.

 

[Dellstrom]

Let's say Seguin, if he isn't traded, has the same development here as he has in Dallas. If we signed him to a 2 year, ~3.5m deal, it would just have ended. He has been well over PPG for the last 2 years, among the league's leading scorers each year (at 23) and I guarantee you he would be asking for 8-9m per season. Look at Tarasenko. He's Seguin, but slightly worse. Just locked up 7.5m after his ELC. But watch closely how he does the next 2 years... If STL gave him a 2 year bridge worth ~3.5m, he'd probably be asking for Kane/Toews money after that.

Bridge deals are a glass cannon... They're very safe and you're guaranteed a steal of a contract for a year or two. If the player doesn't develop as you want them to, that's fine, it's a "prove it" contract. But when you give bridge deals to extremely talented young players like Subban, Seguin, or Galchenyuk, who could break out any season now, it's not worth the risk. That's why Montreal is paying 9m for Subban, and why the Isles are paying 5.5m for Tavares, and Dallas is paying 5.75 for 4 more years for Seguin.

Bridge deals are for players like Spooner and Connolly... To prove that they're worth the investment to have them on the NHL club full time. I would have preferred signing Hamilton for 5-8 years at 6m per year to ~3.5m for 2 years.

 

[Jean_Jacket41]

How is it the Habs can get their guys to keep signing these deals, Subban couple years go and now Galchenyuk just signed for 2 years at an AAV of $2.8M, they also locked up Gallagher long term at a good rate. The Bruins however can't seem to do it, for example Hamilton should have signed a 2 year deal around $3M per then cashed in a couple years down the road?

Well, all Habs fans wish Bergevin would have locked him long term instead of the Bridge. His Cap hit would be nowhere near his actual 9M. For the next 6y. 2nd highest paid Dmen more than 1M lower (Weber at 7.8M).

That's the risk you take giving bridge deals...

Personnally, I would never give a bridge deal to a player I want on the team long term. Lock them up for the longer you can.

 

[CDN24]

Let's say Seguin, if he isn't traded, has the same development here as he has in Dallas. If we signed him to a 2 year, ~3.5m deal, it would just have ended. He has been well over PPG for the last 2 years, among the league's leading scorers each year (at 23) and I guarantee you he would be asking for 8-9m per season. Look at Tarasenko. He's Seguin, but slightly worse. Just locked up 7.5m after his ELC. But watch closely how he does the next 2 years... If STL gave him a 2 year bridge worth ~3.5m, he'd probably be asking for Kane/Toews money after that.

Bridge deals are a glass cannon... They're very safe and you're guaranteed a steal of a contract for a year or two. If the player doesn't develop as you want them to, that's fine, it's a "prove it" contract. But when you give bridge deals to extremely talented young players like Subban, Seguin, or Galchenyuk, who could break out any season now, it's not worth the risk. That's why Montreal is paying 9m for Subban, and why the Isles are paying 5.5m for Tavares, and Dallas is paying 5.75 for 4 more years for Seguin.

Bridge deals are for players like Spooner and Connolly... To prove that they're worth the investment to have them on the NHL club full time. I would have preferred signing Hamilton for 5-8 years at 6m per year to ~3.5m for 2 years.

Disclaimer- Habs fan on Bruins board but generally the discussions league wide are better over here. I am a fan of the bridge deal and yeah we are paying Subban a boatlod now and hopefully will end upd paying Galchenyuk a pile as well as it will mean he developed. The bridge deal is about risk management (gives you 2 more years to see what you have) In a situation where I give a bridge deal the downside is a player may be much better in those 2 years and i have to pay him market value. If I go the longterm deal right out of ELC the downside is that his development stalls and I pay more than market value. if the cost of being wrong is i pay what a guy is worth vs over pay i will go the bridge route. that said he may bust after the bridge anyway but I have more info.

Using the Seguin and Dougie examples. Bruins would have been better served with a bridge deal in either case. Sure Seguin would cost way more now but you get to evaluate his fit for 2 more years and if you still want to trade him after the bridge you can and would get more for him. You would have had more cap space over last 2 years as well. win win. Mtl has went bridge route on all except Gallagher recently. patcioretty , price Subban all signed bridge deals.

 

[Jean_Jacket41]

Let's say Seguin, if he isn't traded, has the same development here as he has in Dallas. If we signed him to a 2 year, ~3.5m deal, it would just have ended. He has been well over PPG for the last 2 years, among the league's leading scorers each year (at 23) and I guarantee you he would be asking for 8-9m per season. Look at Tarasenko. He's Seguin, but slightly worse. Just locked up 7.5m after his ELC. But watch closely how he does the next 2 years... If STL gave him a 2 year bridge worth ~3.5m, he'd probably be asking for Kane/Toews money after that.

Bridge deals are a glass cannon... They're very safe and you're guaranteed a steal of a contract for a year or two. If the player doesn't develop as you want them to, that's fine, it's a "prove it" contract. But when you give bridge deals to extremely talented young players like Subban, Seguin, or Galchenyuk, who could break out any season now, it's not worth the risk. That's why Montreal is paying 9m for Subban, and why the Isles are paying 5.5m for Tavares, and Dallas is paying 5.75 for 4 more years for Seguin.

Bridge deals are for players like Spooner and Connolly... To prove that they're worth the investment to have them on the NHL club full time. I would have preferred signing Hamilton for 5-8 years at 6m per year to ~3.5m for 2 years.

Agree with all of this.

 

[Dellstrom]

Disclaimer- Habs fan on Bruins board but generally the discussions league wide are better over here. I am a fan of the bridge deal and yeah we are paying Subban a boatlod now and hopefully will end upd paying Galchenyuk a pile as well as it will mean he developed. The bridge deal is about risk management (gives you 2 more years to see what you have) In a situation where I give a bridge deal the downside is a player may be much better in those 2 years and i have to pay him market value. If I go the longterm deal right out of ELC the downside is that his development stalls and I pay more than market value. if the cost of being wrong is i pay what a guy is worth vs over pay i will go the bridge route. that said he may bust after the bridge anyway but I have more info.

Using the Seguin and Dougie examples. Bruins would have been better served with a bridge deal in either case. Sure Seguin would cost way more now but you get to evaluate his fit for 2 more years and if you still want to trade him after the bridge you can and would get more for him. You would have had more cap space over last 2 years as well. win win. Mtl has went bridge route on all except Gallagher recently. patcioretty , price Subban all signed bridge deals.

Seguin's development certainly didn't stall after he signed a long-term deal. From the way Neely and Chiarelli talked about him, it sounded like Seguin was going no matter what. They didn't like him. Hamilton, we had no choice in signing him to a bridge or long term deal, he didn't want to play here.

There are positives and negatives to bridge deals, but with young, elite potential players, I feel the cons outweigh the pros. If you can ink someone to a fair deal, even if it's overpayment for a year or two, it's a much better deal in the long run.

 

[Zac Rinaldo*]

Rask

Krug

Smith

Connolly

Off the top of my head.

this.

 

[JOKER 192]

I think when a player has neared or passed the 50 point threshold, especially for a defenseman, the risk of a longer term deal is minimal. I would go long term in such a case. In the case of a player who has the potential but is struggling, then you go bridge.

 

[Era of Sanity]

Bridge deals can be a risk for the team to. Subban has a higher cap hit now because of the bridge deal. Probably Rask to.

 

[RedeyeRocketeer]

Rask

Krug

Smith

Connolly

Off the top of my head.

Spooner is another, Krug twice

 

[chizzler]

Spooner is another, Krug twice

Spooner really didn't have any pull.

 

[habs03]

Just want to get my .02 in regards to this topic.

Key thing to remember in regards to Subban bridge deal, at the time the rumor was he wanted a 5 year at around 5M deal, nothing about a 8 year deal. This would have only ate up 1 UFA year, and Subban would basically become a UFA in 2 years from now at 28 years old, signing him at that point would be a lot more costly. When Subban signed his bridge deal, Benn in Dallas was going through the same thing, and he got his 5 year deal, with the way he is playing, when his contract is up soon he'll be cashing in like crazy as a UFA.

But I agree that if you have a star player after their ELC it might be a good idea to skip the bridge deal, but you have to get max term of 8 years. When Taraskeno got his deal, the Blues GM Armstrong's said that when they started to talk to his agent, they said they will pay him star money but he had to give them star terms, hence 8 years.

Some teams were skipping bridge deals but imo made mistakes in not getting max term with it, ex Kane, Benn..

 

[chizzler]

I wouldn't give a player anything past a 4 or 5 year deal. These long term deals usually don't turn out so well. They can cripple a teams cap. I guess a team can get by on one of these bad contracts, but two of them is suicide. Chicago is doomed. 10 mil x two?!!! Crazy. Of course they aren't up for a bridge. Sorry to go off track.