Member Since
Jul 12, 2018
Favourite Team
Toronto Maple Leafs
2nd Favourite Team
Washington Capitals
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum Threads
Forum: NHL SigningsOct 4 at 11:59
Forum: NHL SigningsOct 4 at 11:45
Forum: NHL SigningsOct 4 at 10:14
Forum: NHL SigningsOct 3 at 1:34
Forum: NHL SigningsSep 30 at 9:55
Forum: NHL SigningsSep 27 at 2:28
Forum: NHL SigningsSep 25 at 1:36
Forum: NHL SigningsSep 25 at 1:35
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CN10</b></div><div>If you look into my linked ACGM post, I do have the fourth RFA year at $9M (Skinner) and the first UFA year at $10.5M (Kane) plus 3 RFA years at $7.5M (which is more than he's currently getting). This gets me to the 5 year $8.4M. For a 6th year assume another $10.5M (Kane) which brings it to $8.75M AAV. Therefore, I don't think Tkachuk would get over $9M AAV on a six year deal from Treliving.

Now that his current contract is essentially equivalent to a 4 x $7.5M (assuming he just signs his $9M QO to go UFA), and applying the same $10.5M - $11.5M (Kane - Panarin) to UFA years, the 5 year AAV should be $8.1M - $8.3M and the 6 year AAV would be $8.5 - $$8.833M. These are very player friendly as I don't think Tkachuk is as good as Kane &amp; Panarin, which is why I thought they may be able to drive down the AAV a bit to the neighborhood of 6 x $8.333M, which they could have fit by moving Czarnik.

Regardless, I'm happy they have him to a good value in their Johnny + Gio window, and in 3 years time they have a decent amount of flexibility to choose a direction to go in and hopefully keep the group together if they've had some team success.</div></div>

A 5 year deal might have some chance of coming in at around the Aho number, but I have my doubts it would be that simple. I don't think using Kane's UFA number of $10.5M is a reasonable estimate at all of what Tkachuk's UFA years would be worth. Tkachuck's first UFA year will be 2024, which is 10 years after Kane's first UFA year.

Maybe Tkachuck can't get the $9M+ AAV on a 6 year deal from BT, which is why we are sitting here with a bridge deal, but I highly doubt that Calgary could have gotten term unless they offered north of $9M from Tkachuck either. Maybe he would ahve done a 5 year in the mid to high 8's, but I think it's unlikely that given this deal.
Forum: NHL SigningsSep 25 at 12:48
Forum: NHL SigningsSep 25 at 12:34
Forum: NHL SigningsSep 25 at 12:29
I think this is the only deal that really worked for Calgary as they won't be forced to make a deal to be compliant ahead of the season opener. I am leaning toward thinking short term deals as being the best way to deal with RFAs, but we wont' know for sure until the end of these deals if it's the best strategy (versus what a 6-8 year deal would look like). I do think that a lot of RFAs seem to want something closer to what a UFA deal would look like if they were to accept considerable term (maybe not to the extent Marner got) and since UFA value represents kind of a cap for an RFA, I think the best way to save the most money may be takign the bigger discount in the short term and negotiating with the RFA almost as if he was a UFA at the end to get additional term. You still have the benefit then of not being too concerned about longer term if they want it by that point, since they are young enough that the final years of that deal are probably still good just by virtue of the cap increasing, even if the player has started their decline.

The only caveat to this is it does allow the players to walk as a UFA at year 4. There is no stopping the player from just accepting the QO or filing arbitration for one year award after the final year, so that is really the biggest risk with the 3 year bridge.

Either way you look at it, $7M is a number that Tkachuk should easily be worth for each of the 3 years, and it buys calgary some time to see how their team is progressing and which direction they want to go.
Forum: NHL SigningsSep 23 at 1:28
Forum: NHL SigningsSep 23 at 12:58
Forum: NHL SigningsSep 19 at 8:31
Forum: NHL SigningsSep 19 at 1:46
Forum: NHL SigningsSep 17 at 7:03
I voted yes because there is no way to argue that Boeser won't out perform this value, he will.

This deal is high for a bridge deal based on comparables, but we are seeing a massive change in the market place, so it's hard to argue it isn't fair.

My biggest criticism is that the Canucks aren't a great team, and gave up a 1st round pick to take on a salary that didn't allow them to go longer term. They would have been better served by keeping their first, saving salary space, and trying to get a 7 or 8 year deal rather than push this out for 3 years. They now need to re-sign Boeser a year after Petterson and the same year as Hughes. The deal is good, the strategy seems flawed.

The qualifying offer stuff is getting copied from the Meier deal, but players aren't gaining anything from it. Meier's QO is a number was 167% of his AAV, which is a big increase, and guarantees him a lot of leverage going into his next contract, so it was done so he would accept a lower AAV. These other deals, the bridge seems to be for about fair value, and the qualifying offers are less than 150% of the AAV, so I don't get the point? The players would be better off getting their money sooner in signing bonus, but instead they need to get underpaid in actual dollars for 2 years, and get all salary in year 3. The crappy part from the players point of view, is that it accomplishes nothing. All of these players would be arbitration eligible when their deals expire, and if they wanted to force a one year deal I don't see any way that these guys wouldn't get arbitration awards bigger than these qualifying offers they are building. Honestly, if any of them performs poorly enough that they wouldn't get that type of award, they many not even get qualified.
Forum: NHL SigningsSep 13 at 9:18
This was a close deal for me to say whether or not I liked the value of, but the pro's far outweigh the cons.

The downside, the deal itself is expensive, and is high compared to the previous market for 2nd contracts on RFA wingers, and likely going to look a little high even after his peers this year sign. For those reasons. It's hard to say how high compared to those other deals, but I have a feeling this will be the biggest AAV of any of the 2nd contracts.

The upside is that Dubas was given what most called an impossible task. There were hockey analysts that Guaranteed that Nylander would be traded because there was no way to sign all of the big 3 after the Tavares contract. Then it was assumed that young wingers like Kapanen and Johnsson would likely be sacrificed, but instead they were signed to solid deals. Most thought Toronto wouldn't be able to address their blueline or take on additional cap hit until the Marner scenario was taken care of, but instead they make a trade where they get a reasonable 3rd line center and their coveted RHD as well as move out the Marleau and Zaitsev contracts. Then it was assumed that Marner would be sitting to start the year, and that the only solution was a bridge deal, but instead Marner is signed for a term that isn't 5 years.

The reality is the Leafs are likely going into the season as a top 5-6 team in the NHL, they are at the cap but their core is locked up to considerable term, their team is young and their window should be several years, and their cap situation actually starts ease up when they are no longer riding the constant LTIR carousel and Ceci's deal comes off the books. Considering how impossible the to do list seemed, and the most people would have assumed the Leafs current depth chart wouldn't be cap compliant if it had been handed to you without salaries next to the names back when they announced the $81.5M cap, it's hard to say it's a bad deal. It's certainly not a steal, but to call it bad seems just factually incorrect considering the undertaking, and I think having it done with no missed games just puts it over the line to being positive.