Tribute Jack Campbell Discussion

[Confucius]

8 years seems like a massive risk, can't see the Leafs committing to that.

It sure is a long time and probably is too long, however we have to give to get a lower AAV than Soup can get. I'm just trying to be realistic. There is no way we get Soup for 4 years at 4.5 per.

Prove me wrong Kyle, do it. lol!

 

[ACC1224]

It sure is a long time and probably is too long, however we have to give to get a lower AAV than Soup can get. I'm just trying to be realistic. There is no way we get Soup for 4 years at 4.5 per.

Prove me wrong Kyle, do it. lol!

Yeah it's going to be a tough call.
You have to expect a full NMC as well, so once signed there is no getting out of it.

 

[Dekes For Days]

15-2 tells a story.

15-2 certainly tells a story, but it doesn't really tell an accurate story, or a relevant story to this discussion, so it's a little unclear why you're telling it here.

we played absolutely horribly.

That's certainly your perception. Whether that perception is accurate is another story.

That's 12 periods of hockey

Yes, that's the issue. You seem to think exclusively goal differential, with zero context but all of the empty net goals included, in 12 selected periods of hockey over the past 4 years is the best and only representation of the team we had in the past, and everything from the past is the same in the present, so making a normal comment - suggesting that a current top-5 ranked team is good and shouldn't sell their Vezina-contending #1 goalie before the playoffs - is actually "nonsense".

Except not even 12 periods! 10 periods! Because 12 made us look too good! I could have sworn I saw somebody with your name say that "narratives based on small sample sizes are a joke" the other day...

But you seem to think that we've accomplished something worth bragging about

There are certainly things to like about this team and be proud of over the past half-decade, but I wasn't actually bragging about anything at all. I was merely commenting on how a team in our position, or quite frankly even a team well below our position, wouldn't and shouldn't be selling off their Vezina-contending #1 goalie as they approach the playoffs, and for some reason you took massive issue with me referring to a top-5 ranked team in the league as one of the best in the league.

Since you don't seem to think top-5 teams are among the best in the league, what is the criteria a team has to hit for you to think they're good enough to not sell off their #1 vezina-contending goalie as the playoffs approach?

 

[Nylanderthal]

Noone takes a discount here
But if he walks we're screwed
I think 5 years at $5 m woukd be nice
And yet still risky

Rielly and Muzz both took less than anticipated. JT took less than offered by other teams to come here, Spezz plays for a rolling league minimum deal.... lots of value throughout the lineup

 

[Ziggdiezan]

highly revered prospect that has met or surpassed all expectations vs a guy nearing 30 who had pretty limited experience in the decade since being drafted... big difference.

Thats fair, however not completely relevant to the conversation we were having on NHL track record and its possible large impact on contract demands.

 

[Confucius]

Rielly and Muzz both took less than anticipated. JT took less than offered by other teams to come here, Spezz plays for a rolling league minimum deal.... lots of value throughout the lineup

Those guys have made their cash, I think its pompous to expect a guy that has been around for 10 years and relatively not made much, to give a discount. Hey it could happen but that is expecting alot.

 

[Ziggdiezan]

Noone takes a discount here
But if he walks we're screwed
I think 5 years at $5 m woukd be nice
And yet still risky

Rielly arguably took a decent discount. 5 x 5 I would do probably pretty fast. Load er up with front end signing bonuses and don't give protection in the last year or two. Signed Andy to that same deal like 6 years ago

 

[Ziggdiezan]

Enjoying the speculation part. Just wish you guys would add term to your AAV speculations. We all know saying 5.5 is one thing but when you are 30, 5,5 X 3 years is worse for the player than 4.5 X 8 years. Just my opinion but maybe i'm wrong.

5.5 - 6.5 by like 4 - 6 years is my guess unless he takes a discount.

Edit: this assumes he keeps up his stellar play

 

[Racer88]

He’s played four freaking games……

Kinda makes you wonder why Keefe hasn’t played him more since he has regained his health?

 

[Nylanderthal]

Thats fair, however not completely relevant to the conversation we were having on NHL track record and its possible large impact on contract demands.

well I guess that goes to show that NHL track record while important is not the only determining factor in a contract negotiation. There's an expectation that Shesty continues a fairly steep upward trajectory. IDK that you could say the same for Soup, you gotta believe this is what you get.

 

[Nylanderthal]

Kinda makes you wonder why Keefe hasn’t played him more since he has regained his health?

They haven't really played a lot since he's fully recovered and you'd have to think priority is keeping Jack limber and loose. I'm confident that once the schedule condenses a tonne we will see lots of Petr.

 

[Ziggdiezan]

well I guess that goes to show that NHL track record while important is not the only determining factor in a contract negotiation. There's an expectation that Shesty continues a fairly steep upward trajectory. IDK that you could say the same for Soup, you gotta believe this is what you get.

There are definitely other factors as we have seen a lot of really young good players with less than a full season of games getting serious money on long term deals. Seems the RFA status driving down cost days are done. If Soup stays where he is that means you have a top 5 goalie in his prime who is a UFA this summer. Those guys get paid and as I said previously (which started the entire conversation) I think some team will offer him 5.5 - 6.5 million AAV if he keeps up his current play.

 

[Mess]

It sure is a long time and probably is too long, however we have to give to get a lower AAV than Soup can get. I'm just trying to be realistic. There is no way we get Soup for 4 years at 4.5 per.

Prove me wrong Kyle, do it. lol!

Lets all get realistic here and look at this from Leafs team internal pay scale.

If you're Jack Campbell and his agent and you just saw Dubas give Mrazek 3 years at $3.8 mil in what was suppose to be a tandem situation, and then you compare your contribution in terms of games play, personal stats SV%, GAA and all-star nomination, vs Mrazek on the same team as your true comparable to set your price.

Would their realistic asking price be $4.5 mil per in direct comparison to Mrazek (who gets paid $3.8 mil to seldom play and sit on the bench)?

If JC plays 65+ games this year and Mrazek < 20 games are you going to settle for +$700k more annually or a similar shorter term 3/4 year deal?

Mrazek's contract is the floor, and now comparatively what is going to be Campbell's ceiling.

 

[Confucius]

5.5 - 6.5 by like 4 - 6 years is my guess unless he takes a discount.

Edit: this assumes he keeps up his stellar play

Sounds fair to be honest, but I still like my plan to give max term and lower that 5.5 -6.5 to a 4.5. I know 8 years is too long but if he takes 1.5 per year less, we are better off and can fit him in more easily. If we can make 6 million work then sure as you say 4 years.

 

[Confucius]

Lets all get realistic here and look at this from Leafs team internal pay scale.

If you're Jack Campbell and his agent and you just saw Dubas give Mrazek 3 years at $3.8 mil in what was suppose to be a tandem situation, and then you compare your contribution in terms of games play, personal stats SV%, GAA and all-star nomination, vs Mrazek on the same team as your true comparable to set your price.

Would their realistic asking price be $4.5 mil per in direct comparison to Mrazek (who gets paid $3.8 mil to seldom play and sit on the bench)?

If JC plays 65+ games this year and Mrazek < 20 games are you going to settle for +$700k more annually or a similar shorter term 3/4 year deal?

But Maz got a 3 year deal he can be out of the NHL in 3 years, Soup would be guaranteed 8 years until he is 38. that is a huge difference.

 

[Ziggdiezan]

Sounds fair to be honest, but I still like my plan to give max term and lower that 5.5 -6.5 to a 4.5. I know 8 years is too long but if he takes 1.5 per year less, we are better off and can fit him in more easily. If we can make 6 million work then sure as you say 4 years.

If he isn't given protection for the 2nd half of the deal and you front load thr shit out of it, I guess I would do 8 if the AAV gets really low. But ya definitely a risk though I understand your rational

 

[Nylanderthal]

But Maz got a 3 year deal he can be out of the NHL in 3 years, Soup would be guaranteed 8 years until he is 38. that is a huge difference.

$30m 7 years= $4.285. front loaded and bonus laden to the max, and if he falls off a cliff towards the end you send him to Robidas Island.

 

[zeke]

Lets all get realistic here and look at this from Leafs team internal pay scale.

If you're Jack Campbell and his agent and you just saw Dubas give Mrazek 3 years at $3.8 mil in what was suppose to be a tandem situation, and then you compare your contribution in terms of games play, personal stats SV%, GAA and all-star nomination, vs Mrazek on the same team as your true comparable to set your price.

Would their realistic asking price be $4.5 mil per in direct comparison to Mrazek (who gets paid $3.8 mil to seldom play and sit on the bench)?

If JC plays 65+ games this year and Mrazek < 20 games are you going to settle for +$700k more annually or a similar shorter term 3/4 year deal?

Mrazek's contract is the floor, and now comparatively what is going to be Campbell's ceiling.

You're close to it.

We absolutely should be looking at the team's internal pay structure.

And note that our GM has never paid a goalie either a big salary or a long term.

 

[Gary Nylund]

8 years seems like a massive risk, can't see the Leafs committing to that.

Unless the AAV is low enough. But there's no way it would low enough so yeah, I don't see 8 years happening either.

15-2 certainly tells a story, but it doesn't really tell an accurate story, or a relevant story to this discussion, so it's a little unclear why you're telling it here.

That's certainly your perception. Whether that perception is accurate is another story.

Yes, that's the issue. You seem to think exclusively goal differential, with zero context but all of the empty net goals included, in 12 selected periods of hockey over the past 4 years is the best and only representation of the team we had in the past, and everything from the past is the same in the present, so making a normal comment - suggesting that a current top-5 ranked team is good and shouldn't sell their Vezina-contending #1 goalie before the playoffs - is actually "nonsense".

Except not even 12 periods! 10 periods! Because 12 made us look too good! I could have sworn I saw somebody with your name say that "narratives based on small sample sizes are a joke" the other day...

There are certainly things to like about this team and be proud of over the past half-decade, but I wasn't actually bragging about anything at all. I was merely commenting on how a team in our position, or quite frankly even a team well below our position, wouldn't and shouldn't be selling off their Vezina-contending #1 goalie as they approach the playoffs, and for some reason you took massive issue with me referring to a top-5 ranked team in the league as one of the best in the league.

Since you don't seem to think top-5 teams are among the best in the league, what is the criteria a team has to hit for you to think they're good enough to not sell off their #1 vezina-contending goalie as the playoffs approach?

15-2 isn't "perception", it's fact. I never said that these 12 periods of "selected" hockey are:

"the best and only representation of the team we had in the past, and everything from the past is the same in the present"

Those are your words, not mine and the fact that you need to spin the hell out of everything I say just shows how deep in denial you are. Those 12 period of hockey are the ONLY representation of how our team has played in the 4 years when our entire season rides on one game. That's a simple fact and please don't waste any more time and energy twisting this around to something I haven't said.

When our season comes down to one game, our level of play has plummeted for the last 4 years straight. You can shrug it off as "small sample size" but game 7's in the playoffs carry a lot more weight than any regular season games do and when you keep getting blown out in every game 7, there is cause for concern whether you can bring yourself to admit it or not. You buddy Zeke called the game 7 loss to MTL the worst loss in franchise history and called our players "choking dogs". He's one of the biggest homers ever seen around here and even he could admit the truth in this case, why can't you do the same?

Rielly arguably took a decent discount. 5 x 5 I would do probably pretty fast. Load er up with front end signing bonuses and don't give protection in the last year or two. Signed Andy to that same deal like 6 years ago

I'd do 5x5 in a heartbeat. I liked Andersen back then , he was a good goalie then (and he's having a great season this year BTW) but I like Jack today better than I liked Andersen back then. Hell if the price was 5x6 I'd probably willing to pay that as well, working around having to overpay him a little bit seems like much less of a challenge then finding someone else to pin our hopes on.

 

[Confucius]

$30m 7 years= $4.285. front loaded and bonus laden to the max, and if he falls off a cliff towards the end you send him to Robidas Island.

Exactly he made his cash we got the low aav. We are still useing our financial wealth but keeping the AAV low.

 

[Confucius]

Unless the AAV is low enough. But there's no way it would low enough so yeah, I don't see 8 years happening

There must be a number that would work over 8 years, If I was Dubas I would explore that angle. Somewhere the accountants could point out to both sides, look guys it's the same thing in dollars at the end of the day. Technically Soup has to hang around a few more years so we calculate that in, what number would make that happen? Who knows, but I would for sure ask if I was Dubas.

 

[Mess]

But Maz got a 3 year deal he can be out of the NHL in 3 years, Soup would be guaranteed 8 years until he is 38. that is a huge difference.

That wasn't what point I was making but rather addressing your last one of getting Campbell realistically signed for $4.5 mil for 4 years your Dubas dare. Sorry for the misunderstanding there I wasn't clear.

I agree with your original point that this you would think would have to be a long term deal or 7-8 years at $4.5 mil (long term security) of at least 2 X the Mrazek term length to get that relative similar price point, or the annual amount has to go way up on a short term similar deal. IMO

The short term deal doesn't seem realistic relative to Mrazek's contract when you compare the impact and performance.

Campbell .. 29 games 19-5-3 record with 2.13 GA/g and .931 sv% with 4 shutouts in a contract year compared to teammate Mrazek (making $3.8 mil X 3) 4 games 2-2-0 record with 3.59 GA/g and .882 sv%.

 

[Dekes For Days]

15-2 isn't "perception", it's fact.

I didn't say 15-2 was perception. I said that your claim that "we played absolutely horribly" was perception, and that remains true. And while the 15-2 number may have been picked out from some actual data, that doesn't make it relevant to the discussion here, or an accurate representation of our quality of play during even those 10 periods you reference, or our quality of team during that time, or our quality of team now, etc. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with Campbell.

Once again, this all started from my post addressing an individual's suggestion that we should sell off Campbell before the playoffs. Do you think we should sell of Campbell before the playoffs? Or do you agree with my stance that a team in our position does not and should not go selling off their Vezina contending #1 goalie as they approach the playoffs?

I never said that these 12 periods of "selected" hockey are: "the best and only representation of the team we had in the past, and everything from the past is the same in the present" Those are your words, not mine

Those are my words explaining the argument you've been presenting to me. You took massive issue with me referring to a team that is currently ranked in the top-5 of the league as "one of the best teams in the league", even though that is pretty normal sentiment, and it really didn't matter in terms of the point of the post. You've said that suggesting we are a top team in the present is "nonsense" because of what happened in 10 selected periods of play in the past, in one specifically chosen metric. I think that's pretty nonsense.

Those 12 period of hockey are the only representation of how our team has played in the 4 years when our entire season rides on one game.

That's not even true. We've had other games in that time-frame where our entire season rode on one game, like game 5 and 6 against Boston in 2018 or game 4 against Columbus in 2020. You just didn't include them because we won. And your 15-2 number doesn't even include all 12 periods to start with. And there are more ways to evaluate a team's play than just goal differential with zero context, but you dismiss everything else, because it all shows a different story than the one you're trying to sell.

Why did you say the other day that "narratives based on small sample sizes are a joke", but are now trying to define our current team based on exclusively no-context goal differential during 10 selected periods of play over the past 4 years? That seems very contradictory.

 

[Gary Nylund]

There must be a number that would work over 8 years, If I was Dubas I would explore that angle. Somewhere the accountants could point out to both sides, look guys it's the same thing in dollars at the end of the day. Technically Soup has to hang around a few more years so we calculate that in, what number would make that happen? Who knows, but I would for sure ask if I was Dubas.

It doesn't seem likely but who knows. I really want to keep Jack so I can't argue with considering all possible ways to make it happen.

I didn't say 15-2 was perception. I said that your claim that "we played absolutely horribly" was perception, and that remains true. And while the 15-2 number may have been picked out from some actual data, that doesn't make it relevant to the discussion here, or an accurate representation of our quality of play during even those 10 periods you reference, or our quality of team during that time, or our quality of team now, etc. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with Campbell.

Getting outscored 15-2 over 10 periods of play is playing absolutely horribly. You disagree with that "perception" and that's fine. It makes one wonder though - what would qualify as playing horribly to you, would 25-2 be enough? What about 35-1? 42-0?

You also didn't agree with the word "disappeared" yet you haven't been able to come up with anything more accurate - that should tell you something right there.

15-2 wasn't "picked" from "some actual data", but this has been explained to you already so not going to keep repeating myself. I keep stating the same facts, if you have nothing new to say then just stop.

You seem to have the energy to type thousands of words but I stopped reading here. If you are ever able to type one paragraph that doesn't contain a bunch of repetitive nonsense then maybe I'll continue reading. Cheers!

 

[The Podium]

That wasn't what point I was making but rather addressing your last one of getting Campbell realistically signed for $4.5 mil for 4 years your Dubas dare. Sorry for the misunderstanding there I wasn't clear.

I agree with your original point that this you would think would have to be a long term deal or 7-8 years at $4.5 mil (long term security) of at least 2 X the Mrazek term length to get that relative similar price point, or the annual amount has to go way up on a short term similar deal. IMO

The short term deal doesn't seem realistic relative to Mrazek's contract when you compare the impact and performance.

Campbell .. 29 games 19-5-3 record with 2.13 GA/g and .931 sv% with 4 shutouts in a contract year compared to teammate Mrazek (making $3.8 mil X 3) 4 games 2-2-0 record with 3.59 GA/g and .882 sv%.

Werent you critical of Dubas for going into the season with an unproven Campbell? Especially while Andersen was hot...

Now 29 games later hes a proven commodity that requires an overpayment to retain?

Mrazek, in comparison, is literally 1 month YOUNGER than Campbell and has 2.5x more career games played. So while Campbell has been significantly better, and due for a raise, his argument to be making significantly more than Mrazek is based on a grand total of 57 games (including playoffs last season).

Realistically, his comparables should include:
Robin Lehner 5 x 5 mill (6.1% of the cap signed at 28 years old)
Cal Petersen 3 x 5 mill (6.1% of the cap signed at 27 years old)
Elvis Merzlikins 5 x 5.4 mill (6.64% of the cap signed at 28 years old)
Linus Ullmark 4 x 5 mill (6.1% of the cap signed at 28 years old)

Roughly 4-5 years at 6-6.5% of the cap or 5-5.4 mill. Even if he gets a Vezina nomination, Lehner did as well.