SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/NHL Signings

Los Angeles Kings signed Cal Petersen (3 Years / $858,333 AAV)

Was this a good signing?
The chart has been hidden

Poll Options


Jul. 16, 2019 at 2:11 p.m.
#1
Cal Petersen has signed a new contract with the Los Angeles Kings.
Standard Contract
Comparable ContractsCOMPARE THIS CONTRACT
SIGNED BY: Rob Blake
Length: 3 years
Value: $2,575,000
Expiry Status: UFA
Cap % Tooltip: 1.05
Signing Team: Logo of the Los Angeles KingsLos Angeles Kings
Signing Date: Jul. 16, 2019
Source: CapFriendly

Cal Petersen signed a 3 year, $2,575,000 contract with the Los Angeles Kings on Jul. 16, 2019. The contract has a cap hit of $858,333.

SEASONClauseCap HitTooltipAAV TooltipP. BonusesTooltipS. BonusesTooltipBase SalaryTooltipTotal SalaryTooltipMinors SalTooltip
2019-20$858,333$858,333$0$0$700,000$700,000$200,000
2020-21$858,333$858,333$0$0$875,000$875,000$875,000
2021-22$858,333$858,333$0$0$1,000,000$1,000,000$1,000,000
TOTAL$2,574,999$2,574,999$0$0$2,575,000$2,575,000$2,075,000
MINIMUM GUARANTEED SALARY: 2019-20: $425,000
Jul. 16, 2019 at 3:05 p.m.
#2
tkecanuck341
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 14,542
Likes: 6,137
Good AAV, bad term. Bought zero UFA years.
OldNYIfan liked this.
Jul. 16, 2019 at 3:20 p.m.
#3
ZiggyPalffy
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 9,721
Likes: 2,805
Great signing!
The_Madhawk and OldNYIfan liked this.
Jul. 16, 2019 at 3:22 p.m.
#4
ZiggyPalffy
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 9,721
Likes: 2,805
Quoting: tkecanuck341
Good AAV, bad term. Bought zero UFA years.


How is it bad term? Most of us anticipated it being at least a 2 year deal around 900k per year. This is less and gives us time to develop him more and hopefully 2 years in a starter role @ 858,333
Jul. 16, 2019 at 3:34 p.m.
#5
tkecanuck341
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 14,542
Likes: 6,137
Quoting: Bf3351
How is it bad term? Most of us anticipated it being at least a 2 year deal around 900k per year. This is less and gives us time to develop him more and hopefully 2 years in a starter role @ 858,333


2 years would have made him an RFA at expiration. 3 years makes him a UFA. 4+ years would have bought at least a year of his UFA eligibility.

I would have rather seen $2 million AAV for 5 years than $875k for 3 years.
ZiggyPalffy and OldNYIfan liked this.
Jul. 16, 2019 at 4:18 p.m.
#6
ConnorMcHellebucyk
Buljujarvi
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2018
Posts: 4,209
Likes: 2,552
Steal
ZiggyPalffy and The_Madhawk liked this.
Jul. 16, 2019 at 4:27 p.m.
#7
AwesomeMatthews
AwesomeMatthews
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,381
Likes: 1,013
Quick's replacement
Jul. 16, 2019 at 7:12 p.m.
#8
thelastlongbow
Nazaleaf
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2019
Posts: 169
Likes: 157
Quoting: tkecanuck341
2 years would have made him an RFA at expiration. 3 years makes him a UFA. 4+ years would have bought at least a year of his UFA eligibility.

I would have rather seen $2 million AAV for 5 years than $875k for 3 years.


2M is a pretty big number and 5 years is a lot for a guy who has yet to prove he could be a starter. So if this was the cost of getting him on a low AAV, then I think it's a good deal. If he doesn't become no. 1, at least you're not tied down. I'm sure Kings can put the extra cap space to good use.
Jul. 16, 2019 at 8:11 p.m.
#9
tkecanuck341
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 14,542
Likes: 6,137
Quoting: thelastlongbow
2M is a pretty big number and 5 years is a lot for a guy who has yet to prove he could be a starter. So if this was the cost of getting him on a low AAV, then I think it's a good deal. If he doesn't become no. 1, at least you're not tied down. I'm sure Kings can put the extra cap space to good use.


Cap space isn't going to be an issue for the Kings over the next several years. Worst case scenario is that he plays quality hockey in a backup role in 2020-21, earns the starting gig in 2021-22, then wants Hellebuyck/Gibson money in 2022. Quick will still be under contract for one more season at that point (assuming he doesn't get taken by Seattle), and then they'll have $12M+ tied up in goaltending right around the time that they're ready to compete again.

$2M is more than he's proven he's worth at this juncture, but it protects the Kings from being in a Toronto situation in 3 seasons when many of the Kings prospects will be RFAs (Kupari, Vilardi, Anderson-Dolan, Durzi, Anderson, Phillips). If even half of those guys turn into quality prospects, the Kings will have a tough time with raises if they have to give Petersen a payday.
OldNYIfan liked this.
Jul. 16, 2019 at 9:52 p.m.
#10
thelastlongbow
Nazaleaf
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2019
Posts: 169
Likes: 157
Quoting: tkecanuck341
Cap space isn't going to be an issue for the Kings over the next several years. Worst case scenario is that he plays quality hockey in a backup role in 2020-21, earns the starting gig in 2021-22, then wants Hellebuyck/Gibson money in 2022. Quick will still be under contract for one more season at that point (assuming he doesn't get taken by Seattle), and then they'll have $12M+ tied up in goaltending right around the time that they're ready to compete again.

$2M is more than he's proven he's worth at this juncture, but it protects the Kings from being in a Toronto situation in 3 seasons when many of the Kings prospects will be RFAs (Kupari, Vilardi, Anderson-Dolan, Durzi, Anderson, Phillips). If even half of those guys turn into quality prospects, the Kings will have a tough time with raises if they have to give Petersen a payday.


That's assuming he plays lights out and earns the starter role along with your other valid points. Certainly true, but don't also overlook the cap rising enough to justify the pay raise. The Kings, imo, will have enough for the kids. If they have to, they'll get creative. Right now, Chicago is paying 11M for their goalies for next season and are finding (albeit not so-good) ways of fixing the roster.

Bottom line is, 2M is just ludicrous . Sure, if they made it 1M x 4 years, I'd take it. But I'm sure Cal wanted to bet on himself a little and take his chances. I think guys brave for that.
Jul. 16, 2019 at 10:03 p.m.
#11
tkecanuck341
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 14,542
Likes: 6,137
Quoting: thelastlongbow
That's assuming he plays lights out and earns the starter role along with your other valid points. Certainly true, but don't also overlook the cap rising enough to justify the pay raise. The Kings, imo, will have enough for the kids. If they have to, they'll get creative. Right now, Chicago is paying 11M for their goalies for next season and are finding (albeit not so-good) ways of fixing the roster.

Bottom line is, 2M is just ludicrous . Sure, if they made it 1M x 4 years, I'd take it. But I'm sure Cal wanted to bet on himself a little and take his chances. I think guys brave for that.


I might have been over-generous a bit on money to get my point across. My point was that I'd rather pay him more money now for extra years than risk having to compete with an open market in 2022. If he doesn't work out for whatever reason, $2M is still low enough to trade or bury in the AHL.
Jul. 16, 2019 at 10:48 p.m.
#12
thelastlongbow
Nazaleaf
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2019
Posts: 169
Likes: 157
Quoting: tkecanuck341
I might have been over-generous a bit on money to get my point across. My point was that I'd rather pay him more money now for extra years than risk having to compete with an open market in 2022. If he doesn't work out for whatever reason, $2M is still low enough to trade or bury in the AHL.


Yeah you're right, and I shouldn't have called your point ludicrous. The number is over but within range that it won't be an issue. I'm thinking his camp held firm on the years and compromised on the AAV.
OldNYIfan liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Loading animation
Submit Poll Edit