SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

Danny12357

Member Since
Jul. 12, 2018
Favourite Team
Toronto Maple Leafs
2nd Favourite Team
Washington Capitals
Forum Posts
349
Posts per Day
0.2
Forum: NHL TradesMar. 6 at 3:09 p.m.
Forum: NHL SigningsMar. 4 at 9:00 a.m.
Forum: NHL SigningsJan. 26 at 12:50 p.m.
Forum: NHL SigningsJan. 26 at 12:41 p.m.
Forum: NHL SigningsJan. 12 at 12:00 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>Just to add, success at the cap really can only be measured with success on the ice. Virtually all teams spend to the cap. Dubas's Leafs made the playoffs every year and one playoff round.
Trevling's Flames missed the playoffs as much as they made it. Trevling two signings of Huberdeau and Kadri should have excluded him from ever being an NHL GM again.

I was no fan of Dubas with his TDL trades and some poor signings, but certainly he did better than Trevling.

PS like your analysis.</div></div>

I appreciate it. I think Dubas was a good GM, very good when factoring in his lack of experience, but he wasn't "The best GM" and like every GM in hockey, he had things he did really well, and things he didn't do as well. Signing contracts was actually a strength, and his trades were often creative. But he seemed to also know what his image was, and he seemed to resent it and sometimes make moves that made no sense just to offset that image. Whether it was selling the farm for a broken foligno to show how much he cares about grit and character, or forcing a trade due to optics like when he traded away Kadri.

I don't get why every analysis of every GM is they were either the GOAT or they sucked. Need to be more room for nuance and critique where you can say something positive or negative about a GM without painting every decision they make in one particular light. No GM has a 100% hit it out of the park track record.
Forum: NHL SigningsJan. 10 at 1:44 p.m.
Forum: NHL SigningsJan. 8 at 1:43 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Random2152</b></div><div>First of all, Nylander is worth 11 mil. I've been saying this for a long time now. If you don't think so - you're simply wrong

Second, he signed at a similar cap% as comparable wingers at the time like Benn, Stone, and Perry. Don't let the raw number fool you this isnt out of the blue.

Third and most importantly, Trev completely ****ed this negotiation up. If they were scared Nylander might walk - the time to "cave in" was in the summer. As it stands Nylander is at peak value and there is no reason to cave now 30 some odd games after refusing to go above 9mil. They should have waited out the year and let Reinhart get a comparable deal or let Willie cool off. Even if he didn't they could always just pay him this in June no problem. No one in the league can match 92 million dollars!

There was no risk!

What a horrible GM Trev has turned out to be. Worst fears confirmed about him

Fourth, I am very exited to have Willie be a life long leaf. Amazing player who has the perfect mentality for the market. Ideal Leaf and for that reason its still a good deal even with Trev being a panicky idiot.

I expect CF to vote it down. They also voted down both Matthews deals so that should tell you how little you should value that

Of course there are the usual worries about deals like this aging but I don't see any reason to suggest the risk is any more than any other comparable star so whatever. Would have liked us to get this down to 5 or 6 years given the aav, but I'll live with it.

<img class="for_img" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GDVC7IAWgAI_jSc?format=jpg&amp;name=small" alt="GDVC7IAWgAI_jSc?format=jpg&amp;name=small">

I figure he will drop down to somewhere around a point per game to a 100 point pace for the next few years, and that's fine for what he will cost</div></div>

This is pretty bang on. This contract is far better than losing Nylander for nothing, and if you were trying to win this player over to your team, you sign it in a heartbeat.

The big L here for BT is that he allowed it to get to this point. There was a lot of risk of this happening, and it was obviously there. Expectations changed the second the NHL announced a cap increase for next season, and throw in Nylander's point streak and another year where he just plain looks better than the year prior (which has been Nylander's trajectory) and you basically have a GM that lit $1.5M in cap space on fire trying to save $500K. That's a terrible bet.

Reality is, when the Leafs ask was just under $9M and Nylander was at $10M, they should have realized there was more for Nylander to gain than the Leafs, and should have hammered away at it until a deal was done in the offseason. You could have just caved and gave him $10M and that would have been a win in hindsight.

BT's decision making has been mostly very poor with Toronto, but I think it's Shanahan that really should be feeling the heat. Forget about what people think of Dubas, but how does a president of hockey operations go from offering an extension to Dubas to firing him over a 48 hour period with no backup plan in place? What other organization would fire their GM in the middle of their competitive window? I mean I get the lack of playoff wins, but still, no other team would fire a GM of a team that has the record that the Leafs had over the last 5 seasons, especially going into an absolutely critical 24 month window where every star forward will need a new contract.

If this Leafs core ever wins, it's now going to be in spite of management, not assisted by it.
Forum: NHL SigningsJul. 10, 2023 at 9:35 a.m.
Forum: NHL SigningsJul. 10, 2023 at 8:58 a.m.
Forum: NHL TradesJul. 10, 2023 at 8:47 a.m.
Forum: NHL SigningsJul. 4, 2023 at 9:38 a.m.
Forum: NHL SigningsJul. 4, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.
Forum: NHL TradesJun. 29, 2023 at 3:54 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Danny12357</b></div><div>This is an easy Blackhawks win. Not all cap dumps are equal, as the player you absorb and actual salary paid are a real consideration.

Chicago has a legitimate need for NHL veteran's to insulate their picks and prospects, and chances are Chicago would have to pay a bit of a premium in free agency to sign those players. Maybe they could have gotten a better player on a 1 year $3.5M (Bailey's real dollar cost next season) contract in free agency, but I can't imagine they would be much better off, so a 2nd round pick to jump the line and absorb some dead cap for a year is an easy deal to justify.

Paying a 2nd to remove a $5M contract isn't necessarily awful, but it's not ideal, and it really feels like a steep price to pay given the fact that Bailey is still a decent 3rd line winger (Maybe better if last year was more of a down year than pure decline), only has a year left, and is making considerably less than his cap hit.</div></div>

Well the first part of this take aged poorly haha. I didn't see Bailey play much last year, his point totals were down, but I assumed with how Bad Chicago is, that a veteran rebound candidate would be worth a little something, but apparently they will be buying him out. They gave Foligno $4M for a year by choice, so not sure why keeping Bailey on the roster for $3.5M is so unappetizing, but a 2nd for nothing but cap space and cash is still a win for a team that is rebuilding.
Forum: NHL SigningsJun. 29, 2023 at 11:45 a.m.
Forum: NHL SigningsJun. 29, 2023 at 11:35 a.m.
Forum: NHL TradesJun. 29, 2023 at 11:23 a.m.
Forum: NHL SigningsJun. 5, 2023 at 2:23 p.m.
Forum: NHL SigningsMar. 17, 2023 at 12:48 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>DongLord23</b></div><div>Bergeron was not typical 1C money. Other 1Cs at the time.

Malkin 8x9.5M
Crosby 12x8.7M
Staal 7x8.25M
Getzlaf 8x8.25M
Stamkos 5x7.5M
....
Bergeron 8x6.875M

It was a huge discount compared to other top centers. Dude could've easily pushed for more than 8M a year.

Marchand was also a team friendly deal. He was 6th in goals and got 6.125M. His deal was similar to Kyle Okposo &amp; Brandon Saad. He could've also pushed for way more.</div></div>

I don't see Bergeron's deal as a huge discount compared to that list when you take it into context. That was Bergeron's 4th contract, and the list you mentioned was 2nd and 3rd contracts. Bergeron was older than any of those players were at the time of signing, meaning those 8 years were riskier. I think he could absolutely have pushed for more, but that's almost always true, and also would have been true for most of those players. Bergeron managed to age so much better than anyone could have expected given his early career injury history, and that is a huge part of that deal turning out to be such a massive value for the Bruins.

Marchand is a bit of a different animal. He again was older, that was his 4th contract, and his contract season was considered a bit of a breakout year, but he was still very underrated by the league (including the Bruins), so I am not sure he could have pushed the deal he got all that much higher. A 7 year deal from the open market would have been a higher AAV for sure, but I doubt he had the clout at that time to get much north of $7M unless he was willing to sign with just anyone. He was a better player than Okposo, but I don't think that was the consensus opinon back when he signed that deal, and again, it's hindsight that makes it look like he took some massive discount.

Marchand though was more of a case of a team finally realizing what they had. Marchand didn't just magically become an offensive force at 28. He was already putting up superstar level production, but his reputation as a shift disturber seemed to decrease the attention his ridiculous offensive skills should have garnered. The guy started putting up elite level scoring rates from his sophmore season onward. The totals just lagged the reality because he was getting less than 15 minutes a night, playing with 3rd line talent mostly and very little powerplay time. Even in his breakout season, he barely got any powerplay time, and as soon as he got the extra minutes with more skilled line mates and top PP time, his totals went up, but his production rates were quite similar.

The reality with Marchand is the Bruins did well by finally figuring out what they had, but signing him before it was obvious that he was an absolute superstar. Both Bergeron and Marchand's contracts were amazing value, but I think that's something that became more obvious after the fact than something that was common knowledge at the time of signing, so I don't know there was as much more money out there for them to get than was often said. The Bruins didn't do well on those deals because the players took incredibly selfless discounts, I think they just understood those players worth more than many other teams would have, and those deals ended up being terrific bets.
Forum: NHL SigningsMar. 17, 2023 at 12:11 p.m.
Forum: NHL TradesMar. 6, 2023 at 7:52 a.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Koskinen_The_Great</b></div><div>This.
Drives me so crazy when people say a team in their window lost a trade and overpaid. What's the alternative? Sit on your hands and wait out the window. Sometimes, you dont get what you want, sometimes, you have to fold, it doesnt mean that you lose in the end.

Wininng trades is meaningless in the scheme of things. Marc Bergevin might have won every trade, I think, besides Drouin but he read his team wrong when they needed to tear it down and not continue to be average with elite goaltending from Price.</div></div>

Bergevin is one of the first GMs I think of when talking about how much more important it is to prioritize long term strategy over winning every single trade, but the best trade to showcase the impact is the J.T. Miller trade to Vancouver.

Looking only at the return for Miller compared to his cap hit, age, and production after the trade should have made that a slam dunk win for Vancouver. Instead Vancouver has wasted 4 seasons of Petterson and Hughes, and are in worse shape than they started with an older core, worse cap situation, and weak prospect pool, while Tampa has been easily the most successful NHL franchise since that trade has been made. This is largely driven by the fact that Tampa made a trade that was rationally based on where they were as an organization, and what they needed to succeed, while Vancouver made their trade based on essentially on the delusion that they were far closer to being a contender than they were.
Forum: NHL TradesMar. 2, 2023 at 8:02 a.m.
This trade is horrible for Vancouver, and it's the best move Yzerman has made in quite awhile.

The thing with this trade is that the value isn't crazy. If Edmonton made a similar trade, you can accept it. This is because when you trade in a way that makes strategic sense for where your team is on it's trajectory, you don't need to "win" every trade. You can break even on trades, or even lose in terms of overall value, but if the trades converts value that is less useful for you into value that is more useful, you can do ok, and your moves are defensible and less risky. In those scenarios, you can either break even, or win your trades on average, without worrying about the direct outcome of each individual trade. It's why the strategy of tearing it down and building it up is so strong. Just following the blueprint and doing ok in your trades works out fine. If you are in the rebuild mode, you can trade current value for future value, and as long as you do OK on average, your blueprint will lead to a period of contention and relevance. You need to stick to it, and avoid any false starts, but you don't need to win every single trade outright. Same is true with contenders, you can somewhat trade away assets that would mostly have helped you stay mediocre during a phase where maybe you should be rebuilding again, because those assets aren't going to be as valuable to you as players that can help your core potentially maximize their window.

However to do a real Re-tool on the fly, which is apparently what Vancouver is insisting on, you need to win your trades. Because you are basically trading current/near future value for current/near future value, the only way you improve is if you get significantly more value back than you traded away. Vancouver has not done that in this trade. They paid max value for a player that doesn't put them over the hump. The team that started this season was obviously no where near good enough to compete. Next year they will start without Horvat, but have Hronek and Beauvllier. That's a downgrade, and what they got for that downgrade, and that downgrade takes up as much cap space as they would likely have had to use to sign Horvat, and they got Raty as the prize for taking that downgrade. That just makes no sense.