Player Discussion The Slaf Thread - Parabolic Growth Edition

[Habs Halifax]

Josh Norris had 35 goals and 55pts at 22 years old. When he was Slafkovsky's age, he was playing in the NCAA.

Thomas signed a bridge deal coming off ELC (2 years 5.6M) and at that point had just concluded his 3rd NHL season (had 12pts in 33 games in the shortened season).

At this point in Slafkovsky's career, he's SIGNIFICANTLY ahead of both of those players right now.

He's only ahead because he started earlier. That doesn't mean he is a 80+ forward ever! You have to ask yourself how he got that good 2nd half. A lot of it is MSL coaching and him playing with Suzuki for the most of it. He needed a lot of help to get that 2nd half.

His pedigree is not as high as you are trying to explain. That's the difference in our debate. If he declines a 8x $7M - $7.75M extension, I let him play out his last ELC season and play him with Dach. See if he can do it again without Suzuki.

The bet on yourself narrative would apply to someone like B Tkachuk more than Slaf IMO. Slaf's confidence is still fragile IMO.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Based on what we saw if he tops out at 60 points I will be very disappointed.

It's too early to know. I would say this past season is his base. The max point is guess work. I would like to see what he can do without Suzuki as the next test. Suzuki does make others look better. Not saying Slaf sucks without him but Slaf has not earned any discusion where he is paid north of $8M. If he wants to bet on himself, I let him and play him with Dach to see what the results are. Habs have every right to do this.

I still have what Bob M said on my mind. None project to be top line studs but maybe one might reach it. Most project into good 2nd tier assets. In order for me to believe he is a 80+ forward, he has to show more than what he did this past season. Good production at his age but usage and opportunity was there.

 

[Hins77]

Yeah I feel you...I just think Suzuki and Caufield signed their deals in a flat cap.

Today, we know that the cap is risings. We know where it's supposed to be in 2-3 years.

So that has to be factored in.

I think it makes total sense for both sides to sign a bridge deal to be honest...gives Slafkovsky a bit more time to establish his value and increase his earnings (assuming he continues his trajectory) and it gives the Habs a bit more time to determine where he fits on the salary scale.

Either way, for me, this is all positive.

Bridge deal is not always bad. I mean. You could sign him 2 years. So 21 until 23 years old. And at 23, sign him for 8 years. It will cover the prime of his career. You will renegotiate at 31 years old instead of 29 years like Calgary did with Huberdeau…

 

[417]

He's only ahead because he started earlier.

Well exactly lol seems like an argue in favor of him, not against him IMO>

That doesn't mean he is a 80+ forward ever! You have to ask yourself how he got that good 2nd half. A lot of it is MSL coaching and him playing with Suzuki for the most of it. He needed a lot of help to get that 2nd half.

Just like Suzuki needed a lot of help to achieve career highs in goals and points this year. No one does it alone.

His pedigree is not as high as you are trying to explain. That's the difference in our debate. If he declines a 8x $7M - $7.75M extension, I let him play out his last ELC season and play him with Dach. See if he can do it again without Suzuki.

Pedigree really has nothing to do with it, that's what i'm arguing. That's not what sets the market lol, sorry don't mean to be repetitive or even argumentative here, but you're including a subjective element in contract discussions. It has no place there, it's cold hard numbers and projections.

The fact you think Slafkovsky was not a "traditional 1st overall" is really irrelevant.

Also, it's kind of odd that you would intentionally place a guy you picked 1st overall in a less advantageous situations just to spite him for declining a contract offer.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Well exactly lol seems like an argue in favor of him, not against him IMO>

Just like Suzuki needed a lot of help to achieve career highs in goals and points this year. No one does it alone.

Pedigree really has nothing to do with it, that's what i'm arguing. That's not what sets the market lol, sorry don't mean to be repetitive or even argumentative here, but you're including a subjective element in contract discussions. It has no place there, it's cold hard numbers and projections.

The fact you think Slafkovsky was not a "traditional 1st overall" is really irrelevant.

Also, it's kind of odd that you would intentionally place a guy you picked 1st overall in a less advantageous situations just to spite him for declining a contract offer.

Book mark it. Time will tell

 

[417]

Bridge deal is not always bad. I mean. You could sign him 2 years. So 21 until 23 years old. And at 23, sign him for 8 years. It will cover the prime of his career. You will renegotiate at 31 years old instead of 29 years like Calgary did with Huberdeau…

Absolutely agreed...it's all positive IMO. The fact this is even a debate is exactly what you want.

The Habs aren't in any contractual mess right now, bridge deal or long term deal, as long as the player continues to progress and establishes himself as a player this team can build around, the rest will work itself out.

We're not the Montreal Canadiens bookkeepers, Let them worry about that lol

 

[Hins77]

Absolutely agreed...it's all positive IMO. The fact this is even a debate is exactly what you want.

The Habs aren't in any contractual mess right now, bridge deal or long term deal, as long as the player continues to progress and establishes himself as a player this team can build around, the rest will work itself out.

We're not the Montreal Canadiens bookkeepers, Let them worry about that lol

I don’t want Montreal to be the next senstors or buffalo sabres, giving 8 years, max money to everybody and still to be in the basement.

 

[417]

Book mark it. Time will tell

What does this even mean?

Book what? and time will tell what? lol...seems like you're coping out of the discussion and I don't really know why. It's really not that complicated or controversial.

There are tons of examples of players who didn' have "pedigree" who ended up signing massive long term contracts. I just randomly selected 2 for you because of how generic their names were lol.

Pedigree matters before and at the draft...the second you're drafted it doesn't matter anymore. Unless you're a prestige player like McDavid or Ovechkin or Crosby. Those are exceptions though and I don't think anyone, neither him, his agent or the Montreal Canadiens, are under the impression he belongs in that category.

I don’t want Montreal to be the next senstors or buffalo sabres, giving 8 years, max money to everybody and still to be in the basement.

Sure no one wants that but if you look at what has brough the Sabres and Sens to the point they're at right now, there's a lot more to it than the fact they handed out contract extensions to players like candy.

 

[Habs Halifax]

What does this even mean?

Book what? and time will tell what? lol...seems like you're coping out of the discussion and I don't really know why. It's really not that complicated or controversial.

There are tons of examples of players who didn' have "pedigree" who ended up signing massive long term contracts. I just randomly selected 2 for you because of how generic their names were lol.

Pedigree matters before and at the draft...the second you're drafted it doesn't matter anymore. Unless you're a prestige player like McDavid or Ovechkin or Crosby. Those are exceptions though and I don't think anyone, neither him, his agent or the Montreal Canadiens, are under the impression he belongs in that category.


Sure no one wants that but if you look at what has brough the Sabres and Sens to the point they're at right now, there's a lot more to it than the fact they handed out contract extensions to players like candy.

Bookmark the discussion of what was said and lets compare to what actually happens.

 

[417]

Bookmark the discussion of what was said and lets compare to what actually happens.

But we don't have to wait there's tons of evidence available...just look at the history of players who didn't have "pedigree" who ended up signing lucrative long-term contracts.

Did Nick Suzuki have "pedigree" before he signed his contract with the Habs?

 

[Habs Halifax]

But we don't have too...just look at the history of players who didn't have "pedigree" who ended up signing lucrative long-term contracts.

You don't have too but I will

 

[JoelWarlord]

I think we're being a little bit precious about this Suzuki deal stuff. Suzuki is a great player but he is not prime Stamkos or Bergeron, and he signed under an 81.5M salary cap while the cap will be 92M or higher (and continuing to rise) by the time a new Slafkovsky contract kicks in. It's going to be a bit of a soft ceiling and apply downward pressure on contracts for a bit but I wouldn't count on Suzuki's deal being a hard ceiling with the cap beginning to rise again. By October 2025 the salary cap is going to be roughly 10.5 million higher than when Suzuki signed in December 2021, just not realistic to expect every player to peg their earnings to what Suzuki could get with October 2021 financials.

Hockey players can be team first at the expense of their own finances so it wouldn't really surprise me if he decides not to rock the boat and just accepts an 8x7.75, but would it really be that surprising if he says he wants the Brady Tkachuk/Robert Thomas contract? I just don't really care to nickle and dime over 500k if that's what it takes to get 8 years of term to lock in the long-term cap savings with a cap increase.

What I am saying is 8x $7.75M is maximizing his earnings. Why? Because he is not a top line asset who can lead on his own like others who have bet on themselves.

I understand your maximize earnings narrative but they apply to players each of their own. Slaf is not a slam dunk 80+ future forward. He had a good 2nd half with Suzuki. Chill.

If you believe this then why do you even want to give him 7.75? He's not a sniper like Caufield, so if you don't think he's a driver the number for an RFA fresh off an ELC should be like...6 maximum.

 

[417]

You don't have too but I will

Is there a reason why you choose to ignore available information?

I mean, just look at Nick Suzuki if you want lol what "pedigree" did he have to sign a long contract paying him the most money we've ever handed out to a skater?

He wasn't a 1st overall pick, wasn't a 80+ forward...but they paid him because they projected that he's a player this franchise wants to build around.

Not sure how that's different for Slafkovsky if they believe he's also a piece to build around.

 

[CHfan1]

Angle I would take is we believe in you like Suzuki and Caufield and we would like to pay you the same. It would be greedy to ask more than Suzuki and Caufield and I don't think Slaf is that type. He knows our system well and how we spend a lot of time and energy to get him in the best development situation as possible.

Lets play the future forecast game... Where does Slaf max out at? 60-80 pts and a power game added?

Based off the second half last season where he scored 16 goals and had 35 points in 41 games, I think Slafkovsky can be a ppg player. It wouldn’t surprise me if he can get to 35-40 goals, 45-50 assists, 80-90 points.

 

[badfish]

Some of the votes from McKenzie's list I found interesting:

Demidov had 5 second place votes, 2 third place votes, 1 fourth place vote, and 1 fifth place vote.
Lindstrom had 2 third place votes, 2 fourth place votes, 2 fifth place votes.
Sennecke had one top-5 vote and two top-10 votes.

Edit: I got lost on HF

 

[Habs Halifax]

I think we're being a little bit precious about this Suzuki deal stuff. Suzuki is a great player but he is not prime Stamkos or Bergeron, and he signed under an 81.5M salary cap while the cap will be 92M or higher (and continuing to rise) by the time a new Slafkovsky contract kicks in. It's going to be a bit of a soft ceiling and apply downward pressure on contracts for a bit but I wouldn't count on Suzuki's deal being a hard ceiling with the cap beginning to rise again. By October 2025 the salary cap is going to be roughly 10.5 million higher than when Suzuki signed in December 2021, just not realistic to expect every player to peg their earnings to what Suzuki could get with October 2021 financials.

Hockey players can be team first at the expense of their own finances so it wouldn't really surprise me if he decides not to rock the boat and just accepts an 8x7.75, but would it really be that surprising if he says he wants the Brady Tkachuk/Robert Thomas contract? I just don't really care to nickle and dime over 500k if that's what it takes to get 8 years of term to lock in the long-term cap savings with a cap increase.


If you believe this then why do you even want to give him 7.75? He's not a sniper like Caufield, so if you don't think he's a driver the number for an RFA fresh off an ELC should be like...6 maximum.

Because I feel like if you bridge him at a time when cap grows to $92M+, the cost for a top 6 winger goes from $7M to $9M in a heartbeat. So a 60 pts forward today vs a 60 pts in 3 years time grows by $2M+. Pay the top 6F rate now is what I say. The timing of contracts compared to cap growth is massive. If we were still in Covid Flat cap years, I'd have no problem with bridge contract and letting him play out his last ELC year. However, we are at a critical point of cap increases to come.

It's deeper than just his point totals for me. A lot of players in the NHL are paid too much because of them having good seasons at the right time in terms of cap future forecasts.

at $7.75M for 8 years, I think he becomes overpaid in the first 3 years (years we can manage) but underpaid in the last 5. The last 5 would be massive in terms of retaining our talent that will have contracts due. It's a strategy within the cap.

It's more of a calculation of what a top 6 winger cost in a future salary cap for me than if Slaf will be a 80+ winger. My safe range for Slaf is 50-70 pts range and I see it going up/down season/season.

Based off the second half last season where he scored 16 goals and had 35 points in 41 games, I think Slafkovsky can be a ppg player. It wouldn’t surprise me if he can get to 35-40 goals, 45-50 assists, 80-90 points.

So he passes Suzuki or does Suzuki go to 80-90 pts range? Personally, I don't see Slaf becoming more valuable than Suzuki. Do you see B Tkachuk in Slaf in terms of where he maxes out at?

 

[LaP]

I don’t want Montreal to be the next senstors or buffalo sabres, giving 8 years, max money to everybody and still to be in the basement.

And what do you want to do? Give money to Gomez and Cammalleri? If Slaf can be secured long term for under 8 millions it should be done. Having Suzuki, Caufield and Slaf at 21 millions something would be good. The cap will be over 90 millions in around 4 years so that's 23% of the cap spent on 20% of your top 9 forwards / top 6 defensmen which is very good considering they are all solid top 6 players in the making.

 

[CHfan1]

So he passes Suzuki or does Suzuki go to 80-90 pts range? Personally, I don't see Slaf becoming more valuable than Suzuki. Do you see B Tkachuk in Slaf in terms of where he maxes out at?

I think Suzuki gets to the 80-90 point range as well. What will help them both is if Caufield can improve his shooting %. In 2022-23 he had a 16.5 shooting %, last season it dropped to 8.9. Even if he gets back to his career average of 11.7% that’s another 9 goals based on his shot total of 314 from last season.

Tkachuk’s current best season, points wise, is 83. I think Slafkovsky exceeds that.

 

[LaP]

I think Suzuki gets to the 80-90 point range as well. What will help them both is if Caufield can improve his shooting %. In 2022-23 he had a 16.5 shooting %, last season it dropped to 8.9. Even if he gets back to his career average of 11.7% that’s another 9 goals based on his shot total of 314 from last season.

Tkachuk’s current best season, points wise, is 83. I think Slafkovsky exceeds that.

Even if he doesn't exceed that a big 70 points winger with a long prime in front of him at 7ish millions is not a problem at all it's actually a good contract, If you're convinced Slaf can be a 70 points player you sign him long term imo before it's too late and cost you too much.

 

[CHfan1]

Even if he doesn't exceed that a big 70 points winger with a long prime in front of him at 7ish millions is not a problem at all it's actually a good contract, If you're convinced Slaf can be a 70 points player you sign him long term imo before it's too late and cost you too much.

I definitely agree with this. I agree with the philosophy to lock up top RFA players long term through their prime years. More often than not those contracts age well as opposed to signing UFA’s to long term contracts.

 

[Habssince89]

No trust me I don't have the mindset of 'that Suzuki cap is the cap forever' I just mean it as it's definitely a little 'hack' HuGo know they can use for a few years, they 'used it' with CC and I believe they will use it juuuuust one more time when it comes to Slaf
Who is obviously a team first guy and clearly reveres Nick for who he is at the moment

This is also why I don't see an 8 year deal for Slaf, as you said it's different for him
I see a 4-5 year 7M deal
And after that, depending on what level of stardom he has hopefully reached
Then he will get 8+Mill yes, only logical

Slafkovsky can also make a shit ton of $$$ being a Euro Star playing for the Habs. I bet you he'll have some status in Europe, and if he becomes a true star I have no doubt that the NHL will use him to promote themselves in eastern europe.

 

[Team_Spirit]

 

[Egresch]

My safe range for Slaf is 50-70 pts range and I see it going up/down season/season.

I guess you do not know Slaf. I watch him few years and this guy does not look back. He was 50 pts player this season, his goal was to be top 6 player in NHL. Instead, he is a star in Montreal, now the next stage is a NHL star and he will make it. Probably not next season, but give him 2-3 years and he will be there.

 

[Treal]

Here's a cool little lighthearted tidbit since it's the offseason. Yesterday, I was watching a movie with my wife and noticed that this actor (Nicholas Galitzine) looks eerily like Slaf. Pretty sure, he could play him in his autobiographical movie . Am I the only one who sees the resemblance?

 

[JoelWarlord]

Because I feel like if you bridge him at a time when cap grows to $92M+, the cost for a top 6 winger goes from $7M to $9M in a heartbeat. So a 60 pts forward today vs a 60 pts in 3 years time grows by $2M+. Pay the top 6F rate now is what I say.

I guess but again if I didn't think he was a top line guy and thought his range will be more like 50-70P from year to year I wouldn't want to give him 8 years in the first place unless the number was closer to 6.

I'm not arguing that I would rather spend 8.25 or 8.5 but if that's what it costs that's fine, and it's a lower cap% than Suzuki's deal was.

If we were still in Covid Flat cap years, I'd have no problem with bridge contract and letting him play out his last ELC year. However, we are at a critical point of cap increases to come.

Of course, but this is why his agent may advise Slafkovsky not to accept an 8 year deal at 7.5 when the cap will be 92M before he plays a game on that 8 year contract. If he does that's excellent news for us, but I'm not going to nickle and dime with him over 500k because Suzuki signed a front loaded deal in 2021.

Granted I think we just have quite different perceptions of this player in general.

So he passes Suzuki or does Suzuki go to 80-90 pts range? Personally, I don't see Slaf becoming more valuable than Suzuki. Do you see B Tkachuk in Slaf in terms of where he maxes out at?

I would be pretty disappointed if Slafkovsky does not become a more valuable player than Suzuki. In my opinion for that to be the case, Suzuki will need to have another significant growth year or we're in trouble long term with this build.

I think B. Tkachuk is kinda overrated and I think Slafkovsky's ceiling is higher. I think Slafkovsky has a good shot at getting to and surpassing B. Tkachuk that level of play because he doesn't necessarily need to match him in point totals as Slafkovsky's all around and two-way game should be stronger than Tkachuk.