Zachary Bolduc's contract talks with the Montreal Canadiens just got a specific new detail.
Insider Marco D'Amico addressed the term length directly on Starr & D'Amico, and it's longer than some expected.
"The one thing I was told is it's not expected to be on the short short term, like a 1 or 2 year deal," D'Amico said.
"I've heard murmurs of a 4 year request from Bolduc's camp," he added.
That's a real shift from the framing floating around earlier this month. Sportsnet's Eric Engels had suggested a three-year bridge deal made the most sense.
A four-year ask is a meaningfully different negotiation than a short bridge contract built around proving last year's dip was an outlier.
Bridge deals exist specifically so a team can evaluate a player again soon. Four years pushes that evaluation window much further out.
-
Canadiens may contract standoff with Zachary Bolduc takes suddenly gets serious
Bolduc finished last season with 12 goals and 18 assists for 30 points across 78 games, a step back after his 19-goal breakout in St. Louis.
He picked things up in the playoffs though, adding 3 goals and 4 assists for 7 points across 19 postseason games.
That playoff stretch is exactly the kind of case Bolduc's camp can point to while asking for term instead of just a prove-it deal.
Montreal has to weigh whether locking in four years on a limited role player is worth the certainty it buys both sides.
Would you rather have Bolduc's ceiling locked in for four years, or the flexibility to walk away after two if the role never expands?
Montreal has under two weeks now before training camp opens, and this term gap looks like the real holdup, not the dollar figure.
My take: four years is a big ask for a player who hasn't nailed down a permanent role yet, but it's not an unreasonable one either.
Nothing is signed yet. But now we know exactly what's being debated behind closed doors, and it's about years, not just money.
Should the Canadiens give Zachary Bolduc the four years his camp wants?
Also read on Markerzone.com:
Connor Hellebuyck-to-Oilers trade proposal sparks major debate
