The Bruins signed Tuukka Rask today to an extension for eight years and $56 million.

To be sure, Tuukka’s earned it. He had a great season and led his team within the grasp of a championship. The Bruins made him prove his value with a one-year deal last year, and Tuukka responded with his career-best. But the team also has no viable option to fill his spot in net if they chose negotiation hardball, which tipped the leverage scale fully in Tuukka’s favor. It’s a spot in life that sports fans refer to as, “The Flacco.”

Signing him is smarter than letting him walk. Simply put, the Bruins had to pay Tuukka to remain a Cup contender. And that’s what they did.

But the deal is reminiscent of goaltenders past, and Bruins fans should be uneasy about this contract, especially when you look at the last five long-term contracts given to goaltenders.

• 2006: New York signs Rick DiPietro for 15 years and $67.5 million at age 24. Let’s get this one out of the way first, since it might be the worst contract in sports history. It’s not remotely a comparison to Tuukka’s deal, but you can’t bring up bad goalie contracts and start with anything but DiPietro. He played two seasons and 125 games after signing the deal before injuries ruined his career. He’s played 50 NHL games in the past five years.

• 2008: Pittsburgh signs Marc Andre-Fleury for 7 years and $35 million at age 23. This deal appeared perfect after the first year, when Fleury helped the Penguins win a Stanley Cup ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED ESPECIALLY NOT ANYTHING LIKE THIS OH GOD PLEASE MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP.

But more recently, Fleury has been a sad pillowy excuse for a goaltender. He completely shot down any chance the Penguins’ had in the playoffs last year by allowing 30 goals in six games, and then he blew up again this year against the Islanders, losing the starting job to Brent “Really? You seriously want me to play? I’m your best chance?” Johnson. Fleury’s contract is damning evidence that goalies deserve no more than five-year deals.

• 2010: Vancouver signs Roberto Luongo for 12 years and $64 million at age 31. Look, you don’t even sign a fucking accountant to a 12-year deal at age 31. This had bad idea written all over it. Again, no significant comparison to Tuukka’s deal but it’s worth sharing because Luongo also lost the starting job several years into the deal and basically became impossible to trade solely due to the contract.

• 2011: Philadelphia signs Ilya Bryzgalov for 9 years and $51 million at age 31. “Hey! Wait a minute! This looks a lot like the last guy’s contract…” Yeah, it’s a good thing teams learn from each other’s mistakes. Nope. The signing of Bryzgalov basically exploded the Flyers’ stacked roster of 2011 (Goodbye to Jeff Carter and Mike Richards, who reunited in LA to win a Cup..) and now the Mad Russian has already been bought out. Yikes.

• 2011: Nashville signs Pekka Rinne for 7 years and $49 million at age 29. This is the deal I would correlate most with Tuukka’s contract, although Rinne is a bit older (and a bit more proven with more than a couple Vezina-caliber full seasons at the point of signing). This year, Rinne’s first after signing the deal, he went 15-16-8. The Predators hope it’s an aberration, but history is not on their side.

I highlight these horrible contracts not to criticize Tuukka but to caution the Bruins. It’s too late, I know, but it’s clear to me that they should have fought harder to knock a few years off that deal, even if that meant more money and a higher cap hit.

Is Tuukka worth it right now? Absolutely. But trouble could be on the horizon, especially if the Bruins’ stockpile of goalie prospects matures quickly. With Malcolm Subban and Niklas Svedberg waiting a league below, it makes more sense to sign Tuukka for five years. That may never have been an option — or at least, not an option if they wanted Tuukka to stick around — but it feels like the Bruins didn’t try hard enough to make the smartest available move.