Jump to content

The 2021 Offseason Thread


jagknife
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Sounds about right, if he wants to go long-term, and like Jerzey just posted, it's absolutely a "pay for potential" contract.  I like Nico and I like Jack a lot and still think they're going to be terrific players (in different ways), but man is it going to suck having both of them locked up if Nico turns out to be an injury-prone "never quite got there", and Jack never puts it all together.  But sometimes you roll the dice and hope that in Year 4 or so of their respective deals (assuming Jack is interested in a Nico-type deal), that both players are relative bargains for what they're bringing.  

i wish more players would like at Mackinnon or Spezza been like "next contract i'll take another discount too to help the team been better and affording more depth."

Of course that's easy to say for a superstar probably getting sponsorship deals and all but still.

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

i wish more players would like at Mackinnon or Spezza been like "next contract i'll take another discount too to help the team been better and affording more depth."

Of course that's easy to say for a superstar probably getting sponsorship deals and all but still.

Hasn't really been much of an issue for us, with all the cap room and no superstars willing to sign deals. I'd love to have the problem. 

Edited by mfitz804
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Hasn't really been much of an issue for us, with all the cap room and no superstars willing to sign deals. I'd love to have the problem. 

Yeah but its a good seed to plant. Imagine if Hughes, smith, sharangovich, etc etc being all young and all (especially if we get Luke), that they'd all start saying like "guys let's ALL take a little bit less money and grow together so we can all stay together and have a better team so we can win" it's not impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Yeah but its a good seed to plant. Imagine if Hughes, smith, sharangovich, etc etc being all young and all (especially if we get Luke), that they'd all start saying like "guys let's ALL take a little bit less money and grow together so we can all stay together and have a better team so we can win" it's not impossible.

I don’t disagree. But, I’m not prepared to call any of those guys superstars at this point. 

Plus, you wouldn’t be paying them superstar money, maybe regular star money, and you want them to then take less than that? I mean it all sounds great, in theory, but I can’t imagine that would ever happen. 

Big difference between a guy being worth $12m and taking $10m, and a guy worth $6m taking $4m, in my opinion. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

Yeah but its a good seed to plant. Imagine if Hughes, smith, sharangovich, etc etc being all young and all (especially if we get Luke), that they'd all start saying like "guys let's ALL take a little bit less money and grow together so we can all stay together and have a better team so we can win" it's not impossible.

In Fantasyland or Utopia, no, it's not impossible (and if you get to a point where you have a team that's really worth keeping together, yeah, I agree, it would be awesome if players were willing to take a little less collectively, to try to make that happen...they're still going to be very well-paid, compared to most people).  But very easy for us to say that.  

More realistically, you know how it works though...these guys have no idea how long they're going to play, they have an agent buzzing in their ears about how much they're worth and they may never have a chance to make this kind of money again...so most of the time, players are going to try to get as much as they can while they can, and if it leads to cap issues down the road, well, let the GM figure it out.  Not saying that the players are greedy or wrong, especially if GMs are willing to paint themselves into a capped-out corner trying to keep certain key (and expensive) players...like I said, it's a potentially very short window to earn millions, and a lot can happen...I can understand not wanting to be unselfish to the point where you're leaving a few million on the table.  And it's not like GMs can't change their minds about their plans, with some players thinking "What the hell, I took less for THIS?!"    

I do think it's very possible that one or two players could take less to try to help out...Brodeur was known for it (also helped that he acted as his own agent, so he didn't have to worry about an agent's commission), and Tom Brady took team-friendly deals too...and we're all familiar with occasional "hometown discounts".  Of course the key is once you're getting capped out, you trade a player or two that you decide you can live without (even it stings initially, and even if those players have largely done their jobs for you), get some combo of picks and players, and hope you nail enough picks that you can keep filtering in players on ELCs and reasonable RFA contracts.    

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

If you had to set a number for Jack right now, what do you pay him? Nico’s deal?

Austin Matthews put up 69, 63 and 73 points in his first three seasons (granted those included 40, 34, and 37 goals) and the contract following his ELC is 11.634AAV.  Not a great comparable.

Nico put up 52, 47 and 36 points in his first three seasons (never scoring more than 20 goals) and the contract following his ELC is 7.250 AAV.  Which to everyone outside our organization seems crazy.

That said, I think Nico's deal is the floor.  Can't see Jack taking a long term deal at an AAV less than that.  As someone else here said, assuming he takes a step forward this year I could see Jack opting for a 2 or 3 year deal at 6/7AAV to really cash in on his next deal..

Would love to see him locked up long term but I don't see a scenario where it makes sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

Yeah but its a good seed to plant. Imagine if Hughes, smith, sharangovich, etc etc being all young and all (especially if we get Luke), that they'd all start saying like "guys let's ALL take a little bit less money and grow together so we can all stay together and have a better team so we can win" it's not impossible.

You need a winning culture with strong veterans who've already bought in to establish this sort of line of thought.  See: Boston.

Nico's contract could end up being a good start but.. I have a feeling we're closer to the Leafs than the Bruins right now as far as a culture goes.  Hope to see it change soon.

Frankly, we're also not exactly a premier/prestigious organization in an awesome city.  Sure, we can sell NYC but.. well, we don't need to have this debate again.  

Edited by Devilsfan118
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Devilsfan118 said:

Nico put up 52, 47 and 36 points in his first three seasons (never scoring more than 20 goals) and the contract following his ELC is 7.250 AAV.  Which to everyone outside our organization seems crazy.

No it doesn’t. He got basically the same deal as Clayton Keller, whose production was pretty similar to Nico’s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Devilsfan118 said:

Austin Matthews put up 69, 63 and 73 points in his first three seasons (granted those included 40, 34, and 37 goals) and the contract following his ELC is 11.634AAV.  Not a great comparable.

Nico put up 52, 47 and 36 points in his first three seasons (never scoring more than 20 goals) and the contract following his ELC is 7.250 AAV.  Which to everyone outside our organization seems crazy.

That said, I think Nico's deal is the floor.  Can't see Jack taking a long term deal at an AAV less than that.  As someone else here said, assuming he takes a step forward this year I could see Jack opting for a 2 or 3 year deal at 6/7AAV to really cash in on his next deal..

Would love to see him locked up long term but I don't see a scenario where it makes sense.

Matthews is a horrible comparison, not quite sure why you went with that one. 

I personally think Nico’s deal was a little high, not a lot, but a little. I think if Jack averages less than a half a point again this coming season and he is looking for $7.25m per, I think that’s too high. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

There is no reason to believe Jack will ever be back down below .5 PPG again. That was his 18 year old season. He was at .55 at 19, and is only going to get better. 

It was an average of his first two seasons. His first season was in the 0.34 range if I recall. 

But I definitely hope not. 

Edited by mfitz804
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mfitz804 said:

Matthews is a horrible comparison, not quite sure why you went with that one. 

I personally think Nico’s deal was a little high, not a lot, but a little. I think if Jack averages less than a half a point again this coming season and he is looking for $7.25m per, I think that’s too high. 

I just went down the list of recent 1OA picks. Like it or not, that status matters with future contract negotiations unless the players busts out like Yakupov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Devilsfan118 said:

I just went down the list of recent 1OA picks. Like it or not, that status matters with future contract negotiations unless the players busts out like Yakupov.

That’s just silly. Why not just compare him to McDavid? He’s not even close to either of their level. 

Ekblad got $7.5m, MacKinnon $6.3m. Those are probably more useful as a comparison than the contract of a generational type talent. Even if Jack improves as much between seasons 2-3 as he did between 1-2, if he comes in and asks for $11m, Fitz should only stop laughing long enough to kick him in the balls before throwing him out of his office. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep reading that the Leafs might try to move Morgan Reilly this summer because he becomes a UFA next year and they won’t be able to afford him.   Contingent on us having some indication that he would re-sign, he could be a good target.  He’s 27, so same age as Hamilton and Toronto seems like a good opportunity to send quantity for quality given their cap issues and lack of futures.  
 

Just a thought that I don’t remember seeing discussed yet.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Jake Gardiner was 40-50 pts per season player in toronto. Now he isnt nowhere close. I dont want to trade for any puckmoving defenseman from toronto, if compensation isn`t 3rd round pick or butcher.
Reilly is LD, he doesnt play in PK, he makes a lot of giveaways for defenseman("worst-7" defenseman who played more than 20 games, he cant takeaway even 1 time per 60 min,he doesnt make hits (8th D in toronto hits per\60) etc. We have LD Smith for playmaking. 

Edited by Guadana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.