[Signing] Canucks sign Boeser to 3 year deal ($5.875 mil AAV)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Boeser cannot actually. He was a 10.2c RFA who has only two years of NHL service, and is still five years away from UFA.

Then a much better deal.

I was taken by Friedman's tweet ...

The third year of Boeser’s contract has a $7.5M base. As we’ve seen with McAvoy/Werenski, that will be a major factor in the last seasons before he’s a UFA.

Odd way of putting that.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Hope Calgary doesn't do a deal like this.

Too risky with the puffy final year on the contract. If Boeser wants to go home to the U.S. he can just sign his QO and make himself a UFA in four years.

Why GMs are jumping on this model is beyond me.

The short term deals protect the teams. Not all of the 12 or so of the elc/rfas are going to be HoFers probably 4-5 would ruin a team with a 8x8 contract.

The GMs (or maybe the owners) have pretty well done to manage the risk of not betting the next decade of a franchise's success on a 21 year old player that in fact is not Sid or McConnor.

The cap rising strategy has big holes in it caused by escrow.

Using the rising cap strategy Tkacuk's 8M becomes 6.4 -7.2m when the Cap hits 100M and escrow takes 10%- 20%

Gaudreau and Monahan signed fair deals at the time. Now not only are they falling behind lesser players ( than they are now and were when they signed) they are not even getting the money they signed for.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

The short term deals protect the teams. Not all of the 12 or so of the elc/rfas are going to be HoFers probably 4-5 would ruin a team with a 8x8 contract.

The GMs (or maybe the owners) have pretty well done to manage the risk of not betting the next decade of a franchise's success on a 21 year old player that in fact is not Sid or McConnor.

The cap rising strategy has big holes in it caused by escrow.

Using the rising cap strategy Tkacuk's 8M becomes 6.4 -7.2m when the Cap hits 100M and escrow takes 10%- 20%

Gaudreau and Monahan signed fair deals at the time. Now not only are they falling behind lesser players ( than they are now and were when they signed) they are not even getting the money they signed for.

Yeah you didn't get my post.

The Werenski model is essentially giving the player a clear option to go straight to UFA at the minimal amount of years. He makes 4,4,7 on his contract so they have to qualify him at 7M. If he signs the QO then he's a UFA in four years and can go wherever he wants.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah you didn't get my post.

The Werenski model is essentially giving the player a clear option to go straight to UFA at the minimal amount of years. He makes 4,4,7 on his contract so they have to qualify him at 7M. If he signs the QO then he's a UFA in four years and can go wherever he wants.

If it was me it would be hard to turn down a 7 or 8 year deal though to gamble on one season where you could get injured or have a really bad year. I think of Vanek turning down the extension with the Islanders.

But I completely agree that is a risk/deal I would not be okay with the Flames doing with Tkachuk.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah you didn't get my post.

The Werenski model is essentially giving the player a clear option to go straight to UFA at the minimal amount of years. He makes 4,4,7 on his contract so they have to qualify him at 7M. If he signs the QO then he's a UFA in four years and can go wherever he wants.

The team has him for a reasonable cap for 4 year. There is no guarantee that he is a top-10 defensemen in the league after 4 years and that any team will want him at 8M cap hit especially the cap Stays a 80M .

The team is not ruined by losing what turns out being a Gardiner level D-man. (4x4)

When it comes to the QO and the team lets him become a UFA and signs him for a reasonable amount (see Gardiner) OR if he is a top-10 d-man pay him the 8-9M at that time

The 8M works only if the Cap in 4 years is 100M.

Signing Tkachuk (or Marner) to an 8x8 and they pull a Neal/Lucic and you will be struggling to be a successful team. And Neal/Lucic are not ELCs but but at 28/31 when they signed their deals were supposed to have 3-4 prime years left and less of a risk than a 21 year old.

Both are significant problems at 6M

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

The team has him for a reasonable cap for 4 year. There is no guarantee that he is a top-10 defensemen in the league after 4 years and that any team will want him at 8M cap hit especially the cap Stays a 80M .

The team is not ruined by losing what turns out being a Gardiner level D-man. (4x4)

When it comes to the QO and the team lets him become a UFA and signs him for a reasonable amount (see Gardiner) OR if he is a top-10 d-man pay him the 8-9M at that time...

OR a team that struggles to attract UFAs loses yet another promising player they drafted to free agency because he decides to play elsewhere. The threat of unrestricted free agency for a team like CBJ is much, MUCH more than merely the cost on his contract. And for them, losing a player of Werenski’s caliber is likely a hole that is too deep to fill on the market.

The rest of your inane ramblings about Tkachuk and Marner becoming the next Milan Lucic and James Neal is utter nonsense.

I will say that in theory I like the idea of structuring the team on shorter term deals as a means to maintain cap flexibility, but not because of an ongoing anxiety that players will fail to meet expectations. That sounds like a disaster in the making; likely reflective of a paranoid GM who is ill-suited to effectively do his job. I just don’t know how feasible such a model would be.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blaster86]

So there was some thought that he wouldn't be signing while his father was still in a real bad way. Don't think it is much of a coincidence that the contract got signed the moment his dad was out of the hospital in a more stable condition.

Or he wanted to skip the bag skate.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

The team has him for a reasonable cap for 4 year. There is no guarantee that he is a top-10 defensemen in the league after 4 years and that any team will want him at 8M cap hit especially the cap Stays a 80M .

The team is not ruined by losing what turns out being a Gardiner level D-man. (4x4)

When it comes to the QO and the team lets him become a UFA and signs him for a reasonable amount (see Gardiner) OR if he is a top-10 d-man pay him the 8-9M at that time

The 8M works only if the Cap in 4 years is 100M.

Signing Tkachuk (or Marner) to an 8x8 and they pull a Neal/Lucic and you will be struggling to be a successful team. And Neal/Lucic are not ELCs but but at 28/31 when they signed their deals were supposed to have 3-4 prime years left and less of a risk than a 21 year old.

Both are significant problems at 6M

It's a balancing act.

Teams are all trying to gauge the future of the cap and the future of each player.

You're basically arguing teams should go from putting all their eggs in the 8 year contract basket to putting all their eggs in the short term contract basket.

Both strategies are disasters in my mind.

Make a call on each player, hope you get most of those calls right and you have a huge window.

Right now I think it's safe to assume the salaries won't be dialed back. Escrow may mean we stall going forward for a few years, but the TV deal will get money moving again.

I think R. Andersson and Tkachuk are good bets to lock down in my opinion, and those are the decisions GMs need to make.

[Hackey]

Is the last year value what the minimum value would be on their next one year contract, or if it's a multi year deal do you still have to pay at minimum that amount?

So is Boeser guaranteed 7.5+ on his next 1 year or if he signs for 8 it has to be that number or better as well?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Is the last year value what the minimum value would be on their next one year contract, or if it's a multi year deal do you still have to pay at minimum that amount?

So is Boeser guaranteed 7.5+ on his next 1 year or if he signs for 8 it has to be that number or better as well?

On a one-year deal, yes, but if the Canucks extend Boeser then technically speaking that QO number becomes fairly meaningless. But the only way his cap hit comes down from the $7.5 that he will be guaranteed on a QO is if his production falters over the next three years. A long term extension will buy valuable UFA years, which will virtually guarantee a cap hit higher than $7.5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Other posters have put some analysis of the impact of the new TV deal out there, and you could see a one time impact of between $5 and $10 million per team. I'm not sure that's a landscape altering event if that is the case.

[transplant99]

I do wonder if the whole strategy of shorter term deals that we are seeing more than ever isn't because of the shifting dynamics of who gets paid vs who used to get the bigger money.

The league is making the younger guys higher paid based, more so, on projections than past accomplishments. Whereas it used to be guys with a long track record of X-level of production and performance were, obviously, older than the guys who are getting the money now. More of a "known commodity" then vs what is expected to be thing.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's a balancing act.

Teams are all trying to gauge the future of the cap and the future of each player.

You're basically arguing teams should go from putting all their eggs in the 8 year contract basket to putting all their eggs in the short term contract basket.

Both strategies are disasters in my mind.

Make a call on each player, hope you get most of those calls right and you have a huge window.

Right now I think it's safe to assume the salaries won't be dialed back. Escrow may mean we stall going forward for a few years, but the TV deal will get money moving again.

I think R. Andersson and Tkachuk are good bets to lock down in my opinion, and those are the decisions GMs need to make.

I sure would like to get another year's look at Tkachuk.

I think that everything was inflated last season and there will be a regression to the norm this year. There is no chance at all in my mind that many player on the Flames improve on their career years they had last season.

Gaudreau, Gio and Monahan all were 20 pts higher than their career years. Lindholmwas 30 pts higher.

Just falling back to their 2nd best NHL year would be a significant regression. Falling back to their 4 year trailing average ....

Tkachuk does not have enough of a track record... Maybe his 4 year average will become 77 pts. or maybe 58 like his 3 year trailing average.

If Tkachuk took Boeser contact and went 50 - 60 - 55 would the Flames Qualify him @ 8M.... or try to extend him at 5/6 for another 4-5 years?

The same questions exist for Boeser and Mieier and Werenski and McAvoy

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

I sure would like to get another year's look at Tkachuk.

I think that everything was inflated last season and there will be a regression to the norm this year. There is no chance at all in my mind that many player on the Flames improve on their career years they had last season.

Gaudreau, Gio and Monahan all were 20 pts higher than their career years. Lindholmwas 30 pts higher.

Just falling back to their 2nd best NHL year would be a significant regression. Falling back to their 4 year trailing average ....

Tkachuk does not have enough of a track record... Maybe his 4 year average will become 77 pts. or maybe 58 like his 3 year trailing average.

If Tkachuk took Boeser contact and went 50 - 60 - 55 would the Flames Qualify him @ 8M.... or try to extend him at 5/6 for another 4-5 years?

The same questions exist for Boeser and Mieier and Werenski and McAvoy

You're naming players that are supposed to get better ... the only players not in the peak portion of their careers are Giordano who though a freak is likely to take a step back, and ironically Tkachuk who hasn't even entered the peak section yet.

But all fair.

You're not sold. GMs need to make those calls. If they see progression and a strong peak pay for it up front and take the benefit. Have your doubts? Bridge him.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

Good deal for the Canucks. Hopefully this all leads to Tkachuk signing soon. Aside for Marner all the RFAs have signed reasonable deals

Hasn't been the top tier guys though...Marner is the only signing in the top 5 so far

Boeser got his 1M for every 10 points on a short deal

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Other posters have put some analysis of the impact of the new TV deal out there, and you could see a one time impact of between $5 and $10 million per team. I'm not sure that's a landscape altering event if that is the case.

Also interesting is that the end of the Rogers deal isn't that far away (2026)...no guarantee the next one is more lucrative...good chance it's a bit less - at least in relative NPV.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

On a one-year deal, yes, but if the Canucks extend Boeser then technically speaking that QO number becomes fairly meaningless. But the only way his cap hit comes down from the $7.5 that he will be guaranteed on a QO is if his production falters over the next three years. A long term extension will buy valuable UFA years, which will virtually guarantee a cap hit higher than $7.5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats what I assumed and for Boeser not a big deal but I think its Meier or Hertl who has a huge final year like 10 million which in that case I was curious how exactly things worked for guaranteed salary on the next deal.

[Flash Walken]

One factor that exists for Meier and McAvoy that doesn't necessarily exist for Calgary is that both players are unlikely to leave either market by choice, whereas I'm sure the Flames are under no illusion about whether Tkachuk will do the same.

It's easier for the Bruins to offer McAvoy that deal knowing he wants to stay there than it is for Calgary to offer the same to Tkachuk knowing he probably doesn't.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

I sure would like to get another year's look at Tkachuk.

I think that everything was inflated last season and there will be a regression to the norm this year. There is no chance at all in my mind that many player on the Flames improve on their career years they had last season.

Gaudreau, Gio and Monahan all were 20 pts higher than their career years. Lindholmwas 30 pts higher.

Just falling back to their 2nd best NHL year would be a significant regression. Falling back to their 4 year trailing average ....

I don't think any fans here are counting on improvements from the Flames's top players, but when talking about "regression" why are each player's second best years and their four year rolling averages considered as the only outcomes?

· In Gaudreau's second best season he scored 84 points, and his four-year avg. is 81. Even if he doesn't score 99 pts, I don't have the slightest doubt that he far exceeds his previous bests this season.
· In Monahan's second best year he scored 64, and his four-year avg. is 67. Likewise I think he smashes both those numbers this year even if he doesn't hit the 80-pts mark.
· In Giordano's second best season he scored 56, and his four-year avg. is 52. I personally don't think he scores +70 this year, but I remain a lot more confident that he will get closer to that number than that he ends up the mid-fifties.
· In Lindholm's second best year he scored 45, and his four year avg. is 52. He may not score +75 this year, but he is definitely scoring a lot more than 50 from the top line.

I personally think most of the Flames top players take a bit of a hit in production this year, but there is no reason at all to think that young players in the midst of their primes (#youngandfresh!) will plummet back to their career averages. It's just not happening.

Tkachuk does not have enough of a track record... Maybe his 4 year average will become 77 pts. or maybe 58 like his 3 year trailing average.

If Tkachuk took Boeser contact and went 50 - 60 - 55 would the Flames Qualify him @ 8M.... or try to extend him at 5/6 for another 4-5 years?

The same questions exist for Boeser and Mieier and Werenski and McAvoy

There are decades of precedent to demonstrate that betting on 21-, 22-, and 23-year-old talented players to improve over their next three or four years of play is very sound. The fact of the matter is that more times than not these types of players continue to get better into their mid-twenties. The numbers just don't correspond to your chicken-little expectations for disaster.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

One factor that exists for Meier and McAvoy that doesn't necessarily exist for Calgary is that both players are unlikely to leave either market by choice, whereas I'm sure the Flames are under no illusion about whether Tkachuk will do the same.

It's easier for the Bruins to offer McAvoy that deal knowing he wants to stay there than it is for Calgary to offer the same to Tkachuk knowing he probably doesn't.