Its probably smarter, and less risky tooSeems most of the NHL is moving toward locking in younger talent where the gamble is on future productivity rather than overpaying for past accomplishments.
Its probably smarter, and less risky tooSeems most of the NHL is moving toward locking in younger talent where the gamble is on future productivity rather than overpaying for past accomplishments.
I'm surprised it took 15+ years for teams to figure this out. Though there are still plenty of teams paying guys for past accomplishments...Seems most of the NHL is moving toward locking in younger talent where the gamble is on future productivity rather than overpaying for past accomplishments.
Yep.Drai had one good season before he got his 8.5M deal that turned into the biggest steal in the league
If you want "value" contracts you have to take risks
2.5-3 million I'd sayIf he goes out and wins a Norris how much are you really even saving by offering him this?
Yep. I was thinking at least $9M and possibly even close to $9.5M considering what the other two most recent young defensemen signed for.Great news. Lower AAV than I expected.
I don't see a scenario where a player like Faber turns into a 4-5m player.Exact same situation as Sanderson, which I was against.
Would rather much have him go out and earn his cap hit than be given the cap hit, with all the criticism that comes with it.
You have a risk at them both not living up to that contract, to what? Save a million and a bit if he pops off?
If he goes out and plays the same way defensively and puts up 60 points on a 2 year deal to give me more of a sample size I’d gladly him do that and give him 9.5-10.
They are risking a player becoming a 4-5m player being paid 8.5 for the advantage that he might be a 9-9.5m player getting paid 8.5.
Risk vs reward isn’t there for me, if he goes out and wins a Norris how much are you really even saving by offering him this?
Based on his play last year he's probably worth $9M+. He was a #1 defenseman.I guess it’s mitigated by the fact that he pretty much already is at 6-7m effectiveness and the cap is going up. This deal works because I’m really high on Faber but still.
Exact same situation as Sanderson, which I was against.
Would rather much have him go out and earn his cap hit than be given the cap hit, with all the criticism that comes with it.
You have a risk at them both not living up to that contract, to what? Save a million and a bit if he pops off?
If he goes out and plays the same way defensively and puts up 60 points on a 2 year deal to give me more of a sample size I’d gladly him do that and give him 9.5-10.
They are risking a player becoming a 4-5m player being paid 8.5 for the advantage that he might be a 9-9.5m player getting paid 8.5.
Risk vs reward isn’t there for me, if he goes out and wins a Norris how much are you really even saving by offering him this?
I guess it’s mitigated by the fact that he pretty much already is at 6-7m effectiveness and the cap is going up. This deal works because I’m really high on Faber but still.
lol what?That's a lot of money but maybe he will improve next season. Who knows but seems like a big pay raise!
Dahlin got 11 million after his 3 year bridge deal.
Cap is rising so let's say Brock Faber signs a 2 year 5 million dollar bridge.
Faber if he improves on his performance would be looking at possibly 12 or 13 million a year.
I think saving 4 million a year is worth it.
I think it's unlikely he'd be worth 11M+, but it's probably less likely he regresses to a 6M dman.There’s almost zero chance of that happening.
If he's a Norris candidate in year 4 and the cap is >$100M 4 years from now, there is certainly a chance.There’s almost zero chance of that happening.
He won’t. He’s one of the best skaters in the NHLHopefully it’s not a Darnell Nurse signing but that’s quite a lot of cash for someone who hasn’t had a long time in the league.
Improving on his performance or asking for such a large number?There’s almost zero chance of that happening.
2.5-3 million I'd say