Ryan Johansen

[EspenK]

From Coach's article previously posted by Pete

http://www.theunionblue.com/2014/02/17/small-picture-thoughts-current-roster/

Obvious. You re-sign him. Less obvious is what kind of deal you go for here. If I’m the Blue Jackets, I’m pushing for a three year bridge deal. He’s still only 21 years old, and I’d rather have the option of keeping him until he’s 31 (bridge deal to age 24, then a max length deal), then signing him to a seven year deal now, and making him a 28 year old unrestricted free agent. With the direction the cap is going now, I would probably expect a three year deal to come in around the $6M range. Sounds high, but it could be an absolute bargain by year three of the deal, and he’d still only be an RFA.

I think this is a great approach.

 

[Jackets16]

From Coach's article previously posted by Pete

http://www.theunionblue.com/2014/02/17/small-picture-thoughts-current-roster/




I think this is a great approach.

I am not saying that is a bad option, but why would he leave when he is 28? Why couldn't they sign him until he is 26-28 and then sign him to a new contract after that?

 

[Doug19]

say three years because it give him a chance to show he's the real deal, but not long enough to hinder the cap if he turns out to not be a big money guy.

 

[EspenK]

I am not saying that is a bad option, but why would he leave when he is 28? Why couldn't they sign him until he is 26-28 and then sign him to a new contract after that?

I think that the issue is by going the 3 & 7 route you lock him up for the next 10 yrs (until 31) and then have the option of resigning him then for the rest of his career if you want and his physical condition is still excellent. The other way you can do 7 & 7 and lock him up until he's 35. I think the 1st option is a bit less risky in case he regresses (which I acknowledge appears to be less likely by the game) or his physical condition worsens.

 

[Samkow]

From Coach's article previously posted by Pete

http://www.theunionblue.com/2014/02/17/small-picture-thoughts-current-roster/




I think this is a great approach.

The writer needs to realize that Johansen is a star right now. A bridge contract seems like a good idea in principle but if I'm Johansen, why in the hell does he take a shorter term now when other players of his caliber are getting mega bucks.

 

[Jackets16]

I think that the issue is by going the 3 & 7 route you lock him up for the next 10 yrs (until 31) and then have the option of resigning him then for the rest of his career if you want and his physical condition is still excellent. The other way you can do 7 & 7 and lock him up until he's 35. I think the 1st option is a bit less risky in case he regresses (which I acknowledge appears to be less likely by the game) or his physical condition worsens.

Just pointing out there is more than way to go about this. Some seem to have fallen in love with this short, prove yourself, contract. That is good in some situations, but not all or even most, IMO. It is best when it is a G or D who has only had one good year. Players at that position are more likely to have one good year and then maybe not be as good.

 

[pete goegan]

The writer needs to realize that Johansen is a star right now. A bridge contract seems like a good idea in principle but if I'm Johansen, why in the hell does he take a shorter term now when other players of his caliber are getting mega bucks.

No, he is not a star, he's a very young player who has put up good numbers in part of one season. I think some caution is still the best course.

 

[Mayor Bee]

No, he is not a star, he's a very young player who has put up good numbers in part of one season. I think some caution is still the best course.

I think this is more reasonable.

It's interesting to see some of the same people who blasted the Brassard contract extension (4 years, $3.2 mil) retroactively now jumping to re-sign Johansen to a cap hit of nearly double that amount using exactly the same rationale that went into the Brassard extension.

 

[Jackets16]

I think this is more reasonable.

It's interesting to see some of the same people who blasted the Brassard contract extension (4 years, $3.2 mil) retroactively now jumping to re-sign Johansen to a cap hit of nearly double that amount using exactly the same rationale that went into the Brassard extension.

It might have something to do with watching the 2 players play. Johansen's play is nothing like Brassard's. Johansen is dominating games at times. He has the size and skill to continue to do that. There were reasons why people didn't want Brassard signed to that contract and it wasn't just him only having a short periood of time where he put up good numbers.

 

[Xoggz22]

I am not saying that is a bad option, but why would he leave when he is 28? Why couldn't they sign him until he is 26-28 and then sign him to a new contract after that?

Simple. Three years keeps him as RFA. Then you sign him to a max length deal to keep him as long as possible. A gap contract doesn't have to focus on cheap(see Bob) and could work well for both parties.

 

[Mayor Bee]

It might have something to do with watching the 2 players play. Johansen's play is nothing like Brassard's. Johansen is dominating games at times. He has the size and skill to continue to do that. There were reasons why people didn't want Brassard signed to that contract and it wasn't just him only having a short periood of time where he put up good numbers.

Brassard was signed after the 09-10 season. By that time, he had:
- A season of 2 PPG in the QMJHL
- A playoff run of 2 PPG in the QMJHL
- Over 1 PPG in an AHL regular season, and 1 PPG in the playoffs that year at age 20
- 25 points in 31 games in the NHL, followed by a 36-point season in a different role as he was getting his game back the next season

Brassard had 63 points in 127 NHL games at that point. Coming into this season, Johansen had 33 points in 107 games, and of course there was the incident in the AHL playoffs last year. Yes, he's broken through this year in a big way. But we're still talking about someone who will be 22 when next season starts, who will still ultimately be about as proven as Brassard was when he was re-signed...for possibly double the cap hit.

Johansen has been terrific this year, no doubt. There's no reason to expect his game to suddenly go to crap, but the possibility exists. The fact that he plays a different style than Brassard isn't really relevant, nor is the fact that he has been occasionally taking over games. We're still talking about a young player with 3/4 of a good season under his belt, and possibly throwing $6 mil a year after him? If we all knew with 100% certainty that he was going to continue to develop beyond this level, that'd be one thing. That is far from a certainty; he's 21 years old with a major blemish from just 9 months ago.

 

[Nanabijou]

Brassard was signed after the 09-10 season. By that time, he had:
- A season of 2 PPG in the QMJHL
- A playoff run of 2 PPG in the QMJHL
- Over 1 PPG in an AHL regular season, and 1 PPG in the playoffs that year at age 20
- 25 points in 31 games in the NHL, followed by a 36-point season in a different role as he was getting his game back the next season

Better check your facts - Brassard's contract was signed after the 08-09 season. He had missed 2/3 or a season due to injury and still had a year left before he was a RFA. It made absolutely no sense to sign him a year early then, and it still doesn't today. Had Howson waited until Brassard did actually have the 36 point season you mention, the contract could have been signed for considerably less.

For the record, I am in favor of a bridge contract for RyJo, because he still has a lot to prove in the NHL. However, comparing him to being signed at the same stage as Brass was when he was prematurely re-upped is laughable.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Better check your facts - Brassard's contract was signed after the 08-09 season. He had missed 2/3 or a season due to injury and still had a year left before he was a RFA. It made absolutely no sense to sign him a year early then, and it still doesn't today. Had Howson waited until Brassard did actually have the 36 point season you mention, the contract could have been signed for considerably less.

For the record, I am in favor of a bridge contract for RyJo, because he still has a lot to prove in the NHL. However, comparing him to being signed at the same stage as Brass was when he was prematurely re-upped is laughable.

Signed September 4, 2009; I had my dates mixed up. Regardless, there would have at least been a ton of rehab and a pretty good indication that he had no long-term ill effects, at minimum.

As to whether it makes sense or not, here's the original thread on the board about it. Looks like nearly universal acclaim for the deal:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=677749

 

[CBJWerenski8]

2-3 year bridge contract, Just like they did for Bob.

 

[Nanabijou]

Signed September 4, 2009; I had my dates mixed up. Regardless, there would have at least been a ton of rehab and a pretty good indication that he had no long-term ill effects, at minimum.

As to whether it makes sense or not, here's the original thread on the board about it. Looks like nearly universal acclaim for the deal:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=677749

I really don't see what you are arguing here. Your first comparison was this:

Brassard had 63 points in 127 NHL games at that point. Coming into this season, Johansen had 33 points in 107 games

So you added a year to Brassard's totals AFTER he signed a contract, and you leave off this year of Joey's stats BEFORE he signs his. I was just pointing out non-sensical this comparison is.

Fine, you made a mistake on the contract date - so, the argument is then, "hey, but check out the immediate reaction among the fan base on this site"? It must have been a good deal because many here thought it was on that day?

The RFA contract negotiation system is skewed so heavily in favor of the owners now, it makes no sense to negotiate an RFA contract early. This is even more true now after the last lockout, but similar skewing was there in 2009. If you really want to continue your Howson crusade and justify that signing in retrospect, go ahead and provide a list of RFA's who were signed a year early by their GM in the last 5 years where it ended up working out. I'll then provide a list of RFA's who were better than Brassard (including Joey) who didn't have their contract renewed until they were actually an RFA.

In the meantime, I'd prefer this thread focus on Johansen's contract extension instead of this recurring bias of yours to somehow turn every thread into a justification of Howson's prior moves.

 

[blahblah]

Better check your facts - Brassard's contract was signed after the 08-09 season. He had missed 2/3 or a season due to injury and still had a year left before he was a RFA. It made absolutely no sense to sign him a year early then, and it still doesn't today. Had Howson waited until Brassard did actually have the 36 point season you mention, the contract could have been signed for considerably less.

For the record, I am in favor of a bridge contract for RyJo, because he still has a lot to prove in the NHL. However, comparing him to being signed at the same stage as Brass was when he was prematurely re-upped is laughable.

I'm in favor of the bridge contract. Actually that's what Brassard got, obviously.

Considerably less? No, we don't agree there. In the neighborhood of 3.2-3.5 for Brassard isn't unreasonable by any stretch. It was with the production we got out of him (that 40-50 point range) and he's back on that pace this season. Frankly I think it was right when signed and right now.

He's a decent enough PP guy and, at best, average in the faceoff circle. He's more of a rush guy and nothing not a great 5 on 5 guy, but there are worse. All things considered, the contract is very appropriate. Much better than that Mason contract.

How does this translate to Johansen? We'll Johansen is much better in the faceoff circle, can play in all situations, much better 5 on 5, and is more of a potential 30 goal 70+ point guy. Our bridge contract should end up a lot higher, but with only one year at producing like this I don't see how you can go max term on him or why you would want to.

I don't think it will be all that contentious of a negotiation; especially now that Richards is more or less of his back (deserved or not).

 

[cbjfaninmo]

I think he should get a bridge contract. Hopefully, he will continue to blossom but he still has a lot to prove in the NHL.

 

[D0ctorCool]

I'm surprised so many of you are in favour of a bridge deal. Especially at a number like $6M.

I'd watch what happens with Subban closely and see if the bridge deal works out for them in the end.
Right now is the perfect time to sign him to an 8 year contract. He's shown glimpses that he could be a top 10 centre, but he hasn't shown enough to warrant anywhere near that kind of money. If you wait 3 years, you could be paying him fat stacks over the next 8 years.

An 8 year contract takes us to 2022 and he'd be 29 years old. We'll probably be teleporting to hockey games by then. It seems the best value to me is getting him at his absolute cheapest over 8 years. Could you lose him in 2022? It's always a possibility, but if you build a contender, most players end up remaining loyal to the team. Perhaps in 2023 he signs a big contract like Perry and Getzlaf. Their contracts looked bloated for about a year, and now they actually look like decent deals.

If Johansen doesn't meet expectations, then you can always dump him for assets. If Scott Gomez can fetch a return, then anybody can.

 

[blahblah]

I'd watch what happens with Subban closely and see if the bridge deal works out for them in the end.

I've had enough of signing players to undeserved contracts based on a year (or less), thank you very much.

 

[Viqsi]

I've had enough of signing players to undeserved contracts based on a year (or less), thank you very much.

Well, really, that depends on what sort of deal we can get. If we can get Tavares contract numbers in an extended deal, I say go for it - that's fair even if Johansen never improves again. If they're going to insist on more, then go for the bridge deal.

That's why it's called "negotiation".

 

[alphafox]

I think the real question is whether or not Johansen has turned the corner in terms of self motivation and dedication or if he's playing like this because he sees dollar signs.

 

[CBJRzeznik]

Taco makes a great point that if Joey reaches his potential the LT deal provides the best value and could look like a steal if he reaches a Getzlaf like ceiling. However, I have to agree with CBJBrass that the likely outcome will be a bridge deal similar to Bob's with possibly a little more in both $ and term

 

[Xoggz22]

I'm surprised so many of you are in favour of a bridge deal. Especially at a number like $6M.

I'd watch what happens with Subban closely and see if the bridge deal works out for them in the end.
Right now is the perfect time to sign him to an 8 year contract. He's shown glimpses that he could be a top 10 centre, but he hasn't shown enough to warrant anywhere near that kind of money. If you wait 3 years, you could be paying him fat stacks over the next 8 years.

An 8 year contract takes us to 2022 and he'd be 29 years old. We'll probably be teleporting to hockey games by then. It seems the best value to me is getting him at his absolute cheapest over 8 years. Could you lose him in 2022? It's always a possibility, but if you build a contender, most players end up remaining loyal to the team. Perhaps in 2023 he signs a big contract like Perry and Getzlaf. Their contracts looked bloated for about a year, and now they actually look like decent deals.

If Johansen doesn't meet expectations, then you can always dump him for assets. If Scott Gomez can fetch a return, then anybody can.

No way I sign him to an 8 year deal after one year of current play. Also, if he's a long term piece, I want the chance to have him for 11 more years, not 8. 11 years brings him to 32 and that's still good hockey at that age for many. Getting him into a 3 year deal around $3.5-4MM (Am it dreaming?) would be perfect. Then you have a tradeable asset if need be and something to build off of going forward. Make it an escalating contract over the three years. 8 years would be insane. $6MM per on his next deal would be insane.

 

[EspenK]

No way I sign him to an 8 year deal after one year of current play. Also, if he's a long term piece, I want the chance to have him for 11 more years, not 8. 11 years brings him to 32 and that's still good hockey at that age for many. Getting him into a 3 year deal around $3.5-4MM (Am it dreaming?) would be perfect. Then you have a tradeable asset if need be and something to build off of going forward. Make it an escalating contract over the three years. 8 years would be insane. $6MM per on his next deal would be insane.

6 may be insane but he projects out to a 65 pt guy who started slowly this season. I think he could get offer sheeted if we try to lowball him. I think you are dreaming at the 3.5-4 level. I'd guess that 5 is the minimum he is going to get and more like 5.5-6.

Some comps

Tyler Seguin 5.75 for then next 6
Jamie Benn 5.25 for the next 4
The Oiler guys 6 for next 6
Vilppula 5 for 5
Kane & Toews 6.3 for 2
Logan Coture 6 for 6

 

[CBJWerenski8]

The only reason I am unsure of signing him long term NOW is because he has had motivation issues in the past, and he still needs to get his ass kicked by Richards sometimes to get going. Sometimes he feels like he's arrived. Add in a multi year and multi million dollar contract, probably wouldn't help.