RussellmaniaKW
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2004
- 19,729
- 21,853
the way I judge deals like this is I apply my own "Michael Ryder scale". Basically is this deal better, worse, or comparable to Michael Ryder's $4m cap hit when they won the Cup in 2011. I find this to be a good comp for a few reasons:
Ryder was the prototypical middle 6 forward who does one or 2 things pretty well but lacks consistency and doesn't do enough to solidify a top 6 role. But the Cup run proved that you can absolutely win with limited guys like him in the lineup making whatever % of the cap he was making at the time (7.05% at the time of signing). Ryder was often called overpaid at the time and most reasonable people (IMO) simply argued that $4m was the going rate for what a guy like him brought.
Fast forward to today: Zacha just signed a deal that's 5.76% of the cap at the time of signing. So the question is does Zacha bring as much or more to the table as Michael Ryder in 2011?
He hasn't demonstrated the raw offensive ceiling that Ryder showed in bursts, but other than that i'd say Zacha brings a lot more to the table. He can play any situation, brings size and is younger than Ryder was when he signed that $4m deal. And he does this all for a significantly lower cap %. I also suspect he has untapped offensive potential that Ryder maybe never had. A full season playing 2C and he might put up 60+ points and make the deal look like a steal. The rest of his game is pretty repeatable IMO.
Anyway the above is only partially serious b/c I recognize this is far from scientific but the general idea is that with these middle 6 role player type contracts I look to past examples to decide if the deal feels reasonable and I think this one totally passes the sniff test.
Ryder was the prototypical middle 6 forward who does one or 2 things pretty well but lacks consistency and doesn't do enough to solidify a top 6 role. But the Cup run proved that you can absolutely win with limited guys like him in the lineup making whatever % of the cap he was making at the time (7.05% at the time of signing). Ryder was often called overpaid at the time and most reasonable people (IMO) simply argued that $4m was the going rate for what a guy like him brought.
Fast forward to today: Zacha just signed a deal that's 5.76% of the cap at the time of signing. So the question is does Zacha bring as much or more to the table as Michael Ryder in 2011?
He hasn't demonstrated the raw offensive ceiling that Ryder showed in bursts, but other than that i'd say Zacha brings a lot more to the table. He can play any situation, brings size and is younger than Ryder was when he signed that $4m deal. And he does this all for a significantly lower cap %. I also suspect he has untapped offensive potential that Ryder maybe never had. A full season playing 2C and he might put up 60+ points and make the deal look like a steal. The rest of his game is pretty repeatable IMO.
Anyway the above is only partially serious b/c I recognize this is far from scientific but the general idea is that with these middle 6 role player type contracts I look to past examples to decide if the deal feels reasonable and I think this one totally passes the sniff test.
