Skip to content

Report: Rask extension ‘in the range’ of $56 million over 8 years

Jul 3, 2013, 12:19 PM EDT

Tuukka Rask Getty Images

Tuukka Rask proved himself. Now, he’s about to get very rich.

According to the CBC’s Elliotte Friedman, Rask’s contract extension with the Boston Bruins will be “in the range” of $56 million over eight years, an average annual value of $7 million.

Rask, 26, is coming off a one-year, $3.5 million deal that he signed last summer. The Bruins had wanted to lock up their young netminder for longer, but ultimately both sides kicked the can down the road a season.

In 2013, Rask went 19-10-5 with a .929 save percentage. Then, in the playoffs, his .940 save percentage in 22 games was tops among all starters as the B’s made it all the way to the Stanley Cup Final.

Only one other goalie in the NHL has a cap hit as high as $7 million — Nashville’s Pekka Rinne.

In hindsight, B’s general manager Peter Chiarelli may be wishing he’d driven a softer bargain with Rask last summer. But there’s nothing that can be done about that now.

It will, however, make it harder for Chiarelli — who’s confident a Rask deal will get signed soon — to add pieces in free agency.

  1. pirovash88 - Jul 3, 2013 at 12:21 PM

    He’s a solid goal tender, don’t get me wrong, but i think that’s way too much for Rask.

    • jpelle82 - Jul 3, 2013 at 1:35 PM

      i think 7 per year is high but he is darn good and you get a lot of peace of mind as an orginization with him locked down and the skaters on the ice get peace with him back there in the net too. if the b’s won the cup, he was the conn smythe winner so you can look at that and justify it a little bit. i would be more worried about 8 years rather than the 7 mill per year part.

    • bjseorion - Jul 4, 2013 at 12:58 PM

      Wow. Has everyone forgotten how he saved our backs in game two against the Hawks? Our defense didn’t show up in the first period and he defended 23 goals? Fortunately,the defense shoed up next game and helped give him a well deserved shut out. WRT the last two goals of game 6, that was a team effort for the loss. Where was our defense to block those goals….or at least try. He is well worth the long term, $7M contract. Bottom line, none of us were on the ice for any of the games so it is easy for us to armchair hockey plays.

  2. hockey412 - Jul 3, 2013 at 12:24 PM

    Man it’s so dangerous to give even 8 years to a goaltender.

    • ethanmacleod1685 - Jul 3, 2013 at 12:58 PM

      Totally agree

    • dentals1 - Jul 3, 2013 at 1:07 PM

      Apparently there was no lesson to be learned from the Dipietro and Luongo deals.

      • homelanddefense - Jul 3, 2013 at 1:34 PM

        wasnt the DiPietro deal for something like 15 years? Not exactly the same….

      • dentals1 - Jul 3, 2013 at 1:40 PM

        Dipietro signed the deal in 06′. By 08′-09′ he played 5 games and his highest played after that was 26. Point being it doesn’t matter if it was 15 years it can go to crap quick.

      • ibieiniid - Jul 3, 2013 at 2:10 PM

        sooooo….. you aren’t condoning even a 3 year contract for a goalie because it can go bad as quickly as RDP? newsflash, any contract can go bad. there’s no way to know if Rask will be a superstar, or the first buyout. but I can tell you one thing for sure: he was looking for a long contract and if Boston didn’t give it to him, somebody else sure as hell would. i don’t understand all the backseat GMs that think they could just sign every guy to 1 or 2 year contracts every 1 or 2 years.

      • dentals1 - Jul 3, 2013 at 2:20 PM

        No, actually I am disagreeing with an eight year contract or any contract where you have 5+ years remaining if it does go to crap quick.

      • ibieiniid - Jul 3, 2013 at 3:53 PM

        yeah but you didn’t address the fact that if he didn’t get the contract that he wants in Boston…. he’d get it elsewhere. somebody would take an 8-year chance on a SCF goalie. the league is competitive. if somebody gave him what he wanted, he’d take it (setting aside slight hometown advantage) and the Bruins would be in a SERIOUS goalie hole.

        not to mention, he’s been with their organization for something like 8 years already….. you don’t think they have a good grasp on what kind of goalie he is?

        just my opinion. not a flop. a future superstar. worth the money.

  3. muns09 - Jul 3, 2013 at 12:25 PM

    Holy Tim Thomas thats a lot of money. Good for him gettimg paid but when will these GMs learn about signing goalies to long term big comtracts will screw them in the end? For proof, see half of the goalies who signed a few years back and where they are now. Buy outs, traded, demoted to AHL… Or even worse, sent to Columnus.

    • valoisjoeybfeld69 - Jul 3, 2013 at 4:58 PM

      Rather than paying all that money for TR they should re-sign TT for a lot less money…. I say jokingly.

  4. bucrightoff - Jul 3, 2013 at 12:30 PM

    The 2013 NHL Lockout, the work stoppage that literally changed nothing.

    • redridershoottheireyeout - Jul 4, 2013 at 5:10 AM

      par for the course, the previous two lockouts didn’t stop this last one either, like Forest Gump said “stupid is as stupid does!”
      How long before his buyout comes down the pike?

  5. chanceoffleury1 - Jul 3, 2013 at 12:31 PM

    Wow. Even I thought they’d only give him 6 mil tops on a long term deal. LA is gonna look like they absolutely robbed Quick in a few years when the cap keeps going up.

    Well if this really is the case: Welcome, Bruins fans! You can join us for mid morning prayer circle at 11am where we ask the hockey gods that all these players live up to the expectations of their long term deals. Don’t forget to bring your sacrificial virgin. We’ll look forward to seeing you. Signed, a Pens fan.

    • drewzducks - Jul 3, 2013 at 1:37 PM

      A few years ago we could’ve offered up Tyler to the Gods but if you read the rags, he apparently no longer qualifies. Paging Mr. Tebow.

  6. pdmjr - Jul 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM

    Lot of money for a goalie that gave up two goals in 17 seconds, he had a good reg season though

    • endusersolutions2013 - Jul 3, 2013 at 1:06 PM

      Did you watch the game? The tying goal came after a perfect pass across where the play was, to an open Hawks player perfectly positioned at undefended at point blank. Could you have stopped that? Bruins defense as also ineffective on the winning goal, with Bolland in the perfect place, undefended.

      I agree that’s too much, and I also think the Letang contract was too high, but that’s just my opinion.

      • jpelle82 - Jul 3, 2013 at 1:37 PM

        ya you should put those goals on the defenders and good hands by the hawks, not rask. right on all points, rask making 7 per year is iffy but letang getting paid more than rask is retarded.

      • greenmtnboy31 - Jul 3, 2013 at 1:40 PM

        Watch it? I was looking right down the goal line from my seat when the Hawks threw two by him before he knew what was happening. Weak goaltending when they needed it most. It was a nice pass, but plenty of goalies have made that stop plenty of times AND when the Stanley Cup is on the line, that’s when you want a real $7M goalie, not a pretender. BTW, the Hawks player was Bickell and he was “open” to the extent he was because big dumb Chara was stumbling around the crease.

        Bolland was in the right spot on the winning goal, but if you watch the replay, which I have a few times, Rask was out of position on the shot. Not sure what he was thinking with their season on the line, but he had a major brain fart in that 20 second span.

        As a Habs fan, I hope the Bruins sign him to this contract.

      • endusersolutions2013 - Jul 3, 2013 at 2:29 PM

        Green, You may have a point on his positioning on the 2nd. I’d have to go back and look. And I disagree on the Bickell goal, he shot right away from point blank.

      • greenmtnboy31 - Jul 3, 2013 at 3:18 PM

        It was a nice goal by Bickell, agree on the point blank, but the puck came from Rask’s right all the way across the crease. We’ve seen that pass and either a poke check from the goalie or the slide over and make the pad save. My point is that a $7M goalie doesn’t fold up like a cheap lawn chair with the game/season/Cup on the line. When your defense is falling over themselves in the crease in front of you (Chara tying goal) or standing around leaning on their stick (Boychuck game winner) with the game/season/Cup on the line; that’s when you want a real $7M goalie. Rask isn’t a $7M goalie, but hey, if all you “objective” Bruins fans think he is, then go ahead and root for his signing.

        Objective or not, everything I’ve stated throughout the playoffs is spot on. The officiating was horrendous, even in game 6. How did Chara not get an interference penalty when he clotheslined Toews with his stick and ran him into the net (I think it was at the end of the second period)? The Hawks overcame that and a Bruins team overacheiving; congrats to them. I also stated how slow and clumsy Chara is and he proved it again in game 6, along with the rest of the team. Chicago, particularly Toews, stated they were going to target Chara and go through him and Julie-Ann invited them to try. My guess is Julie-Ann won’t be making stupid comments like that again, because Chicago did exactly what they said they were going to do and I’ve got the pics of them skating around the Gahden with the Cup as evidence of their success. The Bruins couldn’t do anything about it.

        I’m a Habs fan and I would love it if the did sign Rask to this contract.

      • endusersolutions2013 - Jul 3, 2013 at 3:58 PM

        Greenmtn, I appreciate the detailed observations. Over the course of a series, there will also be calls not made both ways. And yet I was very disappointed that no calls were made on the two shots to Toews head in game 5. I know that general sense is that the refs “let the boys play” to a greater extent, and I’d draw the line at headshots. Not calling them gives a green light and likely more shots.

      • greenmtnboy31 - Jul 3, 2013 at 6:29 PM

        I agree, calls are passed on both ways. However, when you consider the Bruins general cheap shots (Marchand, Boychuck etc…) and dirty play, they gain that advantage when the zebras swallow the whistle. I say call it.

        You make a very good point about the obvious and blatant head shot by Boychuck on Toews in front of the net in game 5. It was egregious enough that the dolts in stripes didn’t call anything on the ice, when you consider the emphasis on sliminating head shots, It’s a whole nother matter that the league reviewed it and had nothing to say about it. That essentially sends the message that it’s ok to take a shot at a guys head. They wouldn’t have passed on that hit if it were on Crosby and they fumbled big time by allowing it on Toews. That just makes the nectar of the Stanley Cup all the sweeter.

        I actually am one of very few Habs fans that doesn’t mind the Bruins, but to read the commentary on these and other forums and listen to people I know who are Bruins fans, just naturally makes anyone root against them. Marc Savard no longer plays because of dirty hits like that and yet the Bruins fans seem to quickly forget that.

    • dboldave - Jul 3, 2013 at 1:59 PM

      I would listen to Greenmtnboy31 because he is very objective when it comes to the Bruins!

      • endusersolutions2013 - Jul 3, 2013 at 2:37 PM

        I just noticed – the green dude posted as I had directed my 1st comment towards him, but he took offense at a comment I directed to another poster.

      • scalfor3 - Jul 3, 2013 at 7:16 PM

        I love how he tried to claim he is a habs fan who “doesn’t mind the Bruins” but in the same thread was calling Claude “Julie-anne”. Nice try, but your coach actually has a woman’s name, buddy

      • lordstanley65 - Jul 3, 2013 at 11:06 PM

        You do realize this is Habsman,right?

  7. kicksave1980 - Jul 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM

    A lot of us argued a few months ago that the lockout was a complete sham, and we were told how crazy we were by the pro-owner commenters. To those people, how do you feel now?

    Nothing against Rask, because he’s a great goalie. But Jeremy Jacobs cried with the loudest of them about sustainability, and now here he is leading the charge. Tells you all you need to know.

    • 19to77 - Jul 3, 2013 at 2:49 PM

      Expect Jacobs, Craig Leipold and Ed Snider to be squealing about contract length and players getting paid too much in a couple years, after they start regretting (again) blindly throwing money at players (again) and making no effort whatsoever to think about how they’re spending it (again).

      “It’s the players’ fault that we signed them for so long! The rules didn’t say we couldn’t! We shouldn’t have to honour the deals we sign!”

  8. girouxed - Jul 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM

    It’s better than Ilya bryzgalov making 51 in 8. Tuukka rask may not be worth that much but he is when getting a really good goalie is not an easy thing.

  9. ajsjr40 - Jul 3, 2013 at 12:56 PM

    What is the motivation behind eight years? Seems extremely excessive to me. The B’s must think Rask is highly self-motivated to throw this kind of deal at him. Does this make Malcom Subban trade bait for a team in search of a young goalie.

  10. mrpinkca - Jul 3, 2013 at 1:07 PM

    The problem with term limits for contracts is that now everybody and their mother walks into contract negotiations saying “I want the max.”

    I’m OK with the cap hit, but 8 years for a goalie is asking for trouble.

    • sanfranbruinsfan - Jul 3, 2013 at 2:27 PM

      I thought he was asking for $6.5M initially. I don’t understand how he got more than that and $7M per. Shouldn’t the max term have brought the hit down to $6 or so?

  11. iwillfindyou - Jul 3, 2013 at 1:23 PM

    I’m sure glad my Stanley Cup Champion Blackhawks don’t do stupid stuff like this. They will NEVER give a goalie a long term big money contract. They actually draft guys and improve their skills. Wow that sounds really dumb huh?

    • endusersolutions2013 - Jul 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM

      I strongly suspect that Cory Crawford will be getting a nice raise next year. I also suspect that the Hawks will not be using all their remaining cap space so that they do have room next year.

      I also hope Crow will have the sense to stay with a team that not only has shown that they are very committed to him, and also has the best overall defense in front of him with a commitment too being 2 way players. He’d have given up materially more goals and had a lower Save% if he had played for the Pens this year. I suspect that he’ll be making more advertizing money next year playing for the Hawks.

    • endusersolutions2013 - Jul 3, 2013 at 2:22 PM

      I’ve been pleased with the decisions Stanley Bowman has made after the season. With the excellent way the Hawks are shaping up for the next two years (5 or 6 NHL-ready guys on their AHL team, including the AHL points leader). I suspect he may end up being “GM of the decade”.

      And I’m absolutely unbiased;)

  12. suckit619 - Jul 3, 2013 at 1:40 PM

    I hope it took him less than 17 seconds to sign the contract

  13. valarmorghuliss - Jul 3, 2013 at 1:48 PM

    What a mistake
    You only give 8 year deals to HoF goalies

  14. montrealbbr - Jul 3, 2013 at 2:02 PM

    I hope that Rask signs this deal because it means 8 more years of Montreal finishing in first place!

    • jcmeyer10 - Jul 3, 2013 at 2:13 PM

      Because that guarantees you nothing but one more game on home ice in the first round if it goes to seven games.

      Way to set your goals high.

    • scheffa52 - Jul 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM

      Montreal is an overrated joke. Does this ring a bell? “Lucic, top of the circle Horton the drive SCCOOOOOORREEEESS! THE BRUINS KNOCK OUT MONTREAL!”

      • greenmtnboy31 - Jul 5, 2013 at 8:59 AM

        Still talking about the Canadiens, eh?!?!

        You and your team should focus on trying to win the Cup more than once every 40 years otherwise you sound like a fool.

    • dudermcrbohan - Jul 3, 2013 at 11:12 PM

      how did that work out for you this year?

  15. giantssb42champs - Jul 3, 2013 at 2:03 PM

    They will regret this contract.

    • dudermcrbohan - Jul 3, 2013 at 11:13 PM

      of course they will. Even when Tim Thomas was playing at his best people were complaining that his contract was too much of a burden on the team.

  16. jcmeyer10 - Jul 3, 2013 at 2:17 PM

    I got five years max on a goalie. For a position that requires such a fine balance of skill and mental stability/confidence, eight years is a long time.

    I’m a B’s fan and think this is too much time for the deal.

  17. ibieiniid - Jul 3, 2013 at 2:19 PM

    what the hell are you guys talking about? they brought this guy up through their own system, he even sat backup for a while and patiently waited his turn. when he finally got the starting job, he took them to the SCF in the first year. oh ya…. and he’s only 26. sure 7mil is a lot…. but that’s what a good goalie costs.

    as much as you want to discount either stat… 2.00/.927 this year. that’s tough to beat. especially when you’re playing in a division in which 4 of the 5 teams were playoff teams.

    • dudermcrbohan - Jul 3, 2013 at 11:17 PM

      he also helped blow a 3-0 lead against the Flyers. Obviously you can’t put all the blame on him, but it sure doesn’t help. And yea, maybe he’s put it behind him, but it will always be in the back of his mind. Not denying his talent, just saying he’s not infallible

  18. tdrusher225 - Jul 3, 2013 at 3:17 PM

    Love him, but this is too much. I don’t want him to have the “highest paid goalie in the league” tag on him.

  19. endusersolutions2013 - Jul 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM

    Lets look at this from the context of what other quality starters make
    Elliot 1,800,000
    Crawford 2,666.667
    Anderson 3,187,000
    Niemi 3,800,000
    Howard 5,291,000
    Bobrovsky 5.625000
    M. Smith 5,666.667
    Quick 5.800,000
    Lundqvist 6,875,000

    Seems a bit out of line. However I’d rather have Rask at his $$s than Fleury

  20. hockeyflow33 - Jul 3, 2013 at 10:35 PM

    Giant mistake

  21. matt14gg - Jul 4, 2013 at 7:00 AM

    He’s a great young goalie who has proven himself and deserves to get paid. Still have to see the final numbers, but people claiming this is like the DiPietro contract et al. are wrong. Besides the ability to CBO, the money will be more reasonable and even if the term is 8 years he will still only be 34 when it’s done. To say teams have “learned nothing” is also wrong. There is a salary cap, which means teams can spend whatever they want on whatever player they want but at the end of the day, their cap ceiling will be the same as everybody else’s. Their gripe is comical anyway, cuz these are the same fans that criticize for teams not spending to the cap ceiling as it is.

    By the way, something else needs to be pointed out here. Changes are coming to the size of goalie equipment and there are a LOT of goalies that are going to be in trouble, including Crawford, Rinne, Hiller, etc. One of the things the Bruins are very comfortable with is that they have a goalie who relies on skill and quickness and does not wear oversized equipment, and will thus be compliant even when the rule changes are made. In short, the Bruins have a goalie they KNOW will be able to compete under the new rules. Some of these other teams will get tied up with guys that are really going to struggle (looking at you Corey Crawford) when the rule changes are made.

    • greenmtnboy31 - Jul 5, 2013 at 8:57 AM

      Oh no, some Bruins fan is crying about Corey Crawford. Whine all you want and stamp your feet about Crawford; the fact remains, he’s got a Stanley Cup that he paraded around the Boston ice. Rask has nothing because he crumbled under the pressure when the Cup was on the line.

      That last part about trying to justify this contract stupidity with reference to equipment is almost as laughable as the Bruins bailing out on one of the best young players in the league when he’s only 21. Between this contract offer and Seguin’s trade; it’s obvious the Bruins are imploding.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kane (1912)
  2. P. Kessel (1456)
  3. M. Richards (1254)
  4. N. Backstrom (1160)
  5. M. Giordano (1113)