Danny12357

Membre depuis
12 jui 2018
Équipe préférée
Maple Leafs de Toronto
Deuxième équipe préférée
Capitals de Washington
Messages dans les forums
215
Messages par jour
0,25
Sujets de discussion
2
Forum: NHL Signings10 oct à 11 h 00
Forum: NHL Signings10 oct à 10 h 48
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.
Forum: NHL Signings10 oct à 10 h 40
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.
Forum: NHL Signings10 oct à 10 h 20
Forum: NHL Signings 9 oct à 12 h 54
Forum: NHL Signings25 sep à 15 h 06
Forum: NHL Trades16 sep à 18 h 56
Forum: NHL Trades14 sep à 7 h 04
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.
Forum: NHL Trades14 sep à 6 h 20
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.
Forum: NHL Trades 2 sep à 13 h 52
Forum: NHL Signings 7 mai à 12 h 14