Good analysis Charlie. I think a bridge deal makes sense if the player is likely to max out as a second liner on a non Cup contender, or a third liner on a Cup contender. What is a killer is to hand out 8 year contracts at large AAVs to players that do not make a difference, not elite. The bridge deal avoids those mistakes. Flyers have done too many of them in the past, smelling themselves, overvaluing their home grown talent. I like the Brierre strategy for that reason. Now, when Michkov is ready for his next contract, yes, lock him up for 8 or 10 years, at top AAV. Once he gets a 1-C to play with, he will rise to a first line talent for a Cup contender. That’s when risk is low on a long term deal, you know he is elite, so lock him up. But outside of him on this roster, I would stick with Brierre’s strategy, bridge contracts. Watch how the player performs during the bridge period, and if he rises to elite, then commit the dough.

I like the thought by Briere that locking them up long term from 25 – 33. Take some of the hit from a “fall off” in the early 30’s. But less risk in signing them at 28 or 29 and having to take on more risk from 33+.

Interesting. I had idly wondered about the same earlier- m whether teams should try to time long-term deals so that the second deal doesn’t kill them.

In the long run, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. You give up on possible surplus value early – but you also dont have boat anchor contracts offsetting that surplus value.

OTOH, the Roseman Math applies if the cap value keeps increasing – surplus value now is worth more than the same amount in negative value down the road. So locking in players early isn’t a bad thing – provided you know they will hit.

Since the NHL has guaranteed contracts, you can’t get out of them as easily as in the NFL, so a degree of conservatism isn’t a bad thing.

Be they as it may, is this the first time the Flyers have thought about cap ramifications down the road, as opposed to “max out your cap every year and damn the consequences”?

On a completely unrelated note, Charlie – have you heard any rumblings from the Flyers about the possibility of re-signing Hart if the case does end with an acquittal (as many are claiming it might)?

“And at that term, the model projected Foerster to receive a $4.16 million cap hit — about $500,000 less per year than the Flyers actually gave Foerster.”
Shouldn’t that read — “about $500,000 more than the Flyers actually gave Foerster”? ( His AAV being $3.75 million, which is approximately $500,000 less than the $4.16 million cap hit predicted by the model, isn’t it?)