[Signing] Kings sign Toffoli (3yrs, $4.6 mil AAV)

[sureLoss]

#LAKings @LAKings
The LA Kings re-sign Tyler Toffoli to a three-year contract with $4.6 million AAV.

[TheScorpion]

That's really reasonable.

[dammage79]

Hey, and here I thought he'd get paid more than Brouwer. Hopefully Bennett doesn't surpass that.

[Roof-Daddy]

Pearson and Toffoli need new agents. Pricks letting the Kings off easy IMO.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Hey, and here I thought he'd get paid more than Brouwer.

Why have a Tyler Toffoli in his prime when you can get a just-as-tall Brouwer in his 30s?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Hey, and here I thought he'd get paid more than Brouwer.

Uh… he did.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Why have a Tyler Toffoli in his prime when you can get a just-as-tall Brouwer in his 30s?

Gee, maybe the difference between RFAs and UFAs has something to do with it. I guess all those NHL GMs who didn't sign Toffoli for that money are idiots, huh?

[StrykerSteve]

Solid deal for LA.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Hey, and here I thought he'd get paid more than Brouwer. Hopefully Bennett doesn't surpass that.

Bennett might surpass that if he signs a 3 year deal when he's 25, but he won't make anything close to that on his next contract.

[Moneyhands23]

Would you "gamble" with Bennett and give him the same avv over 6 years?

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Would you "gamble" with Bennett and give him the same avv over 6 years?

Nope. Give a kid who hasn't done anything in the NHL a guaranteed $27 million?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Pearson and Toffoli need new agents. Pricks letting the Kings off easy IMO.

He's coming off a down season. It's not much of an underpayment IMO considering the term.

[Ashasx]

I mean, I wouldn't really like this as a Kings fan. It brings him right to UFA as a 28 year old.

His next contract will be massive, and it's not like the Kings will be competing during these 3 years.

[FlamesAddiction]

Did I miss the time when we chose to sign Brouwer over Toffoli?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Would you "gamble" with Bennett and give him the same avv over 6 years?

Heck no. The guy is coming off a 13-13 season. Could you imagine paying 4.5M+ for a player who's only scoring 13 goals? Oh wait...

[ComixZone]

Yeah - can't say I'm a big fan of this bridge. I'm still sitting here hoping we land Bennett on a long-term/lower cap hit deal. When teams can get those done on the right player it looks amazing. Look at Nashville, they're built on these type of deals: Josi - 7 years, 4M per, Ekholm - 6 years, 3.75M per, Ellis - 5 years, 2.5M per. Josi had played a grand total of 100 NHL games, putting up 22 points and was given a guaranteed 28M.

If you pay a young player for what they've done previously, you're going to get them on a short term cheap'ish bridge deal. If you believe in a player, and he's yet to fully prove himself, you can potentially lock them up longer term for a lower cap-hit. If you believe in the player, you do it.

...seeing as a good chunk CP spent last year condemning Hamilton, Gaudreau, and Monahan...yeah, I'm not surprised the stick in the mud financially conservative folk don't want to gamble on getting a sweet heart deal. They can't look past a bad stretch of 15 games and are ready to give up on young players after a rough October.

Imagine had the Flames upped Brodie's contract to 5M per and got him for 7 years opposed to 5 years at 4.65. Minor "overpayments" on wise gambles like that can end up in huge benefits to the team.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Why have a Tyler Toffoli in his prime when you can get a just-as-tall Brouwer in his 30s?

Which player(s) and/ or picks would it take for the Flames to acquire Toffoli, in your opinion ?

What players and/ or picks did it cost to acquire Brouwer?

Apples and oranges!

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Yeah - can't say I'm a big fan of this bridge. I'm still sitting here hoping we land Bennett on a long-term/lower cap hit deal. When teams can get those done on the right player it looks amazing. Look at Nashville, they're built on these type of deals: Josi - 7 years, 4M per, Ekholm - 6 years, 3.75M per, Ellis - 5 years, 2.5M per. Josi had played a grand total of 100 NHL games, putting up 22 points and was given a guaranteed 28M.

If you pay a young player for what they've done previously, you're going to get them on a short term cheap'ish bridge deal. If you believe in a player, and he's yet to fully prove himself, you can potentially lock them up longer term for a lower cap-hit. If you believe in the player, you do it.

...seeing as a good chunk CP spent last year condemning Hamilton, Gaudreau, and Monahan...yeah, I'm not surprised the stick in the mud financially conservative folk don't want to gamble on getting a sweet heart deal. They can't look past a bad stretch of 15 games and are ready to give up on young players after a rough October.

Imagine had the Flames upped Brodie's contract to 5M per and got him for 7 years opposed to 5 years at 4.65. Minor "overpayments" on wise gambles like that can end up in huge benefits to the team.

But you have no idea of Brodie had any interest in that contract. I don't like contracts where the player is betting against himself. Personally I'd rather pay for performance than potential.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

But you have no idea of Brodie had any interest in that contract. I don't like contracts where the player is betting against himself. Personally I'd rather pay for performance than potential.

You'll never end up with long lasting "good deals" then, and it's incredibly difficult to succeed if you fail to do that.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

But you have no idea of Brodie had any interest in that contract. I don't like contracts where the player is betting against himself. Personally I'd rather pay for performance than potential.

In today's NHL, players perform better when they are younger. By the time they have performed, their best play may already be behind them.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

You'll never end up with long lasting "good deals" then, and it's incredibly difficult to succeed if you fail to do that.

I think there's a happy medium. Signing a rather unproven talent to 4.6M a year for over half a decade doesn't make sense. Especially when you consider in 6 years that would make him a 26 year old UFA who's going to be commanding a huge contract anyways if he does grow into the player you are hoping for when you sign him to 4.6M.

Yakupov had 42-46-88 in 192 games (pro-rated to 38 points over 82 games) when he signed his extension at 21. He had even "turned the corner" under Todd Nelson and looking much better right before signing his extension. Where would the Oilers be if they had been saddled with Yakupov at 4.6M right now while trying to re-sign Draisaitl and McDavid?

Bennett has 63 points in 159 games (pro-rated to 32 points over 82 games) for comparison.

The difference with a player like Josi was Josi was already a stud when he signed that contract. It wasn't so much potential. Even if Josi never excelled, as long as he didn't regress that contract would have been worth it. He may have only played 2 seasons, but his sophomore season saw him become a pillar for that franchise. He was playing 24 minutes a night. Hell, he single highhandedly lead the Swiss to silver in the World Championships that year. Most people saw Josi at already being at that 4M level and that contract as a future steal. It's pretty disingenuous to compare the two at all. If Bennett wanted to sign the going rate for a 13 goal scorer for the next 6 years, we'd all jump on that, but of course that's not the case and it's far lower than 4.6M. Unless you're Brouwer.

It would be far fairer comparing Josi and Draisaitl. Despite only having two and some seasons under his belt, we would all lose our collective #### if the Oilers were able to sign Draisaitl to anything remotely resembling Josi's contract.