10 years. Waive the guy or buy him out once his production is overwhelmed by his cap hit. You'll probably get 4-5 solid years out of the guy on the long-term contract, while the one-year deal only give you that single season of production.
__________________
Exhibit A as to how hockey doesn't matter on ESPN:
Last night an ESPN program was discussing how the Detroit Pistons needed a hero citing the heroes on the Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions and no mention of the Detroit Red Wings. All this despite the Red Wings probably being the most succesful team in Detroit right now.
Wow this is a very close poll. Based on the last CBA I say 10 years easily. With a 1 year deal it would likely cost more to re-sign that player for next year.
I think Vaclav Prospal is a better comparable. Say you signed him in 05-06 (30 years old), and you have him til next year at 4.5. I think it's a relatively fair deal. It's not really an albatross of any sort.
10 year contracts are awful, I'd only give 10 year contracts on two conditions.
1. Player is very young, has proven enough to warrant a big pay day, and there is a big enough sample size where you can realistically project said player will be productive and worth the contract (RNH, Seguin, Hall, Stamkos, Toews...forgetting people but you get the point). They have to be young stars/stars in the making.
2. Player is Sidney Crosby or Evgeni Malkin, and they pretty much force your hand and get what they want at the risk of losing them.
Basically, if the player will still be competitive at the end of the contract, or if you get backed into a wall and you have no other options (sign vs not sign).
a lifer because if he is offered a contract for 10+ years he is probably worth it. you wouldnt just give someone a long contract like that if he wasnt good.
10 years. Waive the guy or buy him out once his production is overwhelmed by his cap hit. You'll probably get 4-5 solid years out of the guy on the long-term contract, while the one-year deal only give you that single season of production.
If you buy him out you have him on your payroll for twice as long, just at a cheaper cost.
10 year contracts are awful, I'd only give 10 year contracts on two conditions.
1. Player is very young, has proven enough to warrant a big pay day, and there is a big enough sample size where you can realistically project said player will be productive and worth the contract (RNH, Seguin, Hall, Stamkos, Toews...forgetting people but you get the point). They have to be young stars/stars in the making.
2. Player is Sidney Crosby or Evgeni Malkin, and they pretty much force your hand and get what they want at the risk of losing them.
Basically, if the player will still be competitive at the end of the contract, or if you get backed into a wall and you have no other options (sign vs not sign).
I agree with this. I would't want a player if he is 30 years old and was signed to a 10 year deal. He may be good the first 4-5 years but his cap hit will handcuff you in the last 5 years.
Depends on my team, the player, etc. But in general, I'll take the 1-year version of this player who mostly sounds replaceable and non-core. He could have other traits that would make me tip the other way. 5 years for Plekanec works for me. Having to choose between 1 and 10 isn't a nice choice.
10 years. Waive the guy or buy him out once his production is overwhelmed by his cap hit. You'll probably get 4-5 solid years out of the guy on the long-term contract, while the one-year deal only give you that single season of production.
If he is bought out after 5 years I am under the impression that the team would end up paying him for another 10 years at a lower rate and it would count against the cap. I don't think any team would want a guy that they are going to have to pay for 15 years when he is going to play 5 years.
I'd go with 5. Since you said he's being paid 4.5 and that's fair market value, that suggests to me that while he's in the top 6 forward category, he's not an all star who will command a big pile of money if he goes free agent. I just don't like the idea of having a guy locked up for 10 years who's only good for 50-60 points. If we knew he wasn't going to decline over the course of the 10 years I'd be willing to go to 10 years at 4.5 per, but I think looking at it realistically you're better off perhaps having to pay him 5.5 for 4 years than being locked into a 4.5 per year for 10 year contract. That's 4 to 5 years where he'd probably be grossly overpaid.
I think Vaclav Prospal is a better comparable. Say you signed him in 05-06 (30 years old), and you have him til next year at 4.5. I think it's a relatively fair deal. It's not really an albatross of any sort.
I thought his last TB contract was less than that per season, and he was only a few years older. He wouldnt have made it through half the contract.
I gave him a 1 year deal, he hit his 80 points and walked. Never coming close to that number again.
I'd go with 5. Since you said he's being paid 4.5 and that's fair market value, that suggests to me that while he's in the top 6 forward category, he's not an all star who will command a big pile of money if he goes free agent. I just don't like the idea of having a guy locked up for 10 years who's only good for 50-60 points. If we knew he wasn't going to decline over the course of the 10 years I'd be willing to go to 10 years at 4.5 per, but I think looking at it realistically you're better off perhaps having to pay him 5.5 for 4 years than being locked into a 4.5 per year for 10 year contract. That's 4 to 5 years where he'd probably be grossly overpaid.
Thats not the poll.. and 5.5 mil for a 50-60 point guy (with no defensive abilities mentioned) is a gross overpayment in itself... let alone 4.5 mil
