GDT: Welcome, 2025 | Detroit @ Columbus | 7 PM EST

[majormajor]

i've thought about this too much (to the point where it may as well be overthinking), but my position is that a bridge followed by and 8-year deal is better than going with an 8-year deal off the bat.

• Option A: 8-year RFA deal
  • Expires with UFA status in 2032
  • Cap in 2032 would be much higher
  • Player will be in early 30s and looking to cash in on one more big contract
• Option B: 3-year bridge
  • Expires with RFA status in 2027
  • Cap in 2027 will be higher, but not nearly as high as 2032
  • Player will be in mid-30s when next deal expires, not in position to negotiate long-term deal

admittedly, with marchenko being 23 at his first RFA negotiation instead of, say, 21 or 22, means his case isn't quite as strong.

going bridge-then-8 is more cap-efficient in years 1-3, less efficient in years 4-8, then more efficient in years 9-11+ as the player hits UFA in their mid-30s and is either easier to retain (cheaper short-term deals) or easier to let go of.

going with an 8-year deal off the bat is more efficient for a time, but means the player hits UFA at an age (29-31) where teams are still going to offer high-value, long-term deals that do not age well. it introduces risk that they'll either become an anchor contract (more expensive in years 9+++) or that they'll walk for nothing.

not saying don waddell is (or should be) planning 10+ years into the future during his RFA negotiations, but the ideal lifecycle for a player imo is one that doesn't lead to the team being stuck with a high-AAV long-term deal to a declining player in their mid/late 30s. going with a bridge first avoids that scenario and gives them a way to recoup value if things go south in the first non-ELC contract.

I think we need to plan for opening a competitive window starting two years from now. So having Marchenko three years into a 7-8 year deal worth about $6m per would be ideal at that point.

Committing to long term salaries in the 2030s is not a good idea. We don't know what will be going on then. We don't know if Marchenko and the Jackets will want to do a big contract with each other starting at age 32. It would actually be better to have an out option at that point if he has health issues or any early decline, rather than being locked into a much bigger contract until the player is 35.

Also notable are DWs comments which were pretty clear that this was a make or break year for Elvis.

How many years in a row have been labeled "make or break" for Elvis?

I'll join you in the disappointed category if something substantial isn't done on the goalie front this off season. Elvis could stick around as a back up and avoid the buyout cost. He's probably worth the $3.6 million buyout equivalent that it would cost for a suitable backup.

I'd guess he's probably worth around that much. And I imagine that a modestly retained salary deal will likely be available. But for Elvis' sake, and our sake, he can be that goalie elsewhere. We've had a lot of interpersonal dysfunction and distraction with Elvis. And he's had a bad personal tragedy and made trade requests, it's not a situation we should we want to prolong, even if he's not terrible and things aren't as negative lately.

 

[thebus88]

Did people really want to buyout Elvis before the season? It made total sense to give him a fresh start and see what he could do with a new GM and coaching staff.

Which season??

New GM and coaching staff??

What about the players that don’t want him as their goalie??

 

[ThirdPeriodTurtle]

I seem to remember the Elvis debacle as pretty much half the folks wanting to buy Elvis out after last season and the other half (including myself) willing to give him one more year to gain back some value, given the GM change. In my mind he has gained some value back and we wouldn't have to pay as much to trade him right now/after the season but the jury's still out and your mileage may vary (for regular cars anyway).

I don't think Elvis has affected our season outlook too badly at this point but admittedly I give goalies a pass more often than not. But this was one rare game where I feel Elvis did, in fact, cost us the game, and with "league average goaltending" we would've won or at least gotten a point.

The biggest goalie controversy for me this year is how badly Tarasov has played. I don't see him in our future roster anymore at all, even Elvis has a better chance of sticking (because of the contract). A few years from now I hope we see a tandem of X + Greaves or even X + Y and Greaves still in the wings. I'd go hard after Lankinen or if Buffalo blows it up maybe UPL would be available for a reasonable price. Haven't seen enough of Vladar to have a good opinion but he might be my #3 choice of those who could be available.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Maybe Tarasov is the one who has the issue with Elvis.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

Maybe Tarasov is the one who has the issue with Elvis.

I think Tarasov has a problem with the puck because it keeps eluding him.

 

[tunnelvision]

i've thought about this too much (to the point where it may as well be overthinking), but my position is that a bridge followed by and 8-year deal is better than going with an 8-year deal off the bat.

These are only scenarios I can think of where a 3-year bridge at $3.85M starting from this season is the better option than an 8-year deal at $6M:

- Marchenko isn't able to maintain the level of play he's had this year, gets pushed down in the depth chart, production falls down to slightly above 0.5 PPG or worse in the last two years of his contract = basically he's just a fine middle-6 wing and a secondary scorer.
- He has a bad injury at some point or suddenly just becomes injury-prone.
- He's never wanted to commit to a long-term deal with CBJ and is planning to request a trade within next two years.