Danny12357

Membre depuis
12 jui 2018
Équipe préférée
Maple Leafs de Toronto
Deuxième équipe préférée
Capitals de Washington
Messages dans les forums
112
Messages par jour
0,21
Sujets de discussion
2
Forum: NHL SigningsThu at 12:44 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>hanson493</b></div><div>He will likely be their 2 c when krecji walks next year. could be a 1c (not so much points wise but play wise) if Bergeron misses time.</div></div>

That's based on opportunity though, I mean will the 2nd line be strong if Coyle is the guy you are building it around? Or do you need at least one winger that is significantly more valuable than he is in order to have a good 2nd line?

I just think that in general, contracts signed at this price point (6.25-7.5% of the cap) and term (5 or more years) for complimentary forwards in their late 20's are usually awkward bets. For instance, let's say that the player you think is worth that amount is a 20 goal, 45 point versatile player who kills penalties. That could be close to fair, but how many players whose ceiling looks to be about that stay around that level from 27-33? When you look at all the recent (relatively) contracts signed for guys around 26-28 in that price range, it's a mixture of contracts that look pretty bad in retrospect (Nielson, Dubinsky, Little, Sutter, Anisimov, Fillpula), with the most positive contracts looking like maybe Brock Nelsons, and that one is still early.

The issue ends up being that it's hard for a player of this caliber (good complimentary player) to massively outperform the contract as they likely are the player they are, and if anything injuries and age will likely decrease their value long before the contract expires. Coyle will likely be worth a chunk of this contract, it just feels like there is far more room for him to under perform it than there is for him to outperform it.
Forum: NHL SigningsWed at 12:21 pm
Forum: NHL Signings 4 oct à 11 h 59
Forum: NHL Signings 4 oct à 11 h 45
Forum: NHL Signings 4 oct à 10 h 14
Forum: NHL Signings 3 oct à 13 h 34
Forum: NHL Signings30 sep à 9 h 55
Forum: NHL Signings27 sep à 14 h 28
Forum: NHL Signings25 sep à 13 h 36
Forum: NHL Signings25 sep à 13 h 35
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CN10</b></div><div>If you look into my linked ACGM post, I do have the fourth RFA year at $9M (Skinner) and the first UFA year at $10.5M (Kane) plus 3 RFA years at $7.5M (which is more than he's currently getting). This gets me to the 5 year $8.4M. For a 6th year assume another $10.5M (Kane) which brings it to $8.75M AAV. Therefore, I don't think Tkachuk would get over $9M AAV on a six year deal from Treliving.

Now that his current contract is essentially equivalent to a 4 x $7.5M (assuming he just signs his $9M QO to go UFA), and applying the same $10.5M - $11.5M (Kane - Panarin) to UFA years, the 5 year AAV should be $8.1M - $8.3M and the 6 year AAV would be $8.5 - $$8.833M. These are very player friendly as I don't think Tkachuk is as good as Kane &amp; Panarin, which is why I thought they may be able to drive down the AAV a bit to the neighborhood of 6 x $8.333M, which they could have fit by moving Czarnik.

Regardless, I'm happy they have him to a good value in their Johnny + Gio window, and in 3 years time they have a decent amount of flexibility to choose a direction to go in and hopefully keep the group together if they've had some team success.</div></div>

A 5 year deal might have some chance of coming in at around the Aho number, but I have my doubts it would be that simple. I don't think using Kane's UFA number of $10.5M is a reasonable estimate at all of what Tkachuk's UFA years would be worth. Tkachuck's first UFA year will be 2024, which is 10 years after Kane's first UFA year.

Maybe Tkachuck can't get the $9M+ AAV on a 6 year deal from BT, which is why we are sitting here with a bridge deal, but I highly doubt that Calgary could have gotten term unless they offered north of $9M from Tkachuck either. Maybe he would ahve done a 5 year in the mid to high 8's, but I think it's unlikely that given this deal.
Forum: NHL Signings25 sep à 12 h 48
Forum: NHL Signings25 sep à 12 h 34
Forum: NHL Signings25 sep à 12 h 29
I think this is the only deal that really worked for Calgary as they won't be forced to make a deal to be compliant ahead of the season opener. I am leaning toward thinking short term deals as being the best way to deal with RFAs, but we wont' know for sure until the end of these deals if it's the best strategy (versus what a 6-8 year deal would look like). I do think that a lot of RFAs seem to want something closer to what a UFA deal would look like if they were to accept considerable term (maybe not to the extent Marner got) and since UFA value represents kind of a cap for an RFA, I think the best way to save the most money may be takign the bigger discount in the short term and negotiating with the RFA almost as if he was a UFA at the end to get additional term. You still have the benefit then of not being too concerned about longer term if they want it by that point, since they are young enough that the final years of that deal are probably still good just by virtue of the cap increasing, even if the player has started their decline.

The only caveat to this is it does allow the players to walk as a UFA at year 4. There is no stopping the player from just accepting the QO or filing arbitration for one year award after the final year, so that is really the biggest risk with the 3 year bridge.

Either way you look at it, $7M is a number that Tkachuk should easily be worth for each of the 3 years, and it buys calgary some time to see how their team is progressing and which direction they want to go.
Forum: NHL Signings23 sep à 13 h 28
Forum: NHL Signings23 sep à 12 h 58
Forum: NHL Signings19 sep à 20 h 31
Forum: NHL Signings19 sep à 13 h 46