Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?
posted at 7/10/2013 9:24 AM EDT
In response to asmaha's comment:
On the whole, I don't have much of a problem with long-term deals *if* given to players already on the roster and with a proven track record of success with the current team/system. Weber, Keith, Bergeron, Franzen, etc are players who are remarkably consistent on their own teams. If a long-term deal means a cap hit that's manageable through the length of a long contract, despite everyone knowing there will be diminishing returns at some point, then so be it.
This is a useful distinction, I think, but it doesn't necessarily separate the bad deals on that list into two very different piles. DiPietro was an Isles pick with what looked like top 10 goalie talent. Luongo was coming off of an even bigger contract and some good time in Vancouver when he signed his vacuum contract. But on the whole, I like the risk of signing a known quantity rather than bidding up a price. A side effect is that players on the roster know you have a history of looking after your own.
What this article rightfully points out, though, is the goalie situation. Why on Earth anyone would give a goalie anything over 5 years is beyond me. Sure, goalies can have longer runs than that, but there are also always 4-5 good options in free agency every year and plenty of quality talent coming up through the ranks. It’s just not worth it.
And the worst of them all....giving someone outside your organization the big long-term deal. Every player/team/system/coach situation is different. Good to see PC going after players such as Peverly, Seidenberg, Kelly, Jagr, Karlsson and even Iginla with the incentive-laden and short term contract instead of the big fish. Get 2-3 great years out of new players coming into the system and see what happens. If things go well, see if they will take extensions before they hit the market. If they don’t pan out (Peverly) or don’t take the extension (Ryder, Horton), there’s always another player ready to come in or a way to ship one out.
Chiarelli is handling all of this extremely well, in my opinion.
The two points about goalies and not paying for the big fish seem to contradict one another, asmaha, and the idea that there are always 5-6 options on the market seems to me to run counter to many, many years of Bruins history when good teams lost to better goaltenders. When you have an elite goalie, you want to keep him as long as is humanly possible. I would refer back to your first point here, too - Craig Anderson was nothing until he landed in the right situation; conversely, Mike Smith was a solid prospect in Dallas, was looked to be the saviour in Tbay, couldn't stop a beach ball there, lands in Phoenix, now signs a new deal. Sign a guy who fits with your team and style, not a guy with good stats on the FA market. The best long term goalie deals? Brodeur. Lundqvist. Kiprusoff. There aren't that many that have ever gone beyond 5, but it's hard to truly evaluate them when two ofthe top 3 involve Philly and the Isles.
Oh, and all of the guys on your list came to the Bruins with an existing contract.