Jul 12, 2018
Toronto Maple Leafs
2nd Favourite Team
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Brian2016</b></div><div>There are also intangibles. Backstrom is a winner. It's hard to quantify winning, but its gotta add substantial value.</div></div>
Absolutely. You don't want to consistently overpay for intangibles, and I don't think buying them from the UFA market works out very often, but there is something to be said for keeping a home grown legend like Backstrom. There is even some intangible value in being a GM who treats your most valuable players fairly. Players care about that sort of thing. I even like that Maclellan openly said that this deal wasn't about "winning the deal" it was about being fair to an important piece of this franchise's history.
When we look at signings, I look at a deal as being good or bad simply based on cost for the output. Is a player likely to live up to the value of the deal, and in those terms, I don't think this deal is good. It isn't the awful, I just think in the end, Backstrom will have had a hard time living up to the percentage of the cap he will be taking up for those season. However, hockey isn't just a game, it's a business, and the business and historic value of this deal definitely makes it reasonable and justifiable. I just think it's necessary to acknowledge that aspect of it when making a justification for this deal. I don't think comparing it to other contracts will make a great case for it.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Capitalfail67</b></div><div>Tavares signed an 8 year deal for 11 million 27-28? That takes him to he’s 35-36? Bäckström signed 5years at 32 he’ll be 37. Basically the same deal but the capitals paid far less money and get a similar player talent wise.</div></div>
The Tavares deal buys his age 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 seasons.
Backstrom's contract buys his age 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 seasons.
Backstrom's contract buys 3 full seasons of him at an older age then Tavares deal does, and the Tavares deal buys a lot more of his most productive years, so the comparison isn't really fair, Tavares contract is a far better value.
This contract isn't likely to be a good value, but you can defend the signing by acknowledging that by keeping Backstrom you keep the most successful core in this organizations history together, you give them the best chance at winning a 2nd title, as well as adding division titles, playoff rounds, and personal career milestones. Having Ovi and Backstrom finish their careers as Capitals, and being part of some very big and important moments can be as valuable to a franchise's history and business, as total on ice value. I don't mind that a GM was willing to compromise a little and likely acknowledge that Backstrom was underpaid for a lot of years while not completely handcuffing the team 8 years.
However I don't think you can make a good argument by comparing this contract against contracts signed by younger players. Backstrom is better than Duchene, but that contract is bad, so the comparison doesn't make Backstrom's contract look good. Backstrom isn't as productive today as Tavares so that comparison really doesn't help.
Signing Backstrom is good, and likely worth it, he is likely not going to live up to the cost for the duration of the contract. Both things can be true at once.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>tormundgiantsbane</b></div><div>This may be an unpopular opinion but I feel like when you win a Cup, this is easier to do. If they were still hunting for this group's first (that being Backstrom, Ovi, Carlson, etc.), I'd scoff at this deal. But I feel like when you win and remain competitive, it's lower stakes to make a move like this. He earned it, why not give it to him? By the time it expires, the Caps will probably be rebuilding anyway.</div></div>
GMs definitely have a lot of pressure off them to make this sort of deal after winning. It doesn't make it a good hockey strategy, but I do think it's fair to acknowledge that some GMs have expectations on them regarding the team as a business as well. This team has a cup, and looks to be a decent bet to take another run. Backstrom and Ovi have never played anywhere else, and are still big contributors. Overpaying to keep them together as they set all time franchise records, and have them retire as Caps likely has historic and business value.
So I think the value of the deal is bad (from a purely strategic standpoint), I don't think it makes the caps management stupid for doing this.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>exo2769</b></div><div>Unless they bust. I 110% get that the peak years are younger, but that's not always the case for every single player in the NHL. Backstrom is still playing at an elite level. There are also other components to this...how the team is doing. Sub Par teams like New Jersey can afford to spend $7M on Nico Hirshcer because they're banking on that contract being a good contract down the road. Has Clayton Keller with AZ earned with $7.1M yet? no. TOR has done that for Matthews/Marner/Nylander. They're cap strapped this year, but down the road they're hoping these contracts are steals. Another part is team construction down the road. WAS is a team has (who they believe is) Backstroms replacement developing in London. there will be 3 of those 5 years with an ELC as a center.</div></div>
The issue for me isn't just the peak years, it's that this is a contract that looks kind of OK based on what he is doing this second. Even if he plays up to his recent standard for all 5 seasons of the deal, it will have just been fair. Given that very very few players avoid decline from ages 33-37, it seems like a bad bet.
Now all that being said, I am talking about this purely in terms of value for the deal. I don't think this is a good value for the player. However GMs of some teams do have other considerations than making the correct "value" decision at all times. Fans, ticket sales, history are all important.
There are other things that can be nearly as valuable to a teams history as winning a championship. Ovi has a shot at the all time goals record, and he is almost certainly getting to second place. Historically speaking, keeping Ovi and Backstrom together and them retiring as caps, and sharing moments like that together have a lot of value to the franchise other than wins or losses. So I am not just bashing the decision to keep Backstrom, but I think in a vacuum where all you are concerned about is value for the cap hit, this isn't a good bet to be a good use of a cap hit. If this is the only way from getting Backstrom to test the market, I get the value in trying to make sure he and Ovi retire as Caps.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Laudan</b></div><div>My problem with it is what some already pointed out......2M for bottom Pair D isnt affordable, especially not for TML with knowing Sandin - Liljegren can fill those spots next year for 750k and 50M tighed for 7 Forwards. Current stats are GA 26th......SA 28th......SCA 23th......PP 7th......PK 26th....and thats with Muzzin as only one being considered to play what it should be called proper D. If he wont be re-signed, that leaves TML in the need for 3 ( THREE ) Top 4 Ds if you dont want to go thru Burke ( and the others, you know ) Era again where mindset was Kaberle - McCabe is enough to bring Parade into town. History shows it doesnt.
Same goes for Dermott when he will be signed ( im assuming 3 x 2,5M or even more if Holl got 2M for the first official Season not even ended ), those two guys are No.5 Ds, Dermott having an upside to be swimming in No.4 D pool at bottom of the list and that wont be enough. Not that i dont like both two kids, they are trying, they are doing their job as requested ( Holl still with to many giveaways ), but TML fans and Office are seeing them as competent mostly cause theres no other alternative or as i said, the 30 years and more thinking "one Top Pair is enough" still lives in TML Office.</div></div>
I think Holl is worth $2M, and I like this signing for the Leafs.
I think if you are going to knock anything, the argument could be made that the Leafs Cap Strategy may not make sense (I think it does, but it is different so it is more valid to take issue with it).
The Leafs are likely aim to commit about 65% of their cap hit to their starting forward group. Then about 25% or so to their D core, and the remaining to goal tending and depth. That means they value forward more than D, and I think that is a strategy they intend to employ.
To me this means the Leafs plan to commit roughly $21M to their top 6 D next year. Rielly and Holl make up $7M, and Dermott likely costs less than $3M, assuming you have at least one league minimum or ELC player playing, the Leafs will have about $10-$11M they are willing to spend on two slots. I think Holl fits into this plan either way, so either the Leafs plan to blow most of that money on a single guy, or use it to create more depth. Either way, I think the plan is to commit roughly that to their D and likely not more, so I don't think the plan is to have Holl be a bottom pair ( in terms of salary), unless there is another guy making just a little more (possibly dermott). I think the Leafs will have no more than 3 guys making more than $3.5M next year, possibly just two.
The benefit they do have, is that if they feel like committing so little to their D is costing them, their forward contracts are all fair value or better, and can be pretty easily moved to reallocate their cap and value. However, I don't think it's likely Dubas abandons this strategy very quickly, which is why I think Holl got 3 years.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Random2152</b></div><div>He hasn't earned it yet but I like his potential upside. Will be interested to see if he can live up to this deal
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Not seeing the appeal to giving Rasmus Andersson a 6x4.5m deal. <a href="https://t.co/U0pen0ftji">pic.twitter.com/U0pen0ftji</a></p>— Micah Blake McCurdy (@IneffectiveMath) <a href="https://twitter.com/IneffectiveMath/status/1215069604474773504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Yeah, this is a good stats vs tools argument. Realistically, scouts have said his skill set should translate to being an top 4 NHL player, I haven't watched him much, I believe he has gotten some tough minutes, but the underlying numbers don't look great, however when you think about signings, you are really should be betting on what you are going to get, not paying for what you got so far. So in general, the odds of a 23 year old D man improving enough to be worth over $4.5M are better uses of the money they hoping Hamonic can stay worth $5M+ into his 30's. Obviously you would like the numbers to indicate that this deal is already a home run, but if that were the case, then the flames probably couldn't get this deal.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>hanson493</b></div><div>I dont disagree, but at the same time, as ive mentioned multiple times, krejcis deal ends next year. bergeron the year after. Idk if you are a bruins fan but i know what our center prospects are right now. we have studnicka, beecher, frederic, shen. Studnicka looks good, frederic hasnt looked good when he plays up here. Beecher is a rookie. shen they just brought into the ahl. Im under the assumption krejci will not be back after this contract is up. which would slot coyle in as a 2c. 5.25m for a 2c is not bad. lets studnicka get a real feel for the nhl. at 3c then takes over 1st line duties for bergy when his contract is up, hopefully he comes back at a lesser hit and becomes our 3rd c kinda like what thornton is doing with the sharks. But with Bergys groin history i dont see that as likely. Coyle is very dependable, you know what you are getting. I like the signing, i think its a slight overpay by about 250k but ide rather overpay 250k than overpay millions on a similar player.</div></div>
I am not a bruins fan, but I just don't like the signing.
However, it isn't the dollar figure I dislike as much as the term. Personally, if he wanted $5.5 or $5.75M and signed to 3 or 4 years, I would be more inclined to like the signing even if the AAV was a bit much. To me, the AAV is already not ideal, which is why I don't like the extra term, it didn't bring the price down.
Either way, I don't think Boston's cap situation is going to get bad because of a single signing, this signing isn't that level of bad, I just don't like the bet and I don't like the fit long term.
I think there is a lot of value in flexibility, and when you think about the decisions Boston may face in a couple of years (Krejci is a 35 year old UFA, Bergeron will be 1 year from UFA and 36, Marchand will be 33, and Pastrnak will be two years away from a likely massive raise), I don't like commitments that run well past then to non-essential players.
If this is the worst contract Boston signs in the next 3-5 years, they will be in good shape, this would be a good worst contract, but in a vacuum, it doesn't make me like this contract in terms of it's value.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>hanson493</b></div><div>Literally almost all of those named above have been injured or have a terrible injury history, okposo, concussions, callahan degenerative back, ladd fell off a little but hes also injured right now, filppula was on dominant lines in tampa. little is injured now but hes producing 40+ points still. hanzal injured, weiss sucks are we really putting him in this category, zajac is still fine. like idk coyles a different animal. i mean coyle had some terrible linemates in minnesota, he isnt having the greatest linemates this year but hes still on pace for 40 points bouncing around the lineup.</div></div>
Again, this isn't saying Coyle isn't a decent player, but decent players don't make great bets as signings for Term with this percentage of the cap.
Signing a UFA is a bet on what kind of value you think you will get on the contract. When you go with a longer term, you should either be betting that A) the player will either likely stay at their current value, thus creating savings as the cap increases through cost certainty, or B) The additional years got the cap hit down so that the player can out perform their contract early, when the cap savings are more important, in exchange for being undervalued later.
Coyle certainly wasn't underpaid on this deal compared to what this type of player typically commands on the UFA market, so the extra years didn't seem to bring his cap hit down, and it has historically been a bad bet to go longer term on mid roster players unless you are getting a significant cap savings.
The Bruins have a great cap situation at the top of their roster. No team boasts as much value per dollar spent on their top 3 forwards as Boston does, no team is even remotely close. So they can afford this in the shorter term, but personally, I think this is the part of your roster where GMs need to be the most shrewd since this is the type of player that most often turns into the worst contracts in the league.
This is a good bet by the Leafs. It wouldn't be a hard contract to get out from under if need be, but realistically, he will likely outpeform the cost by a significant amount.
Holl has played like a legitmate 2nd pair shut down D this season. A lot is made of the Leafs having a weak D core, and while the group hasn't produced the results you would like to see as a whole this season, saying the group is weak is a bit simplistic.
The team has been a middle of the road defensive team since Keefe took over. They have been a juggernaut offensively, and Barrie and Rielly give up quite a bit defensively, but they easily make up for it at the other end. Barrie and Muzzin have actually looked like a top a pretty high end shut down duo since the coaching change, and if you consider that none of the Leafs forwards lines really constitues a shutdown line, I think their results have been pretty impressive.
The gamble hasn't been Holl's performance, it's the sample size and age. The bet here is that Holl is pretty much what we have seen this year, and if he is, or is even close, this is a slam dunk win. However, they are betting on a 27 year old former ECHL defensemen having essentially a good half season in the NHL. That's a small sample size. That's the risk in this, as they are giving him 3 years.
All in all, Keefe and Dubas feel vindicated as they saw his ability in the NHL and were extremely high on him, and were sure that he was an NHL player if given the shot. So now that he made good on his shot, they feel strongly enough that this deal is a big time win.
Personally, I like gambles like this, because they are easy to get away from. Moving a $2M D isn't hard, and given that you could pay a #6 D this kind of money and still not have it be wasted, they don't need to be 100% right for this deal to be OK. Realistically this is the type of bet Dubas needs to make since he placed so much of his payroll at the top of his line up. If he can't grab value on some deals like this from time to time, the large committment to his star forwards isn't workable.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>hanson493</b></div><div>He is 27 will be 28 in march, his contract will end after he just turns 34 yo. "keep it going into his 30s" dude its not like hes going to be 39 with a 5m contract like marleau was given. he is in the prime of his career. By extending him, they are making coyle part of their core. They did the same exact thing with bergeron, krejci, marchand etc. There arent that many players that fall off from a 50 point pace to below 30 at 33. maybe the last year is a bad contract but you sacrifice a year for the good years thats typically how these things work.</div></div>
There are numerous examples of players around Coyle's level of production falling off drastically, in fact I would say the majority of players who produce around 45 points a year fall off very drastically in their early 30's.
Ladd, Okposo, Little, Dubinsky, Callahan, Fillpula, Hanzal, Weiss, Zajac, etc.
It's actually far harder to find guys around this level who stayed valuable into even a year or two into their 30's.
Some of these guys are still NHL quality players, but any team that committed term to them usually ends up regretting it. Meanwhile, the upside just isn't there. He isn't going to turn into a bonafide 30 goal threat capable of driving the results of a strong scoring line all of a sudden.
Overall, it just seems like a bad bet.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>hanson493</b></div><div>He will likely be their 2 c when krecji walks next year. could be a 1c (not so much points wise but play wise) if Bergeron misses time.</div></div>
That's based on opportunity though, I mean will the 2nd line be strong if Coyle is the guy you are building it around? Or do you need at least one winger that is significantly more valuable than he is in order to have a good 2nd line?
I just think that in general, contracts signed at this price point (6.25-7.5% of the cap) and term (5 or more years) for complimentary forwards in their late 20's are usually awkward bets. For instance, let's say that the player you think is worth that amount is a 20 goal, 45 point versatile player who kills penalties. That could be close to fair, but how many players whose ceiling looks to be about that stay around that level from 27-33? When you look at all the recent (relatively) contracts signed for guys around 26-28 in that price range, it's a mixture of contracts that look pretty bad in retrospect (Nielson, Dubinsky, Little, Sutter, Anisimov, Fillpula), with the most positive contracts looking like maybe Brock Nelsons, and that one is still early.
The issue ends up being that it's hard for a player of this caliber (good complimentary player) to massively outperform the contract as they likely are the player they are, and if anything injuries and age will likely decrease their value long before the contract expires. Coyle will likely be worth a chunk of this contract, it just feels like there is far more room for him to under perform it than there is for him to outperform it.
<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.