Forums/NHL Signings

Nashville Predators signed Colton Sissons (7 Years / $2,857,143 AAV)

Was this a good signing?
The chart has been hidden

Poll Options

 

Jul 23 at 12:36
#26
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,855
Likes: 657
Quoting: vic997
Great AAV tbh. Term isn't too bad as he's fairly decent and still 25. If he gets 40-45 points in even just one of those 7 years, this is really good value. Cap should be way higher in 7 years.
For comparison, Tanev got 3.5 x 6 w/ a modified NTC and Sissons was even more productive.


Cap won't be that much higher if they go into another lockout next year. That being said, 7 years for a 3rd or 4th liner is insane. But like you said, compared to Tanev it's not that bad
Brian2016 and rebecca liked this.
Jul 23 at 12:41
#27
HonestHockeyNYI
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 64
Likes: 32
Quoting: Rooney
7 years...I'm sorry, what?!


That's the same reaction I had when I first saw this contract.
Rooney and weirfanno1 liked this.
Jul 23 at 1:06
#28
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 110
Likes: 77
I don't get why a team would offer this kind of term on this kind of player. He is good, but at 25 with 250 games played, I don't think there is much upside to squeeze out, and there is no guarantee that he will be a value at this number in his late 20's. Guys in their mid 20's who are clear role players don't always age very well even in their late 20's. How many guys that were 25-35 point guys at 25 went on to either improve massively, or stay at exactly that level for 5 or more years afterward are there?

I don't think there are many, but even if this works out, what is the upside? If he's a 35-40 point player in year 5, still producing strong results, is that enough of a cap savings over what it costs to get that from somewhere else? Or is he enough better than an OK winger to justify having to spend the extra money on him versus replacing him internally or finding a bargain bin UFA at near league minimum to save the money to spend elsewhere?

I just see more opportunities for this to be a bad bet than a spectacular one.
rebecca liked this.
Jul 23 at 1:16
#29
BtZ's buttercup
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 2,605
Likes: 1,407
Holy jesus, what is with the term?

At least there's no NMC or NTC?????
weirfanno1 liked this.
Jul 23 at 1:17
#30
GoJetsGo
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 500
Likes: 127
Quoting: JonJon
Reminds me of that Calle Järnkrok deal.


The first thought I had when I saw it.
Jul 23 at 1:25
#31
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 266
Likes: 168
Edited Jul 23 at 5:32
Well, well, well. This contract’s certainly gonna spark some debate. It’s gonna be very polarizing, methinks. You’ll either love this or hate this contract.

What it comes down to is about where you land on a spectrum of stability vs flexibility. Looking back, NSH has often been more likely to offer *longer-term* contracts to players it considers to be core pieces (Weber, Forsberg, RJ, Jarnkrok, Turris, etc...). Just with those examples you can see the pros and cons of such a strategy, whereby you engender roster stability and player (and ?fan) loyalty alongside a lower cap hit. Conversely you are committed to a significantly longer term for the player. 6y or 7y instead of 2 or 3y.

Personally I LOVE this deal. In my spreadsheet, I had Sissons at $2.6M for 3y most likely. The Predators got that AAV but have secured it over 7y! As the cap goes up, this contract will look even better.

The downside of course is his play decreases faster than one would expect as he enters his 30’s in years 5/6/7. Generally speaking however, bottom-6 players (which is all that Sissons is, will be, and all they need him to be - esp on this deal) tend to see a drop off around age 32, which is the final year of this deal. Would 6y have been better? Yes. I’d have liked it a good deal more. But I don’t think y7 will be crippling. Worst case they bury his contract in the AHL and by that time it’s likely the majority of the cap hit will be buryable so the cap implications are minimal.
pinslack liked this.
Jul 23 at 1:30
#32
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 266
Likes: 168
Edited Jul 23 at 5:32
$20M - +$1. 🧐
Jul 23 at 3:01
#33
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 79
Likes: 59
7 years? wow
Jul 23 at 3:48
#34
ComYog
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 635
Likes: 111
Quoting: vic997
Great AAV tbh. Term isn't too bad as he's fairly decent and still 25. If he gets 40-45 points in even just one of those 7 years, this is really good value. Cap should be way higher in 7 years.
For comparison, Tanev got 3.5 x 6 w/ a modified NTC and Sissons was even more productive.


Why rub it in? Come on the wound is still fresh :P
Jul 23 at 4:49
#35
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 700
Quoting: vic997
did you even read what I said? I said it was a good deal. The kid IS good and only getting better.
2.8 per year is very good value like I said


You need to consider NSH's window to compete for the Cup. They have a good shot to win now and the low AAV was essential to that effort. Same holds true w/ Tanev in PIT. Both teams are in win-now mode and consider cap space to be more important than term. I actually love this deal for NSH. Poile gets an A+ in my opinion.
vic997 liked this.
Jul 23 at 7:03
#36
GM67
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 245
Likes: 85
This is a team friendly contract if they plan to play him on the third and fourth lines consistently but they MUST sign Rocco Grimaldi to something similar because Grimaldi is way more important to this team’s success. The cap is there for Grimaldi to be locked in long term and now they need to make it official.
Jul 23 at 7:44
#37
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 18
Likes: 4
I'm not so sure about this one. The AAV is nice for a guy they can play anywhere on the 3rd/4th, but 7 years for a bottom half guy is a bit puzzling. If he loses a step 2-3 years into the contract, they're on the hook for a while for a guy who may be a liability. If they'd signed him to 3-4, and then resigned him after, I don't think the AAV would be all that much higher if he's still playing bottom half. Feels like unnecessary risk for a guy who's not crucial to the team's success. That said, wouldn't be surprised if they get good years out of him for most of his prime.

As far as the Tanev contract comparison goes, yeah, it's clearly better, but Tanev's is one of the worst this free agency, so the bar is pretty low.

Also, the way the salary is divided up per year is so oddly specific, which is pretty fun.
Jul 24 at 1:17
#38
Retired V2 & V3 GM
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2,155
Likes: 369
Similar to Jarnkrok deal I guess
Jul 24 at 9:11
#39
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 110
Likes: 77
Quoting: Brian2016
You need to consider NSH's window to compete for the Cup. They have a good shot to win now and the low AAV was essential to that effort. Same holds true w/ Tanev in PIT. Both teams are in win-now mode and consider cap space to be more important than term. I actually love this deal for NSH. Poile gets an A+ in my opinion.


I don't think Nashville having a shorter window has anything to do with the length of this contract. If anything, Nashville paid additional AAV to get more term. Sissons is a very good depth player, but he is getting more than most of his comparables in terms of AAV. Copp has similar production, role and age, with similar impact metrics on ice, and he got over $600k less in an arbitration award over 2 years. Lehokonen, Armia, and Sundqvist are RFAs who got a lower AAV and term with similar production.

This isn't to say that he isn't potentially better down the road than anyone in that group, just that he didn't have any more leverage than they did, so the additional term wasn't to keep the AAV down, it's a bet by Nashville on his future value.

The issue I have with betting on SIssons future value is that it largely assumes that his deal will look better relative to the cap as time goes on. That may be true to some degree, however we have already seen that this tier of player hasn't had their RFA deals inflate at the same rate as the cap, and that is because teams are starting to allocate more and more of their cap to their star players. So star player salaries have been rising a little faster than the rate of the cap, while second tier players salaries (on average) have been rising slower. Looking for instance at some comparables from a few years ago, Roussel, Wingels signed in the summer of 2014. They signed for RFA deals between the ages of 24 and 26, and Roussel and Wingels signed for $2M and $2.475M respectively. Also, they are great examples of how those deals don't necessarily age well. Wingels was out of the league before he was the age Sissons will be at the end of his deal, and Roussell is still a solid 30 point forward with strong analytics against bottom 6 opponents, and he was signed as a UFA for $3M which was considered an overpayment.

The deal could work out fine, it's not as big a risk as some, I just don't see the big win scenario to make the risk worthwhile, and it's pretty obvious the Preds didn't have to give the term, it appears that they chose to do so. So it just seems a bit weird.
Jul 24 at 1:27
#40
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 700
Quoting: Danny12357
I don't think Nashville having a shorter window has anything to do with the length of this contract. If anything, Nashville paid additional AAV to get more term. Sissons is a very good depth player, but he is getting more than most of his comparables in terms of AAV. Copp has similar production, role and age, with similar impact metrics on ice, and he got over $600k less in an arbitration award over 2 years. Lehokonen, Armia, and Sundqvist are RFAs who got a lower AAV and term with similar production.

This isn't to say that he isn't potentially better down the road than anyone in that group, just that he didn't have any more leverage than they did, so the additional term wasn't to keep the AAV down, it's a bet by Nashville on his future value.

The issue I have with betting on SIssons future value is that it largely assumes that his deal will look better relative to the cap as time goes on. That may be true to some degree, however we have already seen that this tier of player hasn't had their RFA deals inflate at the same rate as the cap, and that is because teams are starting to allocate more and more of their cap to their star players. So star player salaries have been rising a little faster than the rate of the cap, while second tier players salaries (on average) have been rising slower. Looking for instance at some comparables from a few years ago, Roussel, Wingels signed in the summer of 2014. They signed for RFA deals between the ages of 24 and 26, and Roussel and Wingels signed for $2M and $2.475M respectively. Also, they are great examples of how those deals don't necessarily age well. Wingels was out of the league before he was the age Sissons will be at the end of his deal, and Roussell is still a solid 30 point forward with strong analytics against bottom 6 opponents, and he was signed as a UFA for $3M which was considered an overpayment.

The deal could work out fine, it's not as big a risk as some, I just don't see the big win scenario to make the risk worthwhile, and it's pretty obvious the Preds didn't have to give the term, it appears that they chose to do so. So it just seems a bit weird.


Guys like Sissons typically are not impact players in their 30's. If Poile could've signed him at a less AAV for 3-4 years I don't know why he wouldn't. But I don't disagree with your analysis.
Jul 24 at 2:07
#41
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 110
Likes: 77
Quoting: Brian2016
Guys like Sissons typically are not impact players in their 30's. If Poile could've signed him at a less AAV for 3-4 years I don't know why he wouldn't. But I don't disagree with your analysis.


That's kind of my point. Even if he is a great depth player, the difference between a decent depth player and a great one is very marginal.

It's so strange to me because it seems like Nashville paid extra to get that term, and I really am not sure why.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Submit Poll Edit