12 jui 2018
Maple Leafs de Toronto
Deuxième équipe préférée
Capitals de Washington
Messages dans les forums
Messages par jour
Sujets de discussion
I like this deal. Burakovsky played a season where he looked like a 30 goal, 60 point winger. But it's one shortened season. Going longer term on that type of production could be an issue when this team does have some big contracts to contend with in a flat cap world over the next 3 years. Instead, they pay him a below market rate for what he did last year, and don't end up committing long term in the event he doesn't live up to it. This deal feels like the type of deal that happens in the NBA.
In a salary cap league, people spend far more time being worried about potentially having a player walk away for nothing despite the fact that cap space and flexibility have value. If you always give players big term, sometimes those contracts turn out to be a negative value and you wish you could walk away for nothing.
Burakovsky is not a core piece to this team, so avoiding longer terms is probably a good move. If he performs well, then you get two years of a player drastically out performing his cap hit. If he performs decently, then you aren't hurting that bad in his next negotiation, and if he performs poorly you dodge a bullet. You commit to a core of stars, and everyone else is interchangeable as the need arises.
A lot of people seem to be surprised that Krug's signing is viewed so favorably despite the 7 year term, while term seems to be an issue with Brodie's signing.
The thing is, Krug has the ability to run a top tier PP, which has massive value. He's likely better at it than Pietrangelo was, so he can outperform his deal in the early going to make up for the eventual overpay years. Krug, despite some weird takes saying the opposite, has actually always been good defensively. He didn't face top competition in Boston, but when your team has McAvoy, and previously playing on the same team as prime Chara, why would you ever use a good defender instead of one of the best defensive D available ? Maybe Krug isn't capable of playing as well defensively against tougher match ups, but against 2nd and 3rd lines he's a stud, and given that he is going to a team that already has Parayako, who will either be a strong partner creating a very strong top pair, or free Krug up to eat the 2nd pair match ups, Krug's skill set fits like a glove.
Fit is so important in getting value out a defensemen. Krug is a PP specialist, who is great offensively and defensively at 5 on 5, and the only knock is we don't know if he is capable of those 5 on 5 results if he plays against top lines. So a team that needs a PP1 guy, and already has an elite shut down D can make the best use of Krug, and St. Louis has that written all over it.
This is going to be a controversial take, but I think Krug at $6.5M for 7 years, will actually be a better value for the Blues then Pietrangelo would be at say $8.5M for 7 years. Not because Krug is better, but because the fit is so good, it takes full advantage of his skill set, and the difference between Krug and Pietrangelo isn't worth $2M or more in cap space, at least not for a team that already has a better shut down option than Pietrangelo.
Typically I look at a deal in two ways:
First, is the player likely to provide as much total value to the team that signed him as they are paying on the deal: This is close, but the reality is, because Brodie doesn't provide any real offensive value (at least not high end), it's not likely to just get hot and massively outperform his deal on the offensive side of things. Defensively, it's very seldom a player all of a sudden gets massively better at that in their 30's, and since he's already being paid to be good defensively, it's unlikely he outperforms there either. Given that he is signed until 34, there is a bit of a better chance he underperforms the cap hit then there is that he outperforms it. This is simply because based on his skill set there is more room to under perform than there is to outperform. It's likely not massive, but chances are he's worth something closer to $4.25-$4.5M on a 4 year deal.
Secondly, is the fit. This is where the Leafs knocked it out of the park. He is good defensively, plays the right side, turns the puck over very very rarely (especially in the d zone), and he's not being paid for anything the Leafs can't use. This is especially important when it comes to getting good value out of your D. Morgan Rielly is a high end offensive weapon on the PP, so getting another PP1 type D means you are going to pay them to do something you don't need them to do, or they are going to take some value away from Rielly. Either way, you aren't getting full value for the addition. In this case, if Brodie is a $5M defender in year 1, they are getting their full $5M worth.
So I think the deal is likely to be a little bit of an overpayment versus what defenders like Brodie are worth, but the term ends when Matthews and Nylander's deals are up, so it won't interfere with big decisions down the road, it doesn't have NMC protection for the expansion draft, and he directly fits what the team needs, so overall it's a solid signing.
My initial reaction to this was that it wasn't good, but that was based on the team spending only $1.7M less in goal and getting substantially worse, but that really isn't fair. It's kind of throwing this deal in the blender because of having this bias against Benning's cap management from previous deals. I don't like that they put themselves in a position where they had to cheap out in net because of some bad signings, but on it's own, being prudent now is probably a smart move. Holtby will be paid as a mentor, can be exposed in the expansion draft, won't by on the books when Hughes or Demko need their next deals, and at last at 31, has a reasonable chance of rebounding to being an average starter, which isn't bad for $4.3M.
It sucks that Vancouver has to probably take a bit of a step back, but in reality the contracts required to keep Markstrom, Tanev, and likely Toffoli would not have been good decisions. Those players were useful and valuable to the team, but have simply developed a pedigree based on what they have done already that price them out of being good value going forward. So I can't really criticize benning for not showing restraint for a couple of years, then criticize him more when he finally does. This deal, on it's own merit is solid.
This is a massive gamble. This is big money and likely not a good deal if it's a UFA. Andersen is a middle 6 winger, and a solid one, but he's offensively limited, solid defensively and hits. He's a bigger nastier Paul Byron.
This is one of those deals that people will likely argue about for the first few years, as Andersen will likely be good, but probably overpaid. Where this deal gets ugly is that players like Anderson, especially ones with injury history, tend to fall of a cliff in their 30's, and he's signed until after his 34th birthday. Also, this team really doesn't feel like it should be all in like this for a 3-4 year window, but they now have a lot of money tied up to guys who could be in massive decline in a few years. I know they already had Price and Weber, but deciding to keep Petry, and now signing Anderson can mean this team has about $30M committed to a foursome of players who may have trouble contributing to a winning team. It feels like Bergevin figures this team is either a contender, or it's not his problem since he won't be there when it all goes bad.
This deal has some real risk associated with it, and I am not sure it was the right way to maximize Petry's value based on where Montreal is, however it seems about fair for Petry, he's been a top pair level D for a good amount of time. He is very underrated, and he likely is a very good value for a year or two, and probably a little overpaid later on.
What could tip this further into being a good deal, would be if Petry is paid out most of his money by the beginning of year 3, making it a $6.25M cap hit, but say a $4M or less actually owed. That would make it a lot less risky overall.
I don't love the direction Montreal is taking, I think Bergevin is really overrating his current squad based on a 5 game play in series, but I don't hate this deal by itself.
A buyout would have cost about the same in terms of real money, and would have saved $1.45M in cap hit this year (but would have added $1.75M) next year. So a getting a 7th is probably slightly better. However, given the Penguins are a team whose best players are aging, and there is a cap crunch around the league right now, with an expansion draft next year, I actually think the cap space this year, has more value than cap space next year.
So the question is really if it made sense to buyout Bjugstad. When he has played he has been a 15 goal, 30 point center, but last year he played very little. The condition on the 7th is that Bjugstad has to play at least 70 games or get 35 points, so basically a 7th goes back to Pittsburgh only in the circumstance where Bjugstad proves he's not a buyout level player.
So basically, if Bjugstad isn't very good, the Pens get nothing, and would have been just as well off to buy Bjugstad out.
Or if Bjugstad is pretty good, the Pens get a 7th, in which case they lose the deal because they retained salary and only got a 7th on a player that was actually decent.
It feels like watching a friend bet on every Stanley cup favourite when they didn't realize they will be down money no matter what the outcome is.
This isn't a horrendous trade, I mean if Bjugstad's value is around the level of a buyout, there isn't much of a difference, it's just kind of funny that a buyout might actually have been better than getting nothing, but getting something means Minnesota wins the deal hands down.
I'm a little concerned with what Bergevin is paying for players that should have only cost cap space. Allen isn't a great goalie, but he was great as a back up last year, however his $4.35M cap hit as a back up should have made him a 0 cost acquisition. The Blues got lucky he rebounded, but really that should have just brought the cost to move him to 0, not actually getting an asset back.
Now the Canes get a 5th for a guy they literally were going to let walk. Edmundson is a 3rd pairing LD who can maybe play some PK. I have no idea why a team would pay anything to beat the rush on a guy like this. With the cap space the Habs have, why not just offer him more money than anyone else? I mean is Edmundson going to command a 3-4 year deal ? Why not just pay him an extra $500k on a 2 year deal than anyone else was going to offer and save the 5th.
If this is a pre-cursor to how MB plans to weaponize the Habs cap space this offseason, I'm concerned. Montreal has a big opportunity to really gather assets and set themselves up. With a flat cap, and an upcoming expansion draft, Montreal should be focused on getting assets for players they can't re-sign, getting assets for useful but overpriced players, then trying to nab a few youngish players on the cheap from teams that can't protect them. Instead they are paying a 3rd and 5th for an overpriced back up goalie and the signing rights of a 3rd pairing D. These deals on their own aren't going to sink the Habs future, but there is a massive opportunity cost in not making any good deals over the next 12 months.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>HabsForEver</b></div><div>They got a 3rd round pick for a goalie that put up a .927 this year. Montreal gave up the pick they got for signing Kovalchuk and trading him a month later. It's a clear W for MTL</div></div>
Basing the value of this deal on a Allen's save percentage in a 24 game season is likely a mistake. He has a career 0.913 save percentage, which is below average, but solid for a back up. $4.35M in AAV and $4M owed in cash is an overpay for a back up, so the fact that St. Louis didn't retain, and didn't have to pay for someone to take that year given the current economic climate is a great move for them.
Allen posted a 0.905 save percentage over a 2 year, 100+ game run before that, and with the glut of goalies available this summer, I don't think it would have been too hard to get someone to back up price. If Montreal was desperate they could probably have just offered $4.5M to Khudobin, and would probably relish the chance to make that kind of money. He's likely the better goalie, but even if he wasn't it's better to just spend cap space then to spend cap space and a pick.
It likely makes no real difference in the long run, but this certainly isn't a trade Bergevin should be bragging about.
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.