Toggle sidebar

Rumor: Zuccarello Close to Signing 2 or 3 Year Contract

  • Thread starter Thread starter Green Blob*
  • Start date 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
He's an effective 2nd/3rd line player right now. If he can maintain his .5PPG contribution for something under $1.5M, there's really nothing wrong with that at all. Is he a player to build around? No, but he's certainly more than adequate as a complimentary piece.

He left the team and came back having improved on two of his biggest weaknesses: defense and skating. He's earned a new deal without a doubt.
 
Trxjw said:
He's an effective 2nd/3rd line player right now. If he can maintain his .5PPG contribution for something under $1.5M, there's really nothing wrong with that at all. Is he a player to build around? No, but he's certainly more than adequate as a complimentary piece.

He left the team and came back having improved on two of his biggest weaknesses: defense and skating. He's earned a new deal without a doubt.
Click to expand...

Not arguing that. I just think 3 years is a bit excessive. 1 or 2 is fine.

But apparently if you're against handing out 3 year deals like they're candy, thats ******** on Zuccarello.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
Not arguing that. I just think 3 years is a bit excessive. 1 or 2 is fine.

But apparently if you're against handing out 3 year deals like they're candy, thats ******** on Zuccarello.
Click to expand...

I don't see the downside in the term, TBH. If it's a $3M per year deal, then yeah, I'd be pissed, but I imagine it's somewhere in the $1.3-$1.5M range per year. Below average number for a guy who gives you average middle-six production and still has some possible upside.
 
Trxjw said:
I don't see the downside in the term, TBH. If it's a $3M per year deal, then yeah, I'd be pissed, but I imagine it's somewhere in the $1.3-$1.5M range per year. Below average number for a guy who gives you average middle-six production and still has some possible upside.
Click to expand...

Yeah. 3 years for Rupp or Voros would piss me off. 3 years for a player like MZA, not so much.

I can see both sides.
 
NYR Viper said:
Yeah. 3 years for Rupp or Voros would piss me off. 3 years for a player like MZA, not so much.

I can see both sides.
Click to expand...

Yea. MZA came back a better player this year than in previously, IMO. I was wrong in thinking he wasn't going to be the useful player he turned out to be. He has extremely good hockey sense and poise, particularly on PP. He is not going to win any Selkes anytime soon, but his play has improved on defensive side with room for growth. I think I feel more comfortable projecting a 40 point output than 50, but for the kind of money being rumored, that's a good deal. Agree with those who think it would be moveable in year 2 or 3 if necessary, too.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
Its not so much about letting go of Parenteau, its the failure to acquire dynamic centers that make fringe type players (like Parenteau and Zuccarello) look much better than they are.
Click to expand...

I agree. Now I just need to find the right face for maybe tongue in cheek, which is what I should have used the first time. Maybe :sarcasm:

That being said I think that keeping MZA is a good low risk/high reward signing, provided that the numbers make sense.
 
I think Sather wants to get McD , Step and Hags done before doing this deal. He wants to make sure he has enough $$$ left. Unless a team throws out a ridiculous offer sheet to McD or Step, this will get done.:handclap:
 
I'm not completely sold on Zucc.

I love his work-ethic, i love his passion. Hes a very good playmaker with good vision when he has space. I thought he really showed up in the playoffs and at times was one of the best skaters on the ice on the puck. His shootout prowess might be worth this contract alone because hes good for getting this team 2-3-4 more points with that move.

I'd like to see more of sample size from him though, especially in AV's system. But his size concerns me, especially over the course of a full 82 game season and hopefully beyond. He's good depth i just dont know if you want to put that much trust in him as a top 6 player, even strength. On the PP fine, he should be on one of the units for sure. . I'm fine with this signing because the Rangers need skill and IQ on the ice, but I'm just critiquing the player here. He definitely can prove me wrong, I just need to see it happen....
 
Brooks speculates 1.25 per.

That's 500k less than his cap hit from 11-12.

1.25 per for 3 years is a bargain for a player who may score 40+ points per season.
 
puckrush said:
Brooks speculates 1.25 per.

That's 500k less than his cap hit from 11-12.

1.25 per for 3 years is a bargain for a player who may score 40+ points per season.
Click to expand...

It's 350k more than his salary from 11-12. His ELC had $850k in bonuses. $1.25m would represent a 40% raise over a full season in guaranteed NHL money from his ELC and an 80% raise in his full-season money from last year. Plus, the contract would be one-way.
 
Tawnos said:
It's 350k more than his salary from 11-12. His ELC had $850k in bonuses. $1.25m would represent a 40% raise over a full season in guaranteed NHL money from his ELC and an 80% raise in his full-season money from last year. Plus, the contract would be one-way.
Click to expand...

I was speaking strictly about his cap hit. Unless capgeek is lying, his cap hit in 10-11 & 11-12 was 1.75. In 2013 it was 700k.

Brooks speculates a 1.25 cap hit moving forward. That is 500k less than his cap hit from 11-12.

Again, strictly speaking about cap hit.
 
puckrush said:
I was speaking strictly about his cap hit. Unless capgeek is lying, his cap hit in 10-11 & 11-12 was 1.75. In 2013 it was 700k.

Brooks speculates a 1.25 cap hit moving forward. That is 500k less than his cap hit from 11-12.

Again, strictly speaking about cap hit.
Click to expand...

His total cap hit from his ELC is irrelevant though. Especially as compared to this year's potential salary.

Zuccarello never actually had a hit of $1.75m. It was $900,000 plus $850k in bonuses. CapGeek just includes the bonuses under the assumption that a player will hit them. That's so team's don't potentially go over the Cap in the course of the year. They can account for the bonuses and if they hit it, it won't matter. With Zuccarello, it was further irrelevant. According to Cap Geek, his actual cap cost in 2010-11 was $940,860 and in 11-12 was $359,459, but those numbers are simply his total hit, including bonuses, multiplied by the percentage of days he spent on the roster. I'm not sure if he attained his bonuses in either year (hard to imagine he did in 11-12, playing in as few NHL games as he did), so the numbers might not be accurate.
 
The $1.25M would be one-way. $300,000 above the AHL threshold. Anything above $925,000 counts against the cap if the player is playing in the AHL on a one way. Zuccarello was never in position to cash in on his bonuses. Having them in his contract didn't mean much for him.
 
HockeyBasedNYC said:
I'm not completely sold on Zucc.

I love his work-ethic, i love his passion. Hes a very good playmaker with good vision when he has space. I thought he really showed up in the playoffs and at times was one of the best skaters on the ice on the puck. His shootout prowess might be worth this contract alone because hes good for getting this team 2-3-4 more points with that move.

I'd like to see more of sample size from him though, especially in AV's system. But his size concerns me, especially over the course of a full 82 game season and hopefully beyond. He's good depth i just dont know if you want to put that much trust in him as a top 6 player, even strength. On the PP fine, he should be on one of the units for sure. . I'm fine with this signing because the Rangers need skill and IQ on the ice, but I'm just critiquing the player here. He definitely can prove me wrong, I just need to see it happen....
Click to expand...

I think this is how we all (those of us not from Norway) feel. I admit that I was completely down on him prior to last year, but he definitely showed me something when he came back this past year. There's no question his offensive creativity really helped the team and he was able to have an impact in the offensive zone - and at the end of the day, that's what you're looking for, guys who can have an impact.

Unfortunately, I still worry that he also has a negative impact in the defensive zone. It's not that the effort isn't there or that he's all that bad tactically, but too many players are able to brush him off; if he misses with the stick check, his guy's automatically got position on him. That's not a trait you typically have in a guy who plays a major role on a winning team, especially if that guy doesn't bring PPG scoring.

If he stays, I hope he proves me wrong, either by somehow improving his physical play or upping his scoring to the point that the deficiency becomes acceptable. And if Slats can get some value for him, needless to say I'd be all over that.
 
BrooklynRangersFan said:
I think this is how we all (those of us not from Norway) feel. I admit that I was completely down on him prior to last year, but he definitely showed me something when he came back this past year. There's no question his offensive creativity really helped the team and he was able to have an impact in the offensive zone - and at the end of the day, that's what you're looking for, guys who can have an impact.

Unfortunately, I still worry that he also has a negative impact in the defensive zone. It's not that the effort isn't there or that he's all that bad tactically, but too many players are able to brush him off; if he misses with the stick check, his guy's automatically got position on him. That's not a trait you typically have in a guy who plays a major role on a winning team, especially if that guy doesn't bring PPG scoring.

If he stays, I hope he proves me wrong, either by somehow improving his physical play or upping his scoring to the point that the deficiency becomes acceptable. And if Slats can get some value for him, needless to say I'd be all over that.
Click to expand...

Yep, same thoughts about him on defense. The one good thing going for him is he uses a very long stick so that helps him cover a little more room, but youre right its tough for him to get position on players and if he misses hes out of the play. I gotta admit he tries to get in there and finish checks though when he has the chance. I think its towards the middle of the ice where his reads have to be better, and I dont know if a guy his size can really force the play to one side or knock off a potential chance quickly enough because of his limitations both in size and awareness. Your points about the major role trait and upping his scoring are spot on.
 
What makes Marchand a much better two way player than Zucc? They are nearly the same size. Is it skating ability?
 
Marchand must have at least 2-3 inches on Zuccarello, he was able to shake Zuke off rather easily during his OT goal in the playoffs.

Also, Zuccarello has been playing on a larger ice surface for most of his career. He's not as good as Marchand when it comes to playing tight and physical, board play, etc.
 
Marchands a much better player.

He's FAR more physical, and a better skater. IMHO i think MZA has better hands and vision, but hes too small to get into the areas to use it, and not quick enough to peel away from guys like Hagelin.

MZAs problems are his height and his feet. if he had those, he'd be an all-star caliber player because his IQ and hands are off the charts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom