Jul 12, 2018
Toronto Maple Leafs
2nd Favourite Team
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CN10</b></div><div>Term is the price they paid to keep the cap hit down. My guess is a 6 year term would have costed $1M AAV more. Without a NTC/NMC, if his play does fall off a cliff they can move him to a cap floor team towards the end of the deal as he makes $4M the last couple years. A buyout of the last two years is also only about $2M AAV on the cap. There will likely be a cap spike after the new TV deal and Seattle, so even the back side of the contract won't cripple them if he can maintain at least middle six caliber play for the last half of the contract. Overall, I'd say it's a fair deal.</div></div>
The buyout would cost just over $3.5M in year one, $3.8M in year two then just under $1.4M a year for two years. His salary dips, but it will cost assets to move if his play falls off completely. More and more teams are pressing toward the ceiling each year, with fewer teams having big amounts of cap space, assuming it will be easy to offload him later shouldn't be something that makes the deal seem reasonable.
Also, I am not sure why so many people feel this AAV is such a steal. What would be his fair market value on a reasonable term? $7M x 4 years? I am not saying there wouldn't be a GM that lost his mind and did more than that, but it doesn't make the player worth it. If this is the cost for this player, the Blues should have let him walk.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Icegirl</b></div><div>The $$ is actually a steal. The length, not so much.</div></div>
Personally I don't think the money is much of a steal either. Not that it's bad, on a 3 or 4 year deal I would say they managed to retain a UFA without overpaying, which is hard to do, but I still wouldn't be calling a steal, just good work getting a UFA for roughly fair value.
I know people will hate this comparison, but Brayden Schenn isn't signficantly better than Kevin Hayes. He's better, but they are both above average middle 6 wingers, neither is elite. Getting a slightly better above average middle six winger doesn't make your team significantly better, and the difference between them isn't worth a lot of cap space.
Kevin Hayes deal is bad, Schenn's deal is considerably worse. Hayes deal is 7 years, and buys the years between 27-34. Schenn's deal is 8 years and buys the years between 29-37. That is not a good look. Most would argue Kevin Hayes AAV was too high for any term, so I don't think there is enough difference between the AAV or their talent to go from overpaid on any term to steal. Maybe on a 1 or 2 year deal this is undervalued, but anything over that and it's likely just fair, and as soon as you pass 5 years the AAV should be falling considerably per year.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CoraStorm</b></div><div>this doesn't make sense n allow me to explain:
Marner earns 16 mil this year w 15.3 signing bonus... so ur saying it's applicable, that means in your opinion, come July 1st 15.3 less escrow % (if it's 15% = 13 or just over). there's no incentive of signing bonus other than time n I think u better look that up again</div></div>
Escrow does apply to signing bonus, but there are advantages to signing bonus over straight salary other than escrow. Because signing bonuses are paid in the summer, a player can end up paying significantly less tax depending on where their full time home is. Also, even if they live in the same place as they play, it's easier when getting one big amount to protect it from tax by sending it directly to an RCA, RRSP, or any other tax shelter. The time value of money is also quite significant in these scenarios as it allows players to invest very large sums of money, tax deferred, all at once. For a player like Marner, getting the nearly half of his salary paid out inside of 12 months allows for years of growth on a substantial part of his total contract value that would not have been possible if the money was more evenly distributed or back loaded.
<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 & 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.
This is a good deal all around. Chabot may not have a ton of NHL experience under his belt, but he has had very significant stretches where he has looked like this level of player or better, and this contract buys all of his prime years. That seems like a very smart bet.
Ekblad got a deal that was bigger than this (in cap hit percentage), that was completely a bet on his development, he never had any stretches where he really looked like a top tier #1 D, and still hasn't. Provorov hasn't really shown as much either, and his deal is very comparable when you factor in the extra two years UFA years purchased.
The bet has some potential to not work out, but he gets another full year of development and the cap rising before this deal even kicks in, so that likely increases the chances this deal becomes worth it, even if Chabot can't live up to the potential he showed in the first half of last year.
Aside from the buying of future years, it's important to see Ottawa sending a message that they are investing dollars now into the future. Both this, and the Colin White deal cost real money now, but are extremely likely to be value deals by the time this team is competitive, allowing them to spend to supplement their stars. Obviously there is a long way to go, but after the year they had last year, it's important to show that they do have at least some vision and optimism for the future.
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.
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.