12 jui 2018
Maple Leafs de Toronto
Deuxième équipe préférée
Capitals de Washington
Messages dans les forums
Messages par jour
Sujets de discussion
<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.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CN10</b></div><div>Term is the price they paid to keep the cap hit down. My guess is a 6 year term would have costed $1M AAV more. Without a NTC/NMC, if his play does fall off a cliff they can move him to a cap floor team towards the end of the deal as he makes $4M the last couple years. A buyout of the last two years is also only about $2M AAV on the cap. There will likely be a cap spike after the new TV deal and Seattle, so even the back side of the contract won't cripple them if he can maintain at least middle six caliber play for the last half of the contract. Overall, I'd say it's a fair deal.</div></div>
The buyout would cost just over $3.5M in year one, $3.8M in year two then just under $1.4M a year for two years. His salary dips, but it will cost assets to move if his play falls off completely. More and more teams are pressing toward the ceiling each year, with fewer teams having big amounts of cap space, assuming it will be easy to offload him later shouldn't be something that makes the deal seem reasonable.
Also, I am not sure why so many people feel this AAV is such a steal. What would be his fair market value on a reasonable term? $7M x 4 years? I am not saying there wouldn't be a GM that lost his mind and did more than that, but it doesn't make the player worth it. If this is the cost for this player, the Blues should have let him walk.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Icegirl</b></div><div>The $$ is actually a steal. The length, not so much.</div></div>
Personally I don't think the money is much of a steal either. Not that it's bad, on a 3 or 4 year deal I would say they managed to retain a UFA without overpaying, which is hard to do, but I still wouldn't be calling a steal, just good work getting a UFA for roughly fair value.
I know people will hate this comparison, but Brayden Schenn isn't signficantly better than Kevin Hayes. He's better, but they are both above average middle 6 wingers, neither is elite. Getting a slightly better above average middle six winger doesn't make your team significantly better, and the difference between them isn't worth a lot of cap space.
Kevin Hayes deal is bad, Schenn's deal is considerably worse. Hayes deal is 7 years, and buys the years between 27-34. Schenn's deal is 8 years and buys the years between 29-37. That is not a good look. Most would argue Kevin Hayes AAV was too high for any term, so I don't think there is enough difference between the AAV or their talent to go from overpaid on any term to steal. Maybe on a 1 or 2 year deal this is undervalued, but anything over that and it's likely just fair, and as soon as you pass 5 years the AAV should be falling considerably per year.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CoraStorm</b></div><div>this doesn't make sense n allow me to explain:
Marner earns 16 mil this year w 15.3 signing bonus... so ur saying it's applicable, that means in your opinion, come July 1st 15.3 less escrow % (if it's 15% = 13 or just over). there's no incentive of signing bonus other than time n I think u better look that up again</div></div>
Escrow does apply to signing bonus, but there are advantages to signing bonus over straight salary other than escrow. Because signing bonuses are paid in the summer, a player can end up paying significantly less tax depending on where their full time home is. Also, even if they live in the same place as they play, it's easier when getting one big amount to protect it from tax by sending it directly to an RCA, RRSP, or any other tax shelter. The time value of money is also quite significant in these scenarios as it allows players to invest very large sums of money, tax deferred, all at once. For a player like Marner, getting the nearly half of his salary paid out inside of 12 months allows for years of growth on a substantial part of his total contract value that would not have been possible if the money was more evenly distributed or back loaded.
<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 & 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.
This is a good deal all around. Chabot may not have a ton of NHL experience under his belt, but he has had very significant stretches where he has looked like this level of player or better, and this contract buys all of his prime years. That seems like a very smart bet.
Ekblad got a deal that was bigger than this (in cap hit percentage), that was completely a bet on his development, he never had any stretches where he really looked like a top tier #1 D, and still hasn't. Provorov hasn't really shown as much either, and his deal is very comparable when you factor in the extra two years UFA years purchased.
The bet has some potential to not work out, but he gets another full year of development and the cap rising before this deal even kicks in, so that likely increases the chances this deal becomes worth it, even if Chabot can't live up to the potential he showed in the first half of last year.
Aside from the buying of future years, it's important to see Ottawa sending a message that they are investing dollars now into the future. Both this, and the Colin White deal cost real money now, but are extremely likely to be value deals by the time this team is competitive, allowing them to spend to supplement their stars. Obviously there is a long way to go, but after the year they had last year, it's important to show that they do have at least some vision and optimism for the future.