Confirmed - Mark Giordano Signs. 6 years 6.75 AAV

[CheersMan]

A 5 yr deal was a non-starter for the Gio camp.  To settle at 6 yrs at under $7 is a good deal for both sides, as it should be.  Hamilton, Brodie, and Gio are now locked and loaded for the next 5 yrs at an average AAV $5.72.  Would you swap these 3 for any other 3 dmen from the same team in the entire league?  Toss in Russell and Wideman this season and …………..drop the puck already!  Smid and Engelland are no slouches either.  We’re solid on the blue line this season, that’s all I can.

[travel_dude]

If it was 5 years what do you imagine the cap hit to be? 7.25 maybe?

If so the difference is 3.75 for that extra year where even if he's a 2nd pairing is pretty cheap especially all those years down the road.

 

Apply what you think a 4 year contract (the timeline after which you have us expressing buyer's regret) & you still end up with a total near the 40.5 it cost to keep him for 6 unless you really wanted Gio to test the market.

Gio is in the habit of maintaining fitness as that is the way he went from unwanted to Norris mention.  I'm not worried he'll suddenly drop career long habits & go "Donut Phil".

 

I agree about the fitness part.  I think he could be a top 4 player into his late 30's.  The injuries take a toll, but he as played a lot less games compared to guys like Weber, Keith, etc.  In a few years time, his contract will seem like a bargain as comparable contracts rise.

[cross16]

I agree about the fitness part.  I think he could be a top 4 player into his late 30's.  The injuries take a toll, but he as played a lot less games compared to guys like Weber, Keith, etc.  In a few years time, his contract will seem like a bargain as comparable contracts rise.

 

Problem is, can we bank on this anymore? I'm not so sure I agree with this statement i tihnk we are going to see the cap reamin stagnent or grow very slowly over the next few years so i'm not sure i agree that contracts are going to rise at this steady of a rate and suddenly 6.75 will be ok for a 2nd pairing dman. I thnk the cap is going to need to be in the mid 80s until we consider 6.75 to be a bargain for a 2nd pairing or 3/4 dman personally.That to be me is possible only if NHL expands relocates and those new teams take off.

 

Not that i'm saying this is a bad deal becuase its not I just don't see the rationale that this contract will look ok based on future raises to the cap. The Flames had two different ways to do this contract, they could eat the cap pain now and pay gio 7.5 or more and lose guys like Huder, Russel and probably Wideman, or they could say we've got a good 3/4 years here why don't we see what we can do with this team and we'll push our cap pain out 5 or 6 years. they choose the later and time will tell if that was the right move or not but i'm certianly not going to disagree with the logic becuase it is sound.

[MAC331]

Problem is, can we bank on this anymore? I'm not so sure I agree with this statement i tihnk we are going to see the cap reamin stagnent or grow very slowly over the next few years so i'm not sure i agree that contracts are going to rise at this steady of a rate and suddenly 6.75 will be ok for a 2nd pairing dman. I thnk the cap is going to need to be in the mid 80s until we consider 6.75 to be a bargain for a 2nd pairing or 3/4 dman personally.That to be me is possible only if NHL expands relocates and those new teams take off.

 

Not that i'm saying this is a bad deal becuase its not I just don't see the rationale that this contract will look ok based on future raises to the cap. The Flames had two different ways to do this contract, they could eat the cap pain now and pay gio 7.5 or more and lose guys like Huder, Russel and probably Wideman, or they could say we've got a good 3/4 years here why don't we see what we can do with this team and we'll push our cap pain out 5 or 6 years. they choose the later and time will tell if that was the right move or not but i'm certianly not going to disagree with the logic becuase it is sound.

This is a good deal today and it will be a good deal tomorrow (in the future). Giordano has never short changed this team with his effort so I expect short of injury effecting this contract, it is fair to both sides.

[travel_dude]

Problem is, can we bank on this anymore? I'm not so sure I agree with this statement i tihnk we are going to see the cap reamin stagnent or grow very slowly over the next few years so i'm not sure i agree that contracts are going to rise at this steady of a rate and suddenly 6.75 will be ok for a 2nd pairing dman. I thnk the cap is going to need to be in the mid 80s until we consider 6.75 to be a bargain for a 2nd pairing or 3/4 dman personally.That to be me is possible only if NHL expands relocates and those new teams take off.

 

Not that i'm saying this is a bad deal becuase its not I just don't see the rationale that this contract will look ok based on future raises to the cap. The Flames had two different ways to do this contract, they could eat the cap pain now and pay gio 7.5 or more and lose guys like Huder, Russel and probably Wideman, or they could say we've got a good 3/4 years here why don't we see what we can do with this team and we'll push our cap pain out 5 or 6 years. they choose the later and time will tell if that was the right move or not but i'm certianly not going to disagree with the logic becuase it is sound.

 

Player salaries are on the rise, regardless of the cap.  Karlsson's deal is low compared to what he could have signed for today.  PK's next one will be costly too.

 

I'm not so sure that that cap will be stagnant.  The GM's will do everything they can to make it rise, so that they can continue to sign $10m deals or sign more players than they need.  If the cap somehow came down, the GM's would be screaming for a compliance buy-out, which is bad for everyone involved.

[cross16]

Player salaries are on the rise, regardless of the cap.  Karlsson's deal is low compared to what he could have signed for today.  PK's next one will be costly too.

 

I'm not so sure that that cap will be stagnant.  The GM's will do everything they can to make it rise, so that they can continue to sign $10m deals or sign more players than they need.  If the cap somehow came down, the GM's would be screaming for a compliance buy-out, which is bad for everyone involved.

 

This is impossible in a fixed cap system. If Revenues don't go up then the cap doesn't go up and then GMs are forced to sign players for less money, its simple economics. Players can ask for whatever they want but if the money is not there to pay them then the money just isn't there. There is nothing GMs can do to make it rise except tasking the owners to find more revenue streams with is much easier said then done.

 

I think a point that you are forgetting is yes player comparables come into play for sure, but a huge part of negotiations is % against the salary cap. if the salary cap is going up that numbers falls and stays in line thus why you are not going to see player salaries escalate quickly with a stagnant cap. I think Gio's agent even gave an interview the other day and admitted they had to take less becuase the cap did not, and is not, expected to rise like it was a season or two ago.

 

I'm not saying the cap will go down nor do i think it will be stagnant. i think you will see small raises every year, 2-3 million maybe, with the odd year seeing next to no movement at all. Probably at least for the next 2-3 years and then things may change based on economy, expansion, relocation etc.

[conundrumed]

Giordano's deal is solid.

The backend might be overpayment, but the frontend is underpayment.

A Norris/Hart calibre Captain Dman is easily an $8 mil per proposition for the coming years.

A full season last year I'm thinking he's up for the Hart as well as a lock for the Norris.

Some seemed to brush off that if we lost Gio, the captaincy is gbw (great big whatever).

I'm not in that camp. A team reflects it's captain, what he's willing to do, what he's not willing to do.

He's been the Captain the past 2 seasons, and we all know this team has been a lot of rising in that term.

He's been the most important cog, he's much loved, much respected.

Solid deal.

[CastleMania]

This is impossible in a fixed cap system. If Revenues don't go up then the cap doesn't go up and then GMs are forced to sign players for less money, its simple economics. Players can ask for whatever they want but if the money is not there to pay them then the money just isn't there. There is nothing GMs can do to make it rise except tasking the owners to find more revenue streams with is much easier said then done.

 

This isn't completely accurate. Players salaries almost certainly can go up even with a fixed cap, but it will be bimodal. We would likely see a greater divergence between the costs of top end players and the cost of bottom end players. This would leave the average player salary the same.

 

Bimodal salaries in sports can and do happen, and the gap between them can be fairly large. If we thought that we're likely to see this kind of distribution, it would be smart to sign our top end talent to longer, reasonably priced deals, in spite of changes in the cap.

[cross16]

This isn't completely accurate. Players salaries almost certainly can go up even with a fixed cap, but it will be bimodal. We would likely see a greater divergence between the costs of top end players and the cost of bottom end players. This would leave the average player salary the same.

 

Bimodal salaries in sports can and do happen, and the gap between them can be fairly large. If we thought that we're likely to see this kind of distribution, it would be smart to sign our top end talent to longer, reasonably priced deals, in spite of changes in the cap.

 

While I agree they can go up slightly, i don't believe its possible for them to rise enough to suggest that Gios deal in 3-4 years time will look even better by comparable. As i mentioned in order for that to happen the ratio of high end players versus the cap would have to rise significantly and i don't believe that is a viable economic model for teams to remain competitive with.

 

Maybe i shoudln't use the term impossible, but I think its highly improbable.

[travel_dude]

While I agree they can go up slightly, i don't believe its possible for them to rise enough to suggest that Gios deal in 3-4 years time will look even better by comparable. As i mentioned in order for that to happen the ratio of high end players versus the cap would have to rise significantly and i don't believe that is a viable economic model for teams to remain competitive with.

 

Maybe i shoudln't use the term impossible, but I think its highly improbable.

 

The future value of today's dollar is not fixed.  What buys you $100 worth of goods will be more expensive.  Inflation drives up the cost of everything, including hockey tickets.  If there is any form of expansion, league revenue goes up.  

 

Hall, Eberle and Nuge signed for $6m each.  At the time it seemed like gross overpayment.  Now you start seeing $6.5 or $7.5m deals.  My point is that in a few years, the $6.5m will seem like a much smaller deal.

[cross16]

The future value of today's dollar is not fixed.  What buys you $100 worth of goods will be more expensive.  Inflation drives up the cost of everything, including hockey tickets.  If there is any form of expansion, league revenue goes up.  

 

Hall, Eberle and Nuge signed for $6m each.  At the time it seemed like gross overpayment.  Now you start seeing $6.5 or $7.5m deals.  My point is that in a few years, the $6.5m will seem like a much smaller deal.

 

of course it does, but keep in mind avg inflation rate is probably in and around 3% so while yes cost and salaries will always go up its to what degree. The NHLPA can, and likely will, use their 5% escalator to raise the salary cap so I guess my term stagnant is not a great one becuase that suggest I mean the cap won't go up fro year to year. i think its unlikely the cap will ever be flat or go down becuase of that escalator but to me if the cap goes up 2-3 mill a year thats basically stagnant but if that is confusing then I won't use that word.

 

We agree that costs will rise but I guess what i'm trying to say is do cost rise enough to offset a probably decrease in production? I think salaries in the NHL will be slow to rise the next few years becuase i think the cap will be slow to rise. Since the last lockout here are in the increases to the salary cap:

 

12-13 to 13-14 - 7.1%

13-14 to 14-15 - 7.3%

14-15 to 15-16 - 3.4% (includes the PA using their 5% escalator)

 

so yes while i agree cost with always rise its to what degree and I guess the debate should also center around gio's product into his mid to late 30s. Gio may buck the trend yes, but on average players production levels decrease as they age and with this contract are costs going to rise enough to offset a decrease in production and thus make his contract a "bargain". IMO, they will not so i guess thats the point i'm trying to make.

[zima]

I was curios how much of that 6.73 goes to Gio after your managers Reps and others that handle his contracts get there pc of the pie and government with there hands out how much does he actually take home ? Any Idea's   here is some more insight http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/

[Flame111]

The future value of today's dollar is not fixed.  What buys you $100 worth of goods will be more expensive.  Inflation drives up the cost of everything, including hockey tickets.  If there is any form of expansion, league revenue goes up.  

 

Hall, Eberle and Nuge signed for $6m each.  At the time it seemed like gross overpayment.  Now you start seeing $6.5 or $7.5m deals.  My point is that in a few years, the $6.5m will seem like a much smaller deal.

 

You can't make this comparison. Those players are young and not at their peak withmany years ahead of them. Gio starts his contract at the age of 33. He is at his peak, yes it is a very high peak (Norris Level) but he can only decline from there. For me this is just about signing such a long-term contract with a player at that age.

 

I am not going to call it a bad contract and I am not going to argue against it that passionately. I think it probably is the best scenario but I would have preferred a shorter term. 

 

As I said 4 years out we will be talking about it and not in a positive sense imo. A lot of us did not want to face the drop in Iggy's game in his final years in Calgary. The fact he was losing a step, his two-way game was weaker etc...  

 

I also think with the CDN dollar dropping so much, that we should not be expecting huge increases in the salary cap. That all being said though I am happy that we have Gio in the fold and have no doubt he will be earning his keep for at least the first 3 years of his contract and I hope I am wrong about the final three years.  

 

I am happy with BT's work though, certainly very impressive at this stage. 

 

The Flames are ripped at the moment, really wish we could put Kipper in a reverse time machine and bring him back at 25 years old - lol...

[Flyerfan52]

You can't make this comparison. Those players are young and not at their peak withmany years ahead of them. Gio starts his contract at the age of 33. He is at his peak, yes it is a very high peak (Norris Level) but he can only decline from there. For me this is just about signing such a long-term contract with a player at that age.

 

I am not going to call it a bad contract and I am not going to argue against it that passionately. I think it probably is the best scenario but I would have preferred a shorter term. 

 

As I said 4 years out we will be talking about it and not in a positive sense imo. A lot of us did not want to face the drop in Iggy's game in his final years in Calgary. The fact he was losing a step, his two-way game was weaker etc...  

 

I also think with the CDN dollar dropping so much, that we should not be expecting huge increases in the salary cap. That all being said though I am happy that we have Gio in the fold and have no doubt he will be earning his keep for at least the first 3 years of his contract and I hope I am wrong about the final three years.  

 

I am happy with BT's work though, certainly very impressive at this stage. 

 

The Flames are ripped at the moment, really wish we could put Kipper in a reverse time machine and bring him back at 25 years old - lol...

I'd argue that Gio earned his contract while those "Golden Boys" were re-signed for their potential . An overpay for a someday that may never come. What is their peak? Hall was the 1st of those 1st OAs followed by 3 more. Giving McDavid a bye as he hasn't played a pro game yet the high picks = 0 playoff games. Heck, even the Pens during their ditching for Lemieux & later Crosby weren't that bad for so long.

 

Given an option who would you rather have for the next few years to help your team advance to a SC? A leader or 1 of 3 kids earning dang near as much that have seen their team draft in the top 10 or earlier for their entire careers.

[kehatch]

Very few people (if any) were complaining about Iginla's contract. The problem was that we were trying to build a contending team around him when we should have been rebuilding.

Nobody knows how Giordano's performance will be in 6 years. Nobody knows what the cap will be. It seems really silly to argue about what might be in 5 years time. At least if your stance is that signing him now is the right move.

Either it is the right move and we will see what happens in the future. Or it wasn't the right move.

[robrob1974]

Very few people (if any) were complaining about Iginla's contract. The problem was that we were trying to build a contending team around him when we should have been rebuilding.

Nobody knows how Giordano's performance will be in 6 years. Nobody knows what the cap will be. It seems really silly to argue about what might be in 5 years time. At least if your stance is that signing him now is the right move.

Either it is the right move and we will see what happens in the future. Or it wasn't the right move.

 

 

For Iginla, I just don't think we should have stopped building on what we had in 04. I think we jumped the gun on thinking we were a contender afterwards. We stopped trying to develop players. 

 

So the difference now is, we are going to continue to develop and stick with the plan. That's the refreshing part here.

 

As long as we don't rush our prospects and develop our D and the F positions, then we'll be great!

[travel_dude]

Very few people (if any) were complaining about Iginla's contract. The problem was that we were trying to build a contending team around him when we should have been rebuilding.

Nobody knows how Giordano's performance will be in 6 years. Nobody knows what the cap will be. It seems really silly to argue about what might be in 5 years time. At least if your stance is that signing him now is the right move.

Either it is the right move and we will see what happens in the future. Or it wasn't the right move.

 

It's a risk signing any player for 6 years to a large contract.  Younger or old.  Monahan and Johnny both have had good season and are young.  Their deals will be based on potential and results to date.  As well as banking on 6 years of production.  With Gio, we are banking on him being a top defense for at least 4 years, and 2 years of more unknown.  Pay less than market for a top D, pay more for a lesser or equal player.  I am more concerned that he can have a few years of 80 games.  The more years, the more he is worth the money.  

 

At least at $6.75m, he sets the bar for 2nd deals for others.  And he doesn't prevent us from re-signing our young stars.  Might mean we have less Bouma type deals.  I think we have quite a few prospects that can be similar to Bouma, but cost us less.  

[Carty]

[jjgallow]

Nicely handled.

[Flame111]

Very few people (if any) were complaining about Iginla's contract. The problem was that we were trying to build a contending team around him when we should have been rebuilding.

Nobody knows how Giordano's performance will be in 6 years. Nobody knows what the cap will be. It seems really silly to argue about what might be in 5 years time. At least if your stance is that signing him now is the right move.

Either it is the right move and we will see what happens in the future. Or it wasn't the right move.

 

Ok, I will counter you and Flyerfan. Speak my piece and move on. I know no one is going to agree but if I was BT this is what I would have done. 

 

I would not have signed Gio this off-season.

 

I would have waited till he played this season out and graded his performance. For all we know Hamilton and Brodie are going to be the top pairing. Now, do you do this contract in the off-season "next" year based on this season's performance resulting in a Gio being a 2nd pairing D? 

Do you commit that term and money to a 2nd pairing D man in the modern NHL at the age of 33? Captain or not? You are all up in arms over Wideman on the 2nd pairing last season at 5.25 million and he is only 32 and the end is in sight on his contract... 

As far as another course of action, this is what I would have done.

If Gio's performance had slipped him to 2nd pairing I would have traded him at the deadline and I would have gotten a great return. You all know it. I would have gotten myself a younger, higher end 2nd pairing D man at half the cost and shorter term plus picks or prospects and maybe even a proven #1 G. This would have given me flexibility going forward and filled the last hole in G.

You break it down to a choice. This is either the right move or it isn't. If the Flames win the Cup in the next 3 years it is the right move. If they don't it was the wrong move. That is my response. 

 

Mark my words, if the Flames don't win the Cup in the next 3-4 years, you will all be lamenting this contract... Sure we don't know the future of the Cap but we do have warning signs and the weak CDN dollar is a sign that it will be small increases...

I am not going to knock BT too hard on this because it really comes down to a choice between keeping Gio or not. The contract is a bargain now, no doubt but in the future the Flames will have less flexibility and if we don't have a Cup in the next 2-3 years?

This contract very well could be BT's big mistake OR it could be the move he needed to win the Cup. 

 

I am one of the few people out here who is good with the Brett Hull trade. I am ok with it because the Flames tweaked minor areas they needed to and won the Cup and yes it cost them a super-star young player but they won the Cup, so in my mind it is all good. This Gio contract to me is similar, if the Flames bring home a Cup in the next 3 years I am all good and will eat crow.

They fail to do that and I am going to see this contract as the misstep of a young rebuilding team signing an older player, who they could have traded to fill the final holes to become a new Blackhawks... 

There said my piece. Go at me but I had to get it out. There was another course of action for BT that was preferable imo... 

 

[CheersMan]

Ok, I will counter you and Flyerfan. Speak my piece and move on. I know no one is going to agree but if I was BT this is what I would have done. 

 

I would not have signed Gio this off-season.

 

I would have waited till he played this season out and graded his performance. For all we know Hamilton and Brodie are going to be the top pairing. Now, do you do this contract in the off-season "next" year based on this season's performance resulting in a Gio being a 2nd pairing D? 

Do you commit that term and money to a 2nd pairing D man in the modern NHL at the age of 33? Captain or not? You are all up in arms over Wideman on the 2nd pairing last season at 5.25 million and he is only 32 and the end is in sight on his contract... 

As far as another course of action, this is what I would have done.

If Gio's performance had slipped him to 2nd pairing I would have traded him at the deadline and I would have gotten a great return. You all know it. I would have gotten myself a younger, higher end 2nd pairing D man at half the cost and shorter term plus picks or prospects and maybe even a proven #1 G. This would have given me flexibility going forward and filled the last hole in G.

You break it down to a choice. This is either the right move or it isn't. If the Flames win the Cup in the next 3 years it is the right move. If they don't it was the wrong move. That is my response. 

 

Mark my words, if the Flames don't win the Cup in the next 3-4 years, you will all be lamenting this contract... Sure we don't know the future of the Cap but we do have warning signs and the weak CDN dollar is a sign that it will be small increases...

I am not going to knock BT too hard on this because it really comes down to a choice between keeping Gio or not. The contract is a bargain now, no doubt but in the future the Flames will have less flexibility and if we don't have a Cup in the next 2-3 years?

This contract very well could be BT's big mistake OR it could be the move he needed to win the Cup. 

 

I am one of the few people out here who is good with the Brett Hull trade. I am ok with it because the Flames tweaked minor areas they needed to and won the Cup and yes it cost them a super-star young player but they won the Cup, so in my mind it is all good. This Gio contract to me is similar, if the Flames bring home a Cup in the next 3 years I am all good and will eat crow.

They fail to do that and I am going to see this contract as the misstep of a young rebuilding team signing an older player, who they could have traded to fill the final holes to become a new Blackhawks... 

There said my piece. Go at me but I had to get it out. There was another course of action for BT that was preferable imo... 

 

 

I think you take Gio at $6.75 every time. 

 

The C remains on our leader for what could be another 7 years.  No kids wearing the C on this team before there time.

 

Having Gio in the fold now allows BT to immediately work on filling in the pieces much easier.

 

An unsigned Gio creates a bottle neck and holds up everyone else who may be in line for an extension or addition.

 

If you allow Gio to play out his existing deal then UFA status becomes more appealing to him with just days remaining to July 1.

 

What if an unsigned Gio won the Norris next season?  Are you still getting him at $6.75?

[kehatch]

Disagree 111. You can't leave your captain as a pending free agent. Especially when he wants to retire with the organization and is taking a home town discount.

Your being way to dramatic on the worst case scenario.

You have to try really really hard to dislike this extension.

[cccsberg]

Ok, I will counter you and Flyerfan. Speak my piece and move on. I know no one is going to agree but if I was BT this is what I would have done. 

 

I would not have signed Gio this off-season.

 

I would have waited till he played this season out and graded his performance. For all we know Hamilton and Brodie are going to be the top pairing. Now, do you do this contract in the off-season "next" year based on this season's performance resulting in a Gio being a 2nd pairing D? 

Do you commit that term and money to a 2nd pairing D man in the modern NHL at the age of 33? Captain or not? You are all up in arms over Wideman on the 2nd pairing last season at 5.25 million and he is only 32 and the end is in sight on his contract... 

As far as another course of action, this is what I would have done.

If Gio's performance had slipped him to 2nd pairing I would have traded him at the deadline and I would have gotten a great return. You all know it. I would have gotten myself a younger, higher end 2nd pairing D man at half the cost and shorter term plus picks or prospects and maybe even a proven #1 G. This would have given me flexibility going forward and filled the last hole in G.

You break it down to a choice. This is either the right move or it isn't. If the Flames win the Cup in the next 3 years it is the right move. If they don't it was the wrong move. That is my response. 

 

Mark my words, if the Flames don't win the Cup in the next 3-4 years, you will all be lamenting this contract... Sure we don't know the future of the Cap but we do have warning signs and the weak CDN dollar is a sign that it will be small increases...

I am not going to knock BT too hard on this because it really comes down to a choice between keeping Gio or not. The contract is a bargain now, no doubt but in the future the Flames will have less flexibility and if we don't have a Cup in the next 2-3 years?

This contract very well could be BT's big mistake OR it could be the move he needed to win the Cup. 

 

I am one of the few people out here who is good with the Brett Hull trade. I am ok with it because the Flames tweaked minor areas they needed to and won the Cup and yes it cost them a super-star young player but they won the Cup, so in my mind it is all good. This Gio contract to me is similar, if the Flames bring home a Cup in the next 3 years I am all good and will eat crow.

They fail to do that and I am going to see this contract as the misstep of a young rebuilding team signing an older player, who they could have traded to fill the final holes to become a new Blackhawks... 

There said my piece. Go at me but I had to get it out. There was another course of action for BT that was preferable imo... 

 

You are using 20-20 rear-view vision to support both sides of your argument.  You can't have it both ways.   Sometimes the team wins, sometimes it doesn't.  Most of the time the crucial factor isn't some final, magical trade that does it though we like to believe that is the case.  In this case, its either a good move, or it isn't.  Whatever happens in the future happens.  As for me, Giordano is key to the present and key to the near future.  It was a good signing.  If it doesn't look so good 4-5 years down the road, that's just the way it is....

[Flyerfan52]

OK 111, are there other defensemen I'd rather have spent the $s/term on. Yes.

Are they available to the Flames right now? No. The 1s better than Gio are currently better are under contract to other teams & the few being paid less were signed under a lower cap.

 

As of now we signed the best D that was a pending UFA (& that's saying something as others include Seabrook & Big Buff) before he hit the market. It was @ smaller $s than most expected even if it was for a longer term.

Add the fact he's the captain/leader which usually is factored in during negotiations. (I see Ladd of the Jets getting more term to keep the cap hit lower & keep the leadership in the room.).Even if the team expects another player to be wearing the "C" by the time that contract ends you can bet your boots much of  the next captain's ability comes from what he learned from Gio.

 

As I said previously a bigger $/shorter term hurts in the now. 7.5 x 4 (example) = 30 million. So for 10.5 we have 2 extra years while having 0.75 extra to fill out the roster.

 

I'm not an economist so won't forecast the cap ceiling in 7 years when that extention ends but will go so far as to say I expect it to have risen.

******************************************

If you prefer a more pessimistic scenario a long NA wide recession could cause a lockout/stoppage with a lower cap & roll back of contracts if the NHLPA doesn't want the NHL to close it's doors with all contracts void.

There is talk that contracts like ROR's with the yearly up front bonus is to build a personal fall back account as it's not escrow exempt but getting the majority of next year wages before it starts is nice. If there's a lockout/stoppage the odds of it coming into effect on June 30 are slim & like LTIR players getting paid last time the contract probably has a clause for that as well.

[Flame111]

Disagree 111. You can't leave your captain as a pending free agent. Especially when he wants to retire with the organization and is taking a home town discount.

Your being way to dramatic on the worst case scenario.

You have to try really really hard to dislike this extension.

 

Sure you can, Iginla was a free agent and even reported to camp unsigned prior to his 7 million dollar contract and he wanted to retire with the team too... 

My point is only that a young rebuilding team signed a 33 year old player to a six year term... You and FF are rational hockey fans, you must see the point here. I stick by it. 

There was another course of action as I described. A trade that could have brought younger proven players on the upswing, rather than signing an older one who will decline in ability with age. 

 

P.S.

 

CheersMan - if Gio wins the Norris next year it just means more trade value. This is really a team age issue and having flexibility going into the future. The goal is to position the team into a Cup Window that is open for as long as possible.