Skip to content

Here’s how Parise/Suter contracts break down…

Jul 4, 2012, 3:00 PM EDT

Parise and Suter Getty Images

According to TSN’s Darren Dreger, it was important for Zach Parise that he and new Minnesota Wild teammate Ryan Suter be compensated equally.

Well, ask and ye shall receive. Via ESPN’s Pierre LeBrun, here’s how each of the 13-year, $98 million deals break down.

2012-13: $12 million ($2 million base + $10 million signing bonus)
2013-14: $12 million ($2 million base + $10 million signing bonus)
2014-15: $11 million ($6 million base + $5 million signing bonus)
2015-16: $9 million
2016-17: $9 million
2017-18: $9 million
2018-19: $9 million
2019-20: $9 million
2020-21: $8 million
2021-22: $6 million
2022-23: $2 million
2023-24: $1 million
2024-25: $1 million

Brian Burke: furious.

Obviously the front-loaded structure of the deal is intended to reduce the cap hit. It’s possible, if not likely, Parise and Suter won’t play out the final two or three years of their contracts when they’ll be pushing 40.

  1. 7ransponder - Jul 4, 2012 at 3:08 PM

    Cap schmap. With prospects like Granlund, Brodin, Zucker, Coyle, and potentially others (Larsson) on their way up, the future is bright for the Wild with this deal. This isn’t a crippling Mauer type deal like the fans of other teams are trying to make it out to be.

  2. ironcity6pak - Jul 4, 2012 at 3:11 PM

    Suter got the same contract?!?! Are u serious what joke.

  3. ray2013 - Jul 4, 2012 at 3:16 PM

    I don’t care about the contracts. It’s cool for MN that the top two free agents picked MN. I read a bunch of articles about how both were going to go home, and I figured it was just a classic MN homer comment. But congrats to MN, and whoever predicted this. I didn’t see this happen.

  4. freneticgarfieldfan - Jul 4, 2012 at 3:18 PM

    How are those contracts different from Kovalchuk’s initial one, the one that was rejected by the league? Look very similar.

    • theawesomersfranchise - Jul 4, 2012 at 3:32 PM

      Not just rejected but punished by the league

      • theawesomersfranchise - Jul 4, 2012 at 3:58 PM

        3 million fine and stripped of a 1st and 3rd because of a 17 year deal with 7 sham years, these have 3 sham years.

        A sham year is a sham year and a deliberate attempt at circumventing the cap hit. The Devils went extreme but the Wild have done the same figuring that they are only circumventing “a little” so that should be ok? The NHL is going to allow a little circumvention are they? Ok great, let’s hear the rules about all circumvention of the cap, how much is allowed and whatnot Gary. I bet there are many GM’s out there that would love to know exactly how much is allowed, and how much gets punished by Millions in fines and stripping of draft picks.

        If Im a Devils fan im sickened if these deals go down as is and my team has to cough up draft picks.

      • jb8383 - Jul 5, 2012 at 11:01 AM

        Also what about Crosby’s deal, how is that different, I don’t understand why Kovy’s was punished and all these other ones aren’t. Parise will be around 40 years old in 13 years, does anyone really expect him to be playing …

      • theawesomersfranchise - Jul 5, 2012 at 12:51 PM

        Crosby deal final 3 years has twice as much money paid out. His final 3 years are at 3 million each, not 2, 1 and 1.

    • stateofhockey11 - Jul 4, 2012 at 7:05 PM

      Key difference is that the final years of Ilya’s contract were saying that he would be playing when he was 43-45. If you can’t figure out how that differs from these contracts than you are not smart enough for me to help.

  5. leaf6904 - Jul 4, 2012 at 3:19 PM

    I agree with Burke these contracts are a joke

    • lostpuppysyndrome - Jul 4, 2012 at 9:00 PM

      Funny, cuz I and many others think Burke is a joke. Strange how that worked out.

  6. theawesomersfranchise - Jul 4, 2012 at 3:32 PM

    Ok, explain to me how this is any different than the Devils contract issue last year? those final 3 seasons are a sham

  7. thedavesiknowiknow - Jul 4, 2012 at 3:33 PM

    I’m glad Minnesota has used the last 2 offseasons to become an interesting and relevant franchise. That said, I really hope all of the loopholes with regard to cap hit are corrected in the new CBA. Grandfather clause all the “crap” deals, and from here on out- a 10 year/100 million dollar contract is a 10mil cap hit every year, regardless of how the team wants to pay it. Easy enough.

    • atwatercrushesokoye - Jul 4, 2012 at 4:58 PM

      The problem is a 10 year/$100 million dollar deal is currently a $10 million cap hit which is why these contracts are so long, what they should do (and without speaking for you I think what you’re getting at) is that the cap hit is what you pay out that year, so the cap hit for these deals this year would be $12 million each. Or I think one thing they could do is make it so if you want to sign a player to a contract over X number of years (I like 7) then you can but that cap hit will stay with you no matter what just like when a team signs a player over 35 now.

      • Doesnotmatter - Jul 5, 2012 at 1:38 AM

        Totally agree. The yearly cap hit for a player should be the same as the player’s salary for the same year. No more ridiculously front loaded contracts.

  8. theawesomersfranchise - Jul 4, 2012 at 3:35 PM

    Word to the NHL stop screwing with Averages, copy the NFL
    Your cap hit is what you pay out that year.

  9. theawesomersfranchise - Jul 4, 2012 at 3:38 PM

    These are two 10 year deals that should have a cap hit of 9.4 million, the NHL is a joke if they allow these deals to go through as is. Its beyond obvious the 11th, 12th and 13th years only function is to lower the stupid way the NHL figures out cap hits.

    • atwatercrushesokoye - Jul 4, 2012 at 5:01 PM

      I can see Bettman just fuming at these contracts, both for the obvious circumvention of the cap and for the fact that the signing bonuses are directly to get around the threat of a lockout.

  10. theawesomersfranchise - Jul 4, 2012 at 3:38 PM

    These are two 10 year deals that should have a cap hit of 9.4 million, the NHL is a joke if they allow these deals to go through as is. Its beyond obvious the 11th, 12th and 13th years only function is to lower the stupid way the NHL figures out cap hits.

  11. odj810 - Jul 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM

    yea i don’t see this deal going through honestly

    • blurwild - Jul 4, 2012 at 5:02 PM

      There’s 2 rules for long-term deals. These deals will pass as they don’t break either rule.

      Rule 1 doesn’t apply as they will both end the contract before turning 41. Rule 2 doesn’t apply, because none of the per-season numbers drop below 1M.

      • odj810 - Jul 4, 2012 at 6:29 PM

        nice info and i’m glad they are where they are. But contracts like this shouldn’t exist. It should be based on the contract not dropping below a certain percentage of the contract not just 1M.

      • jrmehle - Jul 4, 2012 at 7:24 PM

        Thanks for digging that up. I went looking for it earlier, but couldn’t find it. It doesn’t appear that the contracts break any of the regulations outlined there.

  12. blurwild - Jul 4, 2012 at 4:59 PM

    AwesomeFranchise – Every contract is like that nowdays. The devil’s just took it too far with their 17 yr attempted contract with 5 years at league minimum tagged on at the end. That’s why they have rules for this now. Here’s a comparison:

    Parise/Suter – Last 3 years of 13 year deal totaling 4 M. 2m,1m,1m . Age at end = 40

    Koval’s accepted: Last 5 yrs of 15 yr = 10m total, 1m,1m,1m,3m,4m Age at end = 42

    Koval’s reject: Last 5 years of 17 year deal totaled 2.75 (550k annually). Age at end = 44.

    If you take off Illya’s last 5 years for 10m, that would up his cap hit from 6.6m to 9m. (10yr, 90m)

  13. geo91 - Jul 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM

    Edler is better than Suter and is up next season, no big loss for anyone as long as he doesn’t get an extension

  14. ucaneverscorenoughgoals - Jul 4, 2012 at 5:29 PM

    It would suck for minn if the contracts were rejected because the didn’t meet the criteria.

  15. bethgoesglobal - Jul 4, 2012 at 6:29 PM

    Looking at that contract makes me feel old

  16. jkaflagg - Jul 4, 2012 at 7:27 PM

    Seems like a big overpay for Suter, but sometimes that is what a team needs to do…..I remember a lot of grumbling out here in LA about overpaying Rob Scuderi as a FA a few years ago, but no one was complaining last month when he lifted the Cup…..These deals signal that the Wild is serious about winning in the ultra- competitive Western Conference, and I look forward to seeing how they do….

    • ucaneverscorenoughgoals - Jul 4, 2012 at 7:36 PM

      Plus, Rob Scuderi is “the piece” which might be one of the coolest and most character driven nicknames of all time.

  17. abnranger - Jul 4, 2012 at 7:30 PM

    Why isn’t this player collusion? They conspired to go to the same team months ago, negotiated best offers and shared data, and forced management to pay identical offers to sign. Had the owners discussed amongst themselves and established a fair market value, we would be in court.

    • ucaneverscorenoughgoals - Jul 4, 2012 at 7:38 PM

      Hadn’t looked at it from this angle but you bring up a very good point!

    • chibimike - Jul 4, 2012 at 11:45 PM

      Because there is no such thing as player collusion. Working together in secret by the owners is considered collusion because they are allowed to function as a monopoly. There is no such thing as a player monopoly, so free agents are able to work together if they so choose.

  18. cowboyscanada - Jul 4, 2012 at 7:31 PM

    Who cares what Burke thinks? Hes a fool!

    • ucaneverscorenoughgoals - Jul 4, 2012 at 7:37 PM

      He really is…..but not as much as like Mike Milbury

  19. meynbass - Jul 4, 2012 at 8:11 PM

    How many draft picks will it cost the Wild?? Hmmmmmm I wonder

  20. kangarooparm - Jul 4, 2012 at 8:12 PM

    Good. Go to the NHL team with the worst name and stay out of the Eastern conference. Adios fellas.

  21. runtheball - Jul 4, 2012 at 8:54 PM

    How many years until the Wild actually make the playoffs?

  22. redwingsfan999 - Jul 4, 2012 at 10:16 PM

    Suter could be a big bust that’s a mistake signing him by that much, he is the type player who is better when he plays with good players, he would have been perfect with the wings, him and Kronwall would have been the next Fetisov Konstantinov still though u have 2 respect his decision. Like Ken holland said “you can’t beat family”. And that is the main reason why parise and sutter went 2 Minnesota. That and cuz the money

  23. cleverbob - Jul 5, 2012 at 9:50 AM

    I think it’s funny that they got the same exact contract. Was the front office too lazy to work out two separate deals? Same agent for both players?

    “Just print two copies and leave the name blank, we’ll pencil it in later.”

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kessel (1803)
  2. P. Kane (1287)
  3. P. Datsyuk (1264)
  4. M. Richards (1115)
  5. M. Giordano (1108)