Lindbergh Reference or ABA Reference?
The Post-Dispatch's latest NHL roundtable involves the Blues' next pressing concern in this heretofore uneventful free agency season—getting Erik Johnson under contract. The tension seems to be between the likelihood that the Blues will sign him to a short-term deal, having done the same with David Perron, and the hypothetical possibility that they could get a bargain by signing him long-term at a lower cap number—though long-term in this case means fewer than 17 years.
Andy Strickland presents both possibilities:
Like David Perron, Erik Johnson can expect to receive a contract no longer than two years. And, like David Perron, Erik Johnson was hoping for a longer deal.
I've said numerous times that the best way to lock Johnson in at a cap-friendly number could very well be to lock him in to a 4-5 year contract right now. If Johnson develops into the player the Blues think he will over the next few years he'll be in position to command big dollars...
[But] The Blues aren't prepared to commit long-term to Johnson as they would like to see him define who he is as a hockey player before they pay him a lucrative long-term contract.
0 comments
Edited by Dan Moore
Dan Moore has been writing about baseball on the internet since that was a novel thing to do. A graduate of the University of Missouri, he lives in Springfield, Illinois. See my profile
