SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

dca919

Member Since
Jul. 12, 2018
Forum Posts
949
Posts per Day
0.4
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 15 at 2:13 a.m.
Thread: Yzerman might actually be predictable this off-season
Cale Makar, Rasmus Dahlin, Owen Power, and Jake Sanderson represent the perfect example of the outcome I am alluding to.

Cale Makar = ELC then 6 year extension
Rasmus Dahlin = ELC then bridge then 8 year extension
Owen Power = ELC then 7 year extension
Jake Sanderson = ELC then 8 year extension

Makar costs 2.854M (because of performance bonuses) from 20-23 and 9M from age 23-28.
Dahlin cost 3.775M (because of performance bonuses) from age 18-20 and 6M from ages 21-23 and 11M from ages 24-31.
Power costs 1.85M (because of performance bonuses) from 19-21 and 8.35M from ages 22-28.
Sanderson cost 1.85M (because of performance bonuses) from 19-21 and 8.05M from ages 22-29.

There are real scenarios from Seider's contemporaries that were signed in recent years. So Bridging Dahlin meant overpaying starting at age 24 while saving during the age 29-31 years.

That has no relevance to Seider because Seider was over-ripened (overseas) so he had 2 ELC slide years making his ELC start at age 20. At 23 now an 8 year deal would take him to start that last year of an 8 year deal at age 30. It makes absolutely no sense to give up what we can plainly see is approx 3M in extra salary for a three year bridge deal reprieve and end the next contract at age 33 instead. Meaning from ages 26-30 you are paying 3M more than you would be if you signed him to a long-term deal instead of a bridge deal vs paying more from ages 31-33 without that bridge deal.

Beyond that you face the pressure from that 1 year game of chicken after the bridge deal expires where Seider would have more negotiating leverage and can simply threaten arbitration of 1 year and the following summer leave as an UFA at age 27. This can mess with the entire makeup of an organization.

If we disagree on these points it's not worth further discussion.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 15 at 1:28 a.m.
Thread: Yzerman might actually be predictable this off-season
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LuckyMoneyPuck</b></div><div>that's just absurd reasoning. Many teams sign bridge deals and it's not an issue.
On top of it, it is very rare a player gets to arbitration today.
also don't assume it has to be a 3 year bridge, plenty players sign 2 year deals</div></div>

Teams don't sign superstars to bridge deals unless they are towing the salary cap like Vancouver was (from Tyler Myers fiasco among others)

2 year bridges are the same scenario except the pressure from UFA is applied in year 2 beyond the bridge deal instead of year 1.

It's not going to arbitration that is the issue: it's the leverage to negotiate a fair market contract in that walk year (team cant simply say sit out then as an arbitrator can say no you have to pay x or walk away from the player and they become an UFA). You don't understand leverage and walk years.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 15 at 1:19 a.m.
Thread: Yzerman might actually be predictable this off-season
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LuckyMoneyPuck</b></div><div>this depends how you view your window though. Because much like Pettersson if he signs at 8 years at 22, you are now almost half way though the contract and just starting to compete. Do you think your window closes with Pettersson at 30? Because if you are saying to yourself, no our window goes to 33-34... then You are now paying way more for that contract in those last 2 years really hurting your cap and probably harder to deal with as you have a whole team build around winning now. You are hamstrung on the back end of those years on how you construct your roster because you know, I have to pay Pettersson in 2 years etc....
This is why I said above, gaining the 2 years at minimal cost is worth the risk assessment. If he makes 9 something as opposed to 8 something, you only save 1 mil more x 8 or 8 mil. But you gain 4 of that on the first 2 years. so it's like saying ok, 500k x8 more. who cares. You get 2 more years and 2 more years is worth 500k more or 1 mil against the cap.
This idea that he's going to make 11+ mil is bogus, he's not making that. it's most likely 9-9.5 mil. Like other guys have got. Even with the cap raise. The small cap hit raise from what you would have paid out this year, is worth keeping him to 33. Especially as it gets you out of the odd situation like Jake Guentzel was in, where you are looking at a guy who is 31 wanting a 7-8 year deal saying I can still play demanding top cap hit. But at 33 no one is going to listen to that even if he can still play at 33.
The whole idea here is capturing the most out of the player to create the biggest window. Instead of worrying about paying 1 mil more a year in cap and letting it cost you 2 years of the players window where you should be closing out your window if you built a team properly.</div></div>

You are arguing over 3rd vs 4th contract payouts...but you are discounting three big things:
1) The idea that management (the GM) has cost certainty and doesn't have to plan for a top dollar contract starting at year 2 of the bridge deal
2) And the cost savings on the back end of that 2nd contract (if they go long term instead of bridge)
<strong>3) that a player will actually sign an 8 (or 7--to another team) year deal for that 3rd contract (ELC, bridge, long-term) instead of maximizing their value by splitting it into shorter term deal so they can still hit another UFA in their prime years.</strong>

If you go bridge deal then you have 1 year of control left afterwards. His walk year where he controls the shots and you might not even negotiate until after the trade deadline to put the maximum pressure on losing him for nothing. Or he might pull a Tavares and not give you any indication that he isn't re-signing but never commit to it and then decide at noon on day 1 of free agency he is gone leaving you with nothing and fans scathing for your job.

Facts with a bridge deal negotiation:
Player becomes an UFA at the end of that next season (bridge deal termination + 1 year)
Player has arbitration rights so you're going to pay fair market rates on last year of control after a bridge deal.

So my ELC runs from 19-22. I get bridged from 22-25. Now I say 1 year arbitration requested at age 26. I now can sign anywhere else and you get no value back. I also can say no to any deal over 3years taking me to age 29 where I can still get that 7 year max deal or split it into 1-3 contracts so I hit UFA again at 32 and can get a 4-5 year deal still.

So your idea of a long term contract savings from age 26-33 is gone.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 15 at 12:41 a.m.
Thread: Yzerman might actually be predictable this off-season
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LuckyMoneyPuck</b></div><div>for a rebuilding team bringing in patch work fixes to make a team that isn't very good better without actually fixing the underlying problems isn't helping.
Which is the whole point. DET isn't in a win now mode. They don't need to wrap themselves in a bad contract for nothing.



A. you don't know that, you are dealing with a young player it may go up or down. It wouldn't be the first time. It's why teams like bridge deals, it gives you more of a history of what you are getting to reduce risk.
B. you are always going to have to balance the actual cost to the team. You think it will cost more in 2 years. Probably not 11.5M which seem very high, he's not Makar, having said that, any cost you give up you are also adding 2 years of control when a player is still playing at a relatively high level at 31 and 32 years old. Instead of the contract ending at 31 and then having to deal with FA and the contract costs after. Because at 31 he's probably demanding a 6 year deal and you got a guy to 37 and who knows how that goes. Where at 33 he's not asking for 6 years and you probably get a more reasonable deal if there is anything left in the tank. Teams just don't make deals on the cap hit. They are trying to get max value out of an asset. To have control to 33 instead of 31 is probably worth the cap cost difference on what it would be. Especially given the savings earlier. Maybe it cost you 9 per later. Fine. But you saved 4 of the 8 and you got 2 more years.... That's not bad math.</div></div>

Actually it is exactly the situation Vancouver is facing with Elias Pettersson. Vancouver choose a 3 year bridge deal (3 x 7.35M) instead of signing him to an 8 year contract and buying free agent years upfront for a lower cost.

"(Signing a bridge deal instead of a long-term deal) It’s a hypothesis strengthened by the fact that the club isn’t immediately poised to be a contender in the early part of Pettersson’s new (3 year bridge deal in 2021) extension.

There’s little question that Pettersson will outperform this deal, which makes it a good outcome in the short term for the Canucks....

Over the long term, however, it’s a bit more complicated. There’s an opportunity cost incurred by opting for a bridge deal, both in terms of what Pettersson will be poised to earn on his third contract if he continues to play at a superstar level and more importantly, in the lack of long-term cost certainty that the club will be able to benefit from.

Don’t underrate the impact of cost certainty in cap planning. The predictability that would’ve come with locking up both of Vancouver’s core pieces for years to come would’ve been invaluable for Canucks management as they seek to further upgrade their blue line and supporting cast."
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 15 at 12:31 a.m.
Thread: Yzerman might actually be predictable this off-season
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>RazorSeider53</b></div><div>I'm still trying to wrap my head around adding yet another small winger to our collection while doing nothing about our abysmal RHD.</div></div>

It's called a hard cap and NTC's. Unless you are willing to send those players elsewhere with draft capital or top prospects to the limited number of teams which aren't in their NTC listing then they aren't going anywhere.

As far as signing a 5'9" guy that CAN score 40. I am sure every GM in the league is like no I am not interested in acquiring a potential 40 goal scorer that will cost nothing beyond the dollars for a contract because he is 5'9" or 5'10". I mean trade call comes for Kirill Kaprizov (5'10"), Brayden Point (5'10") , Jesper Bratt (5'10") ......why, pass of course!....they are just too small.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 15 at 12:23 a.m.
Thread: Yzerman might actually be predictable this off-season
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>evelutions2</b></div><div>I was implying that Vegas was going to let Stephenson walk. Especially with the Hertl acquisition, Stephenson is a luxury they can’t afford.</div></div>

you might get Marchessault then (by blowing the remaining cap space), and you will have lost the 2nd line depth that makes Vegas good--esp since the LW'ers on the 3rd and 4th line are no where near as good so you can't simply move them up.

Which will become a real problem when Robin Lehner (surgery in Aug '22) is declared by a doctor as good to go again. Might have been able to keep him out in '23-24, but do you really think he's going to go along with the team's plan when he's set to become an UFA the following year and needs to prove that he can still play to keep collecting those million dollar paychecks? Vegas might want his career to be over, but that's not what Lehner wants and is training for.

In case you didn't know:

Lehner declared bankruptcy in December '22 after investments such as a reptile farm did not pan out. Lehner claimed just over $5 million in assets but over $27 million in liabilities. In April, he was also sued by multiple creditors for fraud. So he actually needs the income and can't simply sail off into an early retirement.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 15 at 12:08 a.m.
Thread: unleash the youth
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LuckyMoneyPuck</b></div><div>you really missed the part time players thing....

Every coach has a shelf life, every. At some point they lose the room. But the results when he's there are undeniable.
He takes bad teams and he makes them good and he usually does it with players who aren't to the talent level of those that he beats.
When he leaves PHL you will see PHL fall apart, mark my words on it.
You just have a hard time accepting the fact that he calls it like it is. Frankly he's rarely wrong in doing it. But hey, I get it, your a TOR fan. You don't want to see a coach come in and call out your players for not fighting for the puck and playing a little hard nosed. Because the whole damn team would be called out. But then again, maybe if someone did, they wouldn't play so soft in the playoffs and then people cry they need toughness all over this website as they bring in Reaves on a bad contract.
Torts sets the bar, he expects people to play hard which is taxing. When it's not up to par he calls it out. Obviously that has a shelf life. But don't think he "can't adversary" if there is one thing Torts is good at coaching is digging in and being hard nosed enough to fight for a win....even if it means literally and dropping gloves.
I will also go on the record saying MANY times he has called himself out for not getting done. So don't turn around and cry about how he blames everyone else but himself. That's just not true.
Your delusional opinion of the guy and who is actually is are two different things.</div></div>

and you are missing the part where the players go to the GM and demand a trade out of a Tort's controlled team or simply inform him that they have no intention of re-signing as an UFA.

look at this quote

"I don't think that it was a matter of losing the locker room. Sometimes the message, especially if communicated by the same person, is not received maybe the way it was years ago," the GM said, adding that there also were times this season when he and Tortorella didn't see eye-to-eye on things.

This was said in 2008 when he was fired in Tampa with a year left on his deal. Now think of what is acceptable nowadays and think he's any better.

Torts is the guy you want at the start of a rebuild but don't want him long enough for players to have leverage to demand out or be up for UFA contracts---because they will leave. His shelf life is getting shorter with every job and his messaging is growing more out of touch with every young player that makes the NHL.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 15 at 12:01 a.m.
Thread: Yzerman might actually be predictable this off-season
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LuckyMoneyPuck</b></div><div>If you thing losing Kane "sets the rebuild back" then you don't understand a rebuild.
He's not a long term solution. He's 36 with bad hips who has slowed. As much as you think that doesn't matter it does.
I get resigning him to a 1 year deal, there is no need to add term here. If someone else wants to do that let them. Don't make the Jeff Carter Mistake and get roped in on term with an aging guy.
It's not like DET has an obligation to finish his career like PIT does to say Crosby or Malkin.

Kane provides a little bump on offense. But he's getting older and you still aren't having to see him play 82 games and then playoffs. You don't really know what you are getting in an aging player after hip surgery. While it's possible he could play like Joe Pav. it's also just as likely he's on the same path as Toews.
It doesn't help guys don't last long after the surgery he had. Look at Hall. He went down down down.....</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LuckyMoneyPuck</b></div><div>Kane provides a little bump on offense</div></div>....well that little bump on offense was worth 7 GWG's with 3 in OT. For a rebuild the 1st step is to reach the playoffs. Having a player that can win or plainly set up Larkin in OT on a shot pass against the Leafs when every point matters is actually critical to the long term success of a rebuild as it allows the younger players to play in games that matter and playoff games (hopefully as soon as this season). So you are wrong there about Kane's importance to a rebuild in the long term as you are skipping the building part of having 1st round playoff exits where young guys see action.

And please tell me more about a roster construction in a rebuild based on getting the #4 and two #6 picks ...now add in the fact that Larkin is going to be exiting his prime years soon-- so unless you can get that #1 centre in free agency (where they almost never make it--unless they are in decline in their mid 30's); you'd better have that rebuild on a path towards competitiveness sooner than later. <strong>That's what you are not getting.</strong>
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 14 at 11:25 p.m.
Thread: Yzerman might actually be predictable this off-season
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LuckyMoneyPuck</b></div><div>signing Kane for 2 years is just bad. He's 36 next year.
Same could be said about the Marchessault contract but someone will sign him to probably more. I think he's one of those, it's his contract year, hook him up with the puck because he did the same for others type years. I predict he declines once he puts pen to paper....
</div></div>

If you want to re-sign Kane (and all indications are they do) then he's going to want that 2nd year. A 36/37 year old playmaker known for his hands more than his feet isn't going to be the issue you think (and while he may have lost a step it hasn't looked to me that he is skating on 1 leg like when in NY). Add in the locker room presence and by all indications is that it is good and you have a recipe for fit. Especially since they can sign the 35+ contract loaded with incentives to push a cap crunch forward with a rising cap. I can't think of a team that puts him at the 1st line RW position--so the role he plays here is what he'll get elsewhere. And like it or not--LCA being a newer facility that was built with top of the line training/recovery in mind actually helps the cause to re-sign. The thing to worry about is the team that throws him the 1 year use the rest of our cap to get him offer.

If you lose him than you might as well set the rebuild back to last summer when the team was expected to finish behind Ottawa and Buffalo.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 14 at 11:07 p.m.
Thread: Yzerman might actually be predictable this off-season
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MoSeider53</b></div><div>Shai Buium is a 3rd year college player, Therefore he can only sign a 2 year ELC not 3

Moritz Seider will get the Dylan Larkin deal, That's already been pretty much confirmed

Lucas Raymond &gt; Matthew Boldy 7x7 deal. Raymond will come in at least at 7x7.5m

It's sounding like more and more that Patrick Kane will test free agency.

Detroit has zero interest in Jonathan Marchessessault.

Detroit isn't surrendering a 3rd round pick for one year of Robby Fabbri at $4,000,000 when healthy he's between a 30-40 point winger. We can just accept futures for him for a team that needs to reach the cap floor.

And Justin Holl is 100% a buyout candidate this summer.

And oh FYI, Mazur and Soderblom will spend another season in GR, Long before getting healthy scratched in Detroit.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LuckyMoneyPuck</b></div><div>signing Kane for 2 years is just bad. He's 36 next year.
Same could be said about the Marchessault contract but someone will sign him to probably more. I think he's one of those, it's his contract year, hook him up with the puck because he did the same for others type years. I predict he declines once he puts pen to paper.

The Seinder and Raymond contracts look like you are paying top dollar for RFAs. Even an overpay on Seinder. I think they will both be signed for less.</div></div>

One says too much for Seider and one says undervaluing...must be in the right ballpark then.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 14 at 11:04 p.m.
Thread: Yzerman might actually be predictable this off-season
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>evelutions2</b></div><div>Marchessault is going to get quite a bit more than a 250k raise. That being said, it’s not guaranteed that he will be a cap casualty. Martinez is gone with the Hanifin signing, and one of Marchessault or Mantha will not be resigned, and more than likely Mantha is out the door. Raymond will very likely be asking for more, and maybe Seider as well.</div></div>

Vegas cap commitments next year 80.11M on 18 contracts (not counting Robin Lehner who very well could get himself declared as having recovered from the hip surgery in Aug '22).

Dorofeyev is 23 and arbitration eligible (he's already gone through his ELC and his next contract) so it's not going to be a minimum salary on 13 goals the previous year. Figure 1.75M - 2M contract. Lets go easy math and say 82.11M with 19 contracts.

Say you let some of the UFA forwards go and go the internal route....Brisson. His salary is above league minimum at 925k so still have a cap crunch. That's 83M for 20 players.

Now you want to sign at least one of Jonathan Marchessault, Anthony Mantha, or Chandler Stephenson. 87.5M cap and a team at 83M. <strong>Tell me again with actual numbers how you are not losing Marchessault and Mantha?</strong>

It's not one of them that's gone it's both unless you let Stephenson walk too.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 14 at 10:19 p.m.
Thread: 3 Trades 3 New UFAs and Youth
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>RazorSeider53</b></div><div>Lol. No the **** they wont.</div></div>

Seider will be the top pair RHD. If you are arguing this full stop.

Petry has a 15 team NTC and a NMC (so can't bury him). He has a retained cap trade with a $2,343,750 remaining cap. There is no reason to buyout that remaining amount.

Holl has a 10 team NTC. But more importantly a 3.4M cap hit (so no team is going to take him without retention and a sweetener) was brought in before the Ghost signing and Petry trade to be what he will next year: a 3rd pair d-man. He might not be the best NHL d-man, but he will be a 3rd pair rather than wasting a buyout or a sweetened trade to save a couple million when Maatta and Fabbri are the most likely to get traded for cap relief (as they already have cheaper internal replacements at those positions).