Confirmed with Link: Weekesbomb: Palat to NJ for five-year deal

[SteveCangialosi123]

He's 31 so I don't want to completely discredit the "decline" concerns. But he just scored the most goals in his career since 13-14, the most points since 16-17 and had his best playoffs to date.

He has yet to show any signs of a decline.

I’m operating under the assumption he’ll age fairly gracefully until proven otherwise. This isn’t even copium, the guy literally hasn’t declined at all and just had a great postseason. No, some age curve chart isn’t convincing. Why can’t he be a Perron? Why is he a Tatar? No one wants to build a team with these guys, it’s one contract. If Hughes or Nico can’t prop him up, that’s concerning.

 

[njdevil26]

I mean pretty much everyone after Weekes confirmed the deal and the terms. Why the team hasn't officially announced it yet who knows, maybe they want to get the guy in the building to physically sign the contract and get the YT footage?

Yeah you're probably right... I just went from yesterday being pumped Zacha was traded, being pumped Brunette was hired (also not announced by the team), and that we were about to land Gaudreau... now I find myself super annoyed Bratt isn't signed yet, waiting for moves, waiting for Vanacek to be signed, waiting for the team to announce anything they have done beyond the Smith signing...

 

[SpeakingOfTheDevils]

Erik Johnson at 6M at age 27, topping out at 25 pts and sub 50 CF% is cost-efficient?

Oh wait, you didn't notice it because it didn't matter.

I agree we can't do this again, though.

Landeskog's contract will also be a doozy in the last couple years.

It amazes me how people literally choose to be pessimistic and upset. How miserable.

 

[NJDevs26]

Erik Johnson at 6M at age 27, topping out at 25 pts and sub 50 CF% is cost-efficient?

Oh wait, you didn't notice it because it didn't matter.

I agree we can't do this again, though.

Jonnas Donskoi was a pretty iffy contract too but - spoiler alert - that didn't derail their impending chances at winning a Cup either and they were able to get out of that with an expansion draft pick.

 

[Unknown Caller]

Jonnas Donskoi was a pretty iffy contract too but - spoiler alert - that didn't derail their impending chances at winning a Cup either and they were able to get out of that with an expansion draft pick.

Not remotely comparable. Donskoi signed a 4 year deal at 27 years old with an AAV of $3.9M. Not every contract is going to work out, but that deal had minimal impact and at least it was a reasonably safe bet that he would be effective over the life of the contract. Pretty easy to move a contract with that AAV for a guy that's still relatively young.

 

[devilsblood]

I’m operating under the assumption he’ll age fairly gracefully until proven otherwise. This isn’t even copium, the guy literally hasn’t declined at all and just had a great postseason. No, some age curve chart isn’t convincing. Why can’t he be a Perron? Why is he a Tatar? No one wants to build a team with these guys, it’s one contract. If Hughes or Nico can’t prop him up, that’s concerning.

Tatar isn't even a guy who declined all of a sudden. He was always a soft dud of a player. Being benched in the playoffs goes way back. When we signed him we were hoping for a vet who can lead, who can do the dirty work, make the little plays that are so important to winning (well maybe we didnt think he was that but that is often what vets bring), and he is so not that. Palat is.

There is a reason we were able to sign Tatar to what people thought was a great contract. And there is a reason we had to go overboard on Palat.

 

[Saugus]

I think the term and cost are still somewhat too high (I would have been happier with 5 x 4 or 4 x 5, but that's not realistic in UFA), but I am very encouraged seeing all the Tampa fans coming in here and singing his praises.

Seems to me like if you're going to hand out an iffy contract, that's the type of guy you do it for.

 

[bossram]

So if he has 3 good seasons, then fades, and we make the playoffs in 4 of those seasons, the contract is not a success in your eyes? That's a high bar. This team did stink last year.

When are the Devils likely to be true contenders? Next year? The year after? 2 years after?

If Palat falls off a cliff when the Devils are actually serious about winning a Cup, the contract will be a failure. Because they could use the cap space more efficiently or on a better player.

If the Devils were actually a contender right now, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the contract. Sometimes to win now, you have to pay the piper later. But that clearly isn't the direction Fitz views the Devils as in next season.

That is just absurd.

The entire post is nervous handwringing over "perhaps perhaps perhaps," but to suggest Danton Heinen at whatever contract he gets is more viable to this team than Palat at the contract he just got... is plain absurd.

Heinen is a solid player. Did I say he was better than Palat? No. But giving him a cheap contract preserves cap flexibility and if he is displaced by the younger players, there are basically no cap consequences.

Smart teams are always managing their club with the long-term salary cap in mind. To reduce your analysis to "good player now, good deal" is actually absurd.

 

[AfroThunder396]

Not even close to the same argument, but ok. Bratt and Hughes were developing prospects who had underlying numbers to support a much higher scoring rate in the future plus massive room for development. Palat is a fully developed veteran who played his entire career with one of the most dominant offensive dynasties we've seen.

What most people aren't grasping about the argument is that it has nothing to do with whether Palat is a valuable player right now. As of today, he's absolutely an effective second line winger who does the little things well, brings intangibles and has experience winning consistently. There's no question about that.

The argument is centered around how much money and term you give to a guy like that, especially given the fact that he's likely to decline in the near future. There's also a lot of people that are really overrating what he is and it's just going to result in frustration in the long run.

I know what the argument is. People are trying to discredit the player because they don't like the contract.

The Devils paid market price for a versatile 2nd line winger. Market price is always an overpay, that's how UFA works. Tough shit. If you don't pay you don't get the player, and everyone knows we need better players. I would rather have Palat than not have Palat.

We're getting surplus cap vs performance value from Jack Hughes. Siegenthaler and Severson are making far less than they should. And between Mercer, Holtz, Luke, Nemec, possibly Gritsyuk and any other prospects, we're going to be getting enormous cap vs performance value from young ELC players for the foreseeable future.

Holtz's ELC starts this year, by the time he's up for his first RFA contract Palat will only have two years left. That's a dumpable contract. By the time Luke and Nemec are up for their first deal, Palat will only have one year left. You can literally give him to Arizona for free.

I don't care if we mildly overpay one guy, it's just one guy. There are mechanisms for dumping the tail end of contracts that other teams are already using, and that's assuming that he will be a negative value player in the future.

 

[NJDevs26]

Not remotely comparable. Donskoi signed a 4 year deal at 27 years old with an AAV of $3.9M. Not every contract is going to work out, but that deal had minimal impact and at least it was a reasonably safe bet that he would be effective over the life of the contract. Pretty easy to move a contract with that AAV for a guy that's still relatively young.

So a 4-4 deal is just fine but a 5-6 deal is the worst contract in the history of man and will doom the Devils in three years?

We're also assuming the guy has zero chance to be useful at the back end of the contract and will decline immediately when he had 33 points in his last 34 games this season, which is a big leap to take off of pessimism mountain.

 

[Unknown Caller]

Landeskog's contract will also be a doozy in the last couple years.

It amazes me how people literally choose to be pessimistic and upset. How miserable.

They paid Landeskog in the right window though. It got them a cup and he's at his peak while their contending window is open, so it's worth the extra term at that point. The entire point is that the Devils aren't contenders and when their real window finally opens they're going to be paying a 34 year old Palat $6 million.

 

[devilsblood]

When are the Devils likely to be true contenders? Next year? The year after? 2 years after?

If Palat falls off a cliff when the Devils are actually serious about winning a Cup, the contract will be a failure. Because they could use the cap space more efficiently or on a better player.

If the Devils were actually a contender right now, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the contract. Sometimes to win now, you have to pay the piper later. But that clearly isn't the direction Fitz views the Devils as in next season.


Heinen is a solid player. Did I say he was better than Palat? No. But giving him a cheap contract preserves cap flexibility and if he is displaced by the younger players, there are basically no cap consequences.

Smart teams are always managing their club with the long-term salary cap in mind. To reduce your analysis to "good player now, good deal" is actually absurd.

This assumes that he has no positive impact on the young fwds on the roster. Also discredits that teams need to climb that ladder before they can become true contenders. If he helps climb that ladder, but isn't the guy who rings the bell, I'm OK with that.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

They paid Landeskog in the right window though. It got them a cup and he's at his peak while their contending window is open, so it's worth the extra term at that point. The entire point is that the Devils aren't contenders and when their real window finally opens they're going to be paying a 34 year old Palat $6 million.

and by that point, the cap is probably going to be at least $5 million higher

How about we worry about that in 3-4 years?

 

[devilsblood]

So a 4-4 deal is just fine but a 5-6 deal is the worst contract in the history of man and will doom the Devils in three years?

We're also assuming the guy has zero chance to be useful at the back end of the contract and will decline immediately when he had 31 points in his last 33 games this season, which is a big leap to take off of pessimism mountain.

Donskoi was also never as good as Palat, nor did he have the playoff success of Palat. 3 points in 12 playoff games the year before signing with Colorado.

They paid Landeskog in the right window though. It got them a cup and he's at his peak while their contending window is open, so it's worth the extra term at that point. The entire point is that the Devils aren't contenders and when their real window finally opens they're going to be paying a 34 year old Palat $6 million.

If that's the worst deal on the books then I'm not going to sweat it.

 

[bossram]

This assumes that he has no positive impact on the young fwds on the roster. Also discredits that teams need to climb that ladder before they can become true contenders. If he helps climb that ladder, but isn't the guy who rings the bell, I'm OK with that.

1. If much of his value comes from "leadership" or "Cup rings" or whatever, find a cheaper vet to hang around the young guys. VAN has approximately 10,000 middle-six forwards and Rutherford loves to deal Tanner Pearson. He's got 2 Cup rings. Flip them a 4th round pick or something for Pearson to be a mentor.

2. I get that the Devils still need to improve before they get to the dance. There are some relatively cheap players out there that would improve the club. And if Fitz were serious about taking a big step forward, the more obvious areas of improvement are on the blueline and in goal.

I don't think the Palat deal will sink them long-term. And I think Palat is a good player right now. But I make judgements as objectively as I can. I'm gonna call it like I see it and not have rose-coloured glasses. It's not a good contract.

 

[Unknown Caller]

So a 4-4 deal is just fine but a 5-6 deal is the worst contract in the history of man and will doom the Devils in three years?

We're also assuming the guy has zero chance to be useful at the back end of the contract and will decline immediately, which is a big leap to take off of pessimism mountain.

The 4 x $3.9 for a 27 year old that expires when he's 31 is definitely more palatable and a reasonably decent bet to at least age well. Not all that hard to move $3.9 for a year or two either.

Just being realistic about the contract and the player, which I get a lot of people here don't like to be. They got a shiny new toy that we saw score notable goals on the TV screen. I like the player a lot, just not at this term and dollar amount for where this organization is right now.

Is it the end of the world? Not at all. It's just incredibly likely that we're going to regret this deal down the line. If we have no complaints about the contract until year 4, we'll be lucky.

 

[Buggsy]

Really? How did the Avalanche manage to put together one of the best teams in the cap era without handing out a single contract like this in the last 5+ years? They were somehow fine relying on value signings and developing their players internally in a cost effective and age-optimized way.

Spoiler. The reason they were one of the best teams in the cap era is largely because they didn't hand out contracts like this one.

The are one of the best teams because their young talent is amazing. And Mackinnon is severely cheap for his impact.

You know that they just won with Erik Johnson being paid 6m a year right? And he's 34.

 

[Oneiro]

It's not a good contract but being apoplectic about this is hilarious.

JT Miller? Cost-controlled assets + Gaudreau-esque cap hit for a 29-year old power forward off a career year? That would be worth raising hell.

 

[DevilDog]

We landed a player with more playoff GPs than our entire roster combined! If we’re serious about getting to the playoffs these are the kind of players we need. And yes, sometimes you have to overpay them to lure them to a franchise that is apparently as poorly regarded around the league as ours is.

 

[Its Always Sundstrom]

Me preparing to enter this thread again:

View attachment 569179

Your finest work of the off season

 

[NJDevs26]

It's not a good contract but being apoplectic about this is hilarious.

JT Miller? Cost-controlled assets + Gaudreau-esque cap hit for a 29-year old power forward off a career year? That would be worth raising hell.

Exactly...Fitz does that then I'm joining the pessimism crowd in gathering up the torches and comparing Fitz to Fletcher or whoever the Vegas GM is.

 

[Buggsy]

1. If much of his value comes from "leadership" or "Cup rings" or whatever, find a cheaper vet to hang around the young guys. VAN has approximately 10,000 middle-six forwards and Rutherford loves to deal Tanner Pearson. He's got 2 Cup rings. Flip them a 4th round pick or something for Pearson to be a mentor.

2. I get that the Devils still need to improve before they get to the dance. There are some relatively cheap players out there that would improve the club. And if Fitz were serious about taking a big step forward, the more obvious areas of improvement are on the blueline and in goal.

I don't think the Palat deal will sink them long-term. And I think Palat is a good player right now. But I make judgements as objectively as I can. I'm gonna call it like I see it and not have rose-coloured glasses. It's not a good contract.

If you're going to say defence and goaltending were better ways to spend money, you're going to need to back it up.

Who are you signing that supplanted our top 4?
Who are you signing to supplant Blackwood or Vanacek?

 

[devilsblood]

I think the term and cost are still somewhat too high (I would have been happier with 5 x 4 or 4 x 5, but that's not realistic in UFA), but I am very encouraged seeing all the Tampa fans coming in here and singing his praises.

Seems to me like if you're going to hand out an iffy contract, that's the type of guy you do it for.

I don't watch a ton of hockey outside of the Devils, but I did watch a fair amount of Tampa in these playoffs. Palat was arguably their best fwd.

 

[Buggsy]

The 4 x $3.9 for a 27 year old that expires when he's 31 is definitely more palatable and a reasonably decent bet to at least age well. Not all that hard to move $3.9 for a year or two either.

Just being realistic about the contract and the player, which I get a lot of people here don't like to be. They got a shiny new toy that we saw score notable goals on the TV screen. I like the player a lot, just not at this term and dollar amount for where this organization is right now.

Is it the end of the world? Not at all. It's just incredibly likely that we're going to regret this deal down the line. If we have no complaints about the contract until year 4, we'll be lucky.

How many posts have you seen people say it's a good contract?

The statement most have is that it was an expensive contract for a player type the Devils need and that it likely won't destroy anything in the future .

 

[Unknown Caller]

Dear lord the hyperbolic baby bois carrying on in this thread are an embarrassment to our fan base.

We landed a player with more playoff GPs than our entire roster combined! If we’re serious about getting to the playoffs these are the kind of players we need. And yes, sometimes you have to overpay them to lure them to a franchise that is apparently as poorly regarded around the league as ours is.

Nobody is being hyperbolic. It's okay to admit that a contract sucks while also saying the player is good as of today. Acting like this term and AAV are completely fine for this player are just disingenuous.

When the crux of the argument supporting the deal is "well, we'll just dump some assets with him in a few years to offload him to another team," you know that it's not a smart contract.