SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

dca919

Member Since
Jul. 12, 2018
Forum Posts
968
Posts per Day
0.5
Forum: Armchair-GM24 hours ago
Thread: Core four no more
You do all this to get to round 2......

.....and you'll get beaten in round 2 every time.

You are not going to sign Patrick Kane for 2 years. He'll stay in Detroit if the offer isn't 4 years. That's what is supposedly the issue. Yzerman doesn't like to give guys term and Kane wants to play until he's 40 finishing his career somewhere close to family (balancing Buffalo--his-- and Chicago--hers) and putting down roots for his 2 year old son.

Gostisbehere will help your PP. No doubt. But he makes the dumbest giveaways that cost goals. He lost a couple of crucial games down the stretch with Detroit with defensive miscues. Detroit hid him on the 3rd pair with a veteran defensive d-man in Maatta. And you want to give him that money and term? That would be an awful signing. He's great for 1/2 a year and excels when teams get PP opportunities (Detroit got a lot this past year), but ask him to play a complete or disciplined game and you'll see see his effectiveness go to nothing.

BTW Gostisbehere plays RD (as he likes to play off-handed to get a pass across on net quicker).
Forum: Armchair-GM24 hours ago
Thread: Youth trades and UFAs power to playoffs
Yzerman is not going to want Danielson playing in the NHL straight from Jr's (even if he is ready) especially if he's getting 4th line minutes.

Soderblom is having a good playoff run in the AHL after having a good stretch run. He's already been in the NHL for a 20+ game stretch so I could see him making the team out of camp--esp if Fabbri is traded. However, the more realistic scenario is he plays one final year in the AHL and works on his aggressiveness and compete levels as a top 2 line guy there eating minutes.

Berggren is not playing on the 2nd line. He'd be lucky to get 3rd line minutes (as I think the Wings want a checking line). I think he is the prospect to include in these trades as he's the most NHL ready.

AND I doubt Stamkos leaves Tampa. BUT EVEN IF HE DOES--Stamkos can no longer play centre's (he's now a winger). So there's your 2nd line winger in your scenario and move Compher back to 2nd line centre.

I hope Yzerman is ready to go 4 years with Kane as that is how he gets him to re-sign. But Yzerman doesn't like to give term to almost anyone. So unfortunately, I think Kane moves and gets paid.

There is no way Maatta is back. 1) He's the one d-man without any trade protections. 2) He makes too much for a 3rd pair--esp when 2 guys making close to league minimum (one ELC the other a bridge deal) are available to take over, and 3) he a LHD on a d-core full of them.

You'd have to throw in sweetners and retained salary to get rid of Copp. Quite frankly he's going to be a part of this team and an expensive 3rd line winger.
Forum: Armchair-GMYesterday at 7:20 p.m.
Thread: Offseason
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LuckyMoneyPuck</b></div><div>two guys who don't effect the cap in any way that could be send down to the AHL and are no issue at all, is exactly what Maatta is worth. He's a statue who hasn't been able to skate in years. He's slow as hell. No playoff team is renting that. Penguins booted him for it years ago. You are lucky anyone even takes that bad cap hit off your hands.

The nerve of you to complain about it is truly funny. As if he's not a cap dump.
Do you lake the situational awareness to realize the penguins would never bring him back? Or any other team for that matter?</div></div>

Maatta is a solid 3rd pair LHD that will give you about 20 points while being a +/- +10 or above. He's not a statue or a pylon--as evident by the +/- rating. The problem with him is that 3M is expensive for 3rd pair and in Detroit he was replaced by a 1st round pick (#6) that graduated to the NHL--making that 3M really expensive for a healthy scratch. Detroit has a cap crunch coming from having to give Seider and Raymond their 2nd contracts. I don't see the Pens or any other Eastern Conference team as being the trading partners. But Detroit isn't going to want 2 AHL'ers they are going to want a draft pick back (likely late 4th). I could also see them bundling Maatta as part of a larger trade that involved a prospect (or two) and a draft pick for a top 6 winger.

but saying how dare you complain about giving away a 3rd pair NHL d-man for 2 AHL'ers....uh, yeah everyone should point that out.
Forum: Armchair-GMYesterday at 6:55 p.m.
Thread: Disappointed but we can fix this
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>draft_em_sign_em_trade_em</b></div><div>The Leafs are this generations Washington Capitols.

The Caps were a regular season monster with a Core 5 of Ovie, Backstrom, Semin, Laich and M. Green, but they could never win the Cup until they brought in a different coach.</div></div>

<strong>No they aren't like the Caps as the Caps kept winning their 1st round series. </strong>
In 2015 they beat the Islanders 4-3 in that series. Then lost to the Rangers in 7 (losing 2 games in OT to the President's Trophy winners).
In 2016 they beat the Flyers 4-2 in that series. Then lost to the Pens (the eventual Stanley Cup Champs in 6 (losing 2 games in OT).
In 2017 they beat the Leafs 4-2 in that series. Then lost to the Pens (the eventual Stanley Cup Champs) in 7.
In 2018 they won the Cup.

As far as the Leafs, they are going on coach #5 (as they had those three I listed plus Peter Horachek as interim in 2015)....so you can keep blaming the coach, but enjoy those 1st round exits.
Forum: Armchair-GMYesterday at 6:11 p.m.
Thread: Disappointed but we can fix this
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>draft_em_sign_em_trade_em</b></div><div>No, they don't have to make changes, that's all in the fans and media head.

Change the coach.

You won't get the same result in the playoffs with a BETTER coach.

Though I admit the last 3 games surprised me with the team's play.

BUT Keefe playing the 4th line after Nylander scores cost them the game.

Also Marner was just coming onto the ice after a sloppy line change on the winning goal.</div></div>

Toronto fans accepting 1st and 2nd round exits going forward I see.

YOU HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES OR WASTE AWAY CAREERS.

...but this coaching change....no it's Randy Carlyle.....no it's Babcock...no it's Keefe...

....but this ref call....

...but this playoff rental....

= 1st/2nd round exits

It's the definition of insanity...

The problem is the fundamental flaw of paying 4 forwards close to half the cap.
Forum: Armchair-GMYesterday at 5:16 p.m.
Thread: Disappointed but we can fix this
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Do_Bap</b></div><div>I know it's an easy time to pick on Marner, but lets not forget that he is viewed as a top 5 winger in the league when at his best.</div></div>
<strong>
The only people that view him as a top 5 winger call the Maple Leafs their favorite team or employer.</strong>

Now add in the fact that he can't be anywhere near his best after the regular season is over...in fact he's a playoff liability because he plays soft (watch the overhead camera shot of the winning series goal). That alone means he isn't worth his cap hit. Now you deal with the problem that his cap hit is $11M. What team wants to pay equal value for that kind of player. Now add in the fact that Toronto HAS to make changes so they are negotiating from a position of weakness.
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.