Hall and Holtby are underpayed.

Very much.

Also DAL doesn't need Chiasson. We have more than a handful of bottom-6 wingers already.

Both Hall and Holtby get more, Try at least 7 x 10.5 for Hall and 5 x 7.5 for Holtby. Not way either sign that cheaply.

Meh. Both guys are meh. Hall isn't worth more than $9M and Holtby is worth considerably less than $5.5M.

I wouldn't sign either guy to those deals, especially at the humongous cost of sending out cap to make it happen.

People tend to think the big contracts not being worth it (frankly I haven't seen anyone being happy with any contract in the league that exceeds $8-9M, no matter which player), but at the end of the day you're not getting true NHL stars in your team without paying what is due. At least when it comes to UFAs.

If you were a GM and thought that you'd get a good team for yourself without overpaying for some assets, you'd be in the same f*cking hole that BUF have been for a decade now. And EDM of course before McDavid and Draisaitl lol.

The trick is to pay for the right player. Was Lucic a good player to overpay? Loui Eriksson? James Neal? JVR? Hayes?

I'm not sure what your argument is. I don't see any justification for overpaying Taylor Hall in free agency just to lock up his declining years. Frankly it's completely illogical. And Holtby is a below average goalie and has been for 3 years now. If you want to sign him to a big money contract fill yer boots, but I'm not in favor of Edmonton doing same.


Overpaying for assets makes for a good team?! And you don't think BUF qualifies? I raise you Jeff Skinner.

Who's the one to make the call when signing that asset. They get paid for what they have done in the past. No one can predict the future. Yes, it's likely that player will decline at the age of 35-ish, but if you want to sign a player close to 30s, you don't really have the option but to suck it up and sign them or not have the asset for what he is for the short while... No smart player sign a short deal at his peak, because they know their next contract is going to be far worse than the one they'd get in the age of 27-30. This is what I mean by overpaying - you pay what is due for the while they're good players, and overpay for the time they start declining because you don't really have the other option.,.that is, if they want to keep the asset.

BUF viewed that they got a great sniper in Skinner and paid him what he was due after a 40 goal season. Granted it wasn't a great call, but they didn't have any other options if they wanted to keep the player. It's not like he was gonna sign any other kind of contract, and most likely some other team would've paid the same amount... This applied also for all of the players you've mentioned here. They all did something for a GM to view they were good enough to get that contract.

I can't really say anything about how you value players like Hall and Holtby, it's your call and you're entitled to your opinion. But you know well that they both are going to get a lot more than what's offered here.

This may well be true, but I'm telling you right now those contracts will be regrettable very quickly - doubly so if the AAV is higher as you are suggesting. Hall isn't worth $9M let alone more than that, for instance. Why? Just look at the most basic number: his point production over the past 3 years, then consider that he's expected to post fewer points over the next 3 and fewer still in years 4, 5, 6 and 7 of that contract.

Here are some comps for points over the past 2.75 seasons:

Hoffman: 182
Dadonov: 181 (both these guys will take less than $9M AND less than 7 years next summer)
Hall: 180
Marchessault: 178 (signed 6 years x 6.67% at 27)
Radulov: 177 (signed 5 years x 8.06% at 31)
Schenn: 177 (has an 8 year x 7.8% contract set to start next year)
Karlsson: 176 (signed 8 years x 7.24% last summer at 26 - he was an RFA but also a center)
Perron: 172 (signed 4 years x 5.03% at 30)

You're suggesting Hall is worth 7 years and more than 11% cap hit. I disagree. I'd rather have Hoffman or Dadonov for fewer years and less money any day.

Also, check out Holtby's numbers for the past 3 years - they're below average for NHL goalies. Out of goalies that have played 20+ games, here is how Holtby's Sv% ranks each year:

17-18: 42/56
18-19: 32/60
19-20: 50/56

He's not an NHL starter anymore.

Maybe you should also note that Hall has played 50 games less than Dadonov and Hoffman... He's been very unlucky with the injuries. His PPG is still over 1.0 with 180 points in 171 games... Also with being only 28, there's literally nothing that would point out his point totals being decreasing... He's still on his peak for several years. For example, Stamkos' point totals have increased every year and he just turned 30... That kind of player is easily worth $9M a year... Consider me surprised if he gets over a million less than Panarin.

As for Holtby, while his regular season numbers are not exactly praiseworthy, over all the years mentioned he's in TOP10 of ice time and he has won a cup as a clear-cut 1G... Also regularly in a list as such the goalies with most ice time their numbers gets seen worse since they're getting compared to goalies with 2/3 of the ice time he gets.

So injures are a feature rather than a bug?? Injuries are part of the player history, he has averaged 20 games missed due to injury over his career and you can't expect that to get better as he ages. It's not "luck", it's "Taylor Hall".



"Peak" varies from player to player, but offensive peak is usually in the 23-26 range. Elite players certainly stretch that longer, but we're talking about a seven year contract covering Hall's 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35-year-old seasons. Only a complete fool would deny the reality - not possibility - of significant decline during that contract.


Holtby elevates his game for the playoffs, but his playoff performance has declined over the past 3 years too. And the fact that he played a lot of minutes is, once again, a bug, not a feature. It means his team didn't have a better option and they've overplayed him. Martin JOnes is another player that comes to mind: more minutes over the past 3 years than Holtby, only slightly worse results (.906 vs .904).

Of the 34 goalies that have played more than 100 GP over the past 3 years, Holtby ranks 30th in Sv%. Aside from Jones, all the guys below him play behind horrid teams: Talbot, Howard and Anderson. And the UFA goalie market is flooded next summer, anyone willing to pay Holtby $5M+ with term is certainly going to regret it. There will be better options available for less.

No, getting injured for a long time is not exactly a thing one can have an effect on, makes the comparison a bit unfair.

Can't see Hall really declining in level before getting 32... If he stays healthy, nothing in his career points to that he'd start massively declining. That covers 4 out of the 7 years he's getting the next summer (or possibly 8 if ARI re-signs him). If he doesn't...well there's LTIR for those cases.

Wouldn't exactly call PHI or CGY a "horrid" team to play with, Talbot as a goalie is just very fickle. OTT and DET are their own cases. But yeah as I said, his stats are not exactly praiseworthy, yet I'm convinced he's getting a $6-7M deal, possibly more than that, from some team that likes his arguably pretty good resume.