07-24-2018, 02:42 PM
|
#1
|
Resident Videologist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary
|
Ducks sign Montour (2 year, AAV of $3,387,500)
https://twitter.com/user/status/1021805979342524416
As Darren Haynes mentioned, this is not great news for the Flames when it comes to Hanifin.
https://www.facebook.com/FlamesFrom80Feet/
Quote:
Montour, a second round pick (55th) in 2014, has played in only 107 NHL games. Meanwhile, Hanifin, 5th overall pick in 2015, has three full NHL seasons on his resume. Last year, Montour had 32 points (9 g, 23 a) while Hanifin had 32 points (10 g, 22 a).
Can't help but wonder if a Hanifin deal just got more expensive. And if you hoped Calgary would end up with some leftover cap space after all their free agents are re-signed, think again.
|
|
|
|
07-24-2018, 02:50 PM
|
#2
|
Franchise Player
|
IMO, Montour is over-rated. He was flat out abysmal in the playoffs this spring.
And yes, this will affect the Hanifin negotiations in a bad way. Trouba's deal didn't help either.
|
|
|
07-24-2018, 02:50 PM
|
#3
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Austria, NOT Australia
|
yeah, not good. At this point, I wouldn't be shocked if a Brouwer buyout wasn't just an option that fans like to fantasize about, but actually a necessity.
|
|
|
07-24-2018, 02:50 PM
|
#4
|
Taking a while to get to 5000
|
So Hanifin apparently wanted a longer deal, or something a little more than what a typical bridge contract would be. Are the Flames looking at 4 x $4.25 or around that?
|
|
|
07-24-2018, 02:52 PM
|
#5
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: North America
|
Twitter comments
“Montour was arbitration elegible. Hanifin isn’t. Apples to oranges comparison here.”
|
|
|
07-24-2018, 02:55 PM
|
#6
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
Twitter comments
“Montour was arbitration elegible. Hanifin isn’t. Apples to oranges comparison here.”
|
That's what I was going to point out... not sure what difference it ends up making, but he was headed to arbitration and Hanifin doesn't qualify yet.
|
|
|
07-24-2018, 02:56 PM
|
#7
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toonage
So Hanifin apparently wanted a longer deal, or something a little more than what a typical bridge contract would be. Are the Flames looking at 4 x $4.25 or around that?
|
4 years would bring him to UFA status (without eating any) - that is the one term that the Flames would never do.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-24-2018, 02:57 PM
|
#8
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
IMO, Montour is over-rated. He was flat out abysmal in the playoffs this spring.
|
So were pretty much all of the Ducks, in a four game sample. Montour is very good.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-24-2018, 03:00 PM
|
#9
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
So were pretty much all of the Ducks, in a four game sample. Montour is very good.
|
The playoffs were an example, not a complete data set. He is terrible defensively, IMO.
He is like a lot of young defensemen - they break into the lineup and are given sheltered minutes where they put up some decent numbers, relying on their youthful confidence. Then after a year or two, they are given more difficult and realistic defensive assignments, and their inability to play NHL defense becomes apparent.
|
|
|
07-24-2018, 03:17 PM
|
#10
|
Pent-up
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Plutanamo Bay.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
4 years would bring him to UFA status (without eating any) - that is the one term that the Flames would never do.
|
Why never? It could actually be beneficial if it keeps his cap hit low for 4 years, which is how long Gio has. Then you reallocate that defensive money in an extension.
Obviously RFA is better for negotiating, but it isn’t a terrible idea.
|
|
|
07-24-2018, 03:22 PM
|
#11
|
Franchise Player
|
You remove all leverage and allow him to be signed by another team for absolutely no reason?
He would have to come in at an extremely low cap-hit those four years before the Flames entertain that scenario.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-24-2018, 03:28 PM
|
#12
|
Pent-up
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Plutanamo Bay.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
You remove all leverage and allow him to be signed by another team for absolutely no reason?
He would have to come in at an extremely low cap-hit those four years before the Flames entertain that scenario.
|
Well you have the final year as an extension/trade year.
I would assume that the cap hit for 3 or 5 years would be more than 4 years. But I’m not necessarily advocating it, I just don’t think it’s that bad of an option.
|
|
|
07-24-2018, 03:29 PM
|
#13
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Austria, NOT Australia
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers
Why never? It could actually be beneficial if it keeps his cap hit low for 4 years, which is how long Gio has. Then you reallocate that defensive money in an extension.
Obviously RFA is better for negotiating, but it isn’t a terrible idea.
|
except it is. You either go short-term or eat UFA years, but you absolutely don't go for 4 years in that case.
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to devo22 For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-24-2018, 03:35 PM
|
#14
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by devo22
except it is. You either go short-term or eat UFA years, but you absolutely don't go for 4 years in that case.
|
That is correct. If a player wants to just sign until his UFA year, make him go year to year so he takes some risk. The only reason to go more than one year is to either eat up UFA years, or getting cost certainty of a deal you quite like.
If a player wants the security of a longer deal, it has to include some UFA years.
|
|
|
07-24-2018, 04:10 PM
|
#15
|
Franchise Player
|
It's either 1-2 years or 6-7 years, in my opinion.
3 years would allow him to file for arbitration and force a one-year contract, becoming a UFA after 4 years with the Flames.
4 years brings him to UFA and no reason for the Flames to do that.
5 years is a bit of a middle ground that maybe the Flames bite, but likely not.
1 year gives him the ability to sign the 8-year long-term contract after establishing himself more here so that could be a bit of a potential likelihood. 2 years isn't much difference and gives him two years to prove himself for that massive prime-year contract. And of course 6-7 years gives both the team and player stability.
I also don't think that Montour's deal is especially concerning for the Flames. If year 1 and 2 for Hanifin were valued at the same this is about the value of his contract each year: 3.25M, 3.5M, 3.75M, 4M, 5.5M, 5.5M, 6M. So 1 year with a cap of 3.25M, 2 at 3.375M, 3 at 3.5M, 4 at 3.625M, 5 years at 4M, 6 at 4.25M, and 7 at 4.5M.
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 07-24-2018 at 04:22 PM.
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-24-2018, 04:34 PM
|
#16
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
Twitter comments
“Montour was arbitration elegible. Hanifin isn’t. Apples to oranges comparison here.”
|
It’s a bit of a gear grinder when people to use “apples to oranges” for something with a negligible difference. Hanifin to Doughty is apple to oranges. This is more like apples to organic apples.
|
|
|
07-24-2018, 04:44 PM
|
#17
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: About 5200 Miles from the Dome
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube
It’s a bit of a gear grinder when people to use “apples to oranges” for something with a negligible difference. Hanifin to Doughty is apple to oranges. This is more like apples to organic apples.
|
That is still apples to apples and arbitration rights vs none is not apples to apples. I think Hanifin is a better defenceman with a higher ceiling so his hit might be comparable on a bridge but I am not sure that Montour's contract will come into play all that much in the negotiations.
__________________
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.
Winston Churchill
|
|
|
07-24-2018, 04:49 PM
|
#18
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube
It’s a bit of a gear grinder when people to use “apples to oranges” for something with a negligible difference. Hanifin to Doughty is apple to oranges. This is more like apples to organic apples.
|
The availability of arbitration rights isn't negligible.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-24-2018, 04:55 PM
|
#19
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Montour is a helluva player. The skating ability on this kid is great plus the willingness to use it aggressively both offensively and defensively.
Of course he is going to make some mistakes while young and learning his craft but in terms of skillsets you invest in, his is top notch.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Jeff Lebowski For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-24-2018, 05:16 PM
|
#20
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Calgary
|
The challenge is it's two players coming directly out of ELCs. Montour had more leverage because of age (and arb status due to age), but Hanifin already has comparable offensive production and more NHL experience.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:30 PM.
|
|