Confirmed with Link: Juuse Saros Extended

[Kat Predator]

WRT Halak....
His last 5 seasons
18-19 : played 49% of the games - end of season age 34 - 5.5 million cap
19-20 : played 44% of the games - 5.5 million cap
20-21 : played 34% of the games - 2.25 million cap
21-22 : played 21% of the games - 1.5 million cap
22-23 : played 30% of the games -
end of season age 38 - 1.5 million cap

If Saros goes the way of Halak in terms of workload, that is one hell of an expensive backup. Halak's longest contract was 6 years (all prime). After his 30s, his longest was 4. His mid to late 30s, a 2 year contract, then two 1 year contracts.


It isnt the contract cap that bothers me right now... it is having that caphit until his is well past his prime for goalies attached to alot of trade protection.

On the bright side, we may be close to the end of the Kyle Turris buyout by then.

 

[Predsanddead24]

Has there been someone that 100% refused to waive? That shit just means they can control where they get traded to, just like McDonagh.

Trouba and Tavares this offseason. Not sure the trade market for them but Suter and Parise were both big names with NMCs that had to be bought out. McDonagh also wouldn’t have been traded if he had an NMC. What made moving him to us possible was they said we’ll waive you and anyone can take you or you can waive your NTC and pick where you go. I believe there were several guys in both expansion drafts who refused to waive NTC/NMCs as well. That’s just off the top of my head so there are probably many more I’m not thinking of too.

 

[Armourboy]

Trouba and Tavares this offseason. Not sure the trade market for them but Suter and Parise were both big names with NMCs that had to be bought out. McDonagh also wouldn’t have been traded if he had an NMC. What made moving him to us possible was they said we’ll waive you and anyone can take you or you can waive your NTC and pick where you go. I believe there were several guys in both expansion drafts who refused to waive NTC/NMCs as well. That’s just off the top of my head so there are probably many more I’m not thinking of too.

Ullmark wouldn't waive last season either, although he ultimately did this off season. It happens fairly often, we just don't see it around here because Poile never would give them to anyone. Generally speaking guys are only going to waive if they think its a better deal for them.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

I'm sure this has already been stated somewhere in this thread (so, sorry...), but I think it's pretty easy to see why this happened. The window opened A LOT quicker than anyone expected and Trotz is acting accordingly. The team is obviously pushing all the chips to the middle of the table with the FA signings. The window is now open for the next 3-4 years for a legit shot at the cup. No matter how good the projection of Askarov's play is, it's just that...a projection. If I'm Trotz, there is no way I'm going into the next 4 years with an unproven prospect in goal, unless it's a necessity.

 

[triggrman]

Ullmark wouldn't waive last season either, although he ultimately did this off season. It happens fairly often, we just don't see it around here because Poile never would give them to anyone. Generally speaking guys are only going to waive if they think its a better deal for them.

I'd imagine if we're falling off, Saros would prefer to play on a team with higher goals.

 

[herzausstein]

I'd imagine if we're falling off, Saros would prefer to play on a team with higher goals.

What if it is saros that is falling off but doesnt want to leave? There are alot of scenerios that can play out here which is why i hate the length/NMC. Short term is fine... longterm i hope it works out without causing any real issues. We got 4 or so years before he reaches that age range where goalies normally start dropping off quick in either workload or performance. I think that is what Trotz is looking at.... worry about the rest later.

 

[jonu]

WRT Halak....
His last 5 seasons
18-19 : played 49% of the games - end of season age 34 - 5.5 million cap
19-20 : played 44% of the games - 5.5 million cap
20-21 : played 34% of the games - 2.25 million cap
21-22 : played 21% of the games - 1.5 million cap
22-23 : played 30% of the games -
end of season age 38 - 1.5 million cap

If Saros goes the way of Halak in terms of workload, that is one hell of an expensive backup. Halak's longest contract was 6 years (all prime). After his 30s, his longest was 4. His mid to late 30s, a 2 year contract, then two 1 year contracts.


It isnt the contract cap that bothers me right now... it is having that caphit until his is well past his prime for goalies attached to alot of trade protection.

Another example is Lundqvist who signed his 7 year extension for 8.5M as a 31 year old.

Saros for 6 years would have been around 10M, that is 2 million in cap space that can be used in the trade deadline for seasons to come. Goalies in general age better than skaters, and Nashville's window is open for 3 years now and if it doesn't work out, Saros should still be in his prime and with a little retention probably an enticing piece for a contender looking for help between the pipes.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

What if it is saros that is falling off but doesnt want to leave? There are alot of scenerios that can play out here which is why i hate the length/NMC. Short term is fine... longterm i hope it works out without causing any real issues. We got 4 or so years before he reaches that age range where goalies normally start dropping off quick in either workload or performance. I think that is what Trotz is looking at.... worry about the rest later.

I suspect Trotz simply is more willing to be "ruthless" if he really needs to be than Poile was. If he needs to buy out Saros in 4-5 years, he doesn't mind either the Cap penalty or the player's potentially bruised ego. He already showed that with how willing he was to take those really big hits on Duchene and Johansen. I think Poile tended to take the term and commitment in the big contracts he signed quite personally, which might have made him more reticent to "renege" on a commitment. But I think the better approach, even if it seems "ruthless", is that it's a 2-way street: by signing that contract with the full NMC, Saros is making a commitment too, that he'll continue to be a top NHL goaltender until he's 36, 37, 38 years old. And if he "reneges" on that by failing to be that good - then Trotz won't hesitate to buy out the contract, whereas Poile probably would have had trouble doing that.


In 4-5 years, the Cap will probably have gone up to something well over $100M. The buyout won't be crippling. If you have to do it because the player didn't hold up his end of the bargain, you do it.

The longer term is at least somewhat protected in that sense.

Then Expansion almost certainly happens at some point over that contract, and if it happens within the next 2-4 years *AND* at the same time Askarov progresses very well, then you're still not exactly stuck. You trade Askarov for a 2nd round pick or whatever paltry value the market will bear, or let the Expansion team go ahead and take him. It's not ideal, but it's not going to destroy the franchise.

I think Trotz just shrugs at those kinds of things moreso than Poile would have, he's less concerned about the birds in the bush, more willing to "do whatever's necessary" if situations arise down the road that require a bandaid to be ripped off with a little wince of pain in the process. He's not going to spend time worrying overly about those scenarios, because he knows he'll be willing to make any hard decisions needed if they do arise.

 

[herzausstein]

Another example is Lundqvist who signed his 7 year extension for 8.5M as a 31 year old.

Saros for 6 years would have been around 10M, that is 2 million in cap space that can be used in the trade deadline for seasons to come. Goalies in general age better than skaters, and Nashville's window is open for 3 years now and if it doesn't work out, Saros should still be in his prime and with a little retention probably an enticing piece for a contender looking for help between the pipes.

I would disagree that goalies age better than skaters. Goalies are almost always pushed into a backup role at or around age 35. Since 2015, there have been maybe 10 goalies to carry a starters load after age 35 and only a couple into their later 30s. Most of the time they are relegated to backup duty if they manage to stay in the NHL. The job is hard on the joints. There are some notable exceptions and hopefully he can join them but they arent great odds.

 

[Softball99]

What if it is saros that is falling off but doesnt want to leave? There are alot of scenerios that can play out here which is why i hate the length/NMC. Short term is fine... longterm i hope it works out without causing any real issues. We got 4 or so years before he reaches that age range where goalies normally start dropping off quick in either workload or performance. I think that is what Trotz is looking at.... worry about the rest later.

Who cares if you're paying 7< for a back up if you're paying Askarov 5> because he's better

 

[JPT]

What if it is saros that is falling off but doesnt want to leave? There are alot of scenerios that can play out here which is why i hate the length/NMC. Short term is fine... longterm i hope it works out without causing any real issues. We got 4 or so years before he reaches that age range where goalies normally start dropping off quick in either workload or performance. I think that is what Trotz is looking at.... worry about the rest later.

Then you have a cap anchor, for sure, but there’s nothing keeping him in the net if he starts to falter, or if Askarov is simply better.

 

[Armourboy]

Who cares if you're paying 7< for a back up if you're paying Askarov 5> because he's better

Because ultimately you'd rather being burning that money on a better skater than a backup goalie.

 

[PredsV82]

Ugh. We are all hopeful for Askarov but as of now he hasn't proved anything at the NHL level. He's unlikely to play well enough this next year to get much of a salary bump after his ELC so we won't have an issue with too much money committed to goaltending for at least another 3 or 4 years. By then this "veteran window" will be closed and we can figure it out then. This is like buying a new car and worrying because it only has a 50,000 mile warranty.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

We're paying $12M on the Cap for Matt Duchene, Ryan Johansen, and Kyle Turris this season alone. While planning to have a competitive team which makes the playoffs.

So whether we sat on a $2-3M buyout hit or a $5-7M inefficiency one day in overpaying Saros as a veteran backup, it shouldn't be fatal. By itself. Things add up, so I guess the key is we can't afford too many more of these kinds of risks going forward. But we can get away with one on Saros.

My objection to the contract is not so much based on its escapability and definitely not on anything to do with Askarov. My objection continues to be the "rushed" aspect of handing it out right now, right after Saros' worst season, and therefore on the feeling that we should have been able to either sign him to a lesser contract or at least have waited until we saw he was back on his previous track in terms of deserving this kind of contract. It's an ok contract for a Vezina-candidate goalie. But he simply wasn't at that level last season. So if he needed to have a contract extension NOW, we should have been able to negotiate him down from that level of contract. Or been prepared to wait until he re-established his credentials. Either way.

 

[Predsanddead24]

It's kind of funny we had so much discussion about the long term risk of Saros's contract but none about Skjei's which is perhaps even more risky

 

[glenngineer]

We're paying $12M on the Cap for Matt Duchene, Ryan Johansen, and Kyle Turris this season alone. While planning to have a competitive team which makes the playoffs.

So whether we sat on a $2-3M buyout hit or a $5-7M inefficiency one day in overpaying Saros as a veteran backup, it shouldn't be fatal. By itself. Things add up, so I guess the key is we can't afford too many more of these kinds of risks going forward. But we can get away with one on Saros.

My objection to the contract is not so much based on its escapability and definitely not on anything to do with Askarov. My objection continues to be the "rushed" aspect of handing it out right now, right after Saros' worst season, and therefore on the feeling that we should have been able to either sign him to a lesser contract or at least have waited until we saw he was back on his previous track in terms of deserving this kind of contract. It's an ok contract for a Vezina-candidate goalie. But he simply wasn't at that level last season. So if he needed to have a contract extension NOW, we should have been able to negotiate him down from that level of contract. Or been prepared to wait until he re-established his credentials. Either way.

Or maybe, just maybe, any reticence for any free agent to sign here was evaded because they knew Juice would be in net for the foreseeable future. Things don’t always work in a vacuum and while the majority around here don’t like the contract itself, if it brought in the free agents it did, it becomes a lot more palatable.

 

[triggrman]

It's kind of funny we had so much discussion about the long term risk of Saros's contract but none about Skjei's which is perhaps even more risky

I actually think that was our most solid signing.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I actually think that was our most solid signing.

Yeah, we would have had McDonagh for his age 36 and 37 seasons at $6.75M if we hadn't switched him out for the younger Skjei, and tbh I think McDonagh was pretty much worth the money even at those ages. (Or Ekholm would be similarly). So the hope is when Skjei gets there, he'll still be similarly effective too. No longer at his peak, but still good enough that you don't really mind the pricetag.

We basically only have 2 legitimate "top 4" NHL defensemen right now, IMO. And Josi is only signed for 4 more years. It's a tougher lineup slot to fill even "adequately" than goalie IMO, and the good D are still useful even when they are past their primes. Once they slow down a bit, they can still be effective just based on experience and playing smart. I'm not sure how well the same thing would work for an older small goalie who relies on speed and agility for his edge.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Or maybe, just maybe, any reticence for any free agent to sign here was evaded because they knew Juice would be in net for the foreseeable future. Things don’t always work in a vacuum and while the majority around here don’t like the contract itself, if it brought in the free agents it did, it becomes a lot more palatable.

I guess I just don't see Saros as having that kind of reputation around the league? It's not like he ever stole a series against one of these guys or has ever won a major award or anything? He has never even won a playoff round. What kind of draw would he represent?

I can see the other two taking note because of Stamkos, O'Reilly, Josi reputations maybe. Or we already know Stamkos' interest was boosted with a reference from the Schenns. But any of that stuff would be secondary... because...

Regardless of any of those connections, I think we also put the absolute BEST contracts on the table that any of those players saw, period. Nobody was paying them more total $$$, and they all got full NMCs. In a good city with low taxes. That's what brought in the free agents.

 

[Predsanddead24]

I guess I should say I'm perfectly fine with the Skjei contract because it was a void we absolutely needed to fill if we wanted to be competitive in the near term, but I also think that is true of Saros. Defenseman playing well into their late 30s is maybe slightly less rare than goalies but still not common. I'm not sure Skjei is comparable to McDonagh and Ekholm because he is a guy who relies much more on speed than McD and Ekholm who are very strong positionally. Hopefully both guys buck the usual trend but I just find it kind of interesting we've had so much more discussion about the contract risks of a top five goalie in the league versus a 2D when they signed fairly similar contracts.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I guess I should say I'm perfectly fine with the Skjei contract because it was a void we absolutely needed to fill if we wanted to be competitive in the near term, but I also think that is true of Saros. Defenseman playing well into their late 30s is maybe slightly less rare than goalies but still not common. I'm not sure Skjei is comparable to McDonagh and Ekholm because he is a guy who relies much more on speed than McD and Ekholm who are very strong positionally. Hopefully both guys buck the usual trend but I just find it kind of interesting we've had so much more discussion about the contract risks of a top five goalie in the league versus a 2D when they signed fairly similar contracts.

If we had no starting goalie, and Saros was an unrestricted free agent, I would be perfectly fine if we had signed him to the Skjei contract, for sure.

Except, we already had a starting goalie. Saros himself, and at just $5M. Maybe next year he'll stand on his head and we'll be thrilled we already locked him up at such a "bargain" for 8 more years. Or maybe not. More likely he'll just be "okay" again, and we could have punted the question a year down the road. Nobody else in the league was going to sign him to that contract if he's just "okay" again, that's for sure.

 

[PredsV82]

We're paying $12M on the Cap for Matt Duchene, Ryan Johansen, and Kyle Turris this season alone. While planning to have a competitive team which makes the playoffs.

So whether we sat on a $2-3M buyout hit or a $5-7M inefficiency one day in overpaying Saros as a veteran backup, it shouldn't be fatal. By itself. Things add up, so I guess the key is we can't afford too many more of these kinds of risks going forward. But we can get away with one on Saros.

My objection to the contract is not so much based on its escapability and definitely not on anything to do with Askarov. My objection continues to be the "rushed" aspect of handing it out right now, right after Saros' worst season, and therefore on the feeling that we should have been able to either sign him to a lesser contract or at least have waited until we saw he was back on his previous track in terms of deserving this kind of contract. It's an ok contract for a Vezina-candidate goalie. But he simply wasn't at that level last season. So if he needed to have a contract extension NOW, we should have been able to negotiate him down from that level of contract. Or been prepared to wait until he re-established his credentials. Either way.

You are still looking at it wrong. Once the decision was made to "go for it" then locking up Saros became necessary. You don't go all in and then risk pissing off your Vezina caliber goalie and having him walk, or even just having the distraction of not having an extension settled heading into the season. The 8 years and NMC were going to happen. The AAV is reasonable.

Is it October yet? LFG!

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

You are still looking at it wrong. Once the decision was made to "go for it" then locking up Saros became necessary. You don't go all in and then risk pissing off your Vezina caliber goalie and having him walk, or even just having the distraction of not having an extension settled heading into the season. The 8 years and NMC were going to happen. The AAV is reasonable.

Is it October yet? LFG!

I still find it ironic that you of all people can refer to Saros that way, after years of trashing him here, while I on the other hand, after years of defending him here, find that bolded bestowed title to be one of the key problems in this whole thing.

I'd be very content to risk "pissing off" a mediocre/decent goalie... and indeed expect that if such a goalie wanted to land a big new contract he'd play his ass off for it in the coming season. And then the 8 years and NMC could very well happen... *IF* he went out and earned it.

Or if instead he was going to be distracted by not having that contract, then I want to know that he's so easily distracted because I don't want a guy who can be distracted like that as my starter for 8 more years.

 

[Predsanddead24]

If we had no starting goalie, and Saros was an unrestricted free agent, I would be perfectly fine if we had signed him to the Skjei contract, for sure.

Except, we already had a starting goalie. Saros himself, and at just $5M. Maybe next year he'll stand on his head and we'll be thrilled we already locked him up at such a "bargain" for 8 more years. Or maybe not. More likely he'll just be "okay" again, and we could have punted the question a year down the road. Nobody else in the league was going to sign him to that contract if he's just "okay" again, that's for sure.

I guess I just disagree that it is most likely he'll be just okay again. I'd expect some bounce back from him anyways, the team in front of him is improved, and we brought Korn back into the mix which should provide some fresh perspectives for him. I also just really can't understand where the argument Saros isn't a top starter comes from unless you only consider last season (although he still finished 5th in Vezina voting FWIW). Statswise he's up there with all the other top guys. He's been top five in Vezina voting each of the last three seasons too.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I guess I just disagree that it is most likely he'll be just okay again. I'd expect some bounce back from him anyways, the team in front of him is improved, and we brought Korn back into the mix which should provide some fresh perspectives for him. I also just really can't understand where the argument Saros isn't a top starter comes from unless you only consider last season (although he still finished 5th in Vezina voting FWIW). Statswise he's up there with all the other top guys. He's been top five in Vezina voting each of the last three seasons too.

Not that I have much faith in the Vezina voters... but Saros has been a starting goalie for what, 5 seasons? He finished 3rd once. 5 different guys won the Vezina. Saros wasn't one of them. 5 other different guys finished 2nd. Saros wasn't one of them. 25 different guys have received 3rd place votes. But he did finish 3rd once. Overall, he's tied for 8th in Vezina voting points over those 5 years of starting.

Not saying that's bad at all. Last year he shouldn't have received any votes at all, but then the voting system tends to be like that with guys getting votes on reputation alone sometimes.

Overall, it's just not quite what I'd call "Vezina caliber"; it's not like he has actually won one or come close to winning one, which is what I would like to have seen for using that designation.

And if you're the 8th best starting goalie in the league, on average, that's also very good. It's in line with the $5M contract he had (relative to goalie salaries of those 5 years). And in the next few years, that number will rise, even for the 8th best guy. Hence why I kept arguing for something like 6 yrs at $6.74M. That'll be more in line with where Saros actually sits. Which is still very good, still a goalie you'd like to have as your starter.

But yeah, to get the contract he got, that's another tier up, and I just don't think his actual accomplishments have hit that tier yet. I think we'd be taking a somewhat homeristic view to state that he's really a "Vezina caliber" goalie, on his track record to date. Especially with last season entered into the mix. Which is not to say he couldn't emerge as one down the road, maybe even next season, who knows, with the mentioned Korn + better team hopes. It's possible. I'd have taken my chances. I'd have even been very happy to give him the 8x$9.74M full-NMC contract if he did actually win the Vezina next year. I'd accept the extra $2M dunce cap as the price of having played it safe, and still be very confident that he would not have looked elsewhere for that contract in the off chance that he met with that much success in 2024-25.