Yeah, if it's 8x8 [8 years, $8M per] sign me up. Anything more seems like a little bit of a stretch.
I think he had an amazing year and created an identity for himself but you lock him up for eight years because you like one year of hockey; but then struggle to see him play that style for the next couple years, you ask 'Why did we commit eight years?'
It's why I hate eight-year deals. There's so much that changes year to year, let the guy go out and earn it then pay him whatever, who cares? The cap is rising anyways.
If you sign him for three years and he turns out to be this superstar, it doesn't change the contract he would make now. Are we talking $1M? $2M? Worry about it then, I'm all for the bridge deal.
Keep the carrot dangling in front of these guys, when a guy gets too comfortable sometimes it's hard to keep them motivated. They come into the season and go 'What do I have to prove? I got my money.'
Not saying he's that guy but there's more situations across the league than there isn't with guys locked into eight-year deals who never fulfill that potential because they got too comfortable.