St. Louis Extends Jordan Binnington-- 6 Yrs, $6M AAV

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

 

If there was any doubt that the St. Louis Blues were no longer confident that Jordan Binnington was their guy, well, this contract extension, before his current one expires, should put that to rest.

If all goes well for the Blues and Binnington this extenstion should take the 27 yr old netminder all the way through the end of his 'everyday starter' usefulness to the team.

There is always a demand for quality goaltending and the Blues recognized they already have that, and locked him up before any other team gets any ideas about possibly poaching him away after the season.

His numbers are a bit low by the standards he set for himself, but still reasonable, and with overall team health (including the return of Vladimir Tarasenko), those should see an increase if the team can play to their abilities.

6M AAV isn't the worst cap hit a team can have for a starting goaltender still in his prime either.

Good move by the Blues avoiding drama, speculation, and goalie theft by getting this done now.
As long as Binnington doesn't continue to think he is Marty McSorley out there  , St. Louis should be very happy with their guy.

Edited March 12, 2021 by TropicalFruitGirl26

[J0e Th0rnton]

Might as well sign him while his value is tanking I guess. Before he asks for real bank

[ruxpin]

They will regret this sooner than later.

[Math]

They probably thought the Markström deal was a fantastic one... If you sign a guy with this horrible contract just to avoid speculation and calm things down, then welcome to the longterm goalie failure club. But take a ticket first, the line is quite long.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

I dunno guys, as always, with goalies, one simply never knows what direction any given one will go.
We all know any one of these guys could look fantastic one year, then completely fall off a competitive cliff the next.
Or a goalie can look like he is done.....then be a starting number one for a contender.

I think the Blues did about as well as you could expect here.
Look around the league....who were the Blues supposed to get to replace Binnington should they have decided to NOT sign him?
They could have waited till his current contract expires, then as some suggested, he asks for MORE money.

Maybe at that point he asks for Vasilevskiy money (around 8-9M AAV) seeing as how they both have a very recent Stanley Cup.

 

Binnington still in his prime and will only be about 34 when this new contract expires....reasonable enough to expect he will be a viable goalie through the life of the contract.
Up front, the Blues have two contracts they could walk away from, or retain just one of (Hoffman, 31, 4M and Schwartz, 28, 5.3M), to make the goalie contract a bit more palatable as well.

I am no Blues fan, not even close, but even I think St. Louis made the right move here and can now focus on finding another 1st or 2nd pair defenseman.

[Math]

43 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

Look around the league....who were the Blues supposed to get to replace Binnington should they have decided to NOT sign him?

 

Oh, in fact I didn't suggest to go after someone else (ok, in fact and between the lines, yes, but as you said the pool is quite empty). That's more the 6 years that they might regret. I'm the school of not signing a goalie more than 3 years, otherwise you can be stuck with a bare average goalie for a long period. Of you have Vasilievsky, Rask and Fleury but they are exceptions. I frowned my eyes a bit when the Stars signed Bishop but it was the only way to get a decent goalie and the money was okaaay. Now he has 3 years remaining and there's a high question mark if he will be able to be back on track and be a Bishop 1.0 after his surgery.

 

 

49 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

They could have waited till his current contract expires, then as some suggested, he asks for MORE money.

 

Or gambling on a constant sucking and inconsistency following his current trend and then sign him for way LESS money.  

[ruxpin]

On 3/12/2021 at 2:16 PM, Math said:

 

Oh, in fact I didn't suggest to go after someone else (ok, in fact and between the lines, yes, but as you said the pool is quite empty). That's more the 6 years that they might regret. I'm the school of not signing a goalie more than 3 years, otherwise you can be stuck with a bare average goalie for a long period. Of you have Vasilievsky, Rask and Fleury but they are exceptions. I frowned my eyes a bit when the Stars signed Bishop but it was the only way to get a decent goalie and the money was okaaay. Now he has 3 years remaining and there's a high question mark if he will be able to be back on track and be a Bishop 1.0 after his surgery.

Yes, it's just the term I am objecting to. Or not so much even objecting, just voicing concern. I'm okay with sign the goalie.

 

It's probable that the length is job security trade off from the player's point of view. It's possible signing was contingent upon the team giving him that term and security.

 

I still think that while this might end up find by the 5th/6th year, the chances (without names involved) are much higher that they're regretting this by the end of it.

 

 

[Math]

Another Binnington moment. That guy is a real tool.

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, Math said:

Another Binnington moment. That guy is a real tool.

 

 

 

Channeling his inner Hextall.....