Five-year signings

[Kritter471]

Everyone around here seems to be talking about people "jumping on the five-year bandwagon," and honestly, I could only come up with three five-year deals off the top of my head.

Modano - $3.45 million a year - cheaper than market price (witness Boston and Chicago offers he turned down), five years because of franchise player status with the Stars and to lower the overall cap hit to the Stars. Also includes a no-trade clause and structure that assures Modano will make $750,000 in each of the last two seasons of the deal even if he decides to retire early (used as a bargaining tool to get the cap hit number down).

Hejduk - $3.9 million a year, signed to five year deal to avert upcoming UFA status (next season I believe) and keep him with the Avs.

Nash - $5.4 million a year - odd raise in salary given Nash's RFA status, offered five years to bring him through the first year of UFA eligibility.

Of those, Nash is the most curious just given how far he is from becoming a UFA, but that's just me. Which guys am I missing and why, considering the cap hits aren't extraordinarly high/most likely, the cap will drop next year but then gradually recover and rise in the subbsequent seasons, do people consider these so bad?

To add to the list (thanks to people in this thread reminding my allergy-addled brain)

Pronger - $6.25 million a year
Gonchar - $5 million a year
Rathje - ?

[boredmale]

Gonchar 25 million over 5 years.

[Seachd]

Well, there's also Pronger at 6.25 million, but I'm not sure that's such a huge risk for the Oilers.

[flip588]

Although I think it's a year too long, Mike Rathje signed for five years with the Flyers.

EDIT: $3.5 Million/Year

[sunb]

The Nash deal came out of necessity; you absolutely have to lock down your franchise player long term. It speaks volumes to both fans and Nash-co. about their intentions to build a successful franchise around him. This is a good deal.

The Hejduk deal probably also came out of necessity. Hejduk probably would've demanded an upward of 5 million dollars if the deal on the table only spanned two years. It isn't overly expensive so it won't haunt them. Hejduk is only 29 or 30 so five years from now, Lacroix won't be kicking himself either. This is a decent deal.

The Modano deal is shady. How old will Modano be at the end of his five year deal? 41 years old. 3.5 million dollars is money reserved for top line talent or great second liners. What if league revenues dip continously for five years and the cap goes down to 20-30 million dollars a season? Can Modano still contribute as a top 6 forward then? If not, his pay check will be a huge liability. Too many risks for Dallas. A bad deal.

[Kritter471]

But Nash was locked down for long term as an RFA - it's not like they needed to protect him from UFA status for several years yet (though this all changes if my hunch they were matching an offer sheet turns out to be ture).

Hejduk I completely get.

I like the Modano deal. Yeah, it might sting at the back end (and, btw, he'll be 40 at the end of the deal unless he plays past June 7 of 2010) and the cap hit at the end will be higher than market value. But the cap hit now is just as far below market value as it will be high at the end (give or take $1.5-$2 million on either side), so you can argue that balances out. And he's extenuating circumstances in this city.

And saying Hejduk isn't overly expensive and won't hurt the Avs in the long run but saying Modano and his one-scrub winger less salary is a liability financially doesn't make sense numbers wise. The point about Modano being much more likely to tail off (and thus his salary being an overpayment for his contribution), though, is a good one.

But that's my opinion and I can see where you're getting your take from.

[Lobstertainment]

If anything the 4 year deals are more plentiful and it makes sense.

the PA can re-open this CBA in 4 years, god knows we don't want to go through all that crap again but if a labour stopage hits teams won't want to have players under contract.

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

No, but a five year deal worth big money to your forward who's aware he only needs to be paid a few million less definitely gives the message that they want him to stay longterm.

[Peter Griffin]

Originally Posted by Kritter471

But Nash was locked down for long term as an RFA - it's not like they needed to protect him from UFA status for several years yet (though this all changes if my hunch they were matching an offer sheet turns out to be ture).

Signing Nash long term is a neccessity IMO. They could've signed him to a two or three year deal and then re-evaluated from there, but giving Nash the security of 5 years shows Nash that he is there guy and that they have full confidence in him. Makes it easier for them to lock him up to another long term contract once he gets closer to UFA status Of course, this deal could completely bomb on the BJ's if Nash falls flat on his face, but I don't think anyone sees that happening.