Grub's Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Trade Winds Coming Early

[Vector]

It's great when you have cheap term but I do not understand how a $3 million contract is an asset for an underperforming player who has never been more than a 10-12 minute guy his whole career.

If Hoglander was a UFA at the end of the season he isn't getting more than $2 million even with a decent bump in production the rest of the way to finish with 30 points or so.

Yeah but arbitration and RFA negotiations scary! Cost certainty good!

Seriously though, I think a deal will fall somewhere in the middle. He'll get packaged up with something else and bring back a positive asset. With Friedman talking about how the Canucks are letting teams know they won't get taken advantage of, it's very clear that organizations want to buy low on Hoglander. His value is probably around a 3rd round pick, if I had to guess.

 

[MS]

Yeah but arbitration and RFA negotiations scary! Cost certainty good!

Seriously though, I think a deal will fall somewhere in the middle. He'll get packaged up with something else and bring back a positive asset. With Friedman talking about how the Canucks are letting teams know they won't get taken advantage of, it's very clear that organizations want to buy low on Hoglander. His value is probably around a 3rd round pick, if I had to guess.

Yeah, I wonder if 'cost certainty good' isn't just a synonym for 'GM laziness'.

I'd probably agree with your valuation, although if I was an NHL GM I certainly wouldn't be paying that price.

 

[Chairman Maouth]

I, too, am impresed with Elliotte's coiffure. I think this is the first time since the dawn of the pandemic that he doesn't look like he just got out from behind a departing Boeing 747.

 

[Ernie]

It's great when you have cheap term but I do not understand how a $3 million contract is an asset for an underperforming player who has never been more than a 10-12 minute guy his whole career.

If Hoglander was a UFA at the end of the season he isn't getting more than $2 million even with a decent bump in production the rest of the way to finish with 30 points or so.

He was up to 14 minutes per night for the last 20 games of the season late year. He generates chances and goals at an elite rate at 5v5 and the team was obviously hoping he would continue to progress. Unfortunately that has not happened but it's clear that a lot of teams like his game still and see value in his contract.

Given the team's depth at wing I'm not sure it makes sense to keep him on this roster but if you give him away for nothing it could bite you in the ass as he's a solid 20-20-40 ES middle six player for $3m when he's 26.

 

[arttk]

It's great when you have cheap term but I do not understand how a $3 million contract is an asset for an underperforming player who has never been more than a 10-12 minute guy his whole career.

If Hoglander was a UFA at the end of the season he isn't getting more than $2 million even with a decent bump in production the rest of the way to finish with 30 points or so.

Because 3M with the cap inflation is like 2M.

 

[Horvat1C]

If the Rangers are serious about a shakeup I would be all over K'Andre Miller. NYR fans have soured on him as his decision making has regressed for a calendar year and is an RFA at the end of the season. He'll be looking for a somewhat hefty deal considering he took a team-friendly bridge deal two years ago.

I believe that our system and coaching staff would allow him to flourish after an adjustment period. He's 6'5 and can skate like the wind, exactly what Foote wants in a defenseman. After breaking down and building back his game, I think he could be someone who can legitimately ease the burden on Hughes and even function as a serviceable top-pairing defenseman if paired with Hronek. He's spent the majority of his career playing with Trouba, upgrading to Hronek would do wonders for him.

I'm not sure what it would take to get him. Hoglander is out there on our end but I don't think the Rangers are interested in wingers. Otherwise the Rangers are probably looking for the same things we are.

 

[Diversification]

It's great when you have cheap term but I do not understand how a $3 million contract is an asset for an underperforming player who has never been more than a 10-12 minute guy his whole career.

If Hoglander was a UFA at the end of the season he isn't getting more than $2 million even with a decent bump in production the rest of the way to finish with 30 points or so.

The cost certainty is appealing if you view Höglander as a lottery ticket where the payout is moderately large. Many GMs probably see him as an NHL regular that can slot up and down the lineup as needed, and not look too out of place. His track record agrees with that. Perhaps that is an irrational, granted. But there are a limited number of players that satisfy this criteria which makes him somewhat of a commodity league wide.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Any new GM in any sport will look objectively at prospects. No personal attachment. Benning was tied to Virtanen til his legal issues. Another GM probably cuts bait earlier.

But, I'd be shocked to see CBJ move Sillinger out. Big C for a skilled non 1st line winger? Not the value he should be looking for.

He sure gave up on Jirececk quick

 

[MS]

He was up to 14 minutes per night for the last 20 games of the season late year. He generates chances and goals at an elite rate at 5v5 and the team was obviously hoping he would continue to progress. Unfortunately that has not happened but it's clear that a lot of teams like his game still and see value in his contract.

Given the team's depth at wing I'm not sure it makes sense to keep him on this roster but if you give him away for nothing it could bite you in the ass as he's a solid 20-20-40 ES middle six player for $3m when he's 26.

The cost certainty is appealing if you view Höglander as a lottery ticket where the payout is moderately large. Many GMs probably see him as an NHL regular that can slot up and down the lineup as needed, and not look too out of place. His track record agrees with that. Perhaps that is an irrational, granted. But there are a limited number of players that satisfy this criteria which makes him somewhat of a commodity league wide.

Hoglander is very poor defensively and offers zero C or PK utility, and isn't really a PP guy. He's going to have a hard time ever being a 15 minute player over a full season on a good team or putting up more than 40ish points.

I don't really see the opportunity for a big payoff with this player. Small 40-point soft-minute middle-6 wingers don't carry a ton of value, as we saw with Sprong.

 

[bossram]

To further my point; the three GMs we are talking about is 1) the original GM of the Thrashers that left the Hurricanes because he wasn't allowed to make actual decision 2) A wunderkind who's done perplexing after perplexing move for the Penguins and viewed Michael Bunting as positive value and 3) the living embodiment of hockey nepotism (although his limited track record this off-season has yielded great results so far).

How to be a good GM: Just keep phoning the bad ones.

 

[pitseleh]

Yeah, I wonder if 'cost certainty good' isn't just a synonym for 'GM laziness'.

I'd probably agree with your valuation, although if I was an NHL GM I certainly wouldn't be paying that price.

I think it’s just self-selection. The teams that are positively valuing him right now necessarily see the extension as an asset, because if they didn’t he’d be a negative value player.

They might be wrong on their valuation of the player, but that’s a different issue.

 

[bossram]

3M in a flat cap world is bad.
3M in a rising cap world where the cap will be 97M next season and 100+ the year after is nothing.

A few points, a few of which I think most people have not internalized.

1. I generally agree with the value of cost certainty in cap hits during the inflationary cap era. Cap hits are going to escalate very quickly and people will not be used to it (there will be predictably tons of people saying player X or Y is overpaid when their cap hit % will be exactly in line with comparable players).

2. People haven't realized that for bottom-of-the roster players, the absolute value of cap hit savings is not actually that much, even in an inflationary environment. Yes, if the cap goes up to $100M, locking in high-end or elite players saves millions of dollars per year (e.g. Petey at 13.1% of an $88M cap is $11.6M, vs $13.1M of a $100M cap).

But for bottom of the roster players, the absolute value of the savings is not much, and I'm not sure it outweighs the risk of "uncertainty" if you don't actually think the player is that good (E.g. a $3M player today is only inflated by $339K under an $100M cap - the same cap hit % under a $100M cap is just $3.39M). It's not a massive difference.

3. With respect to Hoglander, given the perceived value of smallish, offense-only wingers, and we see this repeatedly in actual transactions, I don't think he has that much value.

4. Of course, as Vector says, it only takes one dumb GM to make a bizarre offer.

 

[bossram]

Because 3M with the cap inflation is like $2M

No, it really is not. As I've outlined.

The cap isn't (and hasn't) gone up by 50% in two years. It's projected to go up 13% in two years, which means your assumed $2M cap hit would actually be worth....$2.26M

 

[supercanuck]

How to be a good GM: Just keep phoning the bad ones.

No wonder Benning ran out of time. His phone must have been ringing 24x7.

 

[StreetHawk]

He sure gave up on Jirececk quick

How much of that was the agent and attitude. Kid could not beat out 2 of Jack Johnson, Harris, Christianson when Gudbranson was healthy to be part of the top 6 yet thinks he should play. When Gudbranson goes down, option was to claim Fabbro vs give him minutes.

 

[Peen]

How to be a good GM: Just keep phoning the bad ones.

 

[Kryten]

Because 3M with the cap inflation is like 2M.

If youre Benning, yes. In reality all a raising cap does is give more money to the good players.

 

[bossram]

View attachment 938946

A classic.

 

[Vector]

How to be a good GM: Just keep phoning the bad ones.

We don't hear Julien Brisebois as one of the GMs interested in Hoglander.

 

[bossram]

If youre Benning, yes. In reality all a raising cap does is give more money to the good players.

Yes.

If, as a GM, your takeaway from an inflationary cap environment is, "I gotta lock up my top-end players to the best deals I can now," that is correct.

If it's, "I gotta give my bottom-sixers 50% raises because cap going up!!!!", that's just dumb and incorrect.

We don't hear Julien Brisebois as one of the GMs interested in Hoglander.

Exactly.

 

[Canucker]

Yes.

If, as a GM, your takeaway from an inflationary cap environment is, "I gotta lock up my top-end players to the best deals I can now," that is correct.

If it's, "I gotta give my bottom-sixers 50% raises because cap going up!!!!", that's just dumb and incorrect.


Exactly.

Unless you're a bad GM who misidentifies his bottom-sixers for top-end players and really start jacking with the salary structure.

#ThanksJim

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

View attachment 938946

If words could make me vomit, I’d be chucking all over the place right now.

 

[Peen]

Btw, not in agreement on all the Suter re-sign discussions. Riding a shooting % heater rn. Definitely has utility as a utility knife 7th forward type who can slot up and down, but not someone who fits full time as a C on this team given we should really find a righty faceoff winning guy. Management also has shown the ability to churn excess value.

We also just signed Heinen.

Come the end of the season, you'd assume Suter would return to his 35-40 point pace that he's historically been at. Like if he's back at an affordable ticket, cool. But I don't get the overreaction to all of a sudden be like oMG we gotta bring him back.

 

[Diversification]

Hoglander is very poor defensively and offers zero C or PK utility, and isn't really a PP guy. He's going to have a hard time ever being a 15 minute player over a full season on a good team or putting up more than 40ish points.

I don't really see the opportunity for a big payoff with this player. Small 40-point soft-minute middle-6 wingers don't carry a ton of value, as we saw with Sprong.

And if you were a GM, you wouldn't be interested. I get it. I even agree with your reasoning. But not all GMs think that way. They see a guy who can pot 24 goals basically all at evens and has been deployed by the canucks in the top6 and bottom6 and they think to themselves: I could use a guy like that. And whats more, my team is going to be bad for the foreseeable future and here's a relatively young player with room to grow who will have the opportunity to do so on my bad team in need of warm bodies to insulate my top picks as they learn the ropes. And all without the risk of contract negotiations. You can (and have) called it laziness, but I can kind of also see the appeal if I squint hard enough.

 

[Wisp]

We don't hear Julien Brisebois as one of the GMs interested in Hoglander.

capitals pro-scouting is though. really good bargain shoppers.