You make it seem like we are the Rangers or Bruins and players are willing to follow along to stay with the team. We literally have to add years and millions more to attract players well past their prime. Why would Z want to commit to a losing team and accept near the same money as someone like a Caulfield? He shouldn’t settle for anything less than 9 million x 8 years with how much a guy like Marner makes and with the cap going up. The guy is cocky and will gamble on himself. There’s not much difference from 8 to 9-10 when you’re paying a 34 year old 6+ for the next 4 years, and I’d gladly gamble on a 22 year old. It’s not like we don’t have the cap space so this hard balling only makes things more difficult down the road.
Player Discussion Trevor Zegras : Part III
- Thread starter Ducks DVM
- Start date
DavidBL
Registered User
Please name 1 significant player we have had that left via FA rather than take an offer to resign because they didn't want to stay.
Do you really want him to be that player? Bridge him like we did with guys like Hampus to around 25-26 years old where he’s going to ask for an overpay to stay? Go through future contract hold outs while trying to build a team? Teams don’t do that to key players and it normally does effect how likely they stick around.
DavidBL
Registered User
Lindholm wasn't bridged. His last deal was 6 years. He was a ufa to be and 28 years old. Let's be real here, would you prefer to negotiate with Z again at 30 or at 33? At 30 you're likely to be asking for another 8 year deal it's a lot easier to limit term after 30. I'd rather give Z an 8 year deal when he's 25 than when he's 28. Just look at how Getzlaf and Perry's deals aged.
Sean Garrity
Quack Quack Quack!
I know y'all are hashing it out, but to me it seems like goalposts were moved significantly and that the original question/statement was not addressed. In recent memory, I can't remember a single play who left Anaheim because they didn't want to stay. I mean Kariya is the only significant player that comes to mind but that was so long ago. There's been 0 indication to my knowledge, by Z's camp that he wants to leave Anaheim or that he's threatening to leave if x,y, or z are not met.
70sSanO
Registered User
At this point in our rebuild, I sure hope our ceiling is a lot higher than the Rangers and Bruins.
John
Those guys got paid as UFAs. You can't compare the AAV of a UFA deal to a RFA deals where the team is doing 8 years, some of which are prior to UFA. Also teams pay UFAs more because they don't have to give up assets to sign them.
Usually still teams pay for the 'UFA years' in the RFA contracts as far as I've seen.
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
Panarin is a weird example - if you talk to Rangers fans, they aren’t exactly unanimously happy with him and his contract and how it’s impacting their chances of a deep playoff run, these days. He’s looking like he might be becoming another example of why such deals should be given out with caution.
I obviously want us to get Z for like 5-6 million but with how contracts were given to the Leaf stars at such a young age (causing them to now want 12-13+ million), and teams trying to lock in players earlier before the cap rises (Ottawa, Montreal, etc.),... it looks like these big contracts and risk taking will happen more frequently. I think Z is special and we haven't had a young talent like this since Getzlaf/Perry, so we need to take a chance and overpay to show our commitment, especially because of our weak hockey market. I hope his defense and work rate improves but even if he stagnates (becoming a winger, etc.), his offensive wizardry makes him at least as worthy as those mentioned highly paid one-dimensional players.
Why it’s time to embrace ‘gambles’ like the Jake Sanderson contract
In a shifting cap world, risky overpayments can look like steals within a few years.
www.dailyfaceoff.com
Panarin in some moments can be absolutely terrible defensively and I don't think you can win a cup with him without a ton of support so I think he will always be criticized for not being a complete player. I think he (maybe Marner too?) is a perfect example offensively because I think Z is likely going to be a playmaking winger like Panarin. But Z does show a lot more intensity, and he also looks like he is getting bigger and stronger in his workout videos, so I think he will definitely improve at least modestly defensively with his competitive nature if we have better coaching/training staff to help give develop those small details.
I guess I'm not the only one who thinks signing Z to a short-term deal would be a big mistake and needing to renegotiate again 2-3 years down the line will add risk and be more expensive... but then again, I'm apparently a troll when I say that we might need to overpay an RFA (9-10million) like we do with ancient UFAs to keep him long term. We don't have the tax benefits, rabid hockey fans, or prestige to not overpay at this point.
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
Agreed, I’m not too worried about Zegras becoming a more multi-dimensional player than breadman, at this point, but I also don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea, and most likely not a haunting one, to let home prove his drive to become a guy you can truly build around.
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
Paying him $9M for 8 years in two years (after paying him $5.5M for two years) when we have a better idea he’s trending in the b right direction is really not worse than paying him $8M for 8 years now. It’s two full additional years for just a bit more than we’d have to pay for the known potential, anyway.
Agreed.
Not to mention, as much as we hate to admit it, there is a possibility that this is as good as Zegras is going to get.
Dr Johnny Fever
Eggplant and Teal
I wish we weren't a team like Ottawa needing to take chances to retain talent. But once Z 'proves' himself, it's going to cost much more than 9 million a year. If Bread Man and Marner are getting 11+ and signed their contracts several years ago (pre-inflation and cap rising), Z will get that and maybe more. 9-9.5 million could be a steal. Unfortunately either routes have risks. I just think Anaheim are currently viewed as a bottom 5 destination. If he does reach another ceiling, he is going to be a contractual problem (PLD, Toronto primadona forwards, etc.) and many GMs can rub players the wrong way during that process (i.e. Bob Murray held grudges, and PV appears to have that similar old school mentality). Signing Z to 8 years, even if he plateaued at the very least gives us someone marketable in their prime. We can decide if he is a worthy leader and accomplished enough to sign him past 30.
70sSanO
Registered User
Not necessarily as good as he gets, but as good for the team as he gets.
That is the unknown. I think as he improves the team improves, but it remains to be seen how that translates in the playoffs.
John
Jeez for the sake of the franchise, we better pray guys like Z and Drysdale, etc. pan out, otherwise we are going to be tanking for the top pick for the next 5 years because we aren't going to be attract any stars via free agency.
I could care less about how he shows up in the playoffs at this point, which is still several years out. If takes his production to another level that would be a big win.
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
Sure, we aren’t a top destination now, but Zegras will still be far away from free agency in two years to not really get all that much of a choice, or point to those names as comparables. The organizational development over the next two years should make it easier, if anything, to convince him of a long-term future with us.
McDonald19
Registered User
The 8x8 ship has probably sailed.
Z might sign 8 x 9. Ducks would be buying his age 22 to 29 seasons, and then he’d be a UFA.
$72 mil total, $9 mil. cap hit.
Or sign him to a 2 year bridge. $5 mil 23-24 $6 mil 24-25. $5.5 cap hit for age 22 and 23 seasons. Then as a RFA after 24-25 sign him to an 8 x 10. Buying his age 24 to 31 seasons, and then he’d be a UFA. $80 mil. total $10 mil. Cap hit. 10 year total is $91 mil, with a $9.1 average and you are getting all his prime years.
Of course this assumes Z’s production doesn’t skyrocket to a level beyond $10 mil. per. (And the cap doesn’t increase significantly)
Z might sign 8 x 9. Ducks would be buying his age 22 to 29 seasons, and then he’d be a UFA.
$72 mil total, $9 mil. cap hit.
Or sign him to a 2 year bridge. $5 mil 23-24 $6 mil 24-25. $5.5 cap hit for age 22 and 23 seasons. Then as a RFA after 24-25 sign him to an 8 x 10. Buying his age 24 to 31 seasons, and then he’d be a UFA. $80 mil. total $10 mil. Cap hit. 10 year total is $91 mil, with a $9.1 average and you are getting all his prime years.
Of course this assumes Z’s production doesn’t skyrocket to a level beyond $10 mil. per. (And the cap doesn’t increase significantly)
70sSanO
Registered User
That is basically all I care about.
I’m sure there are a lot of Toronto fans that would love to see Matthews gone if it meant Lord Stanley got a place in town.
John
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
Z already panned out as a star, but we're waiting to see if he's a superstar. Drysdale is an unknown quantity.
Because of the reset rebuild, we've accumulated two more top-10 picks and maybe another one next draft. We have two potential top-6C after Zegras in McTavish and Carlsson. Also, we have Terry signed long term. At defense, we kinda hit jackpot on several blue liners, with Mintyukov being a 10th overall pick.
It's possible we aren't looking for stars in FA, but make trades for a star as a finishing touch. If the 2023 d-men class start showing signs of performing higher than their draft round, then we'll have a deluge trade capital.
Baby steps… it’s going to be a huge challenge to even win 50% of the games in the next two seasons with the current roster LOL. And the Ducks aren’t going to ever have the same high expectations and feel anywhere close to the pressure that the Leafs (or any Canadian team) feel.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Player Discussion What is the solution to this teams consistency problem?- Latest: Sens of Anarchy
-
