Positive things I did in this model:
- Assume 6(!) players at $1M. That's baked in. Seriously, how many more of those do you think is fair?
- Assume no bad contracts the next two summers
- Assume no problems resigning the players we want. In fact, assume lower values than I've seen tossed around here for Reinhart and Dahlin.
Things I didn't do:
- Assume anything about anyone not in the system or on the roster. For better or worse. You want me to try and be negative, christ almighty, I can do much better than this.
Negative assumptions:
-- Which??
Things I didn't do but I probably would if I were trying to be honest and not just try to mollify homers: With his job potentially on the line based on the team improving next year, assume Botts signs multiple guys this summer to 3+ years, likely cutting into that space. Assume Risto won't be moved without bringing back a replacement, at not much cap savings. Assume neither side opts out of the CBA until it expires in 2022, or moreover question whether compliance buyouts will even be on the table if there aren't significant salary cuts demanded. Assume Buffalo will have to pay a higher premium to keep their talent on a bottom 5 team in a bottom 5 market in a high tax state.
About the pipeline: You're arguing something outside my argument entirely. My point isn't whether we can find quality players. My point is whether we can afford them. If they make the roster anytime over the next two years, they'll need to be resigned past their ELCs. You can list two of them or twenty, it doesn't really matter, there's only so many spots to pay for.
Boil it down even further: Assume Ristolainen goes away if that's what you wish. Assume Okpsoso goes away if that's what you wish. Assume the only contracts in the world are Dahlin's, Skinner's, Eichel's, and Reinhart's. That's ~$36.5/$88M. Or 41.5% of the cap for four players.
That will make us one of the most top heavy rosters, financially, in the league. I'm not running the numbers again without Okposo to try and remake that point.
So if the argument is that our core needs a lot deeper support cast, it will have to come unusually cheap. If you think we're set up especially well to do that, great, I'm not arguing with you.
And your snark is really unpleasant.
Your framing of the cost of depth is incorrect and greatly inflates the cost of the rest of your roster build. I’m referring to the “6 players for 6mil then it jumps to 3mil per” that you put forth.
689 players played 30gms or more last season (22.2 per team)
44% had cap hits of 2mil or less
36% had cap hits of 1mil or less
16% had cap hits of 800k or less
We had 22 players play 30gms or more
Four on ELCs -> Dahlin, Mitts, Tage and Pilut
Four on 2nd contract -> Ullmark, Nelson, Erod and McCabe
One on 3rd contract -> Girgs
One on a 4th contract -> Larsson
The total cap hit for these 10 players is 10.6mil. Throw in Wilson (didn’t play 30gms) and thats 11 players for roughly 1mil each. To state the obvious thats a lot more spots filled (11 to 6) for a lot less money than you were arguing. Which would greatly reduce the burden of filling out the roster that you present.
* To further make the point on the abundance of cheap depth around the league.
994 players played at least 1 game this year. Thats 32 players per team (We had 33 for comparison).
61% had cap hits of 2mil or less
52% had cap hits of 1mil or less
29% had cap hits of 880k or less
Of the 33 players who played at least a game for us this year. 18 had cap hits of 1.6mil or less and 15 had come hits of 1mil of less. Combined those 18 players had total cap hit of 17.3 mil. In other words we had 18 players with an average cap hit of around 1mil.
There is an abundance of inexpensive depth players around the league and they’re on a variety of different contracts. It doesn’t require a ton of ELCs. Players can be on their 2nd contract or beyond and still provide cheap depth.
That brings me back to the development pipeline. My point wasn’t about just finding talent. It was also about finding players to provide depth. As I‘ve shown, they don’t need to be on ELCs to provide cheap depth. The idea is to keep churning out options so we can manage the cap as we move forward
Btw I haven’t disagreed with the idea that we’d be top heavy. Maybe you‘re confusing me the other posters your debating.