Great deal sure the term and NMC maybe aren’t ideal but the AAV is a steal

I sure hope more players take deals like this. Not necessarily term.. but team friendly.

Given how much you tend to see forwards like Nuge get nowadays, this is a steal, even at 8 years. Those signing bonuses do make it buyout-proof, though, which eliminates some of the safety net.

I like the AAV with Nugent-Hopkins. The term is eeek for me. Years 7 and 8 is when he is 35/36 years old. Low AAV for them to compete now, but potentially a buyout contract at the end of this contract. A future Oilers GM issue. Probably not Holland lol.

Closest equivalent I can think of Schenn who will be 6.5 until 36...for that I'd rather have Nuge.

Is a dollar in 2029 going to buy what a dollar buys today?

People complaining about the 8-year term don't appreciate the value of money over time.

Suppose the same $41 million was spent over 5 years instead of 8 (i.e., AAV of $8.2 million). Aside from the obvious benefit from a cap perspective, paying $8.2 million in 2021-2022 will probably be the equivalent of paying the $10.25 million due in the last two years of this contract. In effect, the Edmonton team finances would be better with the longer contract even if RNG doesn't play a minute in those two years, plus the Oilers would have the benefit of the sixth year!

Bottom line: the team always benefits from longer term at lower AAV, no matter how old and useless the player becomes.

Sacrificing a bit of term and the leverage of no clause was definitely worth it to get him at that AAV. Well done, Holland.

This seems like shallow philosophy at best.

No GM signs a deal thinking they'll need to buy it out down the road or adds that in as a factor to how the deal is structured. In fact I'd argue that a GM planning that sort of contingency is likely a piss-poor GM to begin with. Requiring the contingency of a buyout in a deal probably means the deal itself is a bad contract. It seems counter-intuitive to what it would take to be a good GM. Now, setting up the actual dollars owed to be less than the AAV in the final years of the deal? There inlies a proper safety net: the contract, akin to player performance, takes the decline of age into consideration. Cash-poor teams that need to hit the cap floor have a desire to take those kinds of contracts on, especially if Edmonton is offering retained salary in such a trade.

LTIR exists as the ultimate safety net should the player get injured: unless we're expecting RNH to completely forget how to play hockey, there's virtually no risk with this deal.

I find instances of thoughts like these more frequently: it's no secret that the NHL is always getting younger but there is no temporal boundary at whatever age (say 32) that suggests that a player must be bad because he's "sports old". Look at how many 36 year-olds had half-point-per-game or higher seasons this year. Look at the longevity of players objectively worse than RNH that have maintained careers into their late 30s.

Teams need to be less afraid of that 8-year term if it means they can save substantially on AAV. Good players will go into those final years with the soft skills they've developed (hockey IQ specifically) and provide more than those players that lacked higher dimensions to their games.

what this deal tells me is they are set on winning in the next 4-5 years. If not, Drai and McDavid are probably gone.

I suppose RNH is a fan of longer summer breaks. Can't figure out other reason for committing long-term in Edmonton.

Yeesh. The CF community proving that they over value aav in determining a contracts value, specifically looking at aav the way a toddler looks at a digital clock or a price tag (only looking at the first number)

The oilers saved like 800k from the expected aav and had to go to 8 years. At his age, you don't go to 8 years on a player of RNHs calibre, and to do it for so little?

This is a BAD contract.

Edit: Adding a full NMC for all 8 years just takes this to another level of bad - my god.

so youd go higher aav shorter term with a flat cap for the first 3 years... tough take

I mean, better to spend 800k more now than 5M more later

He had his worse year last year. How did he improve at all.... he had like 6 5v5 points playing with freaking mcdavid

I don't see this as a major issue as the cap limit will likely be over $90M by then.

Great AAV, 6 years probably would've been a bit better however.

Complete steal, thought he'd command over 7 mil.

8 is is a little much, but 5 mil is an absolute steal, great signing.

Nice contract. Gave extra term to lower the AAV.

The alternative was probably $6.5M x 6 - this gives Holland greater cap flexibility in the flat cap years. His $5M cap hit will become less and less impactful on the team as the upper limit starts to rise 3 or so years from now... by the time Nuge is in year 8, the upper limit could be as high as $100M. Five percent AAV for a 2LW / 3C (Nuge's floor, IMO) isn't bad at all - that's close to what Nazim Kadri (5.5%), David Perron (4.9%) and Cal Clutterbuck (4.3%) are making right now.

Hopefully Leafs can sign Hyman for less

not when your window is in the next 3-4 years.. you think nuge would only go for 6 on the open market?

Averages don't change. They are the average the whole time.

He'd be lucky to get six million to be honest.

you think with the lack of top6 C in free agency he wouldnt pull 6? tough take

Still, 5 million for someone who may be able to only go at fourth-line minutes or on LITR isn't ideal.

I'd bank on RNH aging like Spezza did though. Not much to worry about.