No it doesn’t.
Zucc has a <1% chance at being as effective 2 years from now too. I’d take that chance on the kid who will be on the ELC rather than a contract that we can’t move
Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXVI - Point Of No Return
- Thread starter Gardner McKay
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
No it doesn’t.
Zucc has a <1% chance at being as effective 2 years from now too. I’d take that chance on the kid who will be on the ELC rather than a contract that we can’t move
@Thirty One — Fair points on the bridge contracts subject. I am sure I am going over the top argumenting for them (long term deals) myself.
But I do think Skjei — safely — fall within the scope of someone that should be locked up long term.
1. The saving on a bridge contract would be minimal, and worthless during two rebuilding years. What does he get on a 2-year deal, 3.9m per?
2. What is the upside with signing him to a bridge deal? Basically none from my POV. He might actually play so bad that he would be cheaper to lock up after 2 years. That is the obvious advantage. But how much cheaper is that? Never below 4.5m unless he starts to do crack, it should be obvious to everyone that Skjei more or less at worst will peak as an OK mid pairing guy. Those guys gets paid those sums. So absolute best case Skjei really stinks and we save a few 100k.
3. I think it’s much more likely that Skjei follows the same curve as Kreider and Hayes, and have their best hockey yet to play from say 25-29, at least. Both Kreider and Hayes would be immensely more valuable had we locked them up longer than we did in the first place. In this case, Skjei would just take us to arbitration and settle on a 2 year deal again before the hearing, prepared to hit UFA just as he starts to peak. Like Hayes and Kreider.
4. Worst case — not involving crack cocaine — Skjei don’t turn out like you want and you can trade him.
5. Best case Skjei keeps becoming steadier and steadier for the coming 3-4 years and peaks as a guy that skates really well, has good size, has good attitude, and that is pretty solid with the puck and poised in his game. Project the cap going up 5% per and that is a great contract to have in 4-5 years.
Doesn’t it sort out like the above? Maybe I am missing something? Bridge deal? No substantial upside, huge downside. Long term deal? Very little risk, high upside.
But I do think Skjei — safely — fall within the scope of someone that should be locked up long term.
1. The saving on a bridge contract would be minimal, and worthless during two rebuilding years. What does he get on a 2-year deal, 3.9m per?
2. What is the upside with signing him to a bridge deal? Basically none from my POV. He might actually play so bad that he would be cheaper to lock up after 2 years. That is the obvious advantage. But how much cheaper is that? Never below 4.5m unless he starts to do crack, it should be obvious to everyone that Skjei more or less at worst will peak as an OK mid pairing guy. Those guys gets paid those sums. So absolute best case Skjei really stinks and we save a few 100k.
3. I think it’s much more likely that Skjei follows the same curve as Kreider and Hayes, and have their best hockey yet to play from say 25-29, at least. Both Kreider and Hayes would be immensely more valuable had we locked them up longer than we did in the first place. In this case, Skjei would just take us to arbitration and settle on a 2 year deal again before the hearing, prepared to hit UFA just as he starts to peak. Like Hayes and Kreider.
4. Worst case — not involving crack cocaine — Skjei don’t turn out like you want and you can trade him.
5. Best case Skjei keeps becoming steadier and steadier for the coming 3-4 years and peaks as a guy that skates really well, has good size, has good attitude, and that is pretty solid with the puck and poised in his game. Project the cap going up 5% per and that is a great contract to have in 4-5 years.
Doesn’t it sort out like the above? Maybe I am missing something? Bridge deal? No substantial upside, huge downside. Long term deal? Very little risk, high upside.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
From 2010-2016, the 16-30 pick has produced (in 105 picks) Vladimir Tarasenko, Evgeny Kuznetsov, Rickard Rakell, David Pastrnak, Mathew Barzal, Kyle Connor, Thomas Chabot and Brock Boeser.
I'm pretty ok with taking a shot in that range over 20 meaningless games from Zuccarello and the negotiating rights to the contract covering some prime declining years.
Kocur Dill
picklicious
- Feb 7, 2010
- 3,332
- 1,878
I'd like to gamble on an unprotected 1st for 2020. No way it's a lower pick than this year.
Shesterkybomb
Registered User
- Dec 30, 2016
- 17,702
- 19,405
leetch99
Leetch66 Joined 2007
How many Centers does Calgary have playing ahead of Sam Bennett ? Is he their 4th line C ? Anybody think he is worth obtaining for somebody off our roster that could be a plum in Calgary's eye at the moment ? I like the kid .
Ghost of jas
Unsatisfied
Filip Chytil and K’Andre Miller...I’ll take my chances that the Rangers are able to get a similar player with the 1st they get back for Zuccarello.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,076
- 17,714
If Sam Bennett were a 3rd round pick, nobody would care about him
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 29,217
- 38,901
The longer you hold Zucc, the lower his value will get. We aren't winning anything anytime soon so I don't any any reason to hold him.
DutchShamrock
Registered User
The cap space to have maneuverability will be more valuable than Zuccarello's play during lottery seasons. Silfverberg right now won't fit in Anaheim's cap next season. Toronto will probably lose value on Nylander this summer if they get hit with an offersheet, or if they want to upgrade D. Pittsburgh is up against it. Washington. Calgary and Winnipeg are up on the cap and have huge RFAs coming.
Save the space and be a destination for a cap dump. The assets this TDL are gravy.
Save the space and be a destination for a cap dump. The assets this TDL are gravy.
Their 1st this year or a 2020 2nd and good prospect.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Yeah, I limited it to two years out so we would get a better idea of how these players have turned out, but there are definitely some promising players in that range in 2017 and 2018 too.
Why would his value be getting lower?
brians1128
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2016
- 647
- 320
I have a hard time panning Sam Bennett when here we are rooting for Tony DeAngelo to finally find his game with the Rangers and they were taken 15 spots apart in 2014. In fact, I'd be happy to gamble on him. Even if he only ends up as a 3rd line LW who notches 35 points and bangs bodies, that's one less guy you have to find through the draft.
That all being said, I doubt he gets traded at all. Let alone for a rental.
That all being said, I doubt he gets traded at all. Let alone for a rental.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
- Nov 7, 2017
- 5,566
- 2,534
I don't think they're holding him, I think they're waiting for the return they want. And if they don't get it he stays, just like last year. According to Brooks they're looking to sign him in the off-season, then they won't let him go for peanuts. Just not worth it.
KirkAlbuquerque
#WeNeverGetAGoodCoach
That's ridiculous to say. The Kid on the ELC sounds so enticing but he doesn't even exist at this point and hasn't proven anything, and the odds of him being a top 6 player are much lower than a proven top 6 31 year old continuing to be a top 6 player at the geriatric one foot in the grave age of 33.
leetch99
Leetch66 Joined 2007
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
There is a big difference between 16-24 and 25-31 though.
But of course we should trade Zucc. I am not totally against getting him back though — if Kreider or Ziba goes in a trade for example.
One thought: Would Zucc contribute about as much for us the coming 3 years as Kreider would? Maybe. Kreider would return a lot more in a trade though.
A contra thought to that: A Blake Wheeler is what 35 and better than ever. He is a fitness maniac. Some guys passing through NY will play until they are 35 and do great and some will fall of a cliff when they are 28. If you come into the league at 21, everyone can do the math and realize what a fundamental difference it is to have a player that can do or for 14 years instead of 7.
You can’t say that Wheeler have this or that which enables him to keep going. Not that many PO games? Justin Williams isn’t some freak of nature and have a ton of miles, he kept going at a high level for a long time. Which type does Kreider sort into? Hayes? The guys that can play to 35 are pretty rare. If you can get those calls right it will have a big impact. Kreider haven’t taken a lot of punishment. He is in super super shape. So extreme. But who knows?
I’d put a large amount of money on zucc not being top 6 quality by the age of 33.
- Nov 7, 2017
- 5,566
- 2,534
thethirdhockeyman91
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2018
- 4,609
- 4,673
smaller skill guys always age better. Guarantee you Zuccs stays a top six forward until 35 at least
Lays
Registered User
- Jan 22, 2017
- 13,558
- 12,637
There’s rumors that the Flames don’t want to trade their first this year, I wonder if they’d be open to moving next years
They won’t do as well next year and I can say that with confidence, the 2020 draft is also 2015 level stacked
I’d take the 2020 first alone for Zucc and I might even add to get it
- Status
