[Signing] Oilers extend F Leon Draisaitl (8x$14M AAV)

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Then he'd get nothing from me and I'd use one of the first two options. I'd be in the business of paying people money who are going to earn it on the ice, not providing people security.

You wouldn't be in the business long then. You forget hockey is a business and letting your best players leave would be bad for business.

Although you are likely right.

You don't think GM's understand that 8 year contracts for a 30 year old is going to stink down the road?

Of course they do, but they plug their noses and drive on because they are in a contention window.

Unless you believe that the Oilers are a serious SC contender during the next few years, the best bet long term is to trade the twins while they can and rebuild. But its suicide from a business prospective.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I didn't say I wouldn't give players max-term deals. I'd happily give them out to players emerging from ELC.

Connor Bedard doesn't have the leverage that Draisaitl has? He has all the leverage in the world. Chicago wouldn't trade him for anything, he has the most trade value in the league because he's the most valuable commodity in the league.

But, yeah, if you want to pay 35-year-olds 15.2% of cap, I hope you're in my division.

Draisaitl could have just walked away and signed anywhere he wanted for whatever dollar amount he was comfortable with, leaving the Oilers with nothing to show for him.......thats his leverage.

What leverage does Bedard have? ......not play and make no money?

And no one "wants" to pay 35 year olds big money, but that is the way the NHL works.

Again, you would not last long as a GM allowing players to just jet because you dont want to give them term, as you would continually lose them for nothing to free agency.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

You wouldn't be in the business long then. You forget hockey is a business and letting your best players leave would be bad for business.

Although you are likely right.

You don't think GM's understand that 8 year contracts for a 30 year old is going to stink down the road?

Of course they do, but they plug their noses and drive on because they are in a contention window.

Unless you believe that the Oilers are a serious SC contender during the next few years, the best bet long term is to trade the twins while they can and rebuild. But its suicide from a business prospective.

Baseball is also a business. How come they figured it out and hockey is still learning? Good ol' boys doing business the way the good ol' boys have always done it would be my hypothesis.

Yes, if I was in charge of the Oilers (and actually wanted them to be successful in the long term) I would be trading both of them and reloading. There is no other possible way to get the haul those two would provide during this summer. I mean they had what, 7 cracks at it and it didn't work? You'd have some GMs over a barrel about what they'd offer up, NMCs notwithstanding.

If I was in charge of the Oilers as an undercover Flames fan, I would have offered up this deal.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Then he'd get nothing from me and I'd use one of the first two options. I'd be in the business of paying people money who are going to earn it on the ice, not providing people security.

Again...

When has a team ever traded a C coming off multiple 100+ pt campaigns because they didn't want to sign them to a long term deal? It would be absolutely insane to do this. Sure, you are overpaying for the last half of the deal - but you don't care about the last half of the deal because in all likelihood your window is closed. It is so rare and difficult in this league to build an actual cup contending team, to throw that chance away because you don't want to have a declining team in a few years will just ensure you'll never have a chance to win anything.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Draisaitl could have just walked away and signed anywhere he wanted for whatever dollar amount he was comfortable with, leaving the Oilers with nothing to show for him.......thats his leverage.

What leverage does Bedard have? ......not play and make no money?

Why does there need to be "something to show for him" when they got his prime years at a below-market rate? Isn't that the thing they have to "show for him"? Do they need to overpay for his decline years to puff out their chests and tell everyone they have something to show for him?

You really think age 21-28 Bedard is going to be a worse player than age 30-37 Draisaitl? Because I'd bet you he's not. Therefore he deserves to be paid for what he brings. This is the time, not at age 30.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by VilleN

When has a team ever traded a C coming off multiple 100+ pt campaigns because they didn't want to sign them to a long term deal? It would be absolutely insane to do this. Sure, you are overpaying for the last half of the deal - but you don't care about the last half of the deal because in all likelihood your window is closed. It is so rare and difficult in this league to build an actual cup contending team, to throw that chance away because you don't want to have a declining team in a few years will just ensure you'll never have a chance to win anything.

Yeah, totally insane. Because it's so likely that Draisaitl is going to repeat the past, right? So let's take the percentage of cap Draisaitl was making from ages 22-29 and increase it by 35% for ages 30-37. That's smart.

They're overpaying from day one.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Why does there need to be "something to show for him" when they got his prime years at a below-market rate? Isn't that the thing they have to "show for him"? Do they need to overpay for his decline years to puff out their chests and tell everyone they have something to show for him?

You really think age 21-28 Bedard is going to be a worse player than age 30-37 Draisaitl? Because I'd bet you he's not. Therefore he deserves to be paid for what he brings. This is the time, not at age 30.

No...but that has nothing to do with anything. You just cant let the 2nd leading offensive producer over the last 5 seasons, just walk away for nothing....thats called leverage.

You claimed Bedard has "all the leverage in the world.".....im curious as to what that is.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Yeah, totally insane. Because it's so likely that Draisaitl is going to repeat the past, right? So let's take the percentage of cap Draisaitl was making from ages 22-29 and increase it by 35% for ages 30-37. That's smart.

They're overpaying from day one.

Now picture this:

You do this exact same thing, except you do it for a player that has not played a single game for your organization.

I mean, if you're arguing that the Oilers shouldn't have kept Draisaitl, I don't think you'll find a hockey mind in the game that would agree with you. You're effectively arguing for tanking, drafting elite talent, and then trading them away before or right around when they generally win a Stanley Cup (see: Colorado - MacKinnon, Tampa - Stamkos, Hedman).

Sure you could make the argument they should have kept it shorter term, but I'm guessing the player wouldn't have signed that contract and then yep - Edmonton's competitive cycle is over.

E will always = NG, but the idea of drafting elite talent and then losing them because you refuse to sign them long-term once they're 29? Nah, can't agree with that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by butterfly

It isn't losing him for nothing. Would you sign 29-year-old Draisaitl to 1x$8.5M if you had Stanley Cup aspirations this year? Or do you have to hitch your wagon to a bloated retirement contract so you didn't "lose him for nothing"? Why would you pay for something overpriced that you don't want?

Originally Posted by butterfly

This "lose him for nothing" canard is destined to be a relic of the past once enough smart GMs ascend to the position. It's backward-looking. Why would you want a 30-year-old on a max term deal? You already got the best years out of the player in the past, let someone else overpay. I'm glad it's the Oilers of all teams.

Yes, there are people like Kopitar, Crosby, Yzerman, Pavelski, Jagr. They exist. Is it a smart bet to think that your 30-year-old is going to mimic them, or are they generally outliers on the age curve?

You’re missing the point here. The question isn’t Should you pay for 14 million per season for the decline years of Drai. It’s is there a better alternative than paying 14 million for 8 years of Drai that increase there Stanley cup odds over the next 4 years.

As I asked and you neglected to answer. Who are you replacing Draisaitl with the year after? What is the trade you are making. If the oilers had a rookie coming off of an ELC that they had to choose between then you would have a choice to make. The Oilers didn’t have a choice to make.

You yourself argued he is worth the money for years 1-3. If he is worth the money for those years the last 4 years of the contract don’t matter. McDavids prime is your window.

They are not having a better chance than last year to win the cup. There odds will continue to decline over the next few years. They also maximized their odds

Of course they are overpaying from day 1. A UFA contract should be untradable. It only cost cap space so the team willing to use the biggest asset to acquire the UFA should get them. This means that if a team would give up an asset for the signed UFA the agent didn’t maximize earnings. So saying a UFA is overpaid isn’t really a criticism, they all are.

Still waiting for the UFAs and trade you would make or what you would pay Drai in years 1-3 that would make the oilers better.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GGG

You’re missing the point here. The question isn’t Should you pay for 14 million per season for the decline years of Drai. It’s is there a better alternative than paying 14 million for 8 years of Drai that increase there Stanley cup odds over the next 4 years.

As I asked and you neglected to answer. Who are you replacing Draisaitl with the year after? What is the trade you are making. If the oilers had a rookie coming off of an ELC that they had to choose between then you would have a choice to make. The Oilers didn’t have a choice to make.

You yourself argued he is worth the money for years 1-3. If he is worth the money for those years the last 4 years of the contract don’t matter. McDavids prime is your window.

They are not having a better chance than last year to win the cup. There odds will continue to decline over the next few years. They also maximized their odds

Still waiting for the UFAs and trade you would make or what you would pay Drai in years 1-3 that would make the oilers better.

McDavid's prime is almost over if it isn't already. They had arguably the two best players in the league and failed.

I'd have a really tough time thinking about whether or not to let Draisaitl play it out in a contract year and go for it one last time, or just reboot it now. When are you ever going to have the opportunity to get a fortune of premium picks and prospects like this ever again? But I must admit they have a legitimate look at it this year, so that'd be the decision. They won the Cup after they traded Gretzky which was supposed to be the apocalypse.

Buying their 30s is a non-starter for me. It's a sucker's bet.

The idea is to get players like this (and Nugent-Hopkins, who I was quite impressed with these last playoffs) and give them 3, 4, 5, 6 chances together. They did that and it didn't work for a ton of reasons, primarily their failure to build a good defense. So reboot it.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by butterfly

McDavid's prime is almost over if it isn't already. They had arguably the two best players in the league and failed.

I'd have a really tough time thinking about whether or not to let Draisaitl play it out in a contract year and go for it one last time, or just reboot it now. When are you ever going to have the opportunity to get a fortune of premium picks and prospects like this ever again? But I must admit they have a legitimate look at it this year, so that'd be the decision. They won the Cup after they traded Gretzky which was supposed to be the apocalypse.

Buying their 30s is a non-starter for me. It's a sucker's bet.

The idea is to get players like this (and Nugent-Hopkins, who I was quite impressed with these last playoffs) and give them 3, 4, 5, 6 chances together. They did that and it didn't work for a ton of reasons, primarily their failure to build a good defense. So reboot it.

No it isnt.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No...but that has nothing to do with anything. You just cant let the 2nd leading offensive producer over the last 5 seasons, just walk away for nothing....thats called leverage.

You claimed Bedard has "all the leverage in the world.".....im curious as to what that is.

Bedard is the most valuable hockey player on the planet.

I don't pay for the last 5 seasons. I pay for the next 2-9 seasons, and $14MM isn't it for Draisaitl.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No it isnt.

Oh, so he's going to get better in your opinion?

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Now picture this:

You do this exact same thing, except you do it for a player that has not played a single game for your organization.

I mean, if you're arguing that the Oilers shouldn't have kept Draisaitl, I don't think you'll find a hockey mind in the game that would agree with you. You're effectively arguing for tanking, drafting elite talent, and then trading them away before or right around when they generally win a Stanley Cup (see: Colorado - MacKinnon, Tampa - Stamkos, Hedman).

Sure you could make the argument they should have kept it shorter term, but I'm guessing the player wouldn't have signed that contract and then yep - Edmonton's competitive cycle is over.

E will always = NG, but the idea of drafting elite talent and then losing them because you refuse to sign them long-term once they're 29? Nah, can't agree with that.

You're well within your rights to disagree, but I think this contract is great for Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Jose, Calgary, Vancouver, Las Vegas, and Seattle. Players typically have max value from around ages 20-31.

I favor ELC-Max-short term.

I mean what if the CBA max contract was 9 years? Would you have been in favor of that? 10? At some point the emperor has no clothes.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Bedard is the most valuable hockey player on the planet.

I don't pay for the last 5 seasons. I pay for the next 2-9 seasons, and $14MM isn't it for Draisaitl.

You can say that all you like, but reality comes into play here. Chicago may pay him Draisaitl money, i really dont know. However, he has no leverage to force them to do so, other than simply not playing/signing. Also meaning he makes no money.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You can say that all you like, but reality comes into play here. Chicago may pay him Draisaitl money, i really dont know. However, he has no leverage to force them to do so, other than simply not playing/signing. Also meaning he makes no money.

Yeah, and think about the articles in the Tribune while they do that. They won't.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by dino7c

My guess is this post doesn't age well. The best player and scorer of all time was under PPG at 38

The one silver lining for the Oilers in this brutal deal for a 50 goal, 100 point man is that he will never be 38 ever during the deal.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Oh, so he's going to get better in your opinion?

I think he will continue to become a more complete player as happens with almost every high end guy ever. He may never touch whatever his career high in points is again, but point producing isnt the only part of playing hockey.

One thing is certain however and that is that there is no way the Oilers will be better without him and Draisaitl.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Yeah, and think about the articles in the Tribune while they do that. They won't.

So articles in a newspaper are his leverage?

OK then.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So articles in a newspaper are his leverage?

OK then.

You're silly if you think Chicago won't give him whatever he wants. This is the exact time to do that, while the player is in their age-19 season and the prime is yet to come. These max term deals are foolish for people in their age-30 seasons but you will get your money's worth when you give them out in their age-19 seasons to take effect at ages 21-29.

Originally Posted by transplant99

I think he will continue to become a more complete player as happens with almost every high end guy ever. He may never touch whatever his career high in points is again, but point producing isnt the only part of playing hockey.

One thing is certain however and that is that there is no way the Oilers will be better without him and Draisaitl.

McDavid was no more of a complete player this year than ever before, at least in my eyes. Play the entire PP, bellyache about non-calls, on and on. Everyone who reads this forum has seen it dozens of times. Nugent-Hopkins was a much more 'complete player' in my opinion.

And they'll have to be better without McDavid and Draisaitl because the day will come when they aren't 28 and 29 anymore.