Crosby contract

[JustAsking]

Anyone else hear this. 125 million over 14 years, 9 mil per. If true, he'll be resigned on july 1st. Pens will want injury clause, maybe the only item debated. He makes 8.7 now and only asking for 300 k raise, less than 5%, malkin should follow suit bext off season.

 

[Darkstone42]

Without an injury clause, I hate that deal.

With one, I still don't like it.

5-7 years, never more. $9 million per is just fine, though.

 

[awaz]

is his contract up this year or next?

as an experienced vet with ridiculously long contracts (damnit homer).. its a terrible idea.. even for the best player in the world.

 

[dash]

Yeah, I gotta agree with DS and awaz, just sign a 5 year deal for $9 million per season. Unless things take a horrible turn in Pittsburgh, it's not as if Crosby is going anywhere.

 

[DChero]

Anyone else hear this. 125 million over 14 years, 9 mil per. If true, he'll be resigned on july 1st. Pens will want injury clause, maybe the only item debated. He makes 8.7 now and only asking for 300 k raise, less than 5%, malkin should follow suit bext off season.

I really like it. Keep in mind that the cap and individual player salary will increase. $9 mil sounds like a lot now, but think about where that will be in 5 years. It'll be like making $7 mil (I'm guessing). If Crosby hits free agency, he'll get the max. He's obviously trying to keep the core together by leaving room for Malkin to be resigned.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

what does this injury clause entail ... and can you even include one under the current cba?

 

[DChero]

what does this injury clause entail ... and can you even include one under the current cba?

I don't know of anyone that has one, so that's a really good question.

 

[puckhead]

Anyone else hear this. 125 million over 14 years, 9 mil per. If true, he'll be resigned on july 1st. Pens will want injury clause, maybe the only item debated. He makes 8.7 now and only asking for 300 k raise, less than 5%, malkin should follow suit bext off season.

not sure you're allowed to have an injury clause, other than to have bonus provisions if the person missed x amount of games the prior year (100 or more days on injured reserve in their most recent year) I think.
not sure if those provisions are available for long term deals. guess we'll find out.

 

[DChero]

is his contract up this year or next?

as an experienced vet with ridiculously long contracts (damnit homer).. its a terrible idea.. even for the best player in the world.

He's entering his final year. The Pens are probably trying to get something done before the new CBA.

 

[awaz]

I really like it. Keep in mind that the cap and individual player salary will increase. $9 mil sounds like a lot now, but think about where that will be in 5 years. It'll be like making $7 mil (I'm guessing). If Crosby hits free agency, he'll get the max. He's obviously trying to keep the core together by leaving room for Malkin to be resigned.

9 mil is well worth it.. its just the term thats ridiculous.. you just never know what's gunna happen a year or two down the road, and hell, if for some reason cros cant make it happen anymore and is putting up 60-70 points/year, that's NOT worth a 9 mil hit.. and it would be trouble for the pens

He's entering his final year. The Pens are probably trying to get something done before the new CBA.

gotcha, thanks. like people have said above.. an injury clause might be something they have to wait for the next CBA for though?

 

[Jimmy_the_Tongue]

Like Dash said... Crosby isnt going anywhere .. He is the only untouchable Penguin. I like the deal. Sign him long term and build the team around him. If it costs you Malkin? Then so be it.

 

[awaz]

Like Dash said... Crosby isnt going anywhere .. He is the only untouchable Penguin. I like the deal. Sign him long term and build the team around him. If it costs you Malkin? Then so be it.

i think dash's point was, since he's not going anywhere, why sign him to a 14 year contract?

i'd much rather pay him 9 or 10 for the next 5 years, and if things continue to go well, pay him 11 or 12 for 5 years after that, then see where you stand.. its just far too big of a risk.. its less risky than say bryzgalov, but its still too risky IMO

saving that 2 or 3 million on the next contract isn't worth the risk.. especially considering its crosby, who doesn't seem emphatuated with the $$ and would probably sign for a modest raise (ie 300k like this time)

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Like Dash said... Crosby isnt going anywhere .. He is the only untouchable Penguin. I like the deal. Sign him long term and build the team around him. If it costs you Malkin? Then so be it.

Not looking to start a troll war here, but I don't agree with that approach.

Given Crosby's recent injury history and the fact that he could get re-concussed anytime (not to say Malkin couldn't get hurt again too, but each concussion makes you more susceptible to the next), I don't think you want to risk the other parts of your team just to keep him.

I'm not advocating keeping Malkin and trading Crosby, but I don't think the potential to lose a guy like Malkin is worth it.

 

[Comeds]

I think signing someone who played just 63 game the last two seasons, and with an injury that seems recur and possibly become easier to get, to a 14 year deal is just silly. I am fine with the dollar amount. Seriously would anyone wager a large sum of their own money that Crosby with be a healthy productive player in 10 years? I hope he is, but I would not bet on it.
Having said that, I bet a large number of random teams would offer him a similar contract so I can understand him seeking it and the Penguins making the deal.

 

[SLY]

DO IT PITTSBURGH! DO IT!

 

[evolver115]

I would have no problem at all with that deal if it turns out to be true. Most of the clubs in hockey today have at least one player with some ridiculous term (Kovy, Ovie, Zetterberg, Keith, Backstrom, Bobby Lou, Bryz, Franzen, Ehrhoff, Hossa, Lecav, etc. etc.) The Pens are fortunate that they don't have one like that, currently. If there is a player on the roster who could conceivably have that type of a contract... it's Sid, and/or Geno.

You can't live in fear of Sid having another complication. Every time anyone steps over those boards, they do it with the knowledge that it could possibly be the last shift they ever skate in the NHL. It's the nature of the beast.

 

[dash]

Yes, my earlier point was why you would want to lock yourself into a long term deal when it is not really necessary (i.e. Crosby will be a Penguin for as long as he wants to play).

However, if you get Crosby signed on a long term contract with some throwaway years at the end (aka a Bobby Lou special) before the next CBA is in place, then I could definitely see some advantages to that approach as well.

 

[esls79]

Mario is a shrewd owner - 14 years 124 million, with half deferred until the 15th year. Then Mario can't make the balloon payment, is ready to sell the team and take over for the gerbil as commish and wholah, you have a new owener of the Pens in Sid and a new commish in Mario. Win win for all.

 

[evolver115]

Mario is a shrewd owner - 14 years 124 million, with half deferred until the 15th year. Then Mario can't make the balloon payment, is ready to sell the team and take over for the gerbil as commish and wholah, you have a new owener of the Pens in Sid and a new commish in Mario. Win win for all.

As long as there isn't a fourth bankruptcy included in that scenario, I'm all for it

 

[elocomotive]

Not looking to start a troll war here, but I don't agree with that approach.

Given Crosby's recent injury history and the fact that he could get re-concussed anytime (not to say Malkin couldn't get hurt again too, but each concussion makes you more susceptible to the next), I don't think you want to risk the other parts of your team just to keep him.

I'm not advocating keeping Malkin and trading Crosby, but I don't think the potential to lose a guy like Malkin is worth it.

How is it a choice between the two of them? They've been paying Crosby close to this same salary as the potential contact extension for years and the cap has only increased (and will likely continue to, silly inflation). In '08-09, Crosby was making $8.7 million on a cap of $56.7 million. That is 15.3% of the team's cap just for him, and if remember correctly, the team still had enough salary to have a pretty good season that year. If they sign this deal and he makes $9 million on an estimated cap of $70 million, that is only 12.9% of the team's total cap. And that percentage would theoretically drop a little bit with each passing year. So, there is no reason the team can't sign Malkin and Crosby and continue to have other competitive/talented players on the team.

I've read Darkstone say many times that all long-term deals are bad. No offense, but that is an oversimplification and an incorrect conclusion. SOME (or even most) long-term deals are bad, but all long-term deals are not bad. But there are four basic ways to beat the cap and get more talent than the money you are shelling out:

EL deals - young guys making $800K or just over a million being impact players
Hometown/"win a cup" discounts - guys showing allegience to their team or a vet moving to a winning team for a pay cut to have a shot at a Cup
Post-EL deals - think Claude Giroux, a guy whose value is not yet established and who outplays that first big deal he gets
Long-term deals - premier players or even mid-level players signing long-term deals who continue to perform well while their salary slowly becomes a smaller portion of the salary cap

Most other contracts are pretty set within a certain frame based on the going rate in the market and vary most significantly based on the talent pool that is out there in that particular year.

So, while Crosby's deal may be more RISKY (the longer the deal the more you are gambling on his performance outplaying a steadily diminishing proportion of your cap), it is one way for a GM to get ahead and there is nothing inherently GOOD or BAD about it since the variable of "future performance" is a complete unknown. Risk comes with hazards, but it can also yield rewards, so you can't make a blanket statement that ALL long-term deals are a bad idea. If they sign him to a 4-year $9 million deal now and end up signing another 4-year $11.5/mill per deal in 2017, then this would be a smart deal and the extra money saved could buy you a top defenseman instead of an average defenseman. Something that can make the difference between a 2nd round exit and a Cup. If they sign him to a 4-year deal at $9/mill per now and injuries just devastate him and they don't re-sign him in 4 years, then it's good they avoided the risk. But since we don't know which scenario plays out, its about risk/reward, not good/bad.