Value of: Kirill Kaprizov
- Thread starter BuiumSaveUs
- Start date
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,801
- 19,029
UFAs traded "with extension" is a thing fanbases use to convince themselves their rentals aren't rentals
RFA rights are not remotely the same value wise hope this helps.
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,801
- 19,029
Cool, not really relevant though because the premise of this thread is that he'll extend with the team who trades for him. If you'd like to create your own thread with your own scenario where he doesn't extend, feel free to, but you're currently derailing this one by pretending to be the smartest guy in the room.
A guy whose RFA rights last one more year and a guy who has one more year on his current contract both have exactly one year of term left before they can reach UFA. Hope this helps.
I don't need you to explain anything to me. Devils fans have been playing the low ball offer for years and years now. Y'all were saying the same thing leading up to the Fiala trade. Yet, we got a top pairing dman and what looks to be a middle 6 winger in return.
Humor me, what trade package from NJ do you think gets a deal done for Kaprizov? Please let me know, I just need a good laugh.
Oh are you going to retroactively revalue the Fiala trade because Faber worked out? Shocker
Interesting how Huberdeau is referred to as "100 point winger" because that's what he was PRE TRADE, and not 50 point cap liabaility which he is now.
But Faber isn't referred to as B+ prospect (what he was at the time), but is instead referred to as 1st pairing dman, which he is now.
Just curious do you flip flop at random or only when it suits your argument?
Last edited:
And yet their trade values aren't the same because of the vast value of RFA negotiating rights.
The value of paying Kaprizov a shitton of money until he's 37 isn't going to be nearly the same as getting Matthew Tkachuk on a bargain from ages 25-32.
The real answer is think about what you'd offer for mitch marner, then add a 2nd or two
Last edited:
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,801
- 19,029
I don't know how to simplify this enough.
Let's pretend it's the summer of 2025.
Kaprizov has one year left on his current contract. He will become a UFA next summer in 2026. He is a one year rental. He is free to extend long term with the team who holds his current contract at any time. He is also free to let the contract expire and reach UFA on July 1, 2026.
Johnson (player I just made up for the sake of this exercise) currently doesn't have a contract, but he's an RFA for one more season, the 2025-26 season. He will become a UFA next summer in 2026. He is a one year rental. He is free to extend long term with the team who holds his current rights at any time. He is also free to elect arbitration, get awarded a one year contract, let that contract expire and reach UFA on July 1, 2026.
Both Kaprizov and Johnson can easily choose to hit UFA on the exact same date, or they can choose to extend with whatever team they're currently with. There is no functional difference in their rights or the team control over them.
I suspect the reason you moved the goalposts to their ages in your last post is because you realized this midway through posting?
Hockeyholic
Registered User
Except his age was mentioned in the first post too.
The value of RFA rights is quite clear.
Let's look at a player.
Player A is Matthew Tkachuk. He has 1 year of RFA control, 24 years old, coming off a 40 goal, 105 point season with fantastic defensive metrics. He gets 8 years and 9.5 mill AAV
Player B is Jonathan Huberdeau. He has 1 year of RFA, 28 years old, 30 goals, 115 points, with mediocre defensive metrics. He gets 8 years and 10.5 mill AAV.
Almost like the RFA rights bring down the price
Kirill Kaprizov is the Huberdeau, not the Tkachuk
Last edited:
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,801
- 19,029
If you wanted the focus to be on his age from the start, you shouldn't have gone off explaining how his RFA rights were the differentiator. Tkachuk had one season left as an RFA, then he was set to become a UFA. He could elected for arbitration, gotten a one year deal, and hit UFA. Instead he chose to extend before testing UFA. That is, functionally, an identical scenario to what could happen with Kaprizov next year.
Tkachuk's age is a valid reason to think he'd have more value than Kaprizov in a trade. His RFA status is not.
I can't tell if this is a joke or trolling or serious. Very heavily veiled, well done.
Now do Timo Meier, traded at the TDL going into his last RFA season where he had a $10M qualifying offer. Also a vastly inferior player to Kaprizov.
Yeah, more control than Kaprizov had.
Also 6 mill cheaper in the 1 year contracted.
But tell you what, if you add Brodin and a 1st to Kaprizov in this scenario, maybe you can find your own Matthew Tkachuk
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,801
- 19,029
1+RFA control>1
But again, interesting to look at the trade with a 28 year old superstar winger with 1 year contracted before UFA, and a 24 year old RFA superstar winger, and decide that the more accurate comp for your, checks notes, 28 year old superstar winger with 1 year contracted before RFA, and decide the 24 year old is the fitting comp to use
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,801
- 19,029
Yeah see this is why I don't think you actually understand what you're saying, and it's why I can't understand what you're saying.
It's not 1+RFA control, it's 1 year of RFA control vs a 1 year contract
That 1 year of RFA control is equivalent to a 1 year contract
It's not more control, it's the same 1 year of control
Can someone else help me explain this? I don't know how else to go about it
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
Timo Meier had 1 year under contract AND RFA control beyond that.
Do you believe having 1 year until a player hits UFA is the same as having 1 year until a player hits RFA?
But hey, thank you for finding me the best comp. It's Jonathan Huberdeau.
The Jonathan Huberdeau trade is literally the perfect example of how UFA and RFAs are valued differently. Considering, as you said, Florida had to add a 1st and a top pairing dman
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,801
- 19,029
Okay this is the part you're not getting.
When Matt Tkachuk was traded, he had one year until he hit UFA, not RFA. He was an RFA the summer he was traded. The following summer he would have been a UFA.
When Timo Meier was traded, he had one year (plus some months at the end of the season) until he was a UFA, not RFA. He was an RFA the summer he was traded. The following summer he would have been a UFA.
Next summer, if Kaprizov is traded, he will have one year until he hits UFA.
All three (with the exception of Meier who was a trade deadline deal) had/have one single year left until UNRESTRICTED free agency.
MMC
Global Moderator
Yep.
But let's go back to the huberdeau deal.
Surely, since both these guys had 1 year until UFA status, they were traded 1 for 1?
Wait, the team trading away the 28 year old without RFA rights (Huberdeau/Kaprizov), had to add a 1st+top pairing dman to get the 24 year old with RFA rights. Hmmm, interesting. So exactly like I said.
