EPTAnd yeah I heard the same numbers for Cally and that's nuts. It's hard to say he's worth $5m now, let alone in 4, 5, or 6 years. He's a fringe top 6 guy.
I don't know much about Johnston
'14-'15 NHL SEASON - Can Carlyle Win? CORSI CAN'T! - Page 6
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
And yeah I heard the same numbers for Cally and that's nuts. It's hard to say he's worth $5m now, let alone in 4, 5, or 6 years. He's a fringe top 6 guy. I don't know much about Johnston | ||
Jer99
Canada8159 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
| ||
|
Flaccid
8917 Posts
On June 26 2014 03:07 QuanticHawk wrote: That's a lot of years for an oft-injured 32 year old, but just under $5m per for him is pretty nice since he's still a very good goal scorer. LA will have some issues with the cap in 4-5 years, but they probably don't care since their core is intact to make annual pushes now. Yeah, given that LA's only real weakness is the ability to consistently score goals (there is something wonky with their team sh%), it is reasonable to lock up one of the better finishers in the league for the remainder of his years. Gabby is the kind of scorer who should remain somewhat effective even as he ages. edit: Plus the contract will probably be super front-loaded and he can retire early if he starts stinking up the joint. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
But yeah, I agree about Gabby. While his speed is his trademark, he's got a really underrated shot, and consistently gets to the open areas on the ice. Sticking him with a very talented playmaker like Kopitar means he's gonna be effective for a while. | ||
|
Flaccid
8917 Posts
edit: And for the Kings, it's a price they're willing to pay later on in order to win a few more cUpZ before he retires. cupszcupzcupz. edit 2: Worth doing a glossing-over of cap-recapture so we can see how it applies to Gaborik: The NHLPA devised something called a "cap benefit recapture formula," which would punish teams with players who retired early on long-term deals by putting the money they saved over the term of the deal on their cap after they've retired... ...applies to deals seven years or longer... ...instead of allowing the post-retirement cap penalty to be spread over twice the length remaining on the deal it can only be spread over the number of years that the player didn't play. Example: Jeff Carter retires with three years left on his ten-year contract: Carter would earn $59 million over the first eight years before retirement, an average of $6.375 million per year. But thanks to the structure of the contract, his cap hit is only $5,272,727 per season over the life of the deal. Take the total cap savings earned across those first eight years of the contract -- $6.375 million minus $5.272 million multiplied by eight -- and you get the cap penalty the Flyers would be forced to pay. It's $8.818 million, and they'd have to pay it over those final three years So front-loading seems to both encourage Gaborik not to play too far past his expiry date and should save the Kings in potential recapture costs, given that the majority of the contract has been paid out. That's if I understand this correctly, which I never do when it comes to the CBA =P. I think it was meant to punish those brutal back-loaded contracts that always anticipated some magical, infinite future cap. Source: http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2012/12/14/3763560/nhl-lockout-2012-retired-players-mike-richards-jeff-carter-flyers | ||
|
Flaccid
8917 Posts
The Oilers seem to like these defensive depth signings. Makes sense as they have a number of good prospects who need some sheltering - but they still need some massive top-pairing help. | ||
|
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
On June 26 2014 04:28 Flaccid wrote: Oh, and the Oilers have signed one of the lesser defensemen from the Columbus Blue Jackets. PROBLEMS SOLVED. The Oilers seem to like these defensive depth signings. Makes sense as they have a number of good prospects who need some sheltering - but they still need some massive top-pairing help. The depth signing are fine. We paid nothing for the CBJ guy and he is ok. The rumor mill has MacT dangling his pick looking for a top flight defenceman. Nashville might find that huge contract of Webers very ugly soon so hopefully we could relieve them of it | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On June 26 2014 07:31 Orcasgt24 wrote: The depth signing are fine. We paid nothing for the CBJ guy and he is ok. The rumor mill has MacT dangling his pick looking for a top flight defenceman. Nashville might find that huge contract of Webers very ugly soon so hopefully we could relieve them of it Is this part of the Oilers fan coping mechanism, imaginary scenarios where every other GM in the league descends to Oiler level? | ||
|
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
On June 26 2014 10:44 Sub40APM wrote: Is this part of the Oilers fan coping mechanism, imaginary scenarios where every other GM in the league descends to Oiler level? Meh, With GM's like Garth Snow in the NHL and budget strapped teams like CBJ, Phoenix and Nashville trades to save money are always a possibility. It's also not imaginary. There was alot of talk among hockey people when Nashville matched that offer sheet that they would probably end up trading him a few years down the road due to its sheer size. Edmonton has never had "Mad Mike Milbury" levels of bad management. Trade and signing wise they have almost always done pretty good. Horcoff is the one truly glaring error. The real problem with management is there complete inability to realize we never have the puck and our defense can't move the thing when they do get it. Their draft strategy of "Take the best player regardless of need" is also a bit shoddy. It's safe but winning takes risk and gambling that a player you need will be available later and trading down for a mid/low tier prospect and their first is a good idea IMO. | ||
|
Jer99
Canada8159 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lIBv77O.jpg) | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On June 26 2014 11:10 Orcasgt24 wrote: Meh, With GM's like Garth Snow in the NHL and budget strapped teams like CBJ, Phoenix and Nashville trades to save money are always a possibility. It's also not imaginary. There was alot of talk among hockey people when Nashville matched that offer sheet that they would probably end up trading him a few years down the road due to its sheer size. Edmonton has never had "Mad Mike Milbury" levels of bad management. Trade and signing wise they have almost always done pretty good. Horcoff is the one truly glaring error. The real problem with management is there complete inability to realize we never have the puck and our defense can't move the thing when they do get it. Their draft strategy of "Take the best player regardless of need" is also a bit shoddy. It's safe but winning takes risk and gambling that a player you need will be available later and trading down for a mid/low tier prospect and their first is a good idea IMO. their draft strategy seems to be wholly built on EA sports NHL games, Just take the guy with the highest stars, screw building an actual team or setting up a system that will ensure the young kids dont have their spirits destroyed and their hockey sense warped as to ensure they become one dimensional and progressively less and less suited to the modern game | ||
|
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
All the good defense men come from the WHL because they know defense wins championships. | ||
|
EiBmoZ
Canada235 Posts
Hope my Wings make some moves today. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
| ||
|
Flaccid
8917 Posts
On June 27 2014 06:59 Sub40APM wrote: their draft strategy seems to be wholly built on EA sports NHL games, Just take the guy with the highest stars, screw building an actual team or setting up a system that will ensure the young kids dont have their spirits destroyed and their hockey sense warped as to ensure they become one dimensional and progressively less and less suited to the modern game Honestly though, outside of the top handful of picks, NHL drafting is such a crapshoot that it almost never works out when you draft for need. Unless, of course, your need is a top center and you have the 2nd overall pick or something, and the 2nd best prospect happens to be a center. Not only are you dealing with kids who are still developing, but there is a huge gap between how forwards adjust to the game vs. defensemen. Defensemen, unless a top-end talent (i.e. along the lines of Doughty) are extremely hit and miss and it's hard to use a top pick on one. Goalies are even worse (FLOLeury). For fun, a blogger from Vancouver did an experiment where he threw out all scouting data and re-did the Canucks drafts for every year after and including 2000. Instead, he just took the best CHL player available at each point the Canucks drafted. In doing this, his draft picks played 4013 more NHL games, got 957 more goals, and 1556 more assists. That's how useful NHL scouting can be (and often is). http://canucksarmy.com/2014/5/20/we-think-the-vancouver-canucks-may-have-a-scouting-problem The Canucks, though, probably have some of the worst scouting. Another blogger looked at the same data for all teams and found it close to 50/50 pass/fail (More like 55% pass). Still, it puts NHL scouting, as a whole, at not much better than a coin flip. The argument for drafting the best-player-available is that you end up with good players and can later trade for need or fill for need via free-agency. The downside is when you get attached to your prospects or young players and are unable to move them until after your shitty team has completely destroyed their value (i.e. Sam Gagner). Then, you are no longer able to make those trades that you require and it kind of destroys the basis for the draft-the-best-player model. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
| ||
| ||
