If he was willing to take a deal something like 38M/7 years that would actually be a smart move for the team given what he's done so far signing him again before UFA could get very expensive. I highly doubt he would be willing to commit that many years at this point however.
If he was willing to take a deal something like 38M/7 years that would actually be a smart move for the team given what he's done so far signing him again before UFA could get very expensive. I highly doubt he would be willing to commit that many years at this point however.
7.15M is a pretty bad cap hit D. Sedin is at 6.1M Kessel is at 5.4M. Kessel is a good comparable he signed a 27/5 after his age 21 season I would be fine with a similar deal for Kane.
I think 12m/3yrs is fair. 3.5/1st 4.0/2nd 4.5/3rd year. He will probably get more.
Thats a fair deal it would leave the club with just one RFA year left though which could hurt their negotiating position. Want to try and by out as many UFA years as possible.
I think we should look at throwing a JVR style contract at him. Long term, you're definitely paying for potential, but in the long term it should definitely be a steal with the cap friendly hit.
JVR's contract is: 6 years, $4,250,000 cap hit.
First year: $2,500,000
Second year: $3,750,000
Third year: $4,500,000
Fourth year: $4,750,000
Fifth and Sixth year: $5,000,000
Now I think because of Kane's 30 goals we'd be offering him something larger, but if a deal like this could be had, I'd call it a steal.
I think we should look at throwing a JVR style contract at him. Long term, you're definitely paying for potential, but in the long term it should definitely be a steal with the cap friendly hit.
JVR's contract is: 6 years, $4,250,000 cap hit.
First year: $2,500,000
Second year: $3,750,000
Third year: $4,500,000
Fourth year: $4,750,000
Fifth and Sixth year: $5,000,000
Now I think because of Kane's 30 goals we'd be offering him something larger, but if a deal like this could be had, I'd call it a steal.
Agreed. I'm not sure why everyone seems afraid to give him a long term deal. Imo the two year "prove me deals" should only be applicable to players like Bogosian and Wheeler who still had a lot to prove. Kane unlike the other two has improved as a player every year and took a substantial step forward this year. If this team keeps giving short term deals it will eventually catch up to them having to pay big dollars to keep players who are close to UFA. Management is going to have to take some risks with some of there signings. With Kanes progression since entering the league he's a fairly safe bet to live up to long term contract Imo.
Give him a deal similar to Bogo's with just a bit more $$ thrown in. The kid could produce 40 G's within the next 2 years.
That's the problem with a 2 year deal though. He'll produce, and raise his price tag even higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweech
I think we should look at throwing a JVR style contract at him. Long term, you're definitely paying for potential, but in the long term it should definitely be a steal with the cap friendly hit.
JVR's contract is: 6 years, $4,250,000 cap hit.
First year: $2,500,000
Second year: $3,750,000
Third year: $4,500,000
Fourth year: $4,750,000
Fifth and Sixth year: $5,000,000
Now I think because of Kane's 30 goals we'd be offering him something larger, but if a deal like this could be had, I'd call it a steal.
This wouldn't be a bad idea either. I think you go 2 years or 5-6+ years. It's a tough decision and will all depend on what each side wants really. We have no way of knowing which way it could go really.
I'll quote myself from the Kane thread in February so I don't have to re-type it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerzy
Whatever the dollars and cents come down to, he's got 4 seasons beginning next year until he'll be a UFA, so it makes no sense to sign him to a term of 4 or 5 years. We'll lose out on all bargaining power if we do that.
If we want to get the most out of this young player, I think it would be wise to sign him to a 2-3 year deal, then if we feel he is a piece we want to lock up to a 5,6 or 7 year deal, and he is interested in that, then we do so while he's still a RFA and a year or two away from having UFA status. If we feel otherwise about him being a Jet long-term, or he does, we can deal him and he'll still be in a good position contractually for other teams to have some power with him as a RFA. There is absolutely no need or reason to go long-term right now. In my opinion you don't go long-term with a player until the final year or two of him being a RFA, that way you lock him up through his prime years as well as his UFA years. That's what you want, in my opinion.
The absolute last thing we want is to have a case of Zach Parise/New Jersey or Ryan Suter/Nashville on our hands. These guys have contracts that take them right up to being a UFA this summer... that is extremely risky. If we play our cards right, we could sign Kane this summer to a 2 year deal, which would then bring us to the summer of 2014 in which Kane would still have 2 more years of RFA status. At that time, we could lock him up to a 7-8 year deal, which would leave him playing the first 2 years of the contract in RFA status, and we would get the next 5-6 years of his UFA years. That is key, in my opinion. If we do that, we would have Kane locked up until he was at least 30 years of age.
I think we have to first and foremost play this with the term. We don't want to lose a young player like this at the young age of 24. And, believe it or not, he'll be just 24 (as his birth date is in August) on the first day of being UFA eligible on July 1st, 2016. Talk about young.
Agreed. After the entry level contract, and with 4 years of RFA remaining either a 2 year "show me your worth" contract or a long term "we have already determined your a franchise player" contract are your best options. Anything in between is giving up your asset management to the player and his agent.
I'll quote myself from the Kane thread in February so I don't have to re-type it.
We won't have much bargaining position if we sign him to a 2 year deal and he turns into a 40 goal, 75 to 80 point player with arbitration rights either. (See Weber last summer). It is also common knowledge that goalscorers peak earlier, generally in their mid to late twenties. If we sign him short then long as you suggested we run the risk of him having a Heatley type albatross when he's on the decline. I will take the risk of signing him to 5 year deal (still get a year of ufa) for what will most likely be his most productive goal years at what will more than likely be a solid cap hit. I am also of the belief that if management builds the team the way I expect them to, more players then not will want to stay, which will mitigate the effect of ufa.
We won't have much bargaining position if we sign him to a 2 year deal and he turns into a 40 goal, 75 to 80 point player with arbitration rights either. (See Weber last summer). It is also common knowledge that goalscorers peak earlier, generally in their mid to late twenties. If we sign him short then long as you suggested we run the risk of him having a Heatley type albatross when he's on the decline. I will take the risk of signing him to 5 year deal (still get a year of ufa) for what will most likely be his most productive goal years at what will more than likely be a solid cap hit. I am also of the belief that if management builds the team the way I expect them to, more players then not will want to stay, which will mitigate the effect of ufa.
But isn't that what you want, for Kane to develop over the next 2 years so he is able to demand a big contract. The Jets will either have to pay for talent like anyone else or we will be a bottom dweller. In all honesty we need at least a couple players that can comand big salaries and we need to pay them to compete.
JVR is 2 years older than Kane, and at this point in his career doesn't have the same goal scoring potential as Kane.
I doubt Kane's agent would want to lock him into a long term contract @ age 20, and before he has a chance to put together a string of 30+ goal season's.
The Jets and Kane will likely agree on a 2-3 yr deal. Once the dust settles after that contract, the Jets will know exactly what type of player Kane is becoming and offer him a contract that "BOTH" sides will be happy with long term.
But isn't that what you want, for Kane to develop over the next 2 years so he is able to demand a big contract. The Jets will either have to pay for talent like anyone else or we will be a bottom dweller. In all honesty we need at least a couple players that can comand big salaries and we need to pay them to compete.
Sure we will eventually have to pay to keep talent, but there is also a salary cap and we went going to be a cap team. We will be faced with your scenario as soon as next year when Enstrom, Bogosian, and Wheeler are up for contract renewal. They all could demand 5 million plus if they keep developing. Do you want to add a 6 million plus Kane to them or would you rather take a bit of a gamble and get him for 4.75 million. My main point is that you can't give everyone short term deals if you have a core that is of similar age because it will lead to them all getting paid big money at the same time. Bargain contracts are important, you can't just pay players for what they have accomplished. You need to bet on potential at times. You may not agree that Kane is worth betting on and that's fine.
But isn't that what you want, for Kane to develop over the next 2 years so he is able to demand a big contract. The Jets will either have to pay for talent like anyone else or we will be a bottom dweller. In all honesty we need at least a couple players that can comand big salaries and we need to pay them to compete.
Also where has paying for talent gotten Columbus, or even carolina lately. Both did the short term prove me deals with Nash and Staal, only to sign them for albatross long term deals after. I really don't want to be in that situation with Kane two years down the line.
