View Single Post
10-18-2012, 07:57 PM
glovesave_35's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 16,860
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
It's interesting to think about how this might favor either side and where the leverage lies.

On the one hand, if Benn wanted a long-term deal rather than signing a bridge contract, the potential length could be limited to 5 years. Then again, is that really bad for him? That could take him right up to UFA age, depending on when that gets defined.

Obviously the Stars will have big time pressure on them to get something done, so that would seem to favor the player. But they'll be in good shape in terms of their cap picture and flexibility, so it's really just a matter of principle if they're willing to budge off the bridge contract mantra. I just have a hard time believing that Gaglardi would be fine with going into his first full season without his #1 center as he and his team continue to try to get people excited about Stars hockey.
It's really hard to know what management is thinking because we (and they) don't know things like UFA age, contract term limit possibilities, etc. I have to say that the idea of a two-year bridge contract for a player of Benn's caliber has always seemed silly and unrealistic. I would be absolutely floored if he signed a two-year deal. Regardless of what management hopes, I don't think the bridge contract is the way to go for him.

I think the best we can hope for is something that buys out a year or two of unrestricted free agency or a three-year deal that still leaves one RFA year.

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
So even when the actual lockout is done we'll have to deal with a Jamie Benn lockout? What wonderful news for a Stars fan.
That was always going to be part of the deal. The fact that this would be the situation is probably exactly why he didn't sign before the lockout AND partially why he opted to go to Europe and play some hockey.

glovesave_35 is offline