Do you really think he is worth 12M? Just want your opinion. I see people offering 13M and all kinds of crap.

Barzal would sign 12 x 5 in a heartbeat. The amount of teams that would offer 12 x 5 : 0.

It's just silly. The Isles should take the four draft picks, to make up for that curious Pageau acquisition. In my view, he's worth what any really good young center is worth -- about $9 million per year. Plus, the five-year contract that I've seen is too short.

At my age, I've developed certain suspicions about how things work. In the real world, I think Barzal/his agent would get an offer, talk to the GM about it, and go from there. Only if Barzal wanted to become a free agent at 27 (and/or would be getting advice to do that) would he sign an offer sheet for five years.

elite 1C are so hard to find and develop and the islanders have made "win-now" moves by locking up nelson, lee, and Eberle. Losing barzal would be disastrous.

As for the pageau trade and extension, I am a big fan - and I think Lou Lamoriello has made some questionable moves since becoming GM. 3C has been a big hole on the islanders for a while, and their center depth within the organization is extremely thin. Casey Cizikas is the "4C" but he is able to control play and shutdown opposing teams top lines and he's a linchpin to the islanders. What he brings is worth several million to the islanders, and if you've watched them play without cizikas over the last month, its evident how much they miss him. Pageau is a younger version of cizikas with more offensive skill, and even though he is having a career year, he's always been a strong 5 v 5 play driver.

I wouldn't consider Barzal elite yet. He had a great rookie season. After that he's gotten about 20 less points the seasons after. He isn't worth even close to the rumored 12M. I rather have a center like Aho who puts up about as much, yet paid almost 4M less.

I hope when Vilardi and Turcotte are due for new contracts it's less than 9M lol

He's better now than during his rookie season. Trotz system is defense first, which resulted in Barzal's numbers taking a hit. Actually almost every player's production went down after trotz arrived.

Barzal would put up 80-90 points if he played on the canes. Aho is still better, but not by much. Barzal is 2nd in the NHL in ozone puck possession per game. 3rd, 4th, and 5th are McDavid, panarin, and Kane. He's also 2nd for zone entries. These stats correlate highly to scoring and winning games.

He's definitely elite , but he's not a top 5 center in the game and should't be paid like one. He deserves 7 mill x 3, 8.5-9 mill x 5 , 9.5-10 mill x 6 , 10.5-11 x 7/8

Teams aren't gonna offer sheet him more than 10.5M (2 1sts and a 2nd)



Add about 1M to each of those contracts. 8Mx3, 10Mx5, 10.5Mx6, 11+M for 7/8

Those trades are unrealistic.

You're gonna have to give up assets to dump Hickey's contract (a 3rd or more) (he's playing in the AHL and costing cap space buried) especially with cap space being so precious next year.

Also Ottawa rejects. Ho-sang has no trade value. He's worth like a 4th round pick. A 2nd is not low cost for a reclamation project (Puljujarvi couldn't even return that).

@OldNYIfan

This is a useful look at a $12M Barzal sheet. Nice work.

What will Beauvillier get on his next deal? Shaping up to be a seriously effective player.

You should check into the value of a fourth and a seventh. It will surprise you.

Not really.

We will see.

Okay then you can have a 4th and a 7th for him instead of the 2nd.

Great!! That works out better for us, because we can parlay those picks plus our own fourth into a better second (roughly #38) than the one of ours you own (roughly #50).

If you look historically two 4ths get you a mid 3rd but you can try.

If you look historically, you will see that a fourth and a seventh get you a third, which together with another fourth, get you a second. And, I get to keep my seventh!

We have now arrived together at the point I was trying to make, which is that I am willing to overpay slightly to get another second.

Source on the 4th and 7th getting a 3rd. Can you give examples?

Last year Pittsburgh a 4th, 5th and 7th to Arizona for a 3rd round pick

You're just making stuff up.

See Michael Schuckers 2016 Edition Draft Pick Value Chart. Educate yourself.

Here, for example, are some recent trades validating that paper's conclusions:

2019: Kings receive #50 (2nd) for Montreal's #64 (3rd) and #126 (5th)
2019: Minnesota receives #59 (2nd) for Carolina's #73 (3rd) and #99 (4th)
2018: Pittsburgh receives #58 (2nd) for #64 (3rd) and #146 (5th)
2018: Edmonton receives #62 (2nd) for #71 (3rd) and #133 (5th)
2017: Minnesota receives #60 (2nd) for Vancouver's #71 (3rd) and #101 (4th)

and so on.

No, I'm not making stuff up. You're ignorant.

I don't see the 4th and 7th getting a 3nd...

Also you said roughly 38th pick. All these 2nds are in the 50+ range... and these are for early 3rd round picks (which you already wouldn't be able to get with a 4th and a 7th.

I already knew about these trades but your statements don't add up.

Don't project your ignorance on me... have a nice day.

You're hilarious. You want to challenge the results of an academic paper (not mine, mind you), go right ahead. I'm sure that you have the academic credentials and research to do so. Have a nice day yourself. It's 69 degrees here in sunny southern California, or, with the wind-chill factor, 70.

I'm not challenging the paper. But your trades aren't the same as the ones in the paper. It argues against what you are saying... you probably didn't even read it. You are delusional.

The trades are EXACTLY what's set out in the paper, slanted towards the other team in both instances.

Ottawa's 4th = pick #96 Ottawa's 7th = pick #189*
NYI's 4th = pick #113*

Pick #96 (4th) plus pick #189 (7th) = 68 + 38 = 106 for pick #67 (3rd) = 95

Pick #67 (3rd) plus pick #113 (4th) = 95 + 57 = 152 for pick #38 (2nd) = 150

I'm just as suspicious as you about the value of the lower-range picks, so I allowed for a 10% variance there.

*Mind you, neither of these picks are in the teams' possession, but this was the parlay I was talking about. We would happily take a 2020 fourth and 2020 seventh and bootstrap that with a 2020 fourth and (according to the paper) arrive with a high second-round pick. Whether anyone would accommodate us is, of course, a different question.

P.S. {edit} Hilariously, the reason why I thought NY doesn't have a 2020 fourth is because it's the subject of this discussion and I was just looking up at this screen!

Okay sure but if we base it off real life no GM will trade #67 for #96 + #189. You might be able to move up 10 spots if you are lucky with a 7th not 30...

A late 4th doesn't move you up 30 spots in the draft to nearly a 1st round pick.

Teams have to pay a large premium to move up in the draft.

If I was Ottawa I wouldn't give up more than a 4th rounder for Ho-Sang (if Dorion felt strongly about his potential). I also realized Ottawa doesn't even have their 7th round pick.

Using that chart the Leafs could trade all their draft picks for the 8th overall pick...

All reasonable points.

Look, if you want to challenge the methodology, fine; as I said previously, I get more suspicious of these valuations the lower on the chart you go. And I've espoused some opinions that, upon mature reflection and/or justified criticism, I've come to realize are simply cuckoo. But don't go around saying I'm making stuff up. That makes you look very bad when I can produce incontrovertible evidence that my contentions have a source for their authority, however questionable that authority may be. It's fine for you to opine that I shouldn't rely on this paper; it's fine for you to opine that the paper is full of beans; it's fine for you to say that no GM in his right mind would make those trades and if I think that there is, I'm nuts; but don't go around saying I'm just making stuff up.

At first you argue that you would be taking a discount to get the 2nd round pick based on historical trades and now you're saying that you based what you said based off the paper (not a historical trade). You just changed what you were arguing.

If you can find multiple historical trades where a team turns two 4ths and a 7th into a 2nd. Then you win the argument. If you can't then stop digging you're hole even deeper.



For calling you out on your BS?



This paper didn't even show it's work and how it got it's data. It wouldn't get accepted into any scientific journal. To be basing all your beliefs on a questionable journal... is questionable at best.