Confirmed with Link: [SJS/NSH] Yaroslavl Askarov, Nolan Burke, 2025 COL 3rd round pick for David Edstrom, Magnus Chrona, 2025 VGK 1st round pick (conditional)

[Porter Stoutheart]

I heard/read a lot about how Trotz handle this situation and maximizing values and the general feeling seems to be he misplayed this by not moving Askarov before giving the extension to Saros. On the surface that appears to make a lot of sense, but conversely what does moving Askarov before extending Saros do to those contract negotiations? Trotz always had a fall back plan with Askarov (or at least the perception of one) when talking turkey with Saros.

He have been able to get more of a return for Askarov if he moves him before the extension, but he also loses some leverage with the guy he really wanted to keep. I've that aspect of this to be extremely under reported/mentioned. Maybe Saros wanted to remain with the Preds enough it doesn't matter...maybe not...

Circling back, I always thought it was an unnecessary "rush" to have Saros extended on July 1st (probably was agreed to even before that). Lots of teams out there right now are still negotiating with their big star players who are impending UFAs in 2025. Draisatl, Marner, Rantanen, and perhaps the most directly comparable is Shesterkin... these teams didn't feel that they had to make a deal as soon as possible to lock up the star player? Why did we?

It's not like the Rangers don't want to keep Shesterkin. They need him pretty desperately, they are in a contention window right now, have a geriatric backup, and no stud prospect waiting in the wings. Where's the panicked rush to lock him up before he becomes a UFA?

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Circling back, I always thought it was an unnecessary "rush" to have Saros extended on July 1st (probably was agreed to even before that). Lots of teams out there right now are still negotiating with their big star players who are impending UFAs in 2025. Draisatl, Marner, Rantanen, and perhaps the most directly comparable is Shesterkin... these teams didn't feel that they had to make a deal as soon as possible to lock up the star player? Why did we?

It's not like the Rangers don't want to keep Shesterkin. They need him pretty desperately, they are in a contention window right now, have a geriatric backup, and no stud prospect waiting in the wings. Where's the panicked rush to lock him up before he becomes a UFA?

Locking him up early gave us clarity on cap space going forward, prevented distraction in camp, and they were able to get him done before guy like Swayman potentially resets goalie market. If he is your guy and you can get him at number you can live with, why wait?

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Locking him up early gave us clarity on cap space going forward, prevented distraction in camp, and they were able to get him done before guy like Swayman potentially resets goalie market. If he is your guy and you can get him at number you can live with, why wait?

You wait to see how he performs primarily. To see if he really IS your guy. And to potentially get him at a better number/term that you can live better with if his performance continues to deteriorate as it did last season. Knowing he wants to stay here regardless.

Somewhere down the list of reasons to wait, some people did include not spooking Askarov... but to me, I'm just as good knowing ahead of time about Askarov's attitude, so that we can just move on from him. That part of it isn't as much a factor to me as it might be to some people, but I'm mentioning it again in response to that angle. If Saros isn't signed for 9 years already, falters again in the 2024-25 season, you probably still have Askarov in our system. Personally, I like the trade we got for him, and am not sorry to see him go.

But we're certainly proceeding at risk now with Saros locked in on such a huge contract. When we could easily have just waited it out and still had Saros with Askarov as a safety net. Or the additional Cap space freed up next year by not retaining Saros at all if his performance in the coming season indicated that moving on was the better option. "Cap certainty" is not necessarily a better objective than "Cap flexibility".

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

You wait to see how he performs primarily. To see if he really IS your guy. And to potentially get him at a better number/term that you can live better with if his performance continues to deteriorate as it did last season. Knowing he wants to stay here regardless.

Somewhere down the list of reasons to wait, some people did include not spooking Askarov... but to me, I'm just as good knowing ahead of time about Askarov's attitude, so that we can just move on from him. That part of it isn't as much a factor to me as it might be to some people, but I'm mentioning it again in response to that angle. If Saros isn't signed for 9 years already, falters again in the 2024-25 season, you probably still have Askarov in our system. Personally, I like the trade we got for him, and am not sorry to see him go.

But we're certainly proceeding at risk now with Saros locked in on such a huge contract. When we could easily have just waited it out and still had Saros with Askarov as a safety net. Or the additional Cap space freed up next year by not retaining Saros at all if his performance in the coming season indicated that moving on was the better option. "Cap certainty" is not necessarily a better objective than "Cap flexibility".

Is he the guy? That is of course the question. Trotz obviously felt he was. I’m not sure what else you want to see? Obviously playoff success, but you wait for that you walked him straight to UFA.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Is he the guy? That is of course the question. Trotz obviously felt he was.

I'm saying that even if I felt he was the guy... I'd have been comfortably waiting to see him prove it in the coming season. If it meant he earned an even bigger contract with an outstanding season, so be it. He already got the max possible in terms of term and clauses. The only thing he could do a little better on is the $$$. If he won the Vezina trophy, Conn Smythe, and I had to give him an extra $2-3M per season with the same term and clauses, I would be quite happy to do that contract later on. I can find room for that minor extra AAV under a rising Cap. But in the meantime I would have insured against him having another mediocre season instead. And, playing devil's advocate, have retained my safety net in Askarov at the same time.

I'm sure the Rangers feel that Shesterkin is their guy. They apparently don't need to lock him up early, however.

 

[Gh24]

Circling back, I always thought it was an unnecessary "rush" to have Saros extended on July 1st (probably was agreed to even before that). Lots of teams out there right now are still negotiating with their big star players who are impending UFAs in 2025. Draisatl, Marner, Rantanen, and perhaps the most directly comparable is Shesterkin... these teams didn't feel that they had to make a deal as soon as possible to lock up the star player? Why did we?

Knowing we have a legitimate starter for more than one season may have played a role in closing the Stamkos, Marchessault and Skjei deals

 

[weeze]

Locking him up early gave us clarity on cap space going forward, prevented distraction in camp, and they were able to get him done before guy like Swayman potentially resets goalie market. If he is your guy and you can get him at number you can live with, why wait?

Ok so we lock him up. But why for so long! Should have been for 5 years and then do year after year then, depending on how he plays. That also would have given Asky the chance to play another year in AHL then about 2 years as backup with the chance to knock Saros out of the lineup after that. That long contract basically told Asky you have no chance in next 5 years of playing goalie unless Saros is hurt.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Ok so we lock him up. But why for so long! Should have been for 5 years and then do year after year then, depending on how he plays. That also would have given Asky the chance to play another year in AHL then about 2 years as backup with the chance to knock Saros out of the lineup after that. That long contract basically told Asky you have no chance in next 5 years of playing goalie unless Saros is hurt.

Shorter would have been better, sure, but then you are likely looking at bigger number. Which means less cap space next few years when we are trying to win in remaining years of Josi and Forsberg prime. By doing it this way we improve chances now and then 6+ years from now cap will be much higher and it’s 6+ years from now! This obviously could work out very, very badly, but Trotz presumably felt (not unreasonably) this is likely best way to maximize chances in this current window. As a fan, I like it!

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Knowing we have a legitimate starter for more than one season may have played a role in closing the Stamkos, Marchessault and Skjei deals

I don't believe that at all. I don't think that's how deals come together in the midst of the free agent frenzy. We didn't get any "contender discount" on any of those deals, that's for sure. Saros was already under contract and very likely to stay even if we waited a year to extend him, so there isn't any way for those players to perceive any advantage to having Saros locked up like that. I'm sure they'll say nice things about him all the same... and Josi, Forsberg, O'Reilly, all the new teammates. But they weren't weighing multiple offers and making any final decisions based on having Saros locked up for 9 years, that's for sure.

 

[glenngineer]

We were never getting Saros for anything less than the 8 year max. While it’s great to play GM wannabes, players like him have all the leverage and will want the max years unless they want to leave the game early, in which case, that’s up to him and he’s still holding all the cards.

 

[herzausstein]

We were never getting Saros for anything less than the 8 year max. While it’s great to play GM wannabes, players like him have all the leverage and will want the max years unless they want to leave the game early, in which case, that’s up to him and he’s still holding all the cards.

Considering the comparables like Hellebuyck, Saros' contract is pretty in line with expectations. The AAV may even be a good deal considering the rise in cap. The 8 year term is tolerable but intimidating. I absolutely hate the NMC throughout the entire contract though.

Overall, i think we will end up talking about buying out the last couple years of his contract. I hope im wrong but we will see.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

We were never getting Saros for anything less than the 8 year max. While it’s great to play GM wannabes, players like him have all the leverage and will want the max years unless they want to leave the game early, in which case, that’s up to him and he’s still holding all the cards.

The term he received is independent from the decision to sign him on July 1st, 2024 vs. March/April/May/June 1st, 2025.

The main thing is, neither side is really in a position to apply any perceived leverage a full year out; "leverage" isn't really a thing at that point. The amount of leverage he could eventually have wielded would have depended significantly on the quality of his performance in the coming season. He might have had more or less than we were projecting, nobody knows.

At this point, hopefully he has a great season and vindicates Trotz's faith in him. If he doesn't, it certainly cost us a lot, unnecessarily.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

The term he received is independent from the decision to sign him on July 1st, 2024 vs. March/April/May/June 1st, 2025.

The main thing is, neither side is really in a position to apply any perceived leverage a full year out; "leverage" isn't really a thing at that point. The amount of leverage he could eventually have wielded would have depended significantly on the quality of his performance in the coming season. He might have had more or less than we were projecting, nobody knows.

At this point, hopefully he has a great season and vindicates Trotz's faith in him. If he doesn't, it certainly cost us a lot, unnecessarily.

This is true so far as it goes, but in situation like this I don’t think it’s that straightforward. It’s not fantasy hockey. These are people. Squeezing your franchise goalie can impact his frame of mind, his relationship with the franchise. And for what? Just so you can pay him more in 6 months?

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

This is true so far as it goes, but in situation like this I don’t think it’s that straightforward. It’s not fantasy hockey. These are people. Squeezing your franchise goalie can impact his frame of mind, his relationship with the franchise. And for what? Just so you can pay him more in 6 months?

I don't see how it's much of a "squeeze"? He had a contract already, he was going to get another one, regardless, whether it was from us or somebody else. Not extending him a year early doesn't represent a "squeeze", it's just the default course of events.

For what? So that you pay him according to his performance level. Which took a noticeable dip last season. So that you mitigate against the risk of that dip representing a downwards trend. And, continuing the devil's advocate argument, so that as a side benefit you maintain the succession without spooking Askarov.

 

[Armourboy]

I said when this started it was going to take 8 years and a full NMC to sign him. It doesn't matter when it was signed that was going to be the deal.

The decision was always if you were going to give him both of those. If the answer was no then you trade him, if the answer was yes then there was no reason to wait.

It's been done. Some of us may not like it but it doesn't matter now.

 

[glenngineer]

The term he received is independent from the decision to sign him on July 1st, 2024 vs. March/April/May/June 1st, 2025.

The main thing is, neither side is really in a position to apply any perceived leverage a full year out; "leverage" isn't really a thing at that point. The amount of leverage he could eventually have wielded would have depended significantly on the quality of his performance in the coming season. He might have had more or less than we were projecting, nobody knows.

At this point, hopefully he has a great season and vindicates Trotz's faith in him. If he doesn't, it certainly cost us a lot, unnecessarily.

Of course there was leverage. If the Preds wanted to sign Saros he was going to want 8 years. He got 8 years. If the Preds didn’t want him for that long, that changes the discussion.

It also depends on who went to who first.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I said when this started it was going to take 8 years and a full NMC to sign him. It doesn't matter when it was signed that was going to be the deal.

That was not going to be the deal if he had a 2.86 GAA, .906 SvPct and 1st round loss in 2024-25. (Or even worse results than those). Not from us, and not from anybody else on the open market either.

 

[Armourboy]

That was not going to be the deal if he had a 2.86 GAA, .906 SvPct and 1st round loss in 2024-25. (Or even worse results than those). Not from us, and not from anybody else on the open market either.

Was never going to happen. Trotz was going to either sign him this offseason or trade him.

You've been inventing scenarios and contracts since this started and haven't been right yet. There is no reason to keep creating ones that can no longer happen.

Like it or not, think it was handled right or not, it is done

 

[ILikeItILoveIt]

It's pretty apparent now that he didn't want to battle for anything, and frankly I don't want a guy in my organization that wants to take the easy road and have things handed to him.

It's no wonder Trotz moved him as quick as he did. Knowing Trotz, I imagine the more he thought about it the more he couldn't wait to get him out of town.

Has anyone on this thread ever disagreed with your boss about your job performance or potential or "path"? Barry was being honest with him and laid it out. Arkarov was polite and listened. Then he got with his agent and played it out. If he stays and wins the backup job, he's an NHL goalie backing up Saros for 5-to-8 years. If he asks to be traded, he'll likely get more money, and if he performs, he'll be a #1 within a year or two.

Consider his situation. If you were in his skates, which path would you choose? His decision wasn't about avoiding a battle, it was about choosing a path that made sense for his career. He knew he'd have to fight for his place wherever he landed. The 'path' is crucial. We just signed Saros for 8 years. We had our long-term goalie choice and Askarov wasn't it.

His decision was logical, and so was Barry's. Can't we respect their choices and not turn Askarov into a villain?

 

[Gh24]

I don't believe that at all. I don't think that's how deals come together in the midst of the free agent frenzy. We didn't get any "contender discount" on any of those deals, that's for sure. Saros was already under contract and very likely to stay even if we waited a year to extend him, so there isn't any way for those players to perceive any advantage to having Saros locked up like that. I'm sure they'll say nice things about him all the same... and Josi, Forsberg, O'Reilly, all the new teammates. But they weren't weighing multiple offers and making any final decisions based on having Saros locked up for 9 years, that's for sure.

When players weigh their options a lot of things may play a role. Management/coaches, teammates, money, term, location and what's the expectations for the team in the future.

They probably don't care if Saros is signed for 5 or 9 years. They know with this core the window is open for another 3-4 years maybe, but they know it's probably not gonna fall short due to goaltending.

I don't know if that extension played any kind of role in their decisions, but I'm sure it's possible.

 

[Gh24]

Ok so we lock him up. But why for so long! Should have been for 5 years and then do year after year then, depending on how he plays. That also would have given Asky the chance to play another year in AHL then about 2 years as backup with the chance to knock Saros out of the lineup after that. That long contract basically told Asky you have no chance in next 5 years of playing goalie unless Saros is hurt.

You can't just decide to sign someone for 5 years. It's a negotiation.

Your employer probably didn't just tell you that they've decided that you work for them. You probably listened to their offer, maybe negotiated your pay, vacation or perks and finally agreed to the terms. Depending on the job and your resume you may have a lot of leverage or you may just have to take what they're offering or look elsewhere. Saros has that leverage and he wasn't going to take that 5 year deal.

Well I guess if they offered more money per year he may have, but with the possible (or maybe likely at that point) FA signings they probably wanted as much cap space as possible. Now it's a different discussion whether it would have been worth it to sign Saros to a higher AAV 5 yr deal and leave say Marchessault not signed, but it's never that simple to "just sign" someone.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Was never going to happen. Trotz was going to either sign him this offseason or trade him.

BS. He was obviously not going to trade him.

You've been inventing scenarios and contracts since this started and haven't been right yet. There is no reason to keep creating ones that can no longer happen.

Well I’m certainly mentioning alternative scenarios which could have been followed. Better ones for our team IMO. We’ll see how that plays out in the long run. I figure it’s about 50/50 on working out ok vs being a regrettable mistake.

The difference is in the consequence. In the 50% of “working out ok” the odds of it working out extremely well (eg Stanley Cup) are small. If it just works out “ok” that’s nothing above what we have already accomplished in our recent history. In the 50% of it not working out, we lose regardless of the degree.

 

[glenngineer]

BS. He was obviously not going to trade him.

Well I’m certainly mentioning alternative scenarios which could have been followed. Better ones for our team IMO. We’ll see how that plays out in the long run. I figure it’s about 50/50 on working out ok vs being a regrettable mistake.

The difference is in the consequence. In the 50% of “working out ok” the odds of it working out extremely well (eg Stanley Cup) are small. If it just works out “ok” that’s nothing above what we have already accomplished in our recent history. In the 50% of it not working out, we lose regardless of the degree.

This is where you get stuck. Sure, it would have been great to sign Saros to a shorter deal which would've benefitted the Preds. The precedent tells us otherwise. As many have said around here, including myself, because we were the only team that could offer Saros 8 years, that's what he was going to ask for and that's what he was going to get. He was either going to it here, or he would've been traded and his new team would've given him an 8-year deal.

Superstar players get 8-year deals. The only way he would've signed a shorter term deal is if the Preds offered him around $12 mil per season for a 5 year contract and in no universe is Trotz offering that deal.

I do agree the deal didn't have to get done immediately. I think the team would've benefitted from seeing what this team could do with Saros in net before offering that deal.

From a logical standpoint, I understand why Trotz did what he did. Personally, I think he made a huge mistake on giving the big contract and then moving Askarov. Saros should've been moved the season before last. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

This is where you get stuck. Sure, it would have been great to sign Saros to a shorter deal which would've benefitted the Preds. The precedent tells us otherwise. As many have said around here, including myself, because we were the only team that could offer Saros 8 years, that's what he was going to ask for and that's what he was going to get. He was either going to it here, or he would've been traded and his new team would've given him an 8-year deal.

Superstar players get 8-year deals. The only way he would've signed a shorter term deal is if the Preds offered him around $12 mil per season for a 5 year contract and in no universe is Trotz offering that deal.

I do agree the deal didn't have to get done immediately. I think the team would've benefitted from seeing what this team could do with Saros in net before offering that deal.

From a logical standpoint, I understand why Trotz did what he did. Personally, I think he made a huge mistake on giving the big contract and then moving Askarov. Saros should've been moved the season before last. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

I'm only arguing about the term being shorter in the context of him performing poorly in the coming season. No team was going to hand him that contract on an 8-year term if he took another step back.

So, if he performs well in the coming season, sure, he had the leverage to get 8 years. If he doesn't perform well, he wouldn't. Which is why I'd have offered him a shorter contract now if he really needed for his own reasons (whatever they might be) to extend now. Or be content letting him earn the full term contract by playing well in the coming season. We couldn't lose either way with that approach.

 

[PredsV82]

I'm only arguing about the term being shorter in the context of him performing poorly in the coming season. No team was going to hand him that contract on an 8-year term if he took another step back.

So, if he performs well in the coming season, sure, he had the leverage to get 8 years. If he doesn't perform well, he wouldn't. Which is why I'd have offered him a shorter contract now if he really needed for his own reasons (whatever they might be) to extend now. Or be content letting him earn the full term contract by playing well in the coming season. We couldn't lose either way with that approach.

And if he performs well and decides he can do better elsewhere? Holy shit this is a dead horse. If you're going all in like we did, you cannot take the chance that you lose your goalie. If you sign him and he plays like shit then we are screwed regardless. But if you lowball him and he plays well and some desperate team offers him 7x10 then where are you with our window? You are just imagining a fantasy world