Connor Bedard

[Younghopp1991]

I’m good with the Hawks not being pot committed to an eight year contract for somebody that hasn’t proven that he can play 84 games.

To be fair, there isnt a player in the league that has shown they can play a 84 game season lol

Fwiw i like the contract.

[The Average Gatsby]

Don't get me wrong I'd love for the Blues to have Bedard for 5 years at 15 million but completely losing control of the 1st OA shining star of an entire LONG rebuild at age 26 is very very bad news.

I don't know that its the Hawks fault but its very bad. They basically have a couple years to get things going and I'm just not sure thats gonna happen.

It presents a glaring risk of the whole thing falling apart and starting over right at the worst time.

I think this is a bit overblown. They have 4 years to prove Chicago is a club worth playing for before another big contract. If he wants out at that point they work out a trade with an extension when his last year starts.

If he turns out as good as he could be (health permitting) then the Hawks won’t have any doubts about giving him another huge deal. Chicago is a great city. The Hawks make a ton of money when they’re at all decent. This isn’t a small market club that’s going to struggle to afford him. It’s not middle of nowhere Alberta.

Its not overblown at all, 1 OA picks getting to UFA at 26 year old is very bad.

Bedard was going to be UFA at 25 anyway. I guess your argument is the deal should only be 3 years so he’s still under team control for his next deal? Maybe Bedard wouldn’t sign a deal like that. It is a negotiation after all.

[skilles]

Don't get me wrong I'd love for the Blues to have Bedard for 5 years at 15 million but completely losing control of the 1st OA shining star of an entire LONG rebuild at age 26 is very very bad news.

I don't know that its the Hawks fault but its very bad. They basically have a couple years to get things going and I'm just not sure thats gonna happen.

It presents a glaring risk of the whole thing falling apart and starting over right at the worst time.

I think this is a bit overblown. They have 4 years to prove Chicago is a club worth playing for before another big contract. If he wants out at that point they work out a trade with an extension when his last year starts.

If he turns out as good as he could be (health permitting) then the Hawks won’t have any doubts about giving him another huge deal. Chicago is a great city. The Hawks make a ton of money when they’re at all decent. This isn’t a small market club that’s going to struggle to afford him. It’s not middle of nowhere Alberta.

Its not overblown at all, 1 OA picks getting to UFA at 26 year old is very bad.

Bedard was going to be UFA at 25 anyway. I guess your argument is the deal should only be 3 years so he’s still under team control for his next deal? Maybe Bedard wouldn’t sign a deal like that. It is a negotiation after all.

Yes shorter or longer and its good, straight to UFA is bad.

Its almost the same as the deal Philly designed to suck

I am sure they did it because he was getting that same terrible kind of offer from someone else and they didn't have a choice.

People in here acting like its not terrible but I guarantee you the people in charge also hate it.

IMO there needs to be an offer sheet amendment where the matching team can extend the term to 7 years if they choose. The new trend is going to be offering terrible deals so teams don't match.

That is what this is, teams offering really bad contracts so teams won't match and the reason for that is its a great deal for the offering team and a terrible deal for the matching team.

I love 5 years at 15 million for bedard if I didn't have to tank for 5 years to get him but I hate hate it if I did.

[bluetunehead]

Don't get me wrong I'd love for the Blues to have Bedard for 5 years at 15 million but completely losing control of the 1st OA shining star of an entire LONG rebuild at age 26 is very very bad news.

I don't know that its the Hawks fault but its very bad. They basically have a couple years to get things going and I'm just not sure thats gonna happen.

It presents a glaring risk of the whole thing falling apart and starting over right at the worst time.

I think this is a bit overblown. They have 4 years to prove Chicago is a club worth playing for before another big contract. If he wants out at that point they work out a trade with an extension when his last year starts.

If he turns out as good as he could be (health permitting) then the Hawks won’t have any doubts about giving him another huge deal. Chicago is a great city. The Hawks make a ton of money when they’re at all decent. This isn’t a small market club that’s going to struggle to afford him. It’s not middle of nowhere Alberta.

Its not overblown at all, 1 OA picks getting to UFA at 26 year old is very bad.

Bedard was going to be UFA at 25 anyway. I guess your argument is the deal should only be 3 years so he’s still under team control for his next deal? Maybe Bedard wouldn’t sign a deal like that. It is a negotiation after all.

I think the idea is that it should have been max length, not just 5. For obvious reasons Bedard probably wants to get a crack at another deal in his prime. Chicago might also have wanted a middle ground to know for sure he wasn’t going to become a staple on IR.

Regardless, these things become issues if the team is awful or the player hates it there. It remains to be seen how the Hawks rebuild will continue to go, but Bedard has given zero indication that he doesn’t like Chicago. It’s a huge, popular city. The team makes a ton of money. The facilities are nice. People are acting like this will be Eichel in Buffalo or Tkachuk in Calgary. That’s pretty unlikely IMO.

[skilles]

Don't get me wrong I'd love for the Blues to have Bedard for 5 years at 15 million but completely losing control of the 1st OA shining star of an entire LONG rebuild at age 26 is very very bad news.

I don't know that its the Hawks fault but its very bad. They basically have a couple years to get things going and I'm just not sure thats gonna happen.

It presents a glaring risk of the whole thing falling apart and starting over right at the worst time.

I think this is a bit overblown. They have 4 years to prove Chicago is a club worth playing for before another big contract. If he wants out at that point they work out a trade with an extension when his last year starts.

If he turns out as good as he could be (health permitting) then the Hawks won’t have any doubts about giving him another huge deal. Chicago is a great city. The Hawks make a ton of money when they’re at all decent. This isn’t a small market club that’s going to struggle to afford him. It’s not middle of nowhere Alberta.

Its not overblown at all, 1 OA picks getting to UFA at 26 year old is very bad.

Bedard was going to be UFA at 25 anyway. I guess your argument is the deal should only be 3 years so he’s still under team control for his next deal? Maybe Bedard wouldn’t sign a deal like that. It is a negotiation after all.

I think the idea is that it should have been max length, not just 5. For obvious reasons Bedard probably wants to get a crack at another deal in his prime. Chicago might also have wanted a middle ground to know for sure he wasn’t going to become a staple on IR.

Regardless, these things become issues if the team is awful or the player hates it there. It remains to be seen how the Hawks rebuild will continue to go, but Bedard has given zero indication that he doesn’t like Chicago. It’s a huge, popular city. The team makes a ton of money. The facilities are nice. People are acting like this will be Eichel in Buffalo or Tkachuk in Calgary. That’s pretty unlikely IMO.

No way Chicago wanted to give him a 5 year deal or don't hate that they had to. No chance

[The Average Gatsby]

Don't get me wrong I'd love for the Blues to have Bedard for 5 years at 15 million but completely losing control of the 1st OA shining star of an entire LONG rebuild at age 26 is very very bad news.

I don't know that its the Hawks fault but its very bad. They basically have a couple years to get things going and I'm just not sure thats gonna happen.

It presents a glaring risk of the whole thing falling apart and starting over right at the worst time.

I think this is a bit overblown. They have 4 years to prove Chicago is a club worth playing for before another big contract. If he wants out at that point they work out a trade with an extension when his last year starts.

If he turns out as good as he could be (health permitting) then the Hawks won’t have any doubts about giving him another huge deal. Chicago is a great city. The Hawks make a ton of money when they’re at all decent. This isn’t a small market club that’s going to struggle to afford him. It’s not middle of nowhere Alberta.

Its not overblown at all, 1 OA picks getting to UFA at 26 year old is very bad.

Bedard was going to be UFA at 25 anyway. I guess your argument is the deal should only be 3 years so he’s still under team control for his next deal? Maybe Bedard wouldn’t sign a deal like that. It is a negotiation after all.

I think the idea is that it should have been max length, not just 5. For obvious reasons Bedard probably wants to get a crack at another deal in his prime. Chicago might also have wanted a middle ground to know for sure he wasn’t going to become a staple on IR.

Regardless, these things become issues if the team is awful or the player hates it there. It remains to be seen how the Hawks rebuild will continue to go, but Bedard has given zero indication that he doesn’t like Chicago. It’s a huge, popular city. The team makes a ton of money. The facilities are nice. People are acting like this will be Eichel in Buffalo or Tkachuk in Calgary. That’s pretty unlikely IMO.

No way Chicago wanted to give him a 5 year deal or don't hate that they had to. No chance

Yeah you’re probably right. It does seem like Chicago’s hand was forced.

[bluetunehead]

Don't get me wrong I'd love for the Blues to have Bedard for 5 years at 15 million but completely losing control of the 1st OA shining star of an entire LONG rebuild at age 26 is very very bad news.

I don't know that its the Hawks fault but its very bad. They basically have a couple years to get things going and I'm just not sure thats gonna happen.

It presents a glaring risk of the whole thing falling apart and starting over right at the worst time.

I think this is a bit overblown. They have 4 years to prove Chicago is a club worth playing for before another big contract. If he wants out at that point they work out a trade with an extension when his last year starts.

If he turns out as good as he could be (health permitting) then the Hawks won’t have any doubts about giving him another huge deal. Chicago is a great city. The Hawks make a ton of money when they’re at all decent. This isn’t a small market club that’s going to struggle to afford him. It’s not middle of nowhere Alberta.

Its not overblown at all, 1 OA picks getting to UFA at 26 year old is very bad.

Bedard was going to be UFA at 25 anyway. I guess your argument is the deal should only be 3 years so he’s still under team control for his next deal? Maybe Bedard wouldn’t sign a deal like that. It is a negotiation after all.

I think the idea is that it should have been max length, not just 5. For obvious reasons Bedard probably wants to get a crack at another deal in his prime. Chicago might also have wanted a middle ground to know for sure he wasn’t going to become a staple on IR.

Regardless, these things become issues if the team is awful or the player hates it there. It remains to be seen how the Hawks rebuild will continue to go, but Bedard has given zero indication that he doesn’t like Chicago. It’s a huge, popular city. The team makes a ton of money. The facilities are nice. People are acting like this will be Eichel in Buffalo or Tkachuk in Calgary. That’s pretty unlikely IMO.

No way Chicago wanted to give him a 5 year deal or don't hate that they had to. No chance

Yeah you’re probably right. It does seem like Chicago’s hand was forced.

Eh some combination of both. I’m sure whatever offer sheets he got played a part. But they might legitimately be worried about his ability to stay healthy in the long run.

If not for his injury this summer I’d fully agree. After seeing it I’m not so sure.

[skilles]

Don't get me wrong I'd love for the Blues to have Bedard for 5 years at 15 million but completely losing control of the 1st OA shining star of an entire LONG rebuild at age 26 is very very bad news.

I don't know that its the Hawks fault but its very bad. They basically have a couple years to get things going and I'm just not sure thats gonna happen.

It presents a glaring risk of the whole thing falling apart and starting over right at the worst time.

I think this is a bit overblown. They have 4 years to prove Chicago is a club worth playing for before another big contract. If he wants out at that point they work out a trade with an extension when his last year starts.

If he turns out as good as he could be (health permitting) then the Hawks won’t have any doubts about giving him another huge deal. Chicago is a great city. The Hawks make a ton of money when they’re at all decent. This isn’t a small market club that’s going to struggle to afford him. It’s not middle of nowhere Alberta.

Its not overblown at all, 1 OA picks getting to UFA at 26 year old is very bad.

Bedard was going to be UFA at 25 anyway. I guess your argument is the deal should only be 3 years so he’s still under team control for his next deal? Maybe Bedard wouldn’t sign a deal like that. It is a negotiation after all.

I think the idea is that it should have been max length, not just 5. For obvious reasons Bedard probably wants to get a crack at another deal in his prime. Chicago might also have wanted a middle ground to know for sure he wasn’t going to become a staple on IR.

Regardless, these things become issues if the team is awful or the player hates it there. It remains to be seen how the Hawks rebuild will continue to go, but Bedard has given zero indication that he doesn’t like Chicago. It’s a huge, popular city. The team makes a ton of money. The facilities are nice. People are acting like this will be Eichel in Buffalo or Tkachuk in Calgary. That’s pretty unlikely IMO.

No way Chicago wanted to give him a 5 year deal or don't hate that they had to. No chance

Yeah you’re probably right. It does seem like Chicago’s hand was forced.

Eh some combination of both. I’m sure whatever offer sheets he got played a part. But they might legitimately be worried about his ability to stay healthy in the long run.

If not for his injury this summer I’d fully agree. After seeing it I’m not so sure.

Chicago would have either gone 3 or 7 never 5

[dr0zombie]

Don't get me wrong I'd love for the Blues to have Bedard for 5 years at 15 million but completely losing control of the 1st OA shining star of an entire LONG rebuild at age 26 is very very bad news.

I don't know that its the Hawks fault but its very bad. They basically have a couple years to get things going and I'm just not sure thats gonna happen.

It presents a glaring risk of the whole thing falling apart and starting over right at the worst time.

I would add one more point to this. Connor Bedard didn't bet on HIS ability to make the Hawks better. To me that says a lot. Maybe he feels in 5 years he will be worth $20 million. Of course he could have signed to $17.5 and more term, but he didn't.

[bluetunehead]

Just something to keep in mind that if he went 7 and they bought two more of his UFA years that cost per year goes up.

I agree that the Hawks wouldn’t have ideally given him 5 but the basic truth of UFA contracts is that they cost more. Do the Hawks want to go 18M per on a max length deal after he blows out his shoulder on a nothing play in practice?

You’re not going to bridge deal a guy like Bedard so I think a short contract was never a plausible scenario. He knew that and the Hawks knew that.

5 years is the Hawks leaving 2 years of control on the table and Bedard leaving 50M on the table.

[skilles]

Just something to keep in mind that if he went 7 and they bought two more of his UFA years that cost per year goes up.

I agree that the Hawks wouldn’t have ideally given him 5 but the basic truth of UFA contracts is that they cost more. Do the Hawks want to go 18M per on a max length deal after he blows out his shoulder on a nothing play in practice?

You’re not going to bridge deal a guy like Bedard so I think a short contract was never a plausible scenario. He knew that and the Hawks knew that.

5 years is the Hawks leaving 2 years of control on the table and Bedard leaving 50M on the table.

UFA years don't cost more if you are already bidding against offer sheets

[skilles]

Meaning the others teams are bidding on the player like the player is a UFA.

This offer sheet process needs some work, there has to be some kind protection for drafting and developing players.

Like you have to at least match the term but are allowed to exceed it similar to arbitration.

[DawgDad]

Meaning the others teams are bidding on the player like the player is a UFA.

This offer sheet process needs some work, there has to be some kind protection for drafting and developing players.

Like you have to at least match the term but are allowed to exceed it similar to arbitration.

There is, the opportunity to match and keep the player or opting for draft picks in return. Seems fair, though the specifics of salary ranges, term, and draft pick compensation are collectively bargained. With unrestricted free agency there isn't any compensation at all, nor should there be.

[skilles]

Meaning the others teams are bidding on the player like the player is a UFA.

This offer sheet process needs some work, there has to be some kind protection for drafting and developing players.

Like you have to at least match the term but are allowed to exceed it similar to arbitration.

There is, the opportunity to match and keep the player or opting for draft picks in return. Seems fair, though the specifics of salary ranges, term, and draft pick compensation are collectively bargained. With unrestricted free agency there isn't any compensation at all, nor should there be.

I personally think the compensation chart needs updated(another level added) and I think something needs added to regulate terms of the contracts allowing more term options for matching teams.

[Pierre McGuire]

The Hawks wanted a 7 year deal…Bedard didn’t for obvious reasons. If he would have said he wanted $18 mil per year, the Hawks would have paid it but would have asked for the longer term but Bedard didnt want that so they compromised.

[noted]

I guess I'm struggling to understand how he's worth 15 per year. Theres probably 50 players or more in the league I'd rather have on my team. Also the cap only went up 10% not 100%. I would have thought 12 tops.

He isn't worth 15 a year. He might not be able to stay healthy and as others have pointed out, he's nowhere near the top of the league yet in points.

It's also true the team he's on has sucked and he hasn't had much help.

Chicago is very much betting on the come. Could work, could fail drastically.

When I look at their roster they have a dramatically over paid Byram and a dramatically overpaid Bedard. Guess we shall see.

He is too worth $15m per, and you would be ecstatic for the Blues to pay it if he was their property.

Based on what exactly. My post laid out my argument. Yours lays out your opinion.

Please explain how the 35th highest scoring player in the league deserves to be it's 3rd highest paid.

Also would appreciate if you refrain from telling me in your posts what I would and wouldn't want.

Because players are paid on what they are going to do in the future. Not what they have done in the past. You not comprehending that shows how little you understand about contracts…

Yeah and you can predict the future now?

Whatever.

It's an awful contract. Let's watch it play out and see who is right. When it's me maybe I can be a little (bleep) like you are being in this thread and tell you how you don't know [shirt] about contracts.

Haven’t seen one reported nhl executive/talent evaluator /writer say that it’s a bad contract. It’s right in line with what he is worth. You can’t compare past contracts in basically a flat cap to what guys are now signing for. It’s really pretty obvious…