Confirmed with Link: Maple Leafs re-sign Nikita Zaitsev for 7 years, $4.5M per

[ACC1224]

i would argue because iin a cap world, people can easily try to make trade proposals etc?

i don't care either. I mean - i personally don't see the issue about giving him seven years. he's had 5 years of pro experience where he played really well. He came here and played relatively well with a small blip, and then an injury. I don't think they make this type of deal if they don't feel there is any kind of improvement and if it sucks, he goes back home anyway - and we don't have to pay him.

so. i'm not understanding why it's a big glitch at the end of the day.

Wouldn't he forfeit his salary to go back home?

 

[pylon17]

Awesome! Very happy with it.p

 

[Muston Atthews]

So let me get this straight.... You're saying if Sestito played last night Niskanen wouldn't have crosschecked Crosby in the head? Is that what you're saying?

That's not what I said. Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

 

[1specter]

This is simply not accurate.... How does 5 years @ 4.05 = 7 years @ 4.5?

In fact, if Zaitsev signed the exact deal Jake signed I'd be happy.

When you factor in inflation though and the cost of a legitimate top 4 d-man these days , plus the fact that they've effectively bought all of Zaitsev's UFA years, his contract actually ends up being better than Jake's.

Jason Demers has a cap hit of 4.5M as well and Zaitsev is a much better d-man than him.

 

[Canada4Gold]

Why do fans care about how his salary gets paid out?

For the record i'm indifferent on the move. Would have let him go back home vs go above 5 years personally but i'll trust Babcock knows there's room for improvement.

Just don't see why how his $4.5 gets paid really matters at all.

signing bonuses = bad for buyouts, good for trading to budget teams

Clarkson's signing bonuses may the buyout cap hits a *****. While Bernier's signing bonus made the trade to Anaheim possible because we paid 2 million of his salary this year by holding onto him until after July 1st.

Just depends on whether you think a buyout or a trade is more likely. For someone like Zaitsev you would hope neither as both would likely result from Z being underwhelming, not sure either would be more likely at this point so it doesn't really matter I guess.

 

[Muston Atthews]

The "Milbury like" eye for an eye retribution is pretty much removed from the game now thankfully.

It's hilarious to think that a Sestito will make any NHL player do anything differently.

Well he sure made Andersen go from playing in the game to not playing in the game last time he saw us.

 

[Animal]

That's not what I said. Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

Is it not what you implied? I said tough guys aren't needed and you responded with "why don't you ask Crosby he's still in the quiet room".

What else is that quote supposed to mean? Sounds like you were implying that a tough guy would've prevented the hit. If not then please eloborate

 

[egd27]

A Jack Adams doesn't make a coach exempt from criticism.....

Babcock is an amazing coach. But he makes some questionable decisions.

But the validity of the criticism depends on the credibility of those doing the questioning.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Wouldn't he forfeit his salary to go back home?

just like most people do when they go sign a deal back in the K.

 

[Paradoc]

Maybe people prefer Babcock saying over HF because Babcock knows what he does in practise and his off-ice work routine; you know the stuff that we as fans don't have access to?

I like Zaitsev, and he's already a #4 dman so I like this contract.

 

[Jack Bauer]

i would argue because iin a cap world, people can easily try to make trade proposals etc?

i don't care either. I mean - i personally don't see the issue about giving him seven years. he's had 5 years of pro experience where he played really well. He came here and played relatively well with a small blip, and then an injury. I don't think they make this type of deal if they don't feel there is any kind of improvement and if it sucks, he goes back home anyway - and we don't have to pay him.

so. i'm not understanding why it's a big glitch at the end of the day.

Exactly - it's a cap world. He's paid 4.5 every year, it's just 3/1.5 in the first 3 years. Means nothing to the cap or trade proposals because of the term.

And as far as his play earning his 7 years I don't think he did that. 7 year term should be for star players. He was also awful during the most important part of the season. I'd want to see way more playoff action before calling 7 years good. I would have went 5yrs and $20 mil. He's not as good as Gardiner so we shouldn't be paying him more in my opinion.

But it's far from the end of the world considering we are still in good shape cap wise.

 

[Budsfan]

This signing has been rumoured for sometime and Zaitsev has played extremely well this past season, so signing him long term for a reasonable cap hit is good management.

 

[sxvnert]

Exact contract I thought he would sign. Excellent deal for both sides.

Long term he's an excellent 3/4.

Rielly ---------
Gardiner Zaitsev
Dermott/Nielsen/Carrick

Looking good.

 

[Animal]

But the validity of the criticism depends on the credibility of those doing the questioning.

Cool. I can't wait until we lose Leivo/Rychel/Leipsic to Vegas so Babcock can keep Martin.

Lose:

A) A skilled player
or
B) A guy with 9 points who PROTECTS THE SKILLED PLAYERS

Easy choice for me but I guess I shouldn't be questioning since I have no credibility.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Maybe people prefer Babcock saying over HF because Babcock knows what he does in practise and his off-ice work routine; you know the stuff that we as fans don't have access to?

I like Zaitsev, and he's already a #4 dman so I like this contract.

People are still allowed to have opinions that go against Babcock or management. Naturally we don't have the same access but we still watch games and form opinions.

If he was from NA it would be laughable to offer him 7 years right now. It's the Russian factor coming into play and we should have called his bluff and negotiated a more reasonable term in my opinion.

I think it's a mistake. A minor one, but still one we might regret in 2 years.

 

[Leaf Rocket]

Im good with this tbh.

 

[Canada4Gold]

Cool. I can't wait until we lose Leivo/Rychel/Leipsic to Vegas so Babcock can keep Martin.

Lose:

A) A skilled player
or
B) A guy with 9 points who PROTECTS THE SKILLED PLAYERS

Easy choice for me but I guess I shouldn't be questioning since I have no credibility.

We couldn't protect all 3 of those guys anyway, so assuming Vegas wasn't going to take Martin then we would have lost the guy we didn't protect fo the 3.

Now we just lose Vegas' choice of the 2 we don't protect. It's not that big of a difference. I just hope the guy of the 3 we protect is Leivo. Not holding my breath on that though.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Cool. I can't wait until we lose Leivo/Rychel/Leipsic to Vegas so Babcock can keep Martin.

Lose:

A) A skilled player
or
B) A guy with 9 points who PROTECTS THE SKILLED PLAYERS

Easy choice for me but I guess I shouldn't be questioning since I have no credibility.

There's more value in a Martin beyond intimidation. A 4th line that can bring energy, as we seen, can be a huge benefit come playoff time when space is limited.

A Leipsic would never survive in that role at this level. Guys like Leivo/Rychel are perfect expansion candidates. We won't miss either.

 

[zong]

This is a great deal. I know Zaitsev was forced heavy minutes against tough opposition due to our defensive depth, but as a rookie he was all we could've asked for this year.

Hopefully he keeps improving, getting used to the speed and intensity of the NHL playoffs and recovering from that upper body injury may have affected his playoff performance but I see a lot of good things from this kid down the road.

 

[Animal]

We couldn't protect all 3 of those guys anyway, so assuming Vegas wasn't going to take Martin then we would have lost the guy we didn't protect fo the 3.

Now we just lose Vegas' choice of the 2 we don't protect. It's not that big of a difference. I just hope the guy of the 3 we protect is Leivo. Not holding my breath on that though.

Fair. But if we lose Leivo so we can protect Martin theres no excuse. Not only was his stat line impressive, but he was clearly a difference maker in every game he played. Clearly an NHLer.

 

[Animal]

There's more value in a Martin beyond intimidation. A 4th line that can bring energy, as we seen, can be a huge benefit come playoff time when space is limited.

A Leipsic would never survive in that role at this level. Guys like Leivo/Rychel are perfect expansion candidates. We won't miss either.

Really? Because it seems to me that when we inserted Kapanen onto our 4th line it played the best its ever played. It wasn't because of Martin.

Also, if you don't think losing Leivo is a big deal then theres no point continuing this conversation because clearly we look for different traits in a hockey player.

 

[Swervin81]

The cap is currently $73M. Since the players never don't use the escalator, it will always go up by 5%. At least for the next 5 years that will be the case. So even if the cap doesn't go up naturally due to revenues down from a ****** dollar, the cap in the next 5 years, by year, will be:

17-18: $76.65M
18-19: $80.48M
19-20: $84.51M
20-21: $88.73M
21-22: $93.17M

$4.5M for a quality 2nd pairing guy is fine and will probably be good in a few years, assuming he doesn't drop. I don't see much upside in him but he'll be a reliable rock on the 2nd pairing for years to come, so I'm okay with this.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Cool. I can't wait until we lose Leivo/Rychel/Leipsic to Vegas so Babcock can keep Martin.

Lose:

A) A skilled player
or
B) A guy with 9 points who PROTECTS THE SKILLED PLAYERS

Easy choice for me but I guess I shouldn't be questioning since I have no credibility.

that was going to happen regardless if we had martin or not, though right?

 

[Macallan18]

I think this is fine. Expires when he is 32, just think, barely declined in skill at that age (unless of course he is damaged through injuries).
Someone like Shattenkirk is 28, and I bet he will be signing for a lot longer time period than 4 years, which is all it would do to take him to 32.
And with cap increases over the years, I think 4.5 mil could look like a real bargain in 2 or 3 years.
Lots of upside, some downside, a bit of a gamble but I think a good one.

 

[MagicalRazor]

^^ good numbers but doing that as a 25 year old rookie is a lot different than an actual rookie.

If he can improve and become a steady 40 point D, it's a good deal. If this season was his best, it's bad.

Dman don't hit their stride until around 23-25 in the NHL . Expect burns , Burns didn't hit his until 28 . Zits at 4.5 Is an unreal deal . Yes terms alittle long but if Zits plays like he did last year hes amazing for 4.5 . if he gets any better ( Which i believe he will ) he's gonna be a steal .