Shaman464
No u
But the doom and gloom didn't happen after those bridge deals.
The consensus seems to be how bridge deal is a total failure and you should go 8 years at any cost and it's the only reasonable way.
How the whole point for long deal is to overpay at first years and then get a steal on later years.
But why overpay on first years, when they never had to overpay? Not for those bridges and not for the 3rd deals after that. That could be Yzerman logic, outside from the consensus.
Still, Yzerman has not signed any player to 8-year deal after an ELC.
Hedman - ELC - 5-year - 8-year
Stamkos - ELC - 5-year - 8-year
Kucherov - ELC - 3-year - 8-year
Vasilevskiy - ELC - 3-year - 8-year
Killorn - ELC - 2-year - 7-year
Palat - ELC - 3-year - 5-year
Signed by Brisebois:
Point - ELC - 3-year - 8-year
Cirelli - ELC - 3-year - 8-year
Sergachev - ELC - 3-year - 8-year
Cernak - ELC - 3-year - 8-year
That's been their pattern.
What team has won Stanley Cups, going after those 8-year deals straight after ELC ?
Florida had shorter 2nd deal for Barkov, so did have Colorado for MacKinnon and Makar. Tampa goes with their different pattern.
PIT and WSH has longer than 8-year deals from the older CBA.
So far these "8-year after the ELC" -teams haven't won any Cup.
They pay for the potential, and hang on themselves on the cap, missing the depth needed.
Why overpay? Never overpay, and deal with the market.
Tampa is in cap hell because of this.