Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Alex DeBrincat

coladin

coladin

Registered User
Sep 18, 2009
11,978
4,737
Xspyrit said:
No matter how he plays, he's still the guy we'll have to trade :

Tim Stutzle $8,350,000
Brady Tkachuk $8,205,714
Josh Norris $7,950,000
Drake Batherson $4,975,000

Shane Pinto RFA in 2023-24
Ridly Greig RFA in 2025-26
Alex Formenton : we have no idea about his future
Other prospects?

And Claude Giroux at $6,500,000 for 2 more seasons.

Batherson should not be traded, we're saving like 3M$ per season with his deal.

Norris and Stutzle are the top centers, Brady is the unicorn power forward captain. None of them will be traded

So almost 30 M$ for 4 forwards. The Leafs "big 4" is 40 M$ in comparison.

If DeBrincat is signed at 9M$ (let's say), then our top-4 most expensive forwards becomes 33.5 M$ and really not as good/prolific as the Leafs top-4

DeBrincat is a luxury we can't afford, we need to invest that money in improving the RD and bottom-6

Like I mentioned before, I take Paul, Brown and a Top-4 RHD over the 15 M$ we spend on DeBrincat, Joseph and Hamonic. We'd even have money to add another good top-9 winger.

It's been proven countless times that "top heavy" lineups don't work anymore in today's NHL. Look at the Leafs, heavy at the top, still can't get out at the first round. They have worked really hard to improve the rest of the roster.

But yet, Dorion fell in that trap, like he fell in the "Oilers" trap of not having quality veterans before...
Click to expand...
I don't think he fell in that trap...yet. He needs JBD, Thomson to pan out and keep costs low. He needs Greig, Sokolov and Cookshank to keep costs low.

And hte lEafs is not salary cap related so much as their top players not knowing how to win in the playoffs. This could be the year that the top players ifgure it out
 
Xspyrit

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
31,624
10,534
Montreal, Canada
coladin said:
I don't think he fell in that trap...yet. He needs JBD, Thomson to pan out and keep costs low. He needs Greig, Sokolov and Cookshank to keep costs low.

And hte lEafs is not salary cap related so much as their top players not knowing how to win in the playoffs. This could be the year that the top players ifgure it out
Click to expand...

Our drafting needs to be good, keep being good, it's even more important for us than most other teams. But a weakness Leafs had is they could never find good depth on ELCs as their drafting sucked until recently
 
DaveMatthew

DaveMatthew

Bring in Peter
Apr 13, 2005
14,507
13,180
Ott
Xspyrit said:
No matter how he plays, he's still the guy we'll have to trade :

Tim Stutzle $8,350,000
Brady Tkachuk $8,205,714
Josh Norris $7,950,000
Drake Batherson $4,975,000

Shane Pinto RFA in 2023-24
Ridly Greig RFA in 2025-26
Alex Formenton : we have no idea about his future
Other prospects?

And Claude Giroux at $6,500,000 for 2 more seasons.

Batherson should not be traded, we're saving like 3M$ per season with his deal.

Norris and Stutzle are the top centers, Brady is the unicorn power forward captain. None of them will be traded

So almost 30 M$ for 4 forwards. The Leafs "big 4" is 40 M$ in comparison.

If DeBrincat is signed at 9M$ (let's say), then our top-4 most expensive forwards becomes 33.5 M$ and really not as good/prolific as the Leafs top-4

DeBrincat is a luxury we can't afford, we need to invest that money in improving the RD and bottom-6

Like I mentioned before, I take Paul, Brown and a Top-4 RHD over the 15 M$ we spend on DeBrincat, Joseph and Hamonic. We'd even have money to add another good top-9 winger.

It's been proven countless times that "top heavy" lineups don't work anymore in today's NHL. Look at the Leafs, heavy at the top, still can't get out at the first round. They have worked really hard to improve the rest of the roster.

But yet, Dorion fell in that trap, like he fell in the "Oilers trap" of not having quality veterans before...
Click to expand...

At the same time, due to his contract, Batherson might be the best asset we have to get that top 4 RD who's signed for several years.

For example, if the Islanders come to you and offer Pulock for Batherson. Do you do it? I probably would.
 
RickyLafleur

RickyLafleur

Fall of Pierre
Oct 17, 2013
3,096
2,066
Ottawa, ON
coladin said:
I don't think he fell in that trap...yet. He needs JBD, Thomson to pan out and keep costs low. He needs Greig, Sokolov and Cookshank to keep costs low.

And hte lEafs is not salary cap related so much as their top players not knowing how to win in the playoffs. This could be the year that the top players ifgure it out
Click to expand...
Surprised that you didn't include Sanderson when talking about extensions since its gonna be a big one. Likely 7M+ unless he gets a bridge.

SniperOnTheWing said:
The popular misconception is DeBrincat needed Kane to produce.

Cat: 9G 27pts
Kane: 4G 21pts

Who misses who more?
Click to expand...
Chicago is actively tanking for Bedard and has traded away all the linemates with that he has chemistry. Once he's traded to Edmonton or another playoff contender he will likely go back to producing at a PPG+ rate kinda like Giroux once he got out of Philadephia.
 
UglyPuckling

UglyPuckling

Registered User
May 14, 2021
1,451
755
Ice-Tray said:
We’re not trading him. Just like the rest of the boys Cat will sign a long term deal here.
Click to expand...
Can you share your 22-player roster with salaries including retain $s and buy-outs? I'm interested in your ideas about how you would make the cap work with Debrincat on the roster.

Both a 2023-24 roster & 2024-25 roster would be helpful, but the 2023-24 would be a good start at least.
 
Ice-Tray

Ice-Tray

Registered User
Jan 31, 2006
16,619
8,528
Victoria
UglyPuckling said:
Can you share your 22-player roster with salaries including retain $s and buy-outs? I'm interested in your ideas about how you would make the cap work with Debrincat on the roster.

Both a 2023-24 roster & 2024-25 roster would be helpful, but the 2023-24 would be a good start at least.
Click to expand...
No thanks, to be honest mathing, stats, spreadsheets and all those goodies aren’t part of my sports fandom.

Not a knock by any means, and I do appreciate the effort you and others put into thy kind of stuff, and know lots of people enjoy that kind of thing.

I like to watch hockey and shoot the shit before and after games based on what I see.

Me making a pretend roster feels like a waste of my time because there are a ton of variables that could lead to there being enough space to sign DBC, and potentially Zub.

A better way, since you enjoy spreadsheets, would be to decide that you have to make the numbers work, and see how many ways you can make it happen. That way you would have your answer, and you’d enjoy the task as well!

Alex1234 said:
Zub included?
Click to expand...
It looks to me like Zub’s camp is looking to use UFA to create a market for Zub. It’s a smart plan for the player to maximize his deal. It’s not a great scenario to be able to re-sign him to a friendly deal.
 
UglyPuckling

UglyPuckling

Registered User
May 14, 2021
1,451
755
Ice-Tray said:
No thanks, to be honest mathing, stats, spreadsheets and all those goodies aren’t part of my sports fandom.

Not a knock by any means, and I do appreciate the effort you and others put into thy kind of stuff, and know lots of people enjoy that kind of thing.

I like to watch hockey and shoot the shit before and after games based on what I see.

Me making a pretend roster feels like a waste of my time because there are a ton of variables that could lead to there being enough space to sign DBC, and potentially Zub.

* Note - A better way, since you enjoy spreadsheets, would be to decide that you have to make the numbers work, and see how many ways you can make it happen. That way you would have your answer, and you’d enjoy the task as well!
Click to expand...
Given that many of the roster spots are taken by players under contract, many/most AAVs are already known. That leaves only a few assumptions to make. So, I wouldn't characterize it as a "pretend" roster or exercise.

* Note - I have created many spreadsheets in the past and posted them before. Some of the spreadsheets show a roster that meets the cap, and some don't. If you've been in here and are paying attention, you would have noticed that already I'm sure.

So, I've already done this, and will of course, continue to do this.

In many cases, I take the ideas generated by other posters, and then plug them into the spreadsheet. I take different hypotheses that people make in here, and then run the numbers to reveal whatever they show. Whatever the numbers are, they are the numbers. You could say just let the numbers speak for themselves.

Running the numbers is informative and it is a different approach that sets aside emotions and preconceived ideas that some people are more prone to.

In general, when more expensive players are added to the known salaries (good players already under contract), the more likely it is that the total will exceed the cap when the cap is tight. And, next year, given that that the cap will likely be $83.5 m, it will definitely be tight.

I think you would find the exercise quite useful. It could be much better than making blanket statements (opinions).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bicboi64
SensHulk

SensHulk

Registered User
May 31, 2016
1,903
1,719
San Jose, CA
Liver King said:
meow meow

Cat's heating up
Click to expand...
One might even say…the cat’s in heat? (I’ll show myself out)
mrkitty_southpark.JPG
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DylanSensFan and bert
Ice-Tray

Ice-Tray

Registered User
Jan 31, 2006
16,619
8,528
Victoria
UglyPuckling said:
Given that many of the roster spots are taken by players under contract, many/most AAVs are already known. That leaves only a few assumptions to make. So, I wouldn't characterize it as a "pretend" roster or exercise.

* Note - I have created many spreadsheets in the past and posted them before. Some of the spreadsheets show a roster that meets the cap, and some don't. If you've been in here and are paying attention, you would have noticed that already I'm sure.

So, I've already done this, and will of course, continue to do this.

In many cases, I take the ideas generated by other posters, and then plug them into the spreadsheet. I take different hypotheses that people make in here, and then run the numbers to reveal whatever they show. Whatever the numbers are, they are the numbers. You could say just let the numbers speak for themselves.

Running the numbers is informative and it is a different approach that sets aside emotions and preconceived ideas that some people are more prone to.

In general, when more expensive players are added to the known salaries (good players already under contract), the more likely it is that the total will exceed the cap when the cap is tight. And, next year, given that that the cap will likely be $83.5 m, it will definitely be tight.

I think you would find the exercise quite useful. It could be much better than making blanket statements (opinions).
Click to expand...
I’m happy that you enjoy making spreadsheets, and I can appreciate its usefulness in coming to the conclusions that you come to. Personally I don’t look through them at all, that’s not entertaining for me.

My point is very simple: I think that we will re-sign Cat (if he is willing to sign with us), and I think that that has been the plan all along after the mutual feeling out/settling in period. It’s not really a hot take.

I don’t care that it’s a “blanket statement” as you put it, because I’m not here to argue a case, research a point, or ‘show my work’. To me that’s a waste of time, as it doesn’t interest me personally. The people who actually make the decisions will do as they will no matter how much we discuss potential outcomes and produce data from home.

You have made spreadsheets, but you have to know that the team has made them too, except they have more information to work with than you ie. have plans for the future, and contingencies that you simply aren’t party to. The data you present is of limited value in the real world to begin with. It basically says that we have a cap crunch this next season, which we all know.

I’m happy to make the assumption that they didn’t trade a 7OA pick for a player that they didn’t intend to sign, or have considered the cap implications before making the trade. Makes sense to me that they will try and sign him and ‘make the numbers work’. There have been no financial surprises here.

One thing is for certain, and that’s that we’ll all find out soon enough. Keep up the good work!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X