NHL Contracts After Entry-Level: Bridge or Long-term?

Should NHL teams use bridge contracts or aim for long-term deals after entry-level contracts are up?

The last two NHL contracts of Canadiens’ defenseman PK Subban were hotly contested topics in Montreal among fans and media alike. It really sparked a debate: after promising young players come out of entry-level NHL contracts, is it better for their teams to sign them to a “bridge” contract or lock them up long-term right away?

While the Canadiens went with the former, we’ve recently seen the Minnesota Wild sign two of their young stars to long-term deals: Jonas Brodin (six years, $4.17 million per year) and Charlie Coyle (five years, $3.2 million).

Assuming each player fulfils his admittedly high potential, both could turn out to be bargains in the later years of those contracts.

That’s obviously great for the team’s future, but does that limit them in the present? In essentially overpaying both players, especially in the first and possibly the second years of their deals, the Wild eat up more salary cap space than they probably should and possibly affect their ability to win now.

Let’s look at a few examples of how each strategy has impacted teams in the past.

Jonathan Toews & Patrick Kane NHL contracts

Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane of the Chicago Blackhawks have been joined at the hip contract-wise since they broke into the league in 2007.

Both signed identical five-year deals worth 6.3 million per year following their entry-level NHL contracts. This past summer, they again signed identical extensions, this time for 8 seasons at 10.5 million per.

But what if the Blackhawks gave them bridge deals instead?

Sam Gagner, who came out of entry-level at the same time, signed a two-year bridge deal worth 2.275 per year. Considering that, it’s reasonable to assume that the market value of the Blackhawks’ two young stars would’ve been around 4-4.5 million on bridge deals (remember, they signed their extensions before the Stanley Cup victory).

That could have given the Blackhawks as much as 4.5 million dollars in salary cap savings. Both players would be up for their third NHL contracts two years later, and both would still be three years away from unrestricted free agency.

Considering the Wild signed Zach Parise and Ryan Suter around that time, it gives us a good indication that the market for top-tier players in the prime of their career was in the 7-7.5 million dollar range. Let’s assume both Toews and Kane sign identical 7.5 million dollar, long-term NHL contracts at that point.

That would put the average cost of each player with a bridge deal in the middle, from their rookie seasons up to and including this season, at about 4.25 million per season. The actual cost? A nearly identical 4.26 million per season.

In this example, the bridge deals would have helped the team avoid the salary cap hell they experienced in 2010. They also could have retained some key players following their first Stanley Cup victory. However, it could have also prevented them from acquiring some players who were instrumental in the Stanley Cup victory of 2013.

PK Subban vs John Carlson NHL contracts

Let’s compare the second NHL contracts of two promising, young defensemen in 2012.

Coming out of entry-level, PK Subban obviously had raw, offensive talent. In the eyes of many however, he lacked the maturity to truly be considered a blue-chip talent.

It was likely a big reason why the Canadiens opted for a bridge deal worth 2.875 per season. Would the organization have been better served by signing him to a longer deal right away?

Consider the Washington Capitals’ John Carlson. He was in a similar position, coming out of entry-level going into the 2012-13 season. The Capitals opted for a six-year deal averaging about 3.9 million per season.

Now consider the paths of both players. Subban went on to score 91 points in 124 games the following two seasons, which included a Norris Trophy win and a run to the Eastern Conference Final. Carlson, who was being paid nearly 1.2 million more, managed 59 points in 130 games with little team success to speak of.

PK Subban signed the most lucrative of his NHL contracts this past summer

Oct 18, 2014; Montreal, Quebec, CAN; Montreal Canadiens defenseman P.K. Subban (76) celebrates after scoring a goal against Colorado Avalanche during the second period at Bell Centre. Mandatory Credit: Jean-Yves Ahern-USA TODAY Sports /

The flip-side of course is what happened next. Subban signed a massive eight year deal with an annual cap hit of 9 million dollars. That means that, while Carlson plays out the remaining four years of his deal, the Capitals will have him at about 5 million dollars less than Subban.

Think about it this way: would you rather have for six seasons (2012-13 to 2017-18) John Carlson at 3.9 million, or PK Subban at 6.95 million?

I think that while bridge NHL contracts are an organizational standard of many NHL clubs, they may not be serving the fan base well in the long-run in terms of having a winning product on the ice.

Locking up promising players may take up more salary cap room initially, but I believe it increases a team’s window to win because they have more money to surround that player better.

The variable in all this of course is how NHL contracts affect the psyche and development of the player. In some cases, it’s probably a good idea to ask the player to earn his paycheck.

When it comes to blue-chip, star players however, the only ones who really have a problem with their attitude or maturity are the ones who wish those players were on their team.

More from FanSided

Home/Chicago Blackhawks