[EXTENDED] Tim Stutzle 8x$8.35

[Canucks_fan18]

Tampa's in cap hell since they won the Cup. They've retained their guys and managed the cap as well as they can but let's not pretend they didn't have to pay their stars to keep them. They get a little lucky with the Florida tax but even with that, they still need to shed players every year to make it work. It's a fine model when your guys perform in the playoffs and win you Cups but otherwise, it can get dicey.

And Stutzle and Thompson are two very different players and situations. Stutzle is a young, high pick that's shown steady improvement. Thompson doesn't have the same pedigree and got paid on the back of a high shooting percentage season. He could repeat but I think 31 out of 32 GMs would prefer the Stutzle deal.

I think Axeman put it best people are scared of being Tkachuked or I feel Stuzle would of have been bridged. Everyone saying this is going to look great in 4 years, must think that he's going to be well above a PPG player which I don't see. I think he's being paid for his potential today. I would of rather paid him 5 million for 2 than this deal which could be either a albatross, fair value or a steal. With the the albatross and steal being least likely and fair value being more likely.

I just can't see him well out playing this deal.

[niconasr]

I think Axeman put it best people are scared of being Tkachuked or I feel Stuzle would of have been bridged. Everyone saying this is going to look great in 4 years, must think that he's going to be well above a PPG player which I don't see. I think he's being paid for his potential today. I would of rather paid him 5 million for 2 than this deal which could be either a albatross, fair value or a steal. With the the albatross and steal being least likely and fair value being more likely.

I just can't see him well out playing this deal.

I disagree. I understand the Tkachuk fear but that's recency bias speaking, not rationality. Stutzle is still a couple years away from arbitration rights, making his case much different.

In the end, it all comes to how GMs prefer to build their cap situation. What annoys me is people saying that bridge deals are somehow safer, they're not. Yes, sometimes you'll avoid a big mistake. And other times, you'll cost yourself some money. It's mostly up to the GMs to make the right evaluation and choose which type of contract fits the player and his situation.

You might feel a 2X5M$ deal makes sense for Stutzle, I wouldve thought it'd be risky considering he could be much more expensive two years (well, three) down the road. There's risk and reward both ways.

We'll all see 4 years down the road if this deal was judicious or not.

[GinFizz]

I disagree. I understand the Tkachuk fear but that's recency bias speaking, not rationality. Stutzle is still a couple years away from arbitration rights, making his case much different.

In the end, it all comes to how GMs prefer to build their cap situation. What annoys me is people saying that bridge deals are somehow safer, they're not. Yes, sometimes you'll avoid a big mistake. And other times, you'll cost yourself some money. It's mostly up to the GMs to make the right evaluation and choose which type of contract fits the player and his situation.

You might feel a 2X5M$ deal makes sense for Stutzle, I wouldve thought it'd be risky considering he could be much more expensive two years (well, three) down the road. There's risk and reward both ways.

We'll all see 4 years down the road if this deal was judicious or not.

I mean lets say he goes off after the 2nd year, how much more would it actually cost the Sens? Im guessing not much, maybe a 1M or 2M???

[niconasr]

I mean lets say he goes off after the 2nd year, how much more would it actually cost the Sens? Im guessing not much, maybe a 1M or 2M???

Between 8.3M$ for years 21 to 28 and 10M$ for years 23 to 30, it's a significant difference to me.

[Invictus]

Love this guy. Was who I'd of picked #1 in 2020. Glad to see him excelling.
Think he will be well worth it and then some down the road.

[DJ Rection]

Cap will go up eventually and these contracts will most likely be of good value. I really like what Ottawa are doing

[Axeman33]

I disagree. I understand the Tkachuk fear but that's recency bias speaking, not rationality. Stutzle is still a couple years away from arbitration rights, making his case much different.

In the end, it all comes to how GMs prefer to build their cap situation. What annoys me is people saying that bridge deals are somehow safer, they're not. Yes, sometimes you'll avoid a big mistake. And other times, you'll cost yourself some money. It's mostly up to the GMs to make the right evaluation and choose which type of contract fits the player and his situation.

You might feel a 2X5M$ deal makes sense for Stutzle, I wouldve thought it'd be risky considering he could be much more expensive two years (well, three) down the road. There's risk and reward both ways.

We'll all see 4 years down the road if this deal was judicious or not.

If you dont think younger players and teams aren't put on notice by what Tkachuk just did, you're fooling yourself. Of course it's recency bias because it just happened, and teams don't want it to happen to them so they're locking up their kids so they aren't scrambling in a couple years once their control disappears. Whether you want to believe it or not, it's a real thing and teams are trying to get ahead of it as best they can.

[niconasr]

If you dont think younger players and teams aren't put on notice by what Tkachuk just did, you're fooling yourself. Of course it's recency bias because it just happened, and teams don't want it to happen to them so they're locking up their kids so they aren't scrambling in a couple years once their control disappears. Whether you want to believe it or not, it's a real thing and teams are trying to get ahead of it as best they can.

Tkachuk isn't the first RFA to leverage his arbitration situation to ask for a move. I'm all for GMs learning about how things go currently but I feel like we're pretending this is some sort of trend setting example for all the young players in the league. It's not. That possibility has been there for some time and while I agree Tkachuk has shown how to best weaponize it, people are going crazy overboard on how it'll impact the league.

We can all sit here behind our screen and pretend we know that this deal for Stutzle was impacted by the Tkachuk signing or not, but we don't. At least not until reports about it come out.

So yes, I agree that teams are on notice. It doesn't mean they suddenly change everything because of it.

[YzermansLegacy]

Tampa's in cap hell since they won the Cup. They've retained their guys and managed the cap as well as they can but let's not pretend they didn't have to pay their stars to keep them. They get a little lucky with the Florida tax but even with that, they still need to shed players every year to make it work. It's a fine model when your guys perform in the playoffs and win you Cups but otherwise, it can get dicey.

And Stutzle and Thompson are two very different players and situations. Stutzle is a young, high pick that's shown steady improvement. Thompson doesn't have the same pedigree and got paid on the back of a high shooting percentage season. He could repeat but I think 31 out of 32 GMs would prefer the Stutzle deal.

You're one of my fave posters Nico but either I wasn't clear enough in my post or we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Wasn't comparing TT to Stutz in terms of player - agree 99% would prefer Stutz. Just the jump to long term deal over bridge.

And yes, TB has been in "cap trouble" since they've won the cup... but they got to that cup... and then re-peated... and then nearly three-peated off the backs of the bridge deals keeping the core together for that long.

They've paid the piper this offseason with those remaining bridge guys (Cirelli, Serg, Cernak) now being paid - but the past 3 years - when Point was bridged, and thereabouts or just before, when Kucherov and Vasy were bridged, allowed them to keep that team imo.

I don't disagree that they had to "pay their stars" to keep them - but they "paid" them AFTER first bridging them (Kuch, Vasy, Point, Serg, etc.) not off the hop.

Anyways not trying to derail the Stutzle thread - just find the pattern emerging to be interesting considering how the most successful franchise in recent times has done it.

[niconasr]

You're one of my fave posters Nico but either I wasn't clear enough in my post or we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Wasn't comparing TT to Stutz in terms of player - agree 99% would prefer Stutz. Just the jump to long term deal over bridge.

And yes, TB has been in "cap trouble" since they've won the cup... but they got to that cup... and then re-peated... and then nearly three-peated off the backs of the bridge deals keeping the core together for that long.

They've paid the piper this offseason with those remaining bridge guys (Cirelli, Serg, Cernak) now being paid - but the past 3 years - when Point was bridged, and thereabouts or just before, when Kucherov and Vasy were bridged, allowed them to keep that team imo.

I don't disagree that they had to "pay their stars" to keep them - but they "paid" them AFTER first bridging them (Kuch, Vasy, Point, Serg, etc.) not off the hop.

Anyways not trying to derail the Stutzle thread - just find the pattern emerging to be interesting considering how the most successful franchise in recent times has done it.

Right back at you in terme of favorite posters!

I understand what you mean but the only star still under his bridge contract when they won their Cups was Point. Kucherov, Hedman and Stamkos were all on their high-paying (at least relatively to their bridge deals) for both Cups. Vasilevskiy was at 3.5M$ for the first Cup and 9.5M$ for the second, part of why they had to shed salary in between Cups. Don't get me wrong, it worked wonderfully for them, but I'm not sure we can attribute their Cup winning teams because one guy was still on his bridge deal.

Anyway, as said before, this comes down to preference. I love bridge deals for some players and dislike them for others. In the case of Stutzle, I don't see the point of a bridge deal because I believe in his talent and ability and believe he would've earned more money afterwards. Might be wrong about it, though!

[PicklePickle]

UFA at 28yo that's GOLD

[deantime419]

Assuming DeBrincat gets the most out of anyone in their top 6 come next season, they'll be spending ~45mil on those top 2 lines so they better produce accordingly.

That being said I don't dislike it by any means but timing-wise, maybe a bridge would have made more sense while they have Giroux contract?