2 conclusions:

1. RNH got screwed.
2. Danault's next contract shouldn't have an AAV higher than 5M.

To much money, to much term, in my opinion.

RNH primarily plays wing with the Oilers. Eriksson EK has been primarily a center. Centers often get more money.

I mean we also got to consider the fact RNH had a bad season and primarily plays left wing with the oilers. Wings often make less money than centers

cause he clearly showed he cannot carry a line like Mcdavid or Draisaitl can

Give RNH Ek's wingers and he would show how he's a better center. Not his fault if EDM has no depth at wings.

First of all, if you're going to chirp someone, have the backbone to quote them.
Secondly, who pays their 3C 5M? Do you mean other than all the teams who do (who I have listed already)? Do you also understand what a range is and that 5M is the upper bounds for that calibre of player? Ofc not because all you do is look at basic **** and put no thought into it.

I mean, 1C's these days get 7M on bridge deals (which are intentionally deflated from market value due to term), so I don't know where you got the idea that 6M gets you a 1C that signed as a 1C.
Like if Barzal for example got term on the Island, that number starts with a 9, same with Point who could go as high as 11 no problem.

One I quoted you already on your dumb take…. Lol paying a 3c 5m is terrible cap management.

“ Do you also understand what a range is and that 5M is the upper bounds for that calibre of player?” 5m would be a guy that is normally a 2c or has the ability to be a really good 2c that is playing down the lineup due to talent above him. EK averages 40 points with average possession numbers who is a great shutdown guy. he’s a great 3c but hardly a really good or high end 2c which are the guys that make 5-8m. You just made a really stupid post and tried to use positions to justify money instead of skill sets. I used numbers to show where he actually sits which is a 3c. He’s a great 3c who the wild gave a ton of money to hoping he’ll be a 2c even though he’s not shown 2c abilities yet

“Basic stuff” cf% ff% xgf% points lol. Yeah good point this stuff is meaningless. You should write your comments in crayon


Lmfao you also listed 5 teams that have center at the awful price. One of those teams currently sits 17m over the cap and normally couldn’t afford YG at 3c lol. Almost every team you listed is currently in cap hell bc of the choice they made to pay a premium at that position also. Good point lol

I said low end 1c. The type of 1c that if they were on a cup contending team they'd be a 2c.

You just listed off guys like Barzal and Point who are payed 7 mil or under. I realize those are bridge deals, but those still count as contract, don't they? They have to be included in this. They are still 1c's, who signed contracts when we knew they were 1c's or at least high end 2c's/

The rule is more meant for long term contracts as I said before a bridge deal is intentionally deflated from their value to put off a pay day. So I do sort of count them in that I estimate what they would get on a contract with term based on their bridge deal (ew helps greatly with this).

What's ew?

Evolving wild contract projections. Covids obviously messed with some things but even with that they are still usually very accurate

Ya I think I've heard of them. They are usually somewhat accurate if I remember correctly.

Here are some of the last 2 years (I don't pay, but if you do they project all possible contracts 1-8 years). Its based of what guys have been paid, not what they are worth fwiw. A few noticable outliers here, but stars do tend to be off by the most. Their lower end player projections tend to be right on the money 95 times out of 100. Also Covid

Ok so lately they haven't been very accurate lol

Not sure how you got that conclusion. Nearly all of them look fine to me based on what we expected. Only big outliers I see is domi and maybe Ovi.
And their low end margin of error is in the 10's of thousands of dollars. Their r^2 is something like in the 80's. Edit: ITs actually nearly 90 lmao (THAT IS VERY GOOD)

Strome, Barrie, Dubois, Domi, Barzal, Reinhart, and Dadonov were all off by at least 2 mil.

Look at the term. This image shows a most likely term, which is often in the 20% range. If you pay you get to see all possibilities.
Just a point so you know, the image below's projected salary is based of the real term in comparison, not the projected salary for the projected term as this is a look back to test the success rate.

and also:

Not going to tag you in every post I make in the thread. How massive is your ego to think I care enough about your feels to do that lol. Range measures the distance from highest to the lowest value. It doesn’t mean you should justify overpaying or claiming that 5m is an intelligent amount to pay a 3c. Based off the teams you listed 85% of the NHL agrees lol. Just bc the highest 3c is 5m, which isn’t true bc it’s more than that based off the player you named, doesnt make that an ideal price point. Lol I’m laughing bc you don’t actually understand what range is but you are call me out on it. Irony is rich

Lmao bud you missed the point so hard its funny.
And I'm not sure you accusing a data scientist of not understanding a range is the path you want to take here (especially when you continue to demonstrate that you do not understand what a range is lol). Something something Dunning-Krueger.

Lol yes. I gave you exact definition of range.

Maybe you are just being lazy and not actually using range but some sort of half azz version

Staal is the highest paid 3c at 6m. GRAOVAC Was the lowest 3c at 700k. The range cough cough highest to lowest. Would be 700k to 6m. Obviously be a high end “ data scientist” you would understand what range is… (sarcasm). What you did was give a terrible chart or what you think a 3c should make which was 5m on a high end. That’s terrible / asking for a cap hell. A good price point for a 3c is 2m-3.5m. Less would be amazing.

In statistics, the range of a set of data is the difference between the largest and smallest values… lol community college level stuff. COVID must have lowered the standards for data science.

Specifically here is what they had at specific terms for the players you listed:
I can't find one on Barrie, but his season is Toronto was such a disaster that it became a unique situation.
Dubois took a short contract to help facilitate a trade. Had he signed under normal circumstances that is almost exaqctly how much everyone thought he would get. I cannot find what they projected on a 2 year term.
Cannot find one on Domi (although I did see one with a 5 year projected term in the 7's.) - Again he was an outlier.
Barzal signed a bridge deal and they projected an 8 year contract (3 year term was around 7 IIRC)
Reinhart went to ARB.
Dadonov pre-covid market falling apart should have been expected to sign almost exactly that contract. On lower term they were still pretty close.
And here is Strome:

After months of having to explain to Rangers fans that the term model was probably wrong and that Strome would probably sign for one or two years just short of $5 million, we can finally have closure. We had an AAV of $4.9 million for two years. https://t.co/K2Ueh3iuSZ

— Evolving-Hockey (@EvolvingHockey) November 5, 2020

You continueing to miss the point this hard is very funny, especially since you still don't properly use or understand the range here. I'm done with you as you are impossible. One last thing though is that I'd like to emphasize a previous point.
Something something Dunning-Krueger.

Oh, I know they were accurate pre covid. I was talking about post covid.

They still are in the 80's. Can't find an apporpriate chart but they announce it every summer, and often on contract signings.