Rumor: Rumors & Trade Proposals Thread | Post Mortem '23-24 Season: Who Should Stay, Who Should Go & Who Should We Bring In?

[Fourier]

The point is you shouldn't plan on signing players with the intention of burying them. Because that's assuming they will remain buried or even get buried in the first place.

You don't get full relief unless the cap hit is extremely minor. In your scenario Janmark would still carry a $50k cap hit assuming the minimum contract floor doesn't go up. If he signs for a bigger contract... well, you can do the math.

2024-25: $775,000 + $375,000 = $1,150,000

2025-26: $775,000 + $375,000 = $1,150,000

I'd rather just not have a cap hit of any kind.

In the scenario you quoted you risk $50K each year on the cap to potentially save $600K over two years. That is a perfectly reasonable risk. And no one is giving a player over $1.15M that they expect they will bury. It is simply a safety net in case the signing does not work out.

 

[belair]

Why sign them long term then??

Because they can outperform the value of those contracts, thus keeping them beyond the short term costs you exponentially more.

Connor Brown is a player I'd have a lot of interest giving a two or three year term of it kept the AAV under $2m.

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

The point is you shouldn't plan on signing players with the intention of burying them. Because that's assuming they will remain buried or even get buried in the first place.

You don't get full relief unless the cap hit is extremely minor. In your scenario Janmark would still carry a $50k cap hit assuming the minimum contract floor doesn't go up. If he signs for a bigger contract... well, you can do the math.

2024-25: $775,000 + $375,000 = $1,150,000

2025-26: $775,000 + $375,000 = $1,150,000

I'd rather just not have a cap hit of any kind.

First of all he clearly wouldn’t be signed with the intention of being buried… not sure where that’s coming from.

We were obviously talking league minimum. Did I really have to write 1.150 in my hypothetical scenario?

Sure change it to 1.150… do you not see why that could benefit a team?

 

[CycloneSweep]

Janmark played great in the playoffs but at the end of the day he's still a fourth liner that was just alright during the regular season. A deep playoff run drives up prices and you need to be very careful.

Term can save us AAV... But then you're just adding cap hits for further down the road.

Except if they are below the burry amount it hurts you literally zero. Doesn’t affect you cap wise in the slightest AND you get their cap hit lower today.

Janmark is a very valuable player to have, you know he works here, so why look elsewhere?

 

[Fourier]

Janmark played great in the playoffs but at the end of the day he's still a fourth liner that was just alright during the regular season. A deep playoff run drives up prices and you need to be very careful.

Term can save us AAV... But then you're just adding cap hits for further down the road.

Let's assume that the Oilers would be comfortable with Janmark at say $1.3M for two years but he want $1.8M on one year, 1.4M for 2 or $1.15m for 3. You do that 3 year deal in a heart beat. There is no future cap other than what you pay Janmark on the roster. If you bury him there is no cost on the cap.

These numbers may not be realistic of course but as an example it shows why term should be an option.

 

[CycloneSweep]

The point is you shouldn't plan on signing players with the intention of burying them. Because that's assuming they will remain buried or even get buried in the first place.

You don't get full relief unless the cap hit is extremely minor. In your scenario Janmark would still carry a $50k cap hit assuming the minimum contract floor doesn't go up. If he signs for a bigger contract... well, you can do the math.

2024-25: $775,000 + $375,000 = $1,150,000

2025-26: $775,000 + $375,000 = $1,150,000

I'd rather just not have a cap hit of any kind.

So to you a 50k cap hit is worse tomorrow then say 500k is today? Thats crazy talk.

You aren’t signing long term with the intention of burying them. You are signing longer term to keep their cap hit down today, to help build your roster and if the player falls off faster than you expect you have zero downside.

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

Janmark played great in the playoffs but at the end of the day he's still a fourth liner that was just alright during the regular season. A deep playoff run drives up prices and you need to be very careful.

Term can save us AAV... But then you're just adding cap hits for further down the road.

But you aren’t… that’s the point.

 

[dem]

I'd sign Janmark to a 3 year deal.
No problem

Janmark is not going to hurt you. If you needed him gone in the future.. he'd be gone.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

But you aren’t… that’s the point.

IF you bury them. That's the key thing. And this is all assuming that, coming off the best hockey of his life, he's going to take a relatively team friendly deal.

Also the original post was about signing VD for 8 years. Which is absolutely absurd.

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

IF you bury them. That's the key thing. And this is all assuming that, coming off the best hockey of his life, he's going to take a relatively team friendly deal.

Also the original post was about signing VD for 8 years. Which is absolutely absurd.

The 8 years is absurd but then you said don’t give depth term under any circumstance.

Point is yes sometimes you do give extra term if it can save you cap. Especially if it’s league minimum because the worst case is Katz is out some money.

 

[oXo Cube]

Some extra term to drive AAV down for your depth players is not an inherently stupid idea.

But there's a huge leap between that and signing role players to a 6 year contract.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

The 8 years is absurd but then you said don’t give depth term under any circumstance.

Point is yes do give extra term if it can save you cap. Especially if it’s league minimum because the worst case is Katz is out some money.

But you're still planning for them to disappear in year 3. That's the point. There's no cap hit saved at all (in fact the opposite) if they aren't buried.

 

[CycloneSweep]

IF you bury them. That's the key thing. And this is all assuming that, coming off the best hockey of his life, he's going to take a relatively team friendly deal.

Also the original post was about signing VD for 8 years. Which is absolutely absurd.

Oh for sure, 8 years for a 7th D who is 28 is wild.

But for Janmark he is probably worth 1.5-2mill on the mark, regular season offensive numbers won’t go away. You instead sign him 3x1.115 and it breaks down as 1.6,1.0.750. You save 500k this year, he gets overall what he would probably get the next 3 years but guaranteed. What’s the downside?

 

[Sanchez]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1806350365111234750

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Oh for sure, 8 years for a 7th D who is 28 is wild.

But for Janmark he is probably worth 1.5-2mill on the mark, regular season offensive numbers won’t go away. You instead sign him 3x1.115 and it breaks down as 1.6,1.0.750. You save 500k this year, he gets overall what he would probably get the next 3 years but guaranteed. What’s the downside?

I dunno, maybe it's just me but being told "Yeah we're going to chuck you in the AHL in the final year of the contract to save your cap space" probably wouldn't be all that endearing.

 

[CycloneSweep]

But you're still planning for them to disappear in year 3. That's the point. There's no cap hit saved at all (in fact the opposite) if they aren't buried.

Okay? It’s a gamble though. You hope they keep their play up till year 3, but if you don’t, you put them on waivers. If they do it’s great for you. What’s the downside?

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

15 minutes to the first of the buyouts

Suter, Skinner, Campbell, I wonder who else.

 

[CycloneSweep]

I dunno, maybe it's just me but being told "Yeah we're going to chuck you in the AHL in the final year of the contract to save your cap space" probably wouldn't be all that endearing.

But that’s not what they are saying. The whole bury in the AHL thing is a backup plan. In case they don’t keep up their play.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Okay? It’s a gamble though. You hope they keep their play up till year 3, but if you don’t, you put them on waivers. If they do it’s great for you. What’s the downside?

Then just sign them for one year. One year, 1.8. The risk is absolutely minimal that way.

 

[Canovin]

15 minutes to the first of the buyouts

Suter, Skinner, Campbell, I wonder who else.

I see Suter and Skinner. Just wondering where did you see Campbell?

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

But you're still planning for them to disappear in year 3. That's the point. There's no cap hit saved at all (in fact the opposite) if they aren't buried.

You aren’t planning for that… why do you keep saying that? It’s just a good option to have.
You ARE SAVING CAP. I’m really struggling to see your pov here.

Here. Janmark signs 3 years at 1.15 instead of 1.6 x 2. You save 485k cap per season. Year 3 rolls around

A. Janmark is still good and you still have a great deal on a 4th liner

B. Isn’t a stud and can be cut for 0 cost against the cap.

There is no downside.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

I see Suter and Skinner. Just wondering where did you see Campbell?

FFS, of course lol

 

[TB12]

Not looking good on the Leon Draisaitl front. The love of his life wants to be in Los Angeles and I don't blame her. Hard decision to be made.

That interview was pretty gut wrenching as a fan.

LOL what a horrible take. Not sure if trolling or...

 

[Canovin]

FFS, of course lol

I know we will eventually buy him out. I'm just wondering where did you see that?

 

[RipsADrive]

Holland was certainly not perfect, but I'll take the situation the team is in now every day compared to what it was when he took over.

Right time to move on, but I'm not having a good riddance feeling about him leaving.