Ryan Johansen II (contract etc)

[Xoggz22]

The negotiating strategy of the Jackets stating that Johansen has to prove that last year wasn't a fluke before getting a long term deal is probably about as silly as it gets.

He had a breakout season last year. Regression in Johansen's play is very unlikely. How many top 5 draft picks in the past 20 years who broke out during their entry level contracts weren't worth a long term deal? Horton and Dubinski have far more probability of regressing than Johansen. Neither of these two were ever, nor will they ever be as good as Johansen was last year.

The bridge contact strategy with this kid is a loser.

simple question... Would you prefer Johansen be a Jacket for 8 years or 10-11 years? A bridge is a very important option for the team to utilize free agency rules to their fullest. And 1 year does not mean he's established and that it was a break through to stardom. I don't understand why you see this as such a negative. Your input seems only focused on the player and his feelings. A bridge is actually a potential positive foe both parties. If Joey maintains or improves his play he'll get paid very well and long term. At the same time, this. CBJ then won't mind paying it. Your comments seem to be angered by this like a cat given spoiled milk.

 

[Jackets16]

Wish we could just sign him so we can fully look into Bob's extension before putting a bow on the summer

I am sure they are doing that already. They have more than 1 person who works for the team. They can work on more than 1 contract at a time.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

I am sure they are doing that already. They have more than 1 person who works for the team. They can work on more than 1 contract at a time.

Yes they are working on it, but Johansen is at the front burner. Once he gets done Bob comes to the front.

 

[blahblah]

simple question... Would you prefer Johansen be a Jacket for 8 years or 10-11 years? A bridge is a very important option for the team to utilize free agency rules to their fullest. And 1 year does not mean he's established and that it was a break through to stardom. I don't understand why you see this as such a negative. Your input seems only focused on the player and his feelings. A bridge is actually a potential positive foe both parties. If Joey maintains or improves his play he'll get paid very well and long term. At the same time, this. CBJ then won't mind paying it. Your comments seem to be angered by this like a cat given spoiled milk.

Bravo

 

[Cyclones Rock]

simple question... Would you prefer Johansen be a Jacket for 8 years or 10-11 years? A bridge is a very important option for the team to utilize free agency rules to their fullest. And 1 year does not mean he's established and that it was a break through to stardom. I don't understand why you see this as such a negative. Your input seems only focused on the player and his feelings. A bridge is actually a potential positive foe both parties. If Joey maintains or improves his play he'll get paid very well and long term. At the same time, this. CBJ then won't mind paying it. Your comments seem to be angered by this like a cat given spoiled milk.

It's interesting to see how other teams view this. Let's look at the first four draft picks from from 2007 through 2010 (Johansen's year) and what term of deal these players were given for their second contracts:

2007:

1) P. Kane.... 6years
2) Van Riemsdyk..6 years
3) Turris..Bridge 2 year
4) Hickey..one year two way deal

2008:

1) Stamkos.. 5 years
2) Doughty... 8 years
3) Begosian..7 years
4) Pietrangelo..7 years

2009:

1) Tavares ..6 years
2) Hedmen..5 years
3) Duchene..5 years
4) E. Kane...5 years

2010:

1) Hall... 6 years
2) Seguin..6 years
3) Gudbranson.. Bridge-2 years
4) Johansen..?????
7) Skinner...6 years

Of the 15 players other than Johansen, 12 signed second contracts in the 5-8 year range. Two signed bridge deals and one was a washout who had to sign a one year two way deal.

Many of these longer term contracts were signed in the player's second year on their ELC-before they posted up the numbers that they did in year 3 of their ELCs. It was clear to the management in 12 out of the 15 cases (80%) that their high draft picks were worthy of long term deals before "proving themselves" for a second full season in most of the cases.

Management in EVERY SINGLE CASE of a player who showed top performance (Turris, Hickey and Gundbranson were the players who didn't) felt that these players were worthy of a long term deal and not a bridge deal. The notion of locking up a top player for 11 years (including all 4 1st overall picks) was not their strategy. EDIT: If the Jackets want an 11 year lock on Johansen, then they should sign him to an 8 year deal like the Kings did Doughty. 3 years ELC + 8 year extension=11 years.

If you "bridge" guys think that Johansen is closer to Turris, Hickey and Gundbranson than he is to the 12 other guys, then I guess that we differ on our evaluations of Johansen. 21 year old players who are generally the most dominant player on a team (as Johansen was more than any other player last season on the CBJ) generally aren't due for a "regression" and the dominance they displayed is usually seen as a confirmation of their high draft status. At least in 12 of the 12 other cases since 2007.

Does anyone here think that Jeff Skinner, the Hurricane's 7th overall pick of Johansen's 2010 draft is a better long term bet than Johansen? The Hurricanes signed him to a 6year $34 million extension after his 2nd year of his ELC when he posted 24 points in 42 games.

Jarmo needs a quick introduction to top draft pick and proven productive RFA values and contracts. Soon. He's living in a bridge fantasy world which has already cost the team million$ with Bob and will with Johansen. Ryan Murray might, unfortunately, give Jarmo a trifecta on top RFA mismanagement. I'll allow him to use this contribution as his primer for a lousy 2 season tix 12 rows up at center ice. All Star tickets included

 

[PubOFH]

Ryan O'Reilly, Avalanche settle on two-year, $12 million contract

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on...lanche-settle-on-two-year-12-million-contract

Should be a nice gauge to what Johansen gets. 2 years $12 Million would be my prediction.

 

[jacketsinDC]

maybe the issue isn't so much the term, its thinking johansen expects between 6.5-7.5 per year. I'd have some discomfort at anything over 6, so maybe the bridge is a way of trading risk for risk while getting a better gauge for his ability to earn that amount over a longer contract. He's hasn't played nearly at the same level as ~ half of the players listed above, like kane, tavares, stamkos, etc

 

[The Jones Zone]

However this ends, I really like how the Jackets are handling contracts, esp. potential long term high end deals. It takes 3 really good lines, a decent forth and high end goalie if Columbus wants to win a cup. Not 1 player.

All you have to do is look south at our Cincinnati Reds, Walt J. has ruined them for a decade as far as I am concerned with the Votto contract....which Votto basically got after one really good year. 2nd worst contract in baseball right under Alex Steroid

 

[FreeBoomer61]

However this ends, I really like how the Jackets are handling contracts, esp. potential long term high end deals. It takes 3 really good lines, a decent forth and high end goalie if Columbus wants to win a cup. Not 1 player.

All you have to do is look south at our Cincinnati Reds, Walt J. has ruined them for a decade as far as I am concerned with the Votto contract....which Votto basically got after one really good year. 2nd worst contract in baseball right under Alex Steroid

I don't think baseball and hockey contracts are very comparable, one has salary limitations with a cap and the other doesn't. In baseball, it is all dependent on market size and owners willingness to spend. While I do agree Votto's contract isn't too sexy, it could be much worse (Pujols and ARod). But back on topic, management has done a good job handling contracts and I expect Johansen's soon-to-be contract to be fair and reasonable for both sides.

 

[cbjfaninmo]

...management has done a good job handling contracts and I expect Johansen's soon-to-be contract to be fair and reasonable for both sides.

This.

 

[cslebn]

It's interesting to see how other teams view this. Let's look at the first four draft picks from from 2007 through 2010 (Johansen's year) and what term of deal these players were given for their second contracts:

2007:

1) P. Kane.... 6years
2) Van Riemsdyk..6 years
3) Turris..Bridge 2 year
4) Hickey..one year two way deal

2008:

1) Stamkos.. 5 years
2) Doughty... 8 years
3) Begosian..7 years
4) Pietrangelo..7 years

2009:

1) Tavares ..6 years
2) Hedmen..5 years
3) Duchene..5 years
4) E. Kane...5 years

2010:

1) Hall... 6 years
2) Seguin..6 years
3) Gudbranson.. Bridge-2 years
4) Johansen..?????
7) Skinner...6 years

Of the 15 players other than Johansen, 12 signed second contracts in the 5-8 year range. Two signed bridge deals and one was a washout who had to sign a one year two way deal.

Many of these longer term contracts were signed in the player's second year on their ELC-before they posted up the numbers that they did in year 3 of their ELCs. It was clear to the management in 12 out of the 15 cases (80%) that their high draft picks were worthy of long term deals before "proving themselves" for a second full season in most of the cases.

Management in EVERY SINGLE CASE of a player who showed top performance (Turris, Hickey and Gundbranson were the players who didn't) felt that these players were worthy of a long term deal and not a bridge deal. The notion of locking up a top player for 11 years (including all 4 1st overall picks) was not their strategy. EDIT: If the Jackets want an 11 year lock on Johansen, then they should sign him to an 8 year deal like the Kings did Doughty. 3 years ELC + 8 year extension=11 years.

If you "bridge" guys think that Johansen is closer to Turris, Hickey and Gundbranson than he is to the 12 other guys, then I guess that we differ on our evaluations of Johansen. 21 year old players who are generally the most dominant player on a team (as Johansen was more than any other player last season on the CBJ) generally aren't due for a "regression" and the dominance they displayed is usually seen as a confirmation of their high draft status. At least in 12 of the 12 other cases since 2007.

Does anyone here think that Jeff Skinner, the Hurricane's 7th overall pick of Johansen's 2010 draft is a better long term bet than Johansen? The Hurricanes signed him to a 6year $34 million extension after his 2nd year of his ELC when he posted 24 points in 42 games.

Jarmo needs a quick introduction to top draft pick and proven productive RFA values and contracts. Soon. He's living in a bridge fantasy world which has already cost the team million$ with Bob and will with Johansen. Ryan Murray might, unfortunately, give Jarmo a trifecta on top RFA mismanagement. I'll allow him to use this contribution as his primer for a lousy 2 season tix 12 rows up at center ice. All Star tickets included

Great analysis and very good support for your feeling.

This is why I think you lose a lot of people and why they want bridge contracts:
1. If you do a bridge + long term you do own the asset for longer (2 years)
2. Let's look at stats, Joey really amounted to nothing his first two years. Arguments about use, etc aside, stats are what matter to an arbitrator and that's the look we'll take for judging value (I dropped D men for a better comparison since that's even more apples to oranges than W to C).

P. Kane - year 1: 21G 51A, year 2: 25G 45A
JVR - year 1: 15G 25A, year 2: 21G 19A
Stamkos - year 1: 23G 23A, year 2: 51G 41A
Tavares - year 1: 24G 30 A, year 2: 29G 38A
Duch - year 1: 24G 31A, year 2: 27G 40A
E Kane - year 1: 14G 12A, year 2: 19G 24A (year 3: 30G 27A)
Hall - year 1: 22G 20A, year 2: 27G 26A
Seguin - year 1: 11G 11A, year 2: 29G 38A
Skinner - year 1: 31G 32A, year 2: 20G 24A (lost 20 games)

So long term upside aside (hence your question about Skinner being better), if you trend all of these players accomplished more than Joey.

Joey - year 1: 9G 12 A, year 2 5G 7A (short season)

Joey's numbers just aren't in the same category as the above. If we add in year 3 Joey explodes where most of these guys continue their trend. JVR is the one exception and up until recently he was considered over paid and borderline bad contract. Also on Duchene, but you missed his bridge deal 6/2012, and by then he had proven more.

The best comparison is Seguin based on both development and play. The only thing is, Seguin has his banner year in 2 and Joey did his in 3. That's an important difference since Seguin signed that contract in Sept before year 3 (when he put up 25/15 in 29GP in NLA and 16/16 in 48 GP NHL). So a Seguin level contract will be fair (accounting for market change, so slightly more money) but not until Joey has another good season under his belt.

Basically you need at least 2 good years to get a long term contract and even then you might get a bridge (Duchene, PK Subban) if a GM is trying to be cautious and maximize his asset's time (yet PK is going to cost MTL more now because of this). There is a flip side of the coin where guys like Setogucci and Michalek have been flashes in the pan for their top performance levels but got paid. Or players like RNH and Eberle who have shown some regression but still got paid. That's why we go the cautious route and get at least 2 years of proof.

 

[pete goegan]

Very good work, cslebn and Cyclones Rock, thanks for the time and effort to construct such well-reasoned arguments!

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Great analysis and very good support for your feeling.

This is why I think you lose a lot of people and why they want bridge contracts:
1. If you do a bridge + long term you do own the asset for longer (2 years)
2. Let's look at stats, Joey really amounted to nothing his first two years. Arguments about use, etc aside, stats are what matter to an arbitrator and that's the look we'll take for judging value (I dropped D men for a better comparison since that's even more apples to oranges than W to C).

P. Kane - year 1: 21G 51A, year 2: 25G 45A
JVR - year 1: 15G 25A, year 2: 21G 19A
Stamkos - year 1: 23G 23A, year 2: 51G 41A
Tavares - year 1: 24G 30 A, year 2: 29G 38A
Duch - year 1: 24G 31A, year 2: 27G 40A
E Kane - year 1: 14G 12A, year 2: 19G 24A (year 3: 30G 27A)
Hall - year 1: 22G 20A, year 2: 27G 26A
Seguin - year 1: 11G 11A, year 2: 29G 38A
Skinner - year 1: 31G 32A, year 2: 20G 24A (lost 20 games)

So long term upside aside (hence your question about Skinner being better), if you trend all of these players accomplished more than Joey.

Joey - year 1: 9G 12 A, year 2 5G 7A (short season)

Joey's numbers just aren't in the same category as the above. If we add in year 3 Joey explodes where most of these guys continue their trend. JVR is the one exception and up until recently he was considered over paid and borderline bad contract. Also on Duchene, but you missed his bridge deal 6/2012, and by then he had proven more.

The best comparison is Seguin based on both development and play. The only thing is, Seguin has his banner year in 2 and Joey did his in 3. That's an important difference since Seguin signed that contract in Sept before year 3 (when he put up 25/15 in 29GP in NLA and 16/16 in 48 GP NHL). So a Seguin level contract will be fair (accounting for market change, so slightly more money) but not until Joey has another good season under his belt.

Basically you need at least 2 good years to get a long term contract and even then you might get a bridge (Duchene, PK Subban) if a GM is trying to be cautious and maximize his asset's time (yet PK is going to cost MTL more now because of this). There is a flip side of the coin where guys like Setogucci and Michalek have been flashes in the pan for their top performance levels but got paid. Or players like RNH and Eberle who have shown some regression but still got paid. That's why we go the cautious route and get at least 2 years of proof.

Good and thoughtful analysis. I appreciate your caution about the risk involved with a long term deal based upon one year, but I saw enough of Johansen last season for me to not be at all worried about him being a flash in the pan. The AHL playoff tanking is still in the back of my mind, but most every player comes with an area or two of some concern.

I'm not familiar with Seogucci and Michalek, but I did look up their stats. Michalek wouldn't have been a disaster as a long term signing. A disappointment, no doubt. Setogucci had a ridiculously high 5 vs 4 points per 60 minutes in his 2nd year which could have been a cautionary sign although his ES production was quite good. Having not seen him play (edit: I've seen the Sharks play at Nationwide, but didn't take note of this guy), I really don't have anything to say but not every deal works. As far as RNH and Eberle go, I have no doubt that Johansen is a better player and that the Oilers model was to roll the dice and sign up all of their young core long term.

Each of the players bolded had their breakout season a year earlier than Johansen and only 1 of them had more goals and only 4 of them had more points (3 of them #1 overall picks). None of these players has regressed from their year 2 breakout numbers as far as I know. I would argue that it isn't material that Johansen's breakout happened in his 3rd year and that his numbers 33g 30a fit very comfortably with this group. I would see no compelling reason to believe that his production growth wouldn't mirror this group.

Johansen played well enough to not only earn the #1 center position for the Jackets, but be the projected long term #1 center for the CBJ. I would hazard a guess that Florida would have seriously considered trading their #1 overall pick straight up this past year for Johansen. He's achieved the status that one should in order to be given a long term deal.

The only card that the bridge camp is holding is that the breakout season happened in season 3 rather than season 2. This card is also mitigated by the fact the Johansen's year 2 was in a lockout shortened season. The fact that Johansen broke out at age 21 as opposed to 19 or 20 appears to me to be a rounding error which shouldn't be the determining factor for this contract. He's a bonafide #1 two way center who just scored the 11th most goals in the NHL. Last season was not a fluke and the Jackets know this. He's going to be the Jackets #1C for the foreseeable future, imo. His production with a healthy Horton, Hartnell and/or Foligno, with a more experienced Murray on the power play, and with an added year of experience should be projected to rise, not decline.

If anyone believes that Johansen will not be the #1 center on the CBJ in 3 years, then I can understand their "bridge" position. If not, then I can't understand why one wouldn't want to lock up their#1 center to a long term deal and avoid an even costlier contract and/or the joy of arbitration two years down the road. Also, a bridge deal does not guarantee a long term Jackets relationship with Johansen. A 6 year deal accomplishes that.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Very good work, cslebn and Cyclones Rock, thanks for the time and effort to construct such well-reasoned arguments!

Thank you, sir.

 

[Fro]

i have to echo Pete's sentiments...

 

[blahblah]

And, at least, two of those players their teams right them losing them at 26 with no compensation.

The Hall contract was 7 years, not 6.

What is the longest term we can sign? 8 years? I suppose I don't have too much of an issue with him becoming a UFA at 28 or 29.

The question is, is he really a 33 goal scorer or is he more of a 25 goal kind of guy? 237 shots isn't a large total, unless you are a Stamkos. Cam put 216 on net and only scored 21.

I guess this depends on what your salary demands are over that long term deal. What are you slotting yourself at for comparison?

I'm usually hesitant to commit too long of a contract to a guy that had a breakout year in which your goal total could be a bit of a statistical anomaly.

 

[WannabeFinn]

all I know is I'd rather have 2 years + 8 years than something that causes him to become a UFA before he's 30

 

[Xoggz22]

Good healthy discussion. I respect the opinions I've read and will add that I would not be disappointed if a long term deal was ultimately negotiated but, in my opinion, I would prefer to see "more" before committing AND (because I do think Joey will continue to improve) I would prefer the CBJ retain Joey for as long as possible (meaning 2 or 3 + 8 years on his next two deals).

I think there is an argument that can be made for both sides. I tend to be more frugal with money and prefer to see more consistency before giving it to others.

 

[BluejacketNut]

Game 5 is on right now on the NHL Network, will give a good refresher on how he looks in the game. I wish it was game 4 that I was at since i didnt record it, so never saw it on tv

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Game 5 is on right now on the NHL Network, will give a good refresher on how he looks in the game. I wish it was game 4 that I was at since i didnt record it, so never saw it on tv

Game 4 was on just prior to it. That was Joey's best game

 

[Nanabijou]

Yes, it's a good debate for both sides of the argument but I'm still a bridge guy. To me, the worst case is a 4 or 5 year contract. 2-3 is my first choice, 7-8 my second choice.

Stamkos signed for 5 years, and while it is a decent deal now (can't believe he is only going to get paid $5.5 in real money next year), he is going to cash in big time on the next one. The media stories out of Toronto about him 'pulling a Lebron' have already started even though he has 2 years left.
Same thing with Tavares - it's a fantastic deal, but don't think for a minute that he isn't going to factor in how much he is currently 'underpaid' now when the Islanders ask him what it is going to take to keep him as an Islander. He's going to hit UFA right at his supposed prime.

That's the only thing these comparisons often leave out - if you skip the bridge contract for a 'star player' how much do you really save if you want to keep the player when that contract is up?

 

[Nicky1992]

I'd agree with most on here who would love to see 2/3 + 8 years and have Johansen around for a while, but in the back of my mind, I keep wondering if that'll actually happen. Say he signs a bridge deal, but is not happy for whatever reasons that he doesn't get a contract now that he likes, that Murray or Jenner are given a long-term contact when their ELCs are up but he wasn't, whatever the reason. He could easily refuse to sign any contract after the bridge is up no matter whats offered, take the team to arbitration once or twice, and be gone as soon as he reaches UFA status. Its all too easy for me to imagine that unfortunately. If that's likely at all, I'd rather sign him long now and be sure we can have him for a while rather than risk something like Ryan O'Reilly's situation happening.

 

[Nordique]

And, at least, two of those players their teams right them losing them at 26 with no compensation.

The Hall contract was 7 years, not 6.

What is the longest term we can sign? 8 years? I suppose I don't have too much of an issue with him becoming a UFA at 28 or 29.

The question is, is he really a 33 goal scorer or is he more of a 25 goal kind of guy? 237 shots isn't a large total, unless you are a Stamkos. Cam put 216 on net and only scored 21.

I guess this depends on what your salary demands are over that long term deal. What are you slotting yourself at for comparison?

I'm usually hesitant to commit too long of a contract to a guy that had a breakout year in which your goal total could be a bit of a statistical anomaly.

13.9% is probably a conversion number he won't hit very often. I think he's realistically a 25-30 goal scorer, but couple that with 30-40 assists and solid 2 way play. He's a bonified #1C, something we haven't had in our 14 year existence.

 

[Jackets16]

I was someone who wanted to give him 6+ years, but I am fine either way. 2 reasons I am okay with a 2 year deal.

1 - It will be easier, hopefully, to sign other young players to 2 year deals if Bobrovsky, Johansen, etc.... got 2 year deals. It shows the other young players that really good young players have done it and hopfully it has worked out well for both sides.

2 - Maybe management/coaches see something in Johansen that tells them they shouldn't sign him for longer than 2 years right now. Something they want to see improved (on or off the ice) before they give him his 6+ year contract.

 

[Jackets16]

I'd agree with most on here who would love to see 2/3 + 8 years and have Johansen around for a while, but in the back of my mind, I keep wondering if that'll actually happen. Say he signs a bridge deal, but is not happy for whatever reasons that he doesn't get a contract now that he likes, that Murray or Jenner are given a long-term contact when their ELCs are up but he wasn't, whatever the reason. He could easily refuse to sign any contract after the bridge is up no matter whats offered, take the team to arbitration once or twice, and be gone as soon as he reaches UFA status. Its all too easy for me to imagine that unfortunately. If that's likely at all, I'd rather sign him long now and be sure we can have him for a while rather than risk something like Ryan O'Reilly's situation happening.

You trade him at that point and get a big return. Do we really want him on the team if he is like that?