12 jui 2018
Maple Leafs de Toronto
Deuxième équipe préférée
Capitals de Washington
Messages dans les forums
Messages par jour
Sujets de discussion
The Bruins are an aging but excellent team, and the last few seasons having a tandem has really helped them a lot. A one year deal on a guy who has consistently been one of the better backup/1A goalies seems like a great bet. The performance bonus allows them to push that part of the cap hit to another year if needed.
Overally Halak is a 35+ goalie, and he will almost certainly make $3.5M in total against the cap, so I don't think it's an insane steal. Maybe he could have gotten 2 years or maybe pushed it to $4M, but overally I think he took a bit of a gamble on trying to win it with a great team, and that team figured out a way to keep him while paying him relatively fairly, so it seems like a great deal no matter how you slice it.
Boston has some contracts that have aged insanely well that allows them to overspend a little in goal, and given the age of this team, I think a tandem is a great way to capitalize on their current roster. There will almost certainly be several teams next year that have less money committed in goal and will probably get better overall performance, but two good goalies just makes it less likely that a rough year from a goaltender is what sinks them, and when a team's core is getting a little older, you really don't want to write off seasons because of a rough year in goal.
Overall, I think the AAV is fine, performance bonus helps, term is ideal.
That is a lot of assets and a big gamble of a deal on this player.
$5M, or more importantly, 6% of your cap space always seems like a weird amount. If the player is a bonafide top 6 guy, it's probably a steal, if not, it's an overpay. Centers are a bit of the exception, as I can see merit in having a third line center paid more than a typical bottom six forward, but that's usually accompanied by a team playing a good complimentary winger in their top 6, who is making far less than typical top 6 players, which helps offset the cost.
I like Pageau, but I think he just got paid as if he's a 25 goal scoring center. He likely isn't. This year, he's been force fed insane amounts of minutes, and he's scoring on an absurdly high percentage of his shots. He isn't creating near enough offense to make anyone believe this is just who he is now. Also, I am never a fan of giving a player you expect to play in your bottom six a term longer than 4 years. It's not just about age, but a 6 year term is very inflexible in terms of shaking things up if things don't work out. If Pageau isn't everything the Isles hope he is, that cap hit with that 6 year term becomes an anchor. The problem is, they are essentially paying him as if he is going to play at his ceiling for the next 6 years, and I think that's a tall ask.
I didn't mind the Coleman deal, he is a better player, but this is a bit much considering what they already have done.
I know this is also about replacing whoever it is they need to trade in the offseason, but chucking away two firsts in this draft is a lot for 3rd line players.
Also, Tampa is currently has just over $76M spent for next season, with Cirelli and Cernak as well as some depth pieces to sign. Obviously they plan to move out some salary, but who?
Palat should get a decent return except he is the guy they would most like to keep out of their seconadary players, and has a full NTC which will hurt his value. Johnson, Gourde and Kilorn wouldn't necessarily be easy to move if you could negotiate with all 31 teams, but with full NTCs I can't see how they move them without adding sweetners. I am not saying they have negative value per se, but when you can only deal with a few teams they are willing to accept a trade to, I can't see that GM knowing Tampa is in a tough spot just doign them a favour.
This is close in terms of value over a 4 year term. Muzzin will probably provide value pretty much in line with where he is being paid. Likely able to be even better in years 1-2 with being a little over paid in years 3-4.
Where I think the Leafs did pretty well is not having to overpay in term or dollars for a D who kind of fits every teams ideal 2nd pairing guy. Some grit, some toughness, moves the puck well, plays both ends well, some leadership. Those players that the old school and analytics crowds like equally are usually destined to be overpaid.
What could make this deal better will depend on structure. If the NTC terms aren't bad in years 3-4 and he is making less in cash than cap hit, the Leafs could very well have a D that will probably be worth more than his cap hit early in the deal, and actually trade him for positive value at the end.
There is still a bit of a gamble, they are signing a 30+ player for four years and paying him in a way where he needs to be at least your 3rd best D, but I think with the teams needs, and the way this type of player will get valued league wide, this is pretty solid.