Botchford reporting that a bridge deal is done..
- Codes1087

Botchford is a tool.

This team is gonna be trash for the next 2 years at least so why not go long term and pay more during the next 2-3 years to save cap long term?

Bridge deal = cheaper Horvat for next 2-3 years, more expensive Horvat on next contract when the team should be on the rise hopefully

Long term deal = more expensive Horvat for next 2-3 years compared to bridge deal, but likely a cheaper Horvat for years 4 through 6 or 7 compared to having to re-sign him after a bridge deal(agents/players always ask for more to make up for the bridge deal discount).


I know which one I'm choosing.
- Nucker101

Bo knows that this team is going to be trash for the next 2 years too. Why wouldn't he sign a bridge deal, wait for better team mates to come along, produce higher/better numbers, and sign a more player friendly contract when his bridge his done. He was the points leader, but he only amassed 53 points, I don't think he has as much leverage today as people think.

BTW - Players often sacrifice money for term, or term for money. You are basically saying Horvat would be granted both, coming off a 53 point season..

This team is gonna be trash for the next 2 years at least so why not go long term and pay more during the next 2-3 years to save cap long term?

Bridge deal = cheaper Horvat for next 2-3 years, more expensive Horvat on next contract when the team should be on the rise hopefully

Long term deal = more expensive Horvat for next 2-3 years compared to bridge deal, but likely a cheaper Horvat for years 4 through 6 or 7 compared to having to re-sign him after a bridge deal(agents/players always ask for more to make up for the bridge deal discount).


I know which one I'm choosing.
- Nucker101

This team is gonna be trash for the next 2 years at least so why not go long term and pay more during the next 2-3 years to save cap long term?

Bridge deal = cheaper Horvat for next 2-3 years, more expensive Horvat on next contract when the team should be on the rise hopefully

Long term deal = more expensive Horvat for next 2-3 years compared to bridge deal, but likely a cheaper Horvat for years 4 through 6 or 7 compared to having to re-sign him after a bridge deal(agents/players always ask for more to make up for the bridge deal discount).


I know which one I'm choosing.
- Nucker101

always with the drama....why do you care? He is a 3 C on a playoff team. 2 years? 8 years? who cares

Botchford is a tool.
- LordHumungous

Bo knows that this team is going to be trash for the next 2 years too. Why wouldn't he sign a bridge deal, wait for better team mates to come along, produce higher/better numbers, and sign a more player friendly contract when his bridge his done. He was the points leader, but he only amassed 53 points, I don't think he has as much leverage today as people think.
- Codes1087

The only problem with that is EP and Gaudette could push Horvat into Sutter's 3rd line hole.

Botchford is a tool.
- LordHumungous

he honestly is the biggest tool in Vancouver Media. Gallagher the biggest drama queen. Moj and Pratt the biggest poop disturbers. Dan Murphy is a bit of a tool too.

The only problem with that is EP and Gaudette could push Horvat into Sutter's 3rd line hole.
- A_SteamingLombardi

very true, but I don't think Bo thinks that is going to happen. He is going to wear the C in a year, will have a better point production season next year, and will get better team mates than he is used to having. I think it would be in his best interest to continue to get better and make more money later.

Bo knows that this team is going to be trash for the next 2 years too. Why wouldn't he sign a bridge deal, wait for better team mates to come along, produce higher/better numbers, and sign a more player friendly contract when his bridge his done. He was the points leader, but he only amassed 53 points, I don't think he has as much leverage today as people think.

BTW - Players often sacrifice money for term, or term for money. You are basically saying Horvat would be granted both, coming off a 53 point season..
- Codes1087

Fair point, If i was his agent I'd also bite the bullet on my commission in the shorter term and advise taking a 2 year bridge deal. I do think he has more leverage than most RFA's, simply because this management team would get eaten alive if Horvat isn't signed by opening night. He gains more leverage with each passing day at this point.

always with the drama....why do you care? He is a 3 C on a playoff team. 2 years? 8 years? who cares

- CanuckDon

It's not drama, it's a discussion, man some of you are bigger pussies than the 2011 Canucks. You want all the tough guys on the team, but introduce some deeper discussion on this site and you start to female dog and cry.


Cap management matters. If you don't believe thats true, then I really don't know what to tell you.

Fair point, If i was his agent I'd also bite the bullet on my commission in the shorter term and advise taking a 2 year bridge deal. I do think he has more leverage than most RFA's, simply because this management team would get eaten alive if Horvat isn't signed by opening night. He gains more leverage with each passing day at this point.
- Nucker101

I think it kind of keeps players humble too when they aren't signed to massive contracts coming out of ELC's. They should not have peaked in talent coming off of an ELC, and there will always be room to grow, which I why I have always supported bridge contracts.

I think it kind of keeps players humble too when they aren't signed to massive contracts coming out of ELC's. They should not have peaked in talent coming off of an ELC, and there will always be room to grow, which I why I have always supported bridge contracts.
- Codes1087

Unless the player suddenly just surprised and broke out and wasn't always on a steady trajectory upwards, it usually always boils down to the GM preferring a bridge deal simply to save money now and knowing that he'll be paying more long term if he's still around by then. An extreme example is Subban with MTL, Bergevin could have signed him much cheaper long term if he didn't give out that bridge contract first, that contract allowed Subban to build up his value even more by continuing/improving his performance and also brining him closer to UFA status.

And it's the opposite with UFA's..GM's always throw in an extra year or 2 along with a NTC of some kind just to save some money and make life easier for themselves in the short term, even though it hurts the team in the end.

It's why having a GM on the hot seat is dangerous.

I think it kind of keeps players humble too when they aren't signed to massive contracts coming out of ELC's. They should not have peaked in talent coming off of an ELC, and there will always be room to grow, which I why I have always supported bridge contracts.
- Codes1087

I dont think its so much about peaking, but cost surety for both parties involved.

From VAN's perspective, he's a core piece and potential future captain. If they plan to have him around for the next decade, they should know what that cost is.

For Bo, everyone has a price. Regardless of how ridiculous, he may feel like he could get $8m annually in 4 years, then work it out

I agree with Nucker on long term deal, its easier to plan your cap management with sunk costs. If Bo is here for the long term, sink that cost so you can set your cap structure going forward. Its hard to establish a plan when available funds are fluctuating

It's not drama, it's a discussion, man some of you are bigger pussies than the 2011 Canucks. You want all the tough guys on the team, but introduce some deeper discussion on this site and you start to female dog and cry.


Cap management matters. If you don't believe thats true, then I really don't know what to tell you.
- Nucker101

If you can't detect sarcasm then I don't know what to tell you.

Unless the player suddenly just surprised and broke out and wasn't always on a steady trajectory upwards, it usually always boils down to the GM preferring a bridge deal simply to save money now and knowing that he'll be paying more long term if he's still around by then.

And it's the opposite with UFA's..GM's always throw in an extra year or 2 along with a NTC of some kind just to save some money and make life easier for themselves in the short term, even though it hurts the team in the end.

It's why having a GM on the hot seat is dangerous.
- Nucker101

more mistakes are made during ufa free agency than any other day/time of the year.
And Bo has made steady increases in point production every year he has been in the league, I think he is pretty confident he is just going to get better and better.

If you can't detect sarcasm then I don't know what to tell you.
- CanuckDon

If it's on the internet and coming from someone who's defended overpayment contracts in the past then yeah I might have some trouble detecting it.

This team is gonna be trash for the next 2 years at least so why not go long term and pay more during the next 2-3 years to save cap long term?

Bridge deal = cheaper Horvat for next 2-3 years, more expensive Horvat on next contract when the team should be on the rise hopefully

Long term deal = more expensive Horvat for next 2-3 years compared to bridge deal, but likely a cheaper Horvat for years 4 through 6 or 7 compared to having to re-sign him after a bridge deal(agents/players always ask for more to make up for the bridge deal discount).


I know which one I'm choosing.
- Nucker101

bridge deal + long term deal = more years that you have bo locked up.

there is logic to bridge deals, even if you disagree.

I dont think its so much about peaking, but cost surety for both parties involved.

From VAN's perspective, he's a core piece and potential future captain. If they plan to have him around for the next decade, they should know what that cost is.

For Bo, everyone has a price. Regardless of how ridiculous, he may feel like he could get $8m annually in 4 years, then work it out

I agree with Nucker on long term deal, its easier to plan your cap management with sunk costs. If Bo is here for the long term, sink that cost so you can set your cap structure going forward. Its hard to establish a plan when available funds are fluctuating
- WhiteLie

while I agree a long term deal is preferable, it's hard to speculate without knowing his agents ask. If he wants $6MM plus, I'd prefer a bridge deal. Rather have him in camp and see how he performs against teams top D pairings for 82 games.

more mistakes are made during ufa free agency than any other day/time of the year.
And Bo has made steady increases in point production every year he has been in the league, I think he is pretty confident he is just going to get better and better.
- Codes1087

For sure, as am I. The guy didn't get PP1 time and was better than his linemates. His defensive game still needs work, but his best offensive production is still to come and that's when he's going to demand even more money. I doubt that he and his agent are 100% against a long-term deal because there's always a chance that he could get seriously injured on a 2 year bridge deal and it could cost him a lot of money in the future so there's some risk for him and his agent with a bridge deal as well.

I would love to know what he's asking on a 6-7 year deal compared to a 2-3 year bridge deal.

For sure, as am I. The guy didn't get PP1 time and was better than his linemates. His defensive game still needs work, but his best offensive production is still to come and that's when he's going to demand even more money. I doubt that he and his agent are 100% against a long-term deal because there's always a chance that he could get seriously injured on a 2 year bridge deal and it could cost him a lot of money in the future so there's some risk for him and his agent with a bridge deal as well.

I would love to know what he's asking on a 6-7 year deal compared to a 2-3 year bridge deal.
- Nucker101

I would imagine it is 4.5-6 million long term, 6-7 million for short term

bridge deal + long term deal = more years that you have bo locked up.

there is logic to bridge deals, even if you disagree.
- RealityChecker

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to bridge this point up. That's the one argument I'd say is pretty strong in favour of the bridge deal.

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to bridge this point up. That's the one argument I'd say is pretty strong in favour of the bridge deal.
- Nucker101

This is an older chart, prior to Galchenyuk signing 3 years x 14 mill or whatever he signed. Some of the higher calibre players signing long terms deals out of ELC's

Fair point, If i was his agent I'd also bite the bullet on my commission in the shorter term and advise taking a 2 year bridge deal. I do think he has more leverage than most RFA's, simply because this management team would get eaten alive if Horvat isn't signed by opening night. He gains more leverage with each passing day at this point.
- Nucker101

this is why at your core, you're really a drama queen.

the fact that he's the best player on a bad team might make him have some power in contract negotiations but if you think that the "management team would get eaten alive," you're acting like a typical fan of this team.

words and emotion over nothing.

if he is overplaying his hand and demanding too much, let him sit. i, however, doubt this is the case. the contract will get worked out (bridge or long term) and this will be more evidence of either your true emotional nature or your need to dump on the benning regime even before the actions happen.

while I agree a long term deal is preferable, it's hard to speculate without knowing his agents ask. If he wants $6MM plus, I'd prefer a bridge deal. Rather have him in camp and see how he performs against teams top D pairings for 82 games.
- CanuckDon

I dont know what the cost would be, but I am confident in the rising cap/salaries making it a good time to lock in now. I'd be curious to know what it would have taken for Bo to say yes on a long term, in my view anything less than $6.5 AAV over 8 years seems like a no-brainer

I would imagine it is 4.5-6 million long term, 6-7 million for short term
- Codes1087

Interesting

I kind of assumed the opposite since GM's/agents usually value RFA years less. I've heard/read when they negotiate long term deals with RFA's, they actually negotiate the RFA and UFA years separately and then just combine it into one big contract.

Buying UFA years is always more expensive for the team from what I've read/heard.

i'd assume a 2-3 year bridge deal would be at around 4.2M-4.7M and long term would be at around 6M-6.5M give or take a few hundred thousands.