Rumor: Juuse Saros Signs 8 Year / $7.74 AAV Contract

[Porter Stoutheart]

Yeah the NTC/NMC is the big sticking point. I wouldn't love $8M x 8yrs but if it comes without any trade protections I think it would be ok.

I would walk away from an 8-year term at almost any AAV. I mean, he'd have to discount us down to like $5M per if I was going to accept an 8-year term. No point in that for him if he can get the same total $ on a 6-year deal.

Trotz is in a great position to play hardball if it ever came to that. We have Saros under contract for next season, so we don't NEED to extend him this summer. Never offer more than 6 years, never offer a NMC... and just shut down negotiations entirely if the Saros camp can't accept those starting requirements. There isn't enough of a market for Saros out there that Trotz should fear just walking away from him if it ever came down to that. It won't. But Trotz has all the leverage here. I'll be really disappointed and really start questioning Trotz if he hands out some "candy" style contract to Saros. I don't think he will. But I've been disappointed in our management before.

 

[Predsanddead24]

I would walk away from an 8-year term at almost any AAV. I mean, he'd have to discount us down to like $5M per if I was going to accept an 8-year term. No point in that for him if he can get the same total $ on a 6-year deal.

Trotz is in a great position to play hardball if it ever came to that. We have Saros under contract for next season, so we don't NEED to extend him this summer. Never offer more than 6 years, never offer a NMC... and just shut down negotiations entirely if the Saros camp can't accept those starting requirements. There isn't enough of a market for Saros out there that Trotz should fear just walking away from him if it ever came down to that. It won't. But Trotz has all the leverage here. I'll be really disappointed and really start questioning Trotz if he hands out some "candy" style contract to Saros. I don't think he will. But I've been disappointed in our management before.

I still don't see where your optimism that Saros is going to take a way below market value contract but I like the optimism. I think the leverage is pretty equal here. Saros knows we don't want to lose him for nothing. The trade market for Saros may be tight since we want a big return but I think teams would be signing up to sign him as a free agent. Far less proven goalies have gotten pretty big deals in free agency recently. Our leverage is only that if he doesn't sign he runs the risk of injury or a really down year cratering his value so signing now gives him some security.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I still don't see where your optimism that Saros is going to take a way below market value contract but I like the optimism. I think the leverage is pretty equal here. Saros knows we don't want to lose him for nothing. The trade market for Saros may be tight since we want a big return but I think teams would be signing up to sign him as a free agent. Far less proven goalies have gotten pretty big deals in free agency recently. Our leverage is only that if he doesn't sign he runs the risk of injury or a really down year cratering his value so signing now gives him some security.

Again, this is a bit of a hypothetical tangent... I don't just have "optimism", I have "confidence" in us getting Saros on a below market value contract! ... but at the same time, I think NHL GMs should be largely unworried about losing players "for nothing". Fans worry. But for the vast majority of players, I don't think GMs should worry. Cap space is an asset, and replacement players are always available. (Apart from a very small group of true superstars).

I would rather have "nothing" than have Saros on an 8-year contract extension, if it came to that (it won't, because he could always be traded as a rental for even just a 2nd round pick at the TDL). So to me, Saros has ZERO leverage over us on that front also.

 

[Armourboy]

Yeah I don't understand this theory of not being able to get much so we then need to pivot to giving him an 8 year deal. I mean I'd give him 8 years but it would be capped at 5 mil per season, or I give him 4 years at like 8 - 8.5, but at no point is 8 x 8 on the table.

If he thinks he has to 8 x 8 or even 7 x 8 I'm moving him for whatever I can get. Just because the return isn't good doesn't mean I'm doubling down and giving you what you want on a contract.

 

[herzausstein]

8 years x 8.5 million

Based of Hellebuyck's contract i guess.

Personally, id be ok with that caphit on a 4 year contract but i dont want to give him anything beyond 5 years unless it is deeply discounted like 6 million AAV territory.

 

[Gh24]

Again, this is a bit of a hypothetical tangent... I don't just have "optimism", I have "confidence" in us getting Saros on a below market value contract! ... but at the same time, I think NHL GMs should be largely unworried about losing players "for nothing". Fans worry. But for the vast majority of players, I don't think GMs should worry. Cap space is an asset, and replacement players are always available. (Apart from a very small group of true superstars).

I would rather have "nothing" than have Saros on an 8-year contract extension, if it came to that (it won't, because he could always be traded as a rental for even just a 2nd round pick at the TDL). So to me, Saros has ZERO leverage over us on that front also.

Yeah fans probably worry a lot more Fans criticize long term deals, but team sports is more than just straight business. It's still business, but as we have a recent case study of McDonaugh it's people management as well.

Some long term deals may very well be the kind where the management wants to reward a player and worry about the rear end of the deal later. Good management looks further than your average EA NHL manager, but sometimes the deals may be gifts of some sort.

Can you give NTC for the first 5 years for example?

BT wants to keep Saros and Saros wants to stay (right?) but also wants to get paid. Barry must have made it clear it's going to be difficult to work a long term deal, because if Askarov delivers they probably have to pay him sooner than Saros' desired deal ends. Could something like 4 or 5 year NTC work? Basically they shake hands that Saros stays with the club for now, but if things get hairy after that NTC it's straight business (edit; the gift part is the remaining three years whether it means they have to buy him out or pay to get rid of his contract). I mean you can make Saros' $8M and Askarov's ELC+bridge work for five years. It's obviously not risk free, but in five years both Turris and Duchene buyouts are gone and Josi's contract has expired.

 

[PredsV82]

You have to think Trotz has talked to Haslam and knows whether he's going to be comfortable handing out big contracts that might have to be bought out in a few years. If we sign him to an 8 year deal and get 4 good years out of him before Askarov is the clear successor, getting rid of those last 4 years won't be as bad as it sounds right now

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I would do my standard 6x$6.67M or maybe 5x$7.5M. 10-team NTC in the first 3 years. If he wants more than that, he can be traded for peanuts or walk next summer, That's a top-10 goalie contract. It's not Hellebuyck or Vasilevskiy or Bobrosvsky - because Saros hasn't done as much as they have. He hasn't won a Vezina or even a playoff round. The idea that he should get a comparable contract to the top 5 goalies in the league I think passed him by when he whiffed this past season. Maybe if he had been a Vezina finalist again or stole a playoff round, things would be different. Instead, he was mediocre overall in the regular season and didn't win in the playoffs again. He slid down a tier from the true elite. Maybe he gets back there next season (especially with Korn back in town)... so worst case, you punt it a year. Or if he wants $40M right now, ok, we can take that much of a gamble. But there's a limit to the gamble you take right now, and it's based on the player's actual recent performance. If he won't take our terms now (I think he will) then you let him try for something better with his performance next year. But you don't give him a contract that just ignores his poor performance.

 

[wmupreds]

I would do my standard 6x$6.67M or maybe 5x$7.5M. 10-team NTC in the first 3 years. If he wants more than that, he can be traded for peanuts or walk next summer, That's a top-10 goalie contract. It's not Hellebuyck or Vasilevskiy or Bobrosvsky - because Saros hasn't done as much as they have. He hasn't won a Vezina or even a playoff round. The idea that he should get a comparable contract to the top 5 goalies in the league I think passed him by when he whiffed this past season. Maybe if he had been a Vezina finalist again or stole a playoff round, things would be different. Instead, he was mediocre overall in the regular season and didn't win in the playoffs again. He slid down a tier from the true elite. Maybe he gets back there next season (especially with Korn back in town)... so worst case, you punt it a year. Or if he wants $40M right now, ok, we can take that much of a gamble. But there's a limit to the gamble you take right now, and it's based on the player's actual recent performance. If he won't take our terms now (I think he will) then you let him try for something better with his performance next year. But you don't give him a contract that just ignores his poor performance.

I don't see Saros taking 5 years or 6, especially at a sub-7 cap hit. Frankly, if those are the numbers you had in mind I'm surprised you've been saying you think he'll sign this whole time.

Edit: Also the team is FAR better off trading him now than for "peanuts" after another year. They just showed being competitive without Saros at an elite level is possible. We aren't winning a cup this year. Why hold on to him if he's demanding 8x8+?

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I don't see Saros taking 5 years or 6, especially at a sub-7 cap hit. Frankly, if those are the numbers you had in mind I'm surprised you've been saying you think he'll sign this whole time.

Edit: Also the team is FAR better off trading him now than for "peanuts" after another year. They just showed being competitive without Saros at an elite level is possible. We aren't winning a cup this year. Why hold on to him if he's demanding 8x8+?

I bet Saros won't negotiate as hard with Trotz as I am with you lot here.

And we are holding onto him precisely because he ISN'T demanding 8x8+, of course. Otherwise he would indeed have been traded for peanuts (or something comparable to what NJ gave up for Markstrom anyway, if that qualifies as "peanuts").

 

[Predsanddead24]

I don't see Saros taking 5 years or 6, especially at a sub-7 cap hit. Frankly, if those are the numbers you had in mind I'm surprised you've been saying you think he'll sign this whole time.

Edit: Also the team is FAR better off trading him now than for "peanuts" after another year. They just showed being competitive without Saros at an elite level is possible. We aren't winning a cup this year. Why hold on to him if he's demanding 8x8+?

Yeah we will see but I just can't see Saros taking something like that. Based on comparables he will almost certainly get more in that in free agency especially in a rising cap world. To me it is fantasyland to think he's going to sign for a Grubauer level contract.

 

[Kat Predator]

To some degree, a not insignificant degree, I feel Saros is a "system" goalie. In the right system (like what Hynes ran), he can be (near) elite level on a consistent basis. When you stick him out on an island, he trends more to being average or a notch up from average. To be fair, few goalies ever can exist on an island, play great consistently, and steal wins. Those guys go to the Hall of Fame. But Saros is a smaller, speed and technique goalie. He's really good at that, but he can be made to look silly by attackers who can break him down or are left open for clean passes and clean looks. He's not that walrus who can nap in the net and cover 99.9% of it.

 

[jumb0]

If 8 years is agreed upon there better not be any type of NTC/NMC.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Yeah we will see but I just can't see Saros taking something like that. Based on comparables he will almost certainly get more in that in free agency especially in a rising cap world. To me it is fantasyland to think he's going to sign for a Grubauer level contract.

Grubbauer is actually an interesting example. Because he got a 6x$5.9M coming off a 1.95 GAA and .922 SvPCT, and a 3rd-place Vezina voting. Saros has also had a solitary 3rd-place Vezina vote. But hasn't won as many playoff series as Grubbauer. Grubbauer's subsequent dropoff and injury history is a great example of what might happen with Saros part way through such a contract. So it's good for Seattle they didn't commit any more than that.

Saros has had more starting seasons, so he should get at least a little more. But folks are getting a little carried away if they think his accomplishments are THAT much greater. Grubbauer sucks now, so it's easy to forget what got him that deal, but Saros hasn't EARNED much more than that. And he's not so young that folks should be gambling on some kind of "upside" with him anymore. He'll be 30 when a new deal kicks in. A contract in the #5-10 range for goalies in the league is still very good for him, it's unfortunate that he hasn't earned more yet.

 

[Flgatorguy87]

I have no issues signing him, but like many here an 8 year deal is scary. I want no part of that contract unless it's got movement ability and it's a friendly deal. That is 3 years too long at minimum in my mind.

 

[Scoresberg]

If you give Saros 8 years, what do you do with Askarov? Why did you ever draft him?

 

[herzausstein]

I have no issues signing him, but like many here an 8 year deal is scary. I want no part of that contract unless it's got movement ability and it's a friendly deal. That is 3 years too long at minimum in my mind.

What good does movement ability do though? If he is performing, you dont want to move him. If he isnt, then being locked in until he is 38 makes him unmoveable.

 

[Flgatorguy87]

What good does movement ability do though? If he is performing, you dont want to move him. If he isnt, then being locked in until he is 38 makes him unmoveable.

There's a lot of space between being great and being crap, and mainly the space of being free to move him if Askarov is ready to take over.

 

[herzausstein]

There's a lot of space between being great and being crap, and mainly the space of being free to move him if Askarov is ready to take over.

I reckon markstrom just got a 1st and prospect for being old and mediocre but his caphit was brought down to 4.125 million. May have to retain but i reckon it would be possible to do and get some value

 

[Flgatorguy87]

I reckon markstrom just got a 1st and prospect for being old and mediocre but his caphit was brought down to 4.125 million. May have to retain but i reckon it would be possible to do and get some value

Yeah, I think in a world where he puts up numbers around this past season, he'd still garner interest if the price is reasonable.

 

[Predsanddead24]

Grubbauer is actually an interesting example. Because he got a 6x$5.9M coming off a 1.95 GAA and .922 SvPCT, and a 3rd-place Vezina voting. Saros has also had a solitary 3rd-place Vezina vote. But hasn't won as many playoff series as Grubbauer. Grubbauer's subsequent dropoff and injury history is a great example of what might happen with Saros part way through such a contract. So it's good for Seattle they didn't commit any more than that.

Saros has had more starting seasons, so he should get at least a little more. But folks are getting a little carried away if they think his accomplishments are THAT much greater. Grubbauer sucks now, so it's easy to forget what got him that deal, but Saros hasn't EARNED much more than that. And he's not so young that folks should be gambling on some kind of "upside" with him anymore. He'll be 30 when a new deal kicks in. A contract in the #5-10 range for goalies in the league is still very good for him, it's unfortunate that he hasn't earned more yet.

I think even at the time Grubauer was really seen as a tandem goalie who played on great teams. Saros is generally viewed as a top tier starter that has played on mostly mediocre teams. To me he is far closer in pedigree to Hellebuyck and Sorokin than he is Grubauer.

 

[Viqsi]

There's a lot of space between being great and being crap, and mainly the space of being free to move him if Askarov is ready to take over.

And also the concern of whether or not he continues to be great.

 

[Kat Predator]

I think even at the time Grubauer was really seen as a tandem goalie who played on great teams. Saros is generally viewed as a top tier starter that has played on mostly mediocre teams. To me he is far closer in pedigree to Hellebuyck and Sorokin than he is Grubauer.

Francis said he was of the opinion Grubauer would take the next step and solidify things at the position, making them semi-competitive, until he could develop the rest of the team through the draft. Driedger was seen as a solid Lankinen-like backup.

Outside of the run in the playoffs a couple seasons back, Grubauer was consistently shaky, giving up soul crushing softies at the worst times. Then succumbing to injury. And Driedger barely played and had his own injury issues.

Fortunately, he also tapped Daccord in the expansion draft. He's developed nicely and is really good at moving the puck.

 

[glenngineer]

Saros struggled this year in the new system. I worry about that.

If we bring in some bigger defensemen, wouldn't it be nice to have a taller goalie to be able to see through that mess in front of him?

Trotz is not going to get what he wants. However, he can bring in some valuable pieces that will help this team grow in the right direction.

 

[BigFatCat999]

If you give Saros 8 years, what do you do with Askarov? Why did you ever draft him?

Remember it was poile who drafted not Trotz