fabulon7 has it right. Lecavalier is 28-years-old, making him 39 when the deal is done. Assuming he can still play at the age of 35, you are looking at a 7-year deal for $12 million a year, with a limited (<$8M) cap hit. The question is whether or not you want to tolerate the dead money over the last 4 years or so. I would expect that TB has insured themselves in case of injury, so they really wouldn't be out that much if Lecavalier suffers a career-ending injury.
But I've always liked a "franchise" player who spends their whole career with one team. Yeah, I like that too. Yzerman being the best example, I think. But it seems kind of forced when you lock it in with a decade-long no-trade contract. (Is Lecavalier's deal no-trade? I assume so. Even if it isn't, I imagine it's hard to deal that contract.) It seems more genuine when the team and player have to renew their vows every few years, you know? Plus, this is rife for backfiring (not Lecavalier, probably, but these kinds of deals.) Imagine if Vancouver had have done this with Bertuzzi the year before the infamous neck-snapping. At the time, it was looking like he was going to be a superstar for a long, long time.
It seems more genuine when the team and player have to renew their vows every few years, you know? Except that player may be coming off of a career year and could demand twice as much as originally offered. So there is risk in doing the deal both ways. Plus, this is rife for backfiring (not Lecavalier, probably, but these kinds of deals.) No doubt. Lecavalier will probably only be sidelined due to injury, if at all. And he's already spent 11-12 years in TB, so I think both parties know what they will be getting in return for the investment. But Bertuzzi, yeeesh, you're right, "Hockey is like a box of chocolates.....".
