Forums/NHL Signings

Toronto Maple Leafs signed Ilya Mikheyev (2 Years / $1,645,000 AAV)

Was this a good signing?
Le graphique a été masqué

Options de sondage

 

20 oct à 23 h 58
#26
Hugh Hefner of CF
Rejoint: mai 2018
Messages: 5,117
Mentions "j'aime": 3,093
For 2 years this seems fine, I was hoping for a bit lower AAV but not the end of the world.
21 oct à 8 h 48
#27
Go Avs Go
Rejoint: oct 2020
Messages: 25
Mentions "j'aime": 16
Think he took less money, so Thorton could be a leaf? -jk-
OldNYIfan a aimé ceci.
21 oct à 10 h 06
#28
Rejoint: mai 2015
Messages: 4,483
Mentions "j'aime": 1,385
Quoting: A_Habs_fan
And people thought he wasn’t getting more than 1.5. Great deal for a guy on a 40 point pace


It's for a 2 year deal. The less than 1.5 was for a 1 year deal
OldNYIfan a aimé ceci.
21 oct à 10 h 37
#29
Go Jets Go
Rejoint: aoû 2020
Messages: 130
Mentions "j'aime": 53
cool
21 oct à 11 h 15
#30
Rejoint: jun 2018
Messages: 12,848
Mentions "j'aime": 3,022
leafs wanted to pay him 1 mil per for 2 years.
He wanted 2.4 for 1 year.

Looks like they basically met in the middle on the cash.
I don't know what I think of the term. It depends on the league does the dates going forward. Total mess that is.
a 1 year deal should have left him a RFA, but 2 years runs him straight into UFA now. I don't know if that's good for TOR or the player at this point.
21 oct à 11 h 22
#31
best poster
Rejoint: jui 2019
Messages: 3,589
Mentions "j'aime": 2,429
Quoting: pharrow
leafs wanted to pay him 1 mil per for 2 years.
He wanted 2.4 for 1 year.

Looks like they basically met in the middle on the cash.
I don't know what I think of the term. It depends on the league does the dates going forward. Total mess that is.
a 1 year deal should have left him a RFA, but 2 years runs him straight into UFA now. I don't know if that's good for TOR or the player at this point.


One year was UFA too. He'll be 27 next season.
OldNYIfan et BCAPP a aimé ceci.
21 oct à 13 h 03
#32
Rejoint: jun 2018
Messages: 12,848
Mentions "j'aime": 3,022
Quoting: mondo
One year was UFA too. He'll be 27 next season.


no, he wouldn't be. Not based on these dates. He's 26 until Oct 10, which would mean using the old system he'd still be a RFA.
Like I said, it depends on their messed up calendar.
21 oct à 15 h 47
#33
Rejoint: jui 2018
Messages: 215
Mentions "j'aime": 160
Quoting: rollie1967
It doesnt matter how the contract is paid out, his AVERAGE for the 2 years is what matters, his caphit doesnt change in year #2.
While not overpaid by any means...the Leafs are still in cap hell.
If my last name was Kerfoot....i wouldnt be buying real estate anytime soon.


Cap hell is a fun term. .. but it doesn't really apply here. Last year was cap hell, they had to pay assets to move bad contracts and still ended up with some bad deals on the books.

The cap situation right now is quite clean. They were easily able to move players to make room for their offseason plans, and actually got assets back in those deals. Right now they can sign their final RFA without making a trade, and while they will be tight to the cap, they really don't have any cap issues.
21 oct à 15 h 48
#34
GM67
Rejoint: jui 2015
Messages: 612
Mentions "j'aime": 283
TERRIFIC Signing for Toronto. His agent is smart because IF they win the Stanley Cup or Cups he will get paid a hefty raise somewhere.
OldNYIfan a aimé ceci.
21 oct à 16 h 10
#35
Rejoint: mai 2016
Messages: 150
Mentions "j'aime": 28
Quoting: Danny12357
Cap hell is a fun term. .. but it doesn't really apply here. Last year was cap hell, they had to pay assets to move bad contracts and still ended up with some bad deals on the books.

The cap situation right now is quite clean. They were easily able to move players to make room for their offseason plans, and actually got assets back in those deals. Right now they can sign their final RFA without making a trade, and while they will be tight to the cap, they really don't have any cap issues.


Yah, getting out of caphell is easy- when you give away first round picks to take on contracts (Marleau) or just give up good young and reasonably priced players (Johnsson) for nothing. He was projected to play in their top 6- and they got an unsigned minor leaguer for him.
If they demote Engvall (the 2nd coming!) and use Marincin as their 7th dman (yikes!)...and carry only 22 NHLers...and dont keep Dermott on their NHL roster (via demotion or trade)..then they barely squeak under the cap- by about $100k. yup- squeaky clean!
21 oct à 17 h 01
#36
First NY Then LA
Rejoint: jun 2018
Messages: 14,612
Mentions "j'aime": 6,839
I saw ACGMs for everywhere from $1.2 million to $1.9 million, so this seems like an excellent signing for both the player and the team. I hope that he is completely recovered from his injury. At least it wasn't his back or his Achilles tendon.
21 oct à 17 h 04
#37
Rejoint: mai 2015
Messages: 4,483
Mentions "j'aime": 1,385
Quoting: Danny12357
Cap hell is a fun term. .. but it doesn't really apply here. Last year was cap hell, they had to pay assets to move bad contracts and still ended up with some bad deals on the books.

The cap situation right now is quite clean. They were easily able to move players to make room for their offseason plans, and actually got assets back in those deals. Right now they can sign their final RFA without making a trade, and while they will be tight to the cap, they really don't have any cap issues.


It's a pretty bad cap situation. If last year was hell this is the ****ty end of purgatory I guess? ie it is better but it's stupid tight

I never remember a Leafs team unable to have a 23 man roster before last year. It's not even being considered this year. We're going to likely rock 21, 22 with some manuevering.

Well likely lose a guy like Engvall for nothing. We sold Johnsson under value.

It's not paying a first to take marleaus stupid contract but it's not good
21 oct à 17 h 13
#38
Rejoint: jui 2018
Messages: 215
Mentions "j'aime": 160
Quoting: rollie1967
Yah, getting out of caphell is easy- when you give away first round picks to take on contracts (Marleau) or just give up good young and reasonably priced players (Johnsson) for nothing. He was projected to play in their top 6- and they got an unsigned minor leaguer for him.
If they demote Engvall (the 2nd coming!) and use Marincin as their 7th dman (yikes!)...and carry only 22 NHLers...and dont keep Dermott on their NHL roster (via demotion or trade)..then they barely squeak under the cap- by about $100k. yup- squeaky clean!


Last year was cap hell as i said. They had terrible contracts and it cost them a lot to deal with, and they needed LTIR space just to make it work.

This year they added players and were easily able to move contracts to change the mix while getting assets. They can run a 21 man roster with Dermott without any issue. So yea.. right now it's a clean cap.

Cap hell and spending to the cap are completely different.
21 oct à 17 h 45
#39
Rejoint: jui 2018
Messages: 215
Mentions "j'aime": 160
Quoting: BCAPP
It's a pretty bad cap situation. If last year was hell this is the ****ty end of purgatory I guess? ie it is better but it's stupid tight

I never remember a Leafs team unable to have a 23 man roster before last year. It's not even being considered this year. We're going to likely rock 21, 22 with some manuevering.

Well likely lose a guy like Engvall for nothing. We sold Johnsson under value.

It's not paying a first to take marleaus stupid contract but it's not good


A team isn't in cap trouble or cap jail or cap hell just because they spend up the cap. They got less for Johnsson because they wanted to move on from a player coming off a down year in a pandemic, but that is far from a full on cap casualty. Van and NYI had to let young players go way too cheap because of a gummed up cap. St. Louis essentially lost their captain because of a bad contract given to Faulk, Tampa will likely end up paying teams to take players away to make them worse.

Toronto was able to improve their team in the offseason, while also adding to their prospect pool. Teams in cap trouble can't do that.
21 oct à 17 h 55
#40
Rejoint: mai 2015
Messages: 4,483
Mentions "j'aime": 1,385
Quoting: Danny12357
A team isn't in cap trouble or cap jail or cap hell just because they spend up the cap. They got less for Johnsson because they wanted to move on from a player coming off a down year in a pandemic, but that is far from a full on cap casualty. Van and NYI had to let young players go way too cheap because of a gummed up cap. St. Louis essentially lost their captain because of a bad contract given to Faulk, Tampa will likely end up paying teams to take players away to make them worse.

Toronto was able to improve their team in the offseason, while also adding to their prospect pool. Teams in cap trouble can't do that.


I guess this getting into semantics they sold low on Johnsson because they couldn't afford his cap. They're having aess than full roster. You can accurately point out that others have it worse but they are not in great shape.
21 oct à 20 h 32
#41
Rejoint: jui 2018
Messages: 215
Mentions "j'aime": 160
Quoting: BCAPP
I guess this getting into semantics they sold low on Johnsson because they couldn't afford his cap. They're having aess than full roster. You can accurately point out that others have it worse but they are not in great shape.


It's not really semantics though. Over half of the teams in the league will be carrying a 22 or fewer player roster. Approximately 91% of all of the leagues cap space is currently in use, and there are some truly awful teams that don't have much cap space.

Arizona, San Jose, Anaheim, and Minnesota are weak teams with little to no cap space.

Winnipeg, Calgary, and Montreal will all have to ice a 21 or 22 player roster to be cap compliant, and none of those teams are better than Toronto with Montreal and Calgary having some very ugly contracts that make their future cap situation not look nearly as clear.

There are some bad teams that won't be spending to the cap like Ottawa, Florida, LA, and New Jersey, but those teams are essentially rebuilding and waiting out some awful contracts (well Florida is just a tire fire).

There are definitely teams with a far better cap scenario than Toronto, but there cap situation is better than at least half of the league, they don't have any terrible contracts, and they have a competitive roster. It's hard to see a rationale where you think their cap situation creates a barrier to being competitive.

Space alone doesn't make a team have a well managed cap as it often means teams just don't have assets. The point is, if you can look at every player on the roster and think "I would rather have that player than just have the cap space they use up" that team doesn't really have a cap problem.
thelastlongbow a aimé ceci.
21 oct à 20 h 59
#42
Rejoint: mai 2015
Messages: 4,483
Mentions "j'aime": 1,385
Quoting: Danny12357
It's not really semantics though. Over half of the teams in the league will be carrying a 22 or fewer player roster. Approximately 91% of all of the leagues cap space is currently in use, and there are some truly awful teams that don't have much cap space.

Arizona, San Jose, Anaheim, and Minnesota are weak teams with little to no cap space.

Winnipeg, Calgary, and Montreal will all have to ice a 21 or 22 player roster to be cap compliant, and none of those teams are better than Toronto with Montreal and Calgary having some very ugly contracts that make their future cap situation not look nearly as clear.

There are some bad teams that won't be spending to the cap like Ottawa, Florida, LA, and New Jersey, but those teams are essentially rebuilding and waiting out some awful contracts (well Florida is just a tire fire).

There are definitely teams with a far better cap scenario than Toronto, but there cap situation is better than at least half of the league, they don't have any terrible contracts, and they have a competitive roster. It's hard to see a rationale where you think their cap situation creates a barrier to being competitive.

Space alone doesn't make a team have a well managed cap as it often means teams just don't have assets. The point is, if you can look at every player on the roster and think "I would rather have that player than just have the cap space they use up" that team doesn't really have a cap problem.


I'd argue most of the league is in cap trouble because of the unexpected flat cap from covid which has given those with cap a very valuable commodity.

We had to dump Johnsson for no value (that's ****ty asset management no matter how you put it) and frankly there was talk of weegar but we can't acquire him now for cap reasons.

Our cap situation isn't terrible but it isn't good. And Marner just makes too much. That and the stupid Kessel retention that's still on the books
22 oct à 0 h 02
#43
Rejoint: mar 2017
Messages: 447
Mentions "j'aime": 185
Modifié 22 oct à 0 h 08
Quoting: rollie1967
Yah, getting out of caphell is easy- when you give away first round picks to take on contracts (Marleau) or just give up good young and reasonably priced players (Johnsson) for nothing. He was projected to play in their top 6- and they got an unsigned minor leaguer for him.
If they demote Engvall (the 2nd coming!) and use Marincin as their 7th dman (yikes!)...and carry only 22 NHLers...and dont keep Dermott on their NHL roster (via demotion or trade)..then they barely squeak under the cap- by about $100k. yup- squeaky clean!


Yeah Joey Anderson is nothing. Anderson will be better than Johnsson within 2 years, possibly this season.

He's already far more productive at even strength:

Anderson = 1.20 goals per 60 mins (ES)
Johnsson = 0.40 goals per 60 mins (ES)

Anderson = 1.80 points per 60 mins (ES)
Johnsson = 1.60 points per 60 mins (ES)

Not bad when you realize Anderson was 21 and Johnsson was 25.
And that Anderson is already better defensively and kills penalties.
22 oct à 0 h 03
#44
Nazaleaf
Rejoint: jan 2019
Messages: 144
Mentions "j'aime": 119
Quoting: Danny12357
It's not really semantics though. Over half of the teams in the league will be carrying a 22 or fewer player roster. Approximately 91% of all of the leagues cap space is currently in use, and there are some truly awful teams that don't have much cap space.

Arizona, San Jose, Anaheim, and Minnesota are weak teams with little to no cap space.

Winnipeg, Calgary, and Montreal will all have to ice a 21 or 22 player roster to be cap compliant, and none of those teams are better than Toronto with Montreal and Calgary having some very ugly contracts that make their future cap situation not look nearly as clear.

There are some bad teams that won't be spending to the cap like Ottawa, Florida, LA, and New Jersey, but those teams are essentially rebuilding and waiting out some awful contracts (well Florida is just a tire fire).

There are definitely teams with a far better cap scenario than Toronto, but there cap situation is better than at least half of the league, they don't have any terrible contracts, and they have a competitive roster. It's hard to see a rationale where you think their cap situation creates a barrier to being competitive.

Space alone doesn't make a team have a well managed cap as it often means teams just don't have assets. The point is, if you can look at every player on the roster and think "I would rather have that player than just have the cap space they use up" that team doesn't really have a cap problem.


This is such a well thought out comment. Bravo, sir!
22 oct à 7 h 09
#45
Rejoint: jui 2018
Messages: 215
Mentions "j'aime": 160
Quoting: BCAPP
I'd argue most of the league is in cap trouble because of the unexpected flat cap from covid which has given those with cap a very valuable commodity.

We had to dump Johnsson for no value (that's ****ty asset management no matter how you put it) and frankly there was talk of weegar but we can't acquire him now for cap reasons.

Our cap situation isn't terrible but it isn't good. And Marner just makes too much. That and the stupid Kessel retention that's still on the books


Marner got too much for an RFA contract, but it's about $1.5M more than he should have gotten for that term. As a UFA he easily gets that deal, and given that the years purchased, he likely delivers strong value on that deal versus a similar UFA (as they would have been signed from 27-33 instead of 22-28). So overall, it still doesn't make his contract "bad" as in they would still get value in a trade for it, and having it is better than not having it. Obviously you would rather have Rantanen at his price, but Marner's contract doesn't do near the damage to Toronto's cap situation that people seem to think.

Going back to the Johnsson trade, while that trade is definitely trading at a loss, that wasn't just because of cap alone, they were trading a depressed asset, as he was coming off a down year. But the fact remains, they got positive value, if a team just had the space but didn't have the player to trade to get even some value back, that is actually a weaker position from an asset management standpoint.

I think what you are seeing is the landscape shifting. Before, teams just circumvented the cap, management didn't really have as strong a grasp on it, so they didnt' like to be too "tight" to it, so instead they just came up with ways to get around it. They basically created an RFA market where it was expected that an RFA would get paid well below market value, then stars would get massive length deals that would likely see the player retire, or become another GMs problem, all of which created this middle teir UFA pool for 28-32 year olds had to get paid to make up for the lesser amounts they got as RFAs, and we saw decent players get paid massive contracts with big term. Teams were able to have overpaid 30+ year olds in the middle of their roster by having superstars on front loaded cam circumventing deals and RFAs on massively underpaid deals, and agencies were fine going along with this as long as that mushy middle part of the market was rolling in.

A few years back UFAs started getting squeezed more as more and more teams started avoiding these massive UFA mistakes, which slowly dried up that market, but RFAs and agents started taking note, and RFAs started demanding closer and closer to fair market contracts. Throw in an 8 year cap on contracts, recapture rules, and more front offices having a deeper knowledge of the cap, and the market shifts dramatically. Teams are less afraid of running with less than a 23 man roster, they are more comfortable using waiver rules (also the removal of re-entry waivers had a bigger impact than people realize) to create and accrue cap space over the course of a season.

The landscape today has shifted dramatically. Just this offseason some of the biggest contracts we have seen were for RFAs. Anderson got more money committed to him than any UFA forward, and Matt Murray got the highest AAV of any goalie signed. Neither one of those players is even close in terms of being the most skilled at their position, Anderson has only 22 more points in his career than Hall had in his best season. Pietrangelo got a big contract, but even that isn't far above what recent RFA defensemen have signed (Trouba and Chabot, who aren't close to as good as Pietrangelo).

My point is, that while teams are spending closer to the cap, it doesn't mean they are in trouble. Bad contracts cause trouble, good contracts don't. Just because things are different, if it's happening right accross the market, it doesn't create a competitive disadvantage, in fact, trying to manage the cap the way it used to be would likely cause more of a disadvantage.

We may even be seeing the start of that type of shift. Vancouver and NYI are two teams that seem set on doing it the way it used to be done, overpaying UFAs to add veteran experience in the middle/bottom of the line up, and expecting to squeeze RFAs in order to make it work. So far, both teams have lost a young top 4 D because of not leaving sufficient cap space for their best players. Both teams have taken a step back this off season explicitly because of cap concerns. It will be interesting to see how that shakes out in the coming months.
thelastlongbow a aimé ceci.
22 oct à 9 h 35
#46
Rejoint: jan 2019
Messages: 5,787
Mentions "j'aime": 2,092
Quoting: TheresAlwaysNextYear
Incoming nos just because it's a Leaf signing


its quite the other way around. Leafs get yes because its the leafs. Montreal gets nos because its the habs.

Atleast know the difference
22 oct à 20 h 58
#47
Rejoint: mai 2016
Messages: 150
Mentions "j'aime": 28
Joey Anderson hasnt played a full season in the NHL, he got into only 18 games last year... with the Devils being a bottom feeder. Moving Johnsson was all about cap space.
Canucks walked away from Stecher, who was nothing more than a bottom pairing dman, he sucked when they tried to move him up into top 4. He wasnt as quick as Hughes, or anywhere near as smart a player, and he is easily manhandled in his own zone. He played much better this year- but no way was he getting his old salary from the Canucks or anyone.
 
Répondre
To create a post please Login or S'inscrire
Question:
Options:
Soumettre les modifications du sondage