Confirmed with Link: Leafs sign Jake McCabe to an extension (5 years - 4.51M AAV)

[Canada4Gold]

There are currently 239 registered D this season, all of our top 4 is in the top 75 for age.

I'm not sure there is an older top 4 than ours.

The issue is not a single contract, it's that every D contract we have takes them to 36+... there are bound to be some bad years where they are playing well below their contracts.

OEL went from bad to good in one year, if he regressed I wouldn't be surprised.

All I am saying is these are risky contracts to carry all at once, it could end up really bad.

I don't disagree, but not sure what the choice is. We've failed to develop anyone of note on the back end and any FA is going to skew older, and likely more expensive than this deal. The current top 4 is locked in for 20 million for this year plus 3 more. In 3 years when the cap approaches 100 million and those 4 are 33-37 they're going to be worse than they are now absolutely. I think it's reasonable that Rielly's a #2, Tanev/McCabe 4's and OEL a 5. You've got cap space to bring in a #1 if one can be found and still have a reasonably price backend is all I'm saying. There are scenarios where it doesn't work out that well for sure, but it's not the worst plan. Say in 3 years #1 makes 10 million and 6 and 7 make 2 each. 34 million for your D when the cap is 100 million might even be on the light side.

I think people worry too much about guys falling off their game into bottom pairing D and fail to think about what the going rate for a #5 will be in 3 years when the cap skyrockets. If they all are bottom pair D in 3 years that's a problem. But I think your median outcome is a manageable scenario.

 

[notbias]

I don't disagree, but not sure what the choice is. We've failed to develop anyone of note on the back end and any FA is going to skew older, and likely more expensive than this deal. The current top 4 is locked in for 20 million for this year plus 3 more. In 3 years when the cap approaches 100 million and those 4 are 33-37 they're going to be worse than they are now absolutely. I think it's reasonable that Rielly's a #2, Tanev/McCabe 4's and OEL a 5. You've got cap space to bring in a #1 if one can be found and still have a reasonably price backend is all I'm saying. There are scenarios where it doesn't work out that well for sure, but it's not the worst plan. Say in 3 years #1 makes 10 million and 6 and 7 make 2 each. 34 million for your D when the cap is 100 million might even be on the light side.

I think people worry too much about guys falling off their game into bottom pairing D and fail to think about what the going rate for a #5 will be in 3 years when the cap skyrockets. If they all are bottom pair D in 3 years that's a problem. But I think your median outcome is a manageable scenario.

We may have 4 number fives in 3 years, so we can set the market.

I don't think this is a bad contract, but I think our D core could be bad very quickly.

 

[Duffman955]

Excellent value

We going all in

 

[Racer88]

Excellent value

We going all in

All in for wild card spot or did you mean something else

 

[leafs in five]

 

[Burnie97]

A guy willing to put the team first before the salary. That's a pretty good deal. Go get Knies signed up now.

 

[Dayjobdave]

I think this is about as good a deal as we could have expected. Glad he’s in the boat.

 

[Roo]

Hard to be disappointed by this deal, but knowing Leaf fans I am sure many will be. Joel Edmundson got 4y @$3.85m, they are similar age, and McCabe is a much better defenseman.

 

[LeafSteel]

I don't disagree, but not sure what the choice is. We've failed to develop anyone of note on the back end and any FA is going to skew older, and likely more expensive than this deal. The current top 4 is locked in for 20 million for this year plus 3 more. In 3 years when the cap approaches 100 million and those 4 are 33-37 they're going to be worse than they are now absolutely. I think it's reasonable that Rielly's a #2, Tanev/McCabe 4's and OEL a 5. You've got cap space to bring in a #1 if one can be found and still have a reasonably price backend is all I'm saying. There are scenarios where it doesn't work out that well for sure, but it's not the worst plan. Say in 3 years #1 makes 10 million and 6 and 7 make 2 each. 34 million for your D when the cap is 100 million might even be on the light side.

I think people worry too much about guys falling off their game into bottom pairing D and fail to think about what the going rate for a #5 will be in 3 years when the cap skyrockets. If they all are bottom pair D in 3 years that's a problem. But I think your median outcome is a manageable scenario.

Good post.

I think there is less to worry about here of our D corps aging out as long as management is consistently proactive in adding/drafting/development our defensive pipeline.

Thus far they have proven to be much more aware than the previous GM.

If they continue with the mindset and awareness they’ve displayed recently, our defensive corp stands to be in a better place in 2-3 years, if/when our current corps starts to “age out”.

 

[PromisedLand]

Damn late to the part but like this extension. 5 years probably too much but had to be done to keep the AAV down.

 

[crump]

Never played in the playoffs before being with the Leafs. Plenty of road left in those legs. Good signing.

 

[ULF_55]

OEL went from bad to good in one year, if he regressed I wouldn't be surprised.

All I am saying is these are risky contracts to carry all at once, it could end up really bad.

Ekman-Larsson 'having a blast' with Panthers 2 wins from return to Cup Final | NHL.com

32-year-old defenseman's experience, flexibility proving to be fine fit for Florida

www.nhl.com

Always risk, regardless of age.
Ekman-Larsson's injuries were at age 30, not old at all.

in 2020-21 and endured two disappointing seasons and breaking his foot twice in less than a year before having the final four seasons on his contract bought out last June 16.

“I didn’t see it coming,” said Ekman-Larsson, who missed the final 27 games with Vancouver last season after breaking his foot the second time on Feb. 15. “I’d been hurt. I got hurt the first time at world championship (in 2022) and kind of had to force it to be healthy for training camp the following year, so I was kind of rushed a little bit and was feeling the injury going into the year, and that’s never good. Then we were struggling as a team and I was struggling along with the team, so it was a tough year.

 

[therealkoho]

It's the right number for sure, he plays an honest game, he isn't shy with the body and generally seems like an excellent teammate.

It was nice hearing that his wife and kids love Toronto and were happy to commit to five more years. It seems that there is some negative stuff about playing in Canada with both Canadians and Americans, nice to see that they like Canadian culture.

 

[ChurchOfMatthews]

Mess is giving it a shot surprisingly

His username checks out...

 

[ChurchOfMatthews]

"Somebody call Peta because that's unethical treatment of a rat."

 

[TMLeafer]

I like him. Good number

 

[TMLegend]

In a vacuum it's fine, but I'm just not a fan of building around an aging defense group which isn't even a high end unit today. This also gives 3/6 of the Leafs regulars on D a full NTC/NMC until the end of the 26/27 season. Seems weird to commit so much term to a group that's middle of the pack at best.

 

[Maple Leaf]

leaf real good at signing players and accomplishing little at the box office

 

[Menzinger]

I don't know how to feel about it, giving that length of contract for any Dman, particularly one who plays with a decent amount of physicality usually age like milk.

Also, I'd prefer if they didn't commit any future cap space on current players until after the season.

After the Tanev deal it's pretty much a lost cause about pointing out the issues with age and the D core. Just got to enjoy the ride and hope they can figure out a reasonable fix in a few years time when it's more of an issue.

In this case I think McCabe will be just fine for the majority of his time.

 

[Gallagbi]

On the surface it's solid. Good value, but the age of our D and term could get ugly

 

[Rare Jewel]

After the Tanev deal it's pretty much a lost cause about pointing out the issues with age and the D core.

Maybe for you, but if Tanev and McCabe's careers are on fumes in those last years it's going too much $ tied up, even if the cap goes up.

Having thought about it, I'd almost prefer the AAV higher now to knock those last two years off. Term is always the killer with these deals.

 

[Menzinger]

Maybe for you, but if Tanev and McCabe's careers are on fumes in those last years it's going too much $ tied up, even if the cap goes up.

Having thought about it, I'd almost prefer the AAV higher now to knock those last two years off. Term is always the killer with these deals.

The most important years are going to be the next 4 given Matthews contract status, so 5-6 years from now there's potential the team will be in full retool, so I'd rather see lower cap in the shorter term

 

[Rare Jewel]

The most important years are going to be the next 4 given Matthews contract status, so 5-6 years from now there's potential the team will be in full retool, so I'd rather see lower cap in the shorter term

Assuming they don't keep going with the 3 head monster idea an extra 500k wouldn't hurt too much.

But, there's no guarantee that they won't re-sign Marner, so that's likely the thinking, even I think they should avoid that quite strongly.


However, I still have doubts over the overall quality of the blueline and now with even more money committed, even though I don't think McCabe is a bad player, it's locking into the same guys which I just wouldn't be doing that this time.