Around the NHL — Episode XLXVI

[JD1]

If Dorion doesn't know mid season after his team is a seller, who is a part of the future and who isn't, that's on him. If he thought Brown was a part of the future, extend him, and if Brown doesn't want to sign an extension move him because you can't have that kind of uncertainty.

Not to mention, the Sens have spent money on things like buy outs and salary retention already while under Melynk. They had the money to retain and get a good return for Brown but chose not to

You keep driving on this narrative. Dorion couldn't extend him prior to the TDL. You don't appear to understand that.

But you must mean Dorion should have got a commitment from Brown, a verbal commitment prior to the TDL. Now why would Brown do that? The NHLPA certainly wouldn't approve of that. Approve of players showing their hand.

Let this sink in: there's no way for Dorion to know heading in to the TDL what Brown's intent was. Nor was there anyway to know he'd be landing DeBrincat and Giroux.

Had he moved him and not landed those two upgrades you seem like the type that would have been in here pouncing on Dorion all summer.

 

[guyzeur]

You keep driving on this narrative. Dorion couldn't extend him prior to the TDL. You don't appear to understand that.

But you must mean Dorion should have got a commitment from Brown, a verbal commitment prior to the TDL. Now why would Brown do that? The NHLPA certainly wouldn't approve of that. Approve of players showing their hand.

Let this sink in: there's no way for Dorion to know heading in to the TDL what Brown's intent was. Nor was there anyway to know he'd be landing DeBrincat and Giroux.

Had he moved him and not landed those two upgrades you seem like the type that would have been in here pouncing on Dorion all summer.

Some people said: "If you don't know it normally means the guy wants out!". So you trade him if the player can't tell you or doesn't know cause his wife doesn't like shopping here or his favourite mecanic left the city because it was too cold, etc....

I tend to agree.

 

[Ice-Tray]

He waited until he had adequate replacements (better players), and a clear indication from the player that he did not want to stay, before trading Brown for fair return.

This is not a situation warranting coulda should woulda in my opinion.

Case closed.

 

[Xspyrit]

By the way, I don't care if some think I am "negative". I have proven time and time again that I can be very positive. I still post a lot of positive stuff about our young players and prospects because IMO that's where our wealth comes from. But I personally chose to say the things the way I see them and not have preconceived bias.

FWIW, I heard that Brown’s decision to go to Free Agency came after Nick Paul was traded. (Apparently there were some vocal displeasure that they couldn’t close the gap to extend him)

I’m not sure the Sens would have been able/willing to keep Brown beyond next season anyways, but I’m sure this would have come up in the exit interview.

Now that could be a good reason. If Brown wanted to stay in Ottawa but changed his mind after Paul was traded, then I can understand the change of heart. Not in Dorion's control

Paul + Brown raises would have prevented Giroux's signing for example, so in the end, Joseph and Giroux replaces them and it's all good

As I said before, I see Giroux as a Brown deluxe version, he's older but he should be able to provide a lot short term. No problem here but it sucks that we couldn't trade Brown last deadline.

Why was it not verified before June?

How about because Brown had no obligation to declare his intentions leading up to the TDL? You asked for a single reason, I give you one.

Come up with an answer for that. I've seen a few guys yammering on about Dorion should have known before the deadline. Brown had absolutely zero obligation to inform Dorion of his intentions

This isn't a video game.

See above. Now that's a good reason. While Brown had no obligation to let Dorion know in advance, Dorion has the RIGHT (and responsibility IMO) to make his OWN deadlines (could have had internal deadlines for Stone and Tkachuk files for example) and decide in advance. He probably intended to have Brown extended but things changed.

And believe me, foresight is not a video game in my entourage. For example, my best friend who is now a full time trader, helped me make a 59 000$ USD profit with a 2000$ investment in just a bit over 2 years... crypto of course. The reasoning he gave me to make that investment was impressive foresight IMO. Wish I did a much higher amount now lol

 

[Xspyrit]

Buying out Ryan saved cash, there was no way to trade him.

With the money saved on Ryan, we went after a worse player though (although not many expected that), Dadonov had a 5.0 AAV and Ryan's buyout cost was $1,833,333

However, Dorion did very well on fixing that issue by getting Holden and a 3rd while Dadonov only cost 3.5 in salary for the first year. One of his best trades for sure.

I doubt anyone would have looked at Brown as a top 6 add. I think anyone looking to add Brown might have been looking at him as a 13 minute a night guy. Then when you get into that, you're looking at guys to be bigger and more physical. Look at his time in Toronto. As they got better he got pushed further and further down the line in terms of TOI.

IMO it's a common mistake people do when evaluating Connor Brown. People don't realize he has evolved a lot in Ottawa. Some players peak older than others, in Brown's case, it is 25 y/o and up

oof why is the around the nhl thread filled with this crap again, isn't there a million other threads for rehashing ancient history

The whole conversation started when I talked about Montreal... I said :

"Asset management is crucial. Considering their best assets FT have been Lehkonen, Toffoli and Ben freaking Chiarot, this is highly impressive"

Then someone started comparing with us and here we are. We are on the Sens board so that's kinda normal. What could have been done is moving the subject to another thread.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Thompson gets 50M over 7YRs based on a single season of elite play.

Sabres better hope it wasn't an outlier season.

 

[Qward]

Thompson gets 50M over 7YRs based on a single season of elite play.

Sabres better hope it wasn't an outlier season.

We gave Norris 8 x $7.95 we are hoping the same.

 

[Hale The Villain]

We gave Norris 8 x $7.95 we are hoping the same.

At least Norris had a great rookie year last year and had over a PPG in his rookie season in Belleville.

Thompson had 35 points in 147 games before this year, and nothing at lower levels suggested this kind of offensive upside.

He was going to break out at some point with his great tools and shot but 50M seems like a pretty big bet to make based off a single season.

 

[GCK]

Thompson gets 50M over 7YRs based on a single season of elite play.

Sabres better hope it wasn't an outlier season.

It was a smart bit of business. There are a number of teams that need to make these types of calculated risks or risk losing players in their mid 20s.

 

[playasRus]

It was a smart bit of business. There are a number of teams that need to make these types of calculated risks or risk losing players in their mid 20s.

There's a risk he ends up a 55pt player the rest of his career the way there's a risk Norris ends up a 65 point player the rest of his career. To boot, we have an extra year of 8M if Norris doesn't hit a higher ceiling.

I wouldn't criticize either signing.

 

[Ice-Tray]

There's a risk he ends up a 55pt player the rest of his career the way there's a risk Norris ends up a 65 point player the rest of his career. To boot, we have an extra year of 8M if Norris doesn't hit a higher ceiling.

I wouldn't criticize either signing.

It’s true, but man, I like the gamble of paying for a players best year’s versus paying big money for the decline years.

Pay the guys what they’re worth, when they’re worth it. Then they will be more likely to accept reasonable deals when they are on the decline…. Maybe.

Easier for the team not to get screwed and be able to cut bait after getting a players best years if we can’t agree on a fair deal.

Look at EK. A long term deal at better money may have led to a more reasonable retirement deal for him. As it was, we cut bait and now he has one of the worst contracts in the league, and we got to witness his best years.

This new approach is more promising in my opinion, and more conducive to keeping aging talent while having room to add new young stars.

 

[JD1]

It’s true, but man, I like the gamble of paying for a players best year’s versus paying big money for the decline years.

Pay the guys what they’re worth, when they’re worth it. Then they will be more likely to accept reasonable deals when they are on the decline…. Maybe.

Easier for the team not to get screwed and be able to cut bait after getting a players best years if we can’t agree on a fair deal.

Look at EK. A long term deal at better money may have led to a more reasonable retirement deal for him. As it was, we cut bait and now he has one of the worst contracts in the league, and we got to witness his best years.

This new approach is more promising in my opinion, and more conducive to keeping aging talent while having room to add new young stars.

Signing long term contracts at any point introduces risk both ways. The team's risk is the player under performs, the player's risk is over performing.

The trend in the league is shifting to locking guys up earlier which in my view is great. You get their best years.

There's less and less fan tolerance for "retirement" contracts in hockey markets and I think we'll see less EK type deals in hockey markets. He couldn't play in a Canadian market on that contract...people would be on him every time he left his house

 

[Ice-Tray]

Signing long term contracts at any point introduces risk both ways. The team's risk is the player under performs, the player's risk is over performing.

The trend in the league is shifting to locking guys up earlier which in my view is great. You get their best years.

There's less and less fan tolerance for "retirement" contracts in hockey markets and I think we'll see less EK type deals in hockey markets. He couldn't play in a Canadian market on that contract...people would be on him every time he left his house

Totally agree,

The cap, and the detrimental effect that poor usage has on a team’s ability to succeed, has necessitated this change.

Hard to love your favourite player as they move into the twilight of their career, when their salary is preventing your favourite team from being competitive.

 

[bicboi64]

That Thompson contract might be a huge risk considering Thompson had a very high shooting percentage for them this year. Would be a shame if he ends up flopping and replacing Okposo's crap contract on their roster after next year. A part of me hopes he does well in Buffalo, but another part is like "we don't need another division rival getting better" lol

 

[BondraTime]

That Thompson contract might be a huge risk considering Thompson had a very high shooting percentage for them this year. Would be a shame if he ends up flopping and replacing Okposo's crap contract on their roster after next year. A part of me hopes he does well in Buffalo, but another part is like "we don't need another division rival getting better" lol

If shot % is the case, Norris' will look much worse considering he shot 5+% higher than Thompson and signed a much bigger contract.

15% isn't an out of the ordinary number.

 

[Hale The Villain]

I still think we should have bridged Norris.

He'll always have a higher shooting percentage than the league average because he rarely shoots unless he's in a good scoring position, but it's unlikely to remain at as high as it was last season.

And if he loses his top PP spot to DeBrincat/Giroux his production could drop significantly.

 

[swiftwin]

I still think we should have bridged Norris.

He'll always have a higher shooting percentage than the league average because he rarely shoots unless he's in a good scoring position, but it's unlikely to remain at as high as it was last season.

And if he loses his top PP spot to DeBrincat/Giroux his production could drop significantly.

I think this is a valid concern. I'm not too worried about his shooting %, since he's had a very high % for the last 3 seasons (including his AHL season). I'm more worried about the fact that he was placed in a very good position to succeed, having primo minutes on the ice with the best linemates and was the sole triggerman on the PP.

Could be a "the sum is greater than the parts" situation. But at the same time, you have to consider that the other parts (Tkachuk & Batherson) are also locked long term, so maybe it's not a bad thing that we get to keep that trio together locked in for the next 5+ years. Besides, Norris' contract is likely going to be good value in years 5-8 anyways when the cap rises.

 

[R2010]

I still think we should have bridged Norris.

He'll always have a higher shooting percentage than the league average because he rarely shoots unless he's in a good scoring position, but it's unlikely to remain at as high as it was last season.

And if he loses his top PP spot to DeBrincat/Giroux his production could drop significantly.

Or because he has an absolutely wicked release that can beat goalies clean.

Norris is a freak athlete who has improved every year. I would've preferred something like 7 x 7 but i'd take him in a heartbeat over Thompson.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Signing long term contracts at any point introduces risk both ways. The team's risk is the player under performs, the player's risk is over performing.

The trend in the league is shifting to locking guys up earlier which in my view is great. You get their best years.

There's less and less fan tolerance for "retirement" contracts in hockey markets and I think we'll see less EK type deals in hockey markets. He couldn't play in a Canadian market on that contract...people would be on him every time he left his house

Hopefully the next CBA can start chipping away at the problem, by lowering max contract length. Would be one hell of a fight, but knocking contracts down to 5 years (6 if signing as a UFA with your own team) would be a game changer.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Hopefully the next CBA can start chipping away at the problem, by lowering max contract length. Would be one hell of a fight, but knocking contracts down to 5 years (6 if signing as a UFA with your own team) would be a game changer.

Just don't go any less or start adding player option years. As a fan of the NBA, I hate what they've done with their contract system and all the uncertainty it brings to your team no matter what stage you're at.

 

[JD1]

Hopefully the next CBA can start chipping away at the problem, by lowering max contract length. Would be one hell of a fight, but knocking contracts down to 5 years (6 if signing as a UFA with your own team) would be a game changer.

Maybe even a max contract by age?

6 years at 28
5 years at 30
4 years at 32

Something like that. That'd be a hard battle with the NHLPA given most voting would be negatively impacted

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Maybe even a max contract by age?

6 years at 28
5 years at 30
4 years at 32

Something like that. That'd be a hard battle with the NHLPA given most voting would be negatively impacted

That works well, too. I kinda wonder...what do these young guys feel about older players getting these big retirement/ufa deals, when many times, it ends up being bought out a few years down the road. Those buyout years means less cap space for the kids when they're looking for contracts in their primes.

 

[GCK]

CBA changes require give and take.

I’d like to see the following trade offs.

1. Max contract come down to to 6 and 7 years in exchange for arbitration immediately following ELC.

2. Lower Offer Sheet compensation in exchange for Signing Bonuses maxed out at 25% of year’s salary.

3. From a fan perspective I’d like to see the 15% above and below the mid point which determines Upper Limit and floor reduced. 15% of 60M left an 18Mish gap between floor and ceiling. At 100M it will be 30Mish.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Maybe even a max contract by age?

6 years at 28
5 years at 30
4 years at 32

Something like that. That'd be a hard battle with the NHLPA given most voting would be negatively impacted

They’ll need something back to give this up, like making UFA age lower, etc…. Which definitely don’t want.

I personally don’t see 8 years for the owning team, or 7 years UFA, as a big deal.

Teams just need to make the switch from paying vets huge retirement deals, to paying large deals for prime years.

Much better chance of the cash commitments paying off, and much less chance that players will need/expect their big dollars in their retirement deals.

It’s a salary culture shift that’s needed in my opinion, not more rules.

 

[Xspyrit]

Hopefully the next CBA can start chipping away at the problem, by lowering max contract length. Would be one hell of a fight, but knocking contracts down to 5 years (6 if signing as a UFA with your own team) would be a game changer.

If that was the way it works... Thomas Chabot would only have 4 years left... Tkachuk would have 5 years left... It would create very short contending windows and a vast disparity between attractive cities and less attractive ones...

3 years ELC + 8 years gives Ottawa 11 years of Chabot vs 9. Considering we've been rebuilding in his first 5 years and we're not even sure to make the playoffs this year, we could be only looking at 3 playoffs seasons

This could be a disaster for some teams.