EHM The Blue Line

Ok correct me if I'm wrong here

You can sign a player who's an RFA at the end of the season with a one-year extension (?) for about 5-10% more per year than he's getting now. Usually the player doesn't want to sign for longer than one year for only 5% more since he wants unrestricted free agency one year later.
What I want to do is sign some of my RFAs (Bergeron, Stuart for example) long term, because I figure giving them more than a 5% pay rise right now is better than 5% and having them go to free agency next summer. So my question is what salary should I offer an RFA to sign him for 3-4 years, not just one ? I don't want to overpay and I'm looking for a bargain obviously so what's the minium you suggest ? I'm aware that I could just offer him 5m p/a for 5 years but that's not exactly what I want I've tried giving Stuart 2.4m p/a for 3 years instead of 2.1m for one year and he rejected.

I re-signed Stuart 2.1m for two years after acquiring him in a trade.

For a 3 year deal, you should look around 2.7-2.8m, maybe up to 3m. Or maybe he'll just don't want a reasonnable long-term deal. Some players want to test the UFA market, and so won't accept a long-term deal unless it's highly in their favor (like your 5m p/a for 5 years example )

Shadd666 wrote:I re-signed Stuart 2.1m for two years after acquiring him in a trade.

For a 3 year deal, you should look around 2.7-2.8m, maybe up to 3m. Or maybe he'll just don't want a reasonnable long-term deal. Some players want to test the UFA market, and so won't accept a long-term deal unless it's highly in their favor (like your 5m p/a for 5 years example )

Thanks.
I was looking for some value (like 2.7) because like I said I don't want to overpay and I know that at some point players get frustrated and refuse to listen to any offers. I've got a few high quality RFAs in 2007 and 2008 which I don't want to go into free agency one year after the extension such as Stuart, Bergeon, Brian Campbell and Zetterberg is an RFA in 2008 I think

Well, in fact, the value is really according to you... How do you think the players deserves? Is he good enough on the ice to deserve that money? And many other things like that. Check how other teams dispatch their salaries amongst their players to have a better idea about "who should deserve what?"

And if you can't find an agreement, signing a one-year deal isn't that bad... Maybe the player just wants to wait before signing a long-term contract with your team, and waits to see how things run under your management. That's especially true with newly acquired players or when you're new to the team as a GM.

And in their last season, if you see that you won't be able to re-sign them, do what's needed before the deadline For example, a top player will rarely re-sign with a loosing team But he may sign late in the season, right after the playoff, and agree or not to re-sign according to the overall performance of the team during the whole season, according to how he feels with teammates and staff, etc...

These are just clues, no hard-and-fast rules And that's what's good in hockey management: there are NEVER hard-and-fast rules!

Danny wrote: So my question is what salary should I offer an RFA to sign him for 3-4 years, not just one ? I don't want to overpay and I'm looking for a bargain obviously so what's the minium you suggest ? I'm aware that I could just offer him 5m p/a for 5 years but that's not exactly what I want I've tried giving Stuart 2.4m p/a for 3 years instead of 2.1m for one year and he rejected.

I don't think there are hard-and-fast rules about this. There are a lot of things that come into play here: loyal players playing in a big role in their favorite team obviously agree to deals that mercenary types don't, especially if they see themselves as 2nd-liners and you have them languishing in the checking line with no power play time. However, there is one trend I have noticed: taking that Stuart example, if he wants 2.1 million for one year, he'll *probably* take two years at the same rate or, alternatively, 1.9 mil (i.e. 10% off the original demand) for one year. Three-year-deals (or longer) for guys entering the prime of their career are usually so much more expensive that I don't even seriously push for them.

Kekkonen wrote: I don't think there are hard-and-fast rules about this. There are a lot of things that come into play here: loyal players playing in a big role in their favorite team obviously agree to deals that mercenary types don't, especially if they see themselves as 2nd-liners and you have them languishing in the checking line with no power play time. However, there is one trend I have noticed: taking that Stuart example, if he wants 2.1 million for one year, he'll *probably* take two years at the same rate or, alternatively, 1.9 mil (i.e. 10% off the original demand) for one year. Three-year-deals (or longer) for guys entering the prime of their career are usually so much more expensive that I don't even seriously push for them.

Yup, most of the time, the players accept one more year or one click less of money. It's a good gauging rule

So there does not seem to be a good stategy to securing a long term deal (i.e 5 years) with a player? For example I have Marc Staal who is making 800k right now and I'd like to sign him for a lengthy contract.. but he would not take 5 x 1million.