Jason Lewis: The Dreaded "Bridge" Contract

Turris wanted out because he wanted to play in a hockey market. It's not always about Starbucks and sandals. I respect that.

Turris wanted out because he wanted to play in a hockey market. It's not always about Starbucks and sandals. I respect that.
- NugentHallberle

Sure it isn't...if that's all playing in Phoenix, LA, Anaheim, San Jose, etc is all about, with all of them being easily better than Ottawa.

_________________

OP: As far as RJ goes, I don't see why they didn't try and book him for the $6.5 for 2 years, then do it again. Mind boggling. Anyway, the one guy I see giving us some trouble next year is Muzzin. I see him asking for way more than he's worth.

Sure it isn't...if that's all playing in Phoenix, LA, Anaheim, San Jose, etc is all about, with all of them being easily better than Ottawa.

_________________

OP: As far as RJ goes, I don't see why they didn't try and book him for the $6.5 for 2 years, then do it again. Mind boggling. Anyway, the one guy I see giving us some trouble next year is Muzzin. I see him asking for way more than he's worth.
- Ersberg

Considering the Kings gave the guy a chance when he was all but down and out, I don't see it happening.

Sure it isn't...if that's all playing in Phoenix, LA, Anaheim, San Jose, etc is all about, with all of them being easily better than Ottawa.

_________________

OP: As far as RJ goes, I don't see why they didn't try and book him for the $6.5 for 2 years, then do it again. Mind boggling. Anyway, the one guy I see giving us some trouble next year is Muzzin. I see him asking for way more than he's worth.
- Ersberg

If they gave him 6.5 for 2 he'd be looking for 8-9 on a long term deal in 2 years. If they could have locked him up for 6.5-7 for 8 years I think that would of been best case scenario. I know it's paying for potential but I think there is very little doubt that he will be a stud in the league for years to come. With the way contracts are going (see Kane and Toews) I think withing a year or two that would of been a steal for CLB

I think it's a little too much greed. Not necessarily only in RJ's case but overall. Someone wants to pay you 5 million a year I think you sign it and prove you're worth 8! Hell, if he took the 6 year deal it's perfect for RJ. Most likely his next contract would be 10+ a season.

I think it's a little too much greed. Not necessarily only in RJ's case but overall. Someone wants to pay you 5 million a year I think you sign it and prove you're worth 8! Hell, if he took the 6 year deal it's perfect for RJ. Most likely his next contract would be 10+ a season.
- Aaron_85

That's similar to my take. A lot of these guys seem to take it personally when teams approach them with "Show me" contracts.

Johansen is going to be more than likely be a perennial all-star, BUT he has played a solitary outstanding year. Do it consistently for the next two and you prove you are worth the hype.

You can find a lot of examples these days of people who jumped the gun with contracts to players with a lot of promise, only to be let down in hindsight.

That's similar to my take. A lot of these guys seem to take it personally when teams approach them with "Show me" contracts.

Johansen is going to be more than likely be a perennial all-star, BUT he has played a solitary outstanding year. Do it consistently for the next two and you prove you are worth the hype.

You can find a lot of examples these days of people who jumped the gun with contracts to players with a lot of promise, only to be let down in hindsight.
- Jason_Lewis

Exactly. I know it isn't a big deal but this is the exact sentiments my Uncle is trying to instill in my cousin. He's quite the hockey player and if he ever gets anywhere the goal is for him to have the "I'll prove myself" mind set when it comes to contracts.
$2,000,000 is far more than they'd get doing pretty much anything else.

Sure it isn't...if that's all playing in Phoenix, LA, Anaheim, San Jose, etc is all about, with all of them being easily better than Ottawa.

_________________

OP: As far as RJ goes, I don't see why they didn't try and book him for the $6.5 for 2 years, then do it again. Mind boggling. Anyway, the one guy I see giving us some trouble next year is Muzzin. I see him asking for way more than he's worth.
- Ersberg

Because he's not that valuable yet.

That's similar to my take. A lot of these guys seem to take it personally when teams approach them with "Show me" contracts.

Johansen is going to be more than likely be a perennial all-star, BUT he has played a solitary outstanding year. Do it consistently for the next two and you prove you are worth the hype.

You can find a lot of examples these days of people who jumped the gun with contracts to players with a lot of promise, only to be let down in hindsight.
- Jason_Lewis

Good read.

Agree, there's a hell of a lot of risk signing a guy long term for big money with only one good year under his belt. This guy is being poorly represented by his agent IMO. At least I hope the agent is the source of this dispute.

Because he's not that valuable yet.
- BINGO!

He could be

Bolland got $5.5M, Stastny got $7M

Johansen is worth $6.5 compared to those two at least

He could be

Bolland got $5.5M, Stastny got $7M

Johansen is worth $6.5 compared to those two at least
- Nick_Dangles

Which is exactly why comparables are ludicrous in a lot of cases.

Simple fact, some GMs are dumb and do dumb things.

Considering the Kings gave the guy a chance when he was all but down and out, I don't see it happening.
- Jason_Lewis

Recent play and Cups will often times change a player's toon, or worse yet, the agent's. The only thing that may stop Muzzin from wheeling/dealing is the fact the Kings are ready to promote from within.

Because he's not that valuable yet.
- BINGO!

Yes he is. Look around the league; the increases are already in place for premium players due to the cap increase.

If they gave him 6.5 for 2 he'd be looking for 8-9 on a long term deal in 2 years. If they could have locked him up for 6.5-7 for 8 years I think that would of been best case scenario. I know it's paying for potential but I think there is very little doubt that he will be a stud in the league for years to come. With the way contracts are going (see Kane and Toews) I think withing a year or two that would of been a steal for CLB
- HealthyScratch6

He would only be 24 after the bridge contract. 8 years beyond that only puts him a 32. He would make a killing with the new long-term deal in place. $7.2-$7.5/8 years would be perfect for both parties, especially with the cap increase.

He could be

Bolland got $5.5M, Stastny got $7M

Johansen is worth $6.5 compared to those two at least
- Nick_Dangles

Bolland is at least a proven playoff performer, and Stastny has more years of production at a high level compared to Johansen. Not saying Johansen has come out of nowhere necessarily, but he definitely doesnt have the history of success that Bolland and Stastny have.

NOTE: I'm not saying Bolland is worth that crazy money he got, just saying he's a proven NHL gamer.

Yes he is. Look around the league; the increases are already in place for premium players due to the cap increase.
- Ersberg

He's NOT a premium player.

He has one season with 60+ ponts and an inflated shooting percentage.

Realistically he should be around 25 goals, unless he significantly increases the number of shots he takes.

$6.5 mill is a very good number for him over a long term deal, but that's not what he wants. He want's $6-6.5 on a short term deal. Even more over a long term one. That's unreasonable.

Which is exactly why comparables are ludicrous in a lot of cases.

Simple fact, some GMs are dumb and do dumb things.
- Jason_Lewis

These types of things are why the NHL will have a lockout year at the end of every CBA.

These types of things are why the NHL will have a lockout year at the end of every CBA.
- Anjin

Yet, the lock outs are to curb outrageous contracts. Hasn't happened yet.

Yet, the lock outs are to curb outrageous contracts. Hasn't happened yet.
- Aaron_85

The lock-outs are not to curb the contracts. The contracts are what they are. The lock-outs are to grab a bigger slice of the pie. A bigger piece of hockey related revenue.

That percentage doesn't actually change based on the size of the contracts. The cap dictates that there's a maximum that the players as a collective group can actually make in a year. Unless every team is a cap team, they'll never actually reach that number.

It's not about individual contracts. They don't give a damn about those. They're already cap at the maximum the owners were willing to give up annually anyway.

The lock-outs are not to curb the contracts. The contracts are what they are. The lock-outs are to grab a bigger slice of the pie. A bigger piece of hockey related revenue.

That percentage doesn't actually change based on the size of the contracts. The cap dictates that there's a maximum that the players as a collective group can actually make in a year. Unless every team is a cap team, they'll never actually reach that number.

It's not about individual contracts. They don't give a damn about those. They're already cap at the maximum the owners were willing to give up annually anyway.
- BINGO!

Great point. I lose sight of that too often and make the other argument, which is incorrect.