What if he forces a long term deal next offseason and then regresses the following year? Look at Faber for an example. 47 points in year 1. Will be lucky if he breaks 30 to end the season tonight in year 2.
Prospect Info: 12th Overall 2024 Draft, LHD Zeev Buium
- Thread starter LastWordArmy
- Start date
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
There's no way that he can force a long-term deal when he's under his ELC for another year.
I think you’re misunderstanding my position. Why isn’t he playing? I don’t care if they burn a year if he is playing.
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
I'm definitely on the 'he should be playing' side. I just don't care at all at the burning year, if that's part of the negotiation to get high profile NCAA prospects signed. Players want to get to the next contract sooner, and I don't really care if they do. Just my POV.
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
DemidovSaveUs
Danila Yurov Fan Club Executive Assistant
- May 2, 2018
- 18,839
- 12,494
I have a hard time believing he’ll have a career season at 19/20 next year and force a long term contract. Either way, nobody is saying there isn’t a realistic possibility that burning a year provides less value to the team long term, but I don’t think anyone should have strong opinions about it one way or another. It’s fine. It’s the price of doing business.
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
Faber is actually a good example as to why I'm not all that afraid of post-ELC bridge deals, even though I think his (like everybody's) numbers were impacted by 40 Kaprizov-less games. Not that I think Faber would've been at 60+ if Kaprizov played a full season, but it would definitely be better. He drives the offensive bus.
There's no reason why he can't see both seasons of the ELC before making a decision. Happens all the time, actually. Guerin just willingly decided to do Boldy and Faber early, as a calculated risk.
There's no reason why he can't see both seasons of the ELC before making a decision. Happens all the time, actually. Guerin just willingly decided to do Boldy and Faber early, as a calculated risk.
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
AKL
Jon Merrill Fan Club President
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,008
- 20,165
I'd agree. So I wouldn't think he has much leverage there to force them into burning a year.
Think the issue is Guerin expected he would play and Hynes had other ideas. Poor communication? Not being on the same page? Did Guerin consult Hynes before bringing him in, or did Guerin just assume he would play?
Ultimately if everyone was on Hynes' page, would he have been signed for this year?
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
I guess you use the leverage you care about, and I don't really care enough about whether he is under a 2 or 3 year ELC to have a strong opinion. The slimmest of possibilities that he goes back for year 3 was removed, and a year was burned. Are these 2 things directly related? I have no idea.
My original assumption is that he would play, so I'm disappointed, but I'll get over it.
AKL
Jon Merrill Fan Club President
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,008
- 20,165
Just think it didn't need to be burned, and the only reason it was burned was because the coach and GM aren't on the same page about it, not because it's necessary to get him here.
You can't really say it is or isn't a big deal at this point. It could still go either way. We'll have to wait until a couple years into his second contract to determine that.
It's all moot if he plays in the playoffs, no problem burning the year at all then. But if he doesn't play? Would rather have the extra year. You can still extend him early if you think a big breakout is coming. At the least you get an extra year of a top end defenseman making less than 1M. That sounds pretty valuable.
I think the best teams find ways to get value out of their ELC's. Whether that value is now, at the end of this season, or the third year of the ELC, you need to get one or the other.
DemidovSaveUs
Danila Yurov Fan Club Executive Assistant
- May 2, 2018
- 18,839
- 12,494
I don’t think he goes back if we don’t burn it but I also don’t understand the problem everyone has with burning the year. There’s very real scenarios where it works out in our favor long term. I don’t think it’s worth trying to force the hand of our top prospect.
If this is the mantra for the decision to sign him but not play him, then it’s no wonder this franchise flops.
You know what would be really awesome as we enter a cup window? 3 seasons of a top 4 guy at under $1M. 3 seasons of a top 6 forward at under $1M. Being able to spend $7M+ in year 3 to help boost a team loaded with ELC talent.
You know what else is really awesome? Watching Buium play instead of Merrill or Bogosian. That’s pretty awesome and gives us a legitimate difference maker on the back end.
You know what’s not awesome? Not doing either of the above items.
AKL
Jon Merrill Fan Club President
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,008
- 20,165
It's not a problem with burning the year, it's this:
You could also extend him early if you didn't burn the year. Unless you think the big breakout year will be his sophomore year. Which could be the case, but no one knows at this point.
Ultimately though, the issue isn't burning the year, it's burning the year without getting the value from that year. Again, it could be this year, it could be the third year (if you don't burn this year), but you definitely need to get value from one of those years.
DemidovSaveUs
Danila Yurov Fan Club Executive Assistant
- May 2, 2018
- 18,839
- 12,494
I would also like to pay him 8M on his next contract not 13. That would also be nice. I think the calculus is just so unclear as to how it will all play out that it’s just people looking for something to be upset about atp. Let’s just have him be a good player before we’re getting all upset that we didn’t get that third year on an ELC.
AKL
Jon Merrill Fan Club President
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,008
- 20,165
Anyone else enjoy the irony of this? If the Wild without Zeev had clinched at any number of the opportunities they had to clinch, Zeev could be playing tonight, but because those players failed, we need to make sure the same group, without any changes, is on the ice tonight.
I think that's called failing upwards?
Your way only works if he breaks out in year 3 instead of year 1 or year 2. If he breaks out in year 1 or year 2, then we gave up a season of a supposed $13M player at a $1M cap hit for no benefit at all.
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
There's a potential benefit that he can be plugged into game 1 or 2 or 6 or whatever (will he be? I have no idea).
There's a potential benefit that his 3rd contract would start a year earlier, and end a year earlier (will it matter? I have no idea).
There's a potential benefit that if he has a much better 3rd year than his 1st and 2nd, we'd end up saving cap (will it play out this way? I have no idea).
There's a potential benefit that you don't start the relationship leaning heavy on a young guy contract-wise (does this actually matter? I have no idea).
DemidovSaveUs
Danila Yurov Fan Club Executive Assistant
- May 2, 2018
- 18,839
- 12,494
I don’t disagree with what your saying. The best teams do tend to get tons of value from ELCs. Most of the surplus value in the NHL each year is coming from ELCs. Rossi, Boldy, Faber, and Kaprizov’s ELCs single-handedly kept us competetive during the buyouts. But what I would also say is that good cap health in general is imprtant, regardless of the contract type. We need players on good value deals there’s a chance making him sign his second contract well before his theoretical prime kicks in is really advantageous for us in terms of getting out in front of a potential superstar breakout.
Nothing is stopping you from offering a contract after year 2 and before year 3.
