That is not correct on both points. Value means making good deals with good players. St. Louis signed Vladimir Tarasenko to an eight season contract at $7.5 million each season instead of doing a bridge contract and risk losing him. That was a large contract at about the same cap as Parise/Suter, but Tarasenko may end up one of the top five forwards in the NHL, and he is going into his prime (23 years old), so locking him up for eight years makes sense. Parise and Suter were signed for 13 seasons after they were already 28 and 27 years old respectively. While the contracts are for essentially 10 seasons, the cap hit will be for 13 unless there is a buyout and the Wild take one on the chin by having to pay 2/3 the contract for no player and up to 20 years of dead money. I suspect a buyout will be part of one or both contracts down the road. St. Louis also signed defenseman Kevin Shattenkirk to a four year $17 million contract ($4.25 million cap hit) one year after the Suter contract. Shattenkirk was good value and has outplayed Suter both during the season and during the playoffs. St. Louis is not immune to overpayment though. Paul Stastny signed a 4 year / $28,000,000 contract with the St Louis Blues, with a cap hit of $7,000,000 last season. Stastny underproduced and did not get value for the first season of the contract, but the Blues are only on the hook for four seasons if he continues to underproduce contract wise. Stastny will still be a productive veteran on the team, so a little overpayment in the short term is not as risky. I do not believe Tarasenko is a dumpster dive. Neither was Shattenkirk. The Blue overpaid a little for Stastny, but the contract was short term and had upside with a team that has other talent. If the Wild had signed Parise and Suter to eight year contract rather than 13 for the same average salary, it would have been better value. The Twins paid Mauer coming off an MVP season in which he suddenly hit for power. They paid him open market rates one season early to lock him up. It was a bold move by the Twins; it was a risky move by the Twins, and they did not get value. The contract for Nolasco was a head shaker. He never was anything better than a middle road third starting pitcher. The Twins overpaid the day the contract was signed because the team would not get value even if Nolasco pitched his averages for the entire contract, and it turned out even worse. I disagree. Timing and scouting can make a huge difference, and teams have to find that value. If an ace is worth his contract, that is still value. Some of it is luck, but if a third starter is paid like a second starter and ends up a fourth starter or worse, that is not value, and it likely was not ever going to be.