[Signing] Sharks sign Evander Kane to extension (7 years, $7 million AAV)

[Weitz]

A guy on twitter named Matt Cane does a prediciton model for UFA contracts in the NHL. He was pretty damn close on the Kane contact.

I had seen it one twitter before, but Friedman also plugged him on the radio this morning.

https://twitter.com/cane_matt/status...727937?lang=en


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...0V4/edit#gid=0

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by bcneil

It's a good deal all around. I feel the California teams could all take a step back next year and miss the playoffs. This will help keep SJ in the playoffs. Maybe slightly overpaid, but not drastically.

You think a career 50 point guy is worth a long term deal with $7MM AAV? Throw in the strong indications he's got attitude problems and I'm not sure how you rationalize that as a slight overpayment.



I realize Johnny had no rights at the time of his signing, but Johnny Friggin Gaudreau is getting paid less than him.



The Sharks mega overpaid.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Weitz

A guy on twitter named Matt Cane does a prediciton model for UFA contracts in the NHL. He was pretty damn close on the Kane contact.

I had seen it one twitter before, but Friedman also plugged him on the radio this morning.

https://twitter.com/cane_matt/status...727937?lang=en


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...0V4/edit#gid=0

Weird to see Perron forecast to make more than James Neal. I'd have had those two reversed but if a single team goes for those two players it all works out the same I guess.

[Royle9]

Don't see how Toronto can afford to go after Tavares while keeping Matthew's, Marner and Nylander in the fold given the projected salary of William.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Weitz

A guy on twitter named Matt Cane does a prediciton model for UFA contracts in the NHL. He was pretty damn close on the Kane contact.

I had seen it one twitter before, but Friedman also plugged him on the radio this morning.

https://twitter.com/cane_matt/status...727937?lang=en


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...0V4/edit#gid=0

That Mark Stone projection is gross as is the Perron projection. Neal and Grabner look like good values.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That Mark Stone projection is gross as is the Perron projection.

No chance he gets that as an RFA.

The Hellebuyck estimate might be even more off base.

[neo45]

His term projections are super strange to me.


Not sure what logic he used to get JT Miller getting less time to UFA AND more money from Tampa than Wild Bill gets from Vegas...

[Toonage]

If you can get James Neal at that price you dive at it.

I was wondering if the Flames look to Vegas free agents to pick up this summer (assuming they don't want to move a D-man to fill their top 6 needs).

But this is a Kane thread, so I'll save that for the madness of the Trade speculation thread.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Weitz

A guy on twitter named Matt Cane does a prediciton model for UFA contracts in the NHL. He was pretty damn close on the Kane contact.

I had seen it one twitter before, but Friedman also plugged him on the radio this morning.

https://twitter.com/cane_matt/status...727937?lang=en


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...0V4/edit#gid=0

How is 7 yrs @ 7 and 4 yrs @ 7.3 close?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

How is 7 yrs @ 7 and 4 yrs @ 7.3 close?

He predicated 7.1 million on a 7 year deal. 7.3 on a 4 year deal. If you scroll over there are predictions for each contract length. The predicted length is the most likely length the model gives (but can still be a <20% chance of it occurring).

Read the tweet thread if you are interested.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Weitz

He predicated 7.1 million on a 7 year deal. 7.3 on a 4 year deal. If you scroll over there are predictions for each contract length. The predicted length is the most likely length the model gives (but can still be a <20% chance of it occurring).

Read the tweet thread if you are interested.

I read the tweet, he's all over the place and has all his bases covered, so that no matter what contract is signed, he's always "close" by either length or value.

His 2 year prediction for Kane is 6.5 and his 3 year prediction is 7.2

It makes no sense, just covering his bases to say how "close" he is.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

No chance he gets that as an RFA.

Mark Stone is an RFA for one more year.

If Kane is worth seven years at 7M for 54 points, how much do you think a point-per-game player who's elite defensively is worth?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Mark Stone is an RFA for one more year.

If Kane is worth seven years at 7M for 54 points, how much do you think a point-per-game player who's elite defensively is worth?

Kane isn’t worth that and I would be shocked if he got this deal on the open market.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Draisaitl is making 8.5M with 5 RFA years and 3 UFA years. Johnsan signed for 8M at 8 years. Kuznetsov signed at 7.8M at 8 years, with more RFA years, after a 59 point season.

The better player in Stone, who's contract will almost entirely be UFA years, is going to be making at least that. Otherwise Stone's taking a one year deal to get out of Ottawa.

But...but...Draisaitl isn't worth his contract. And Kane isn't worth his contract. And every player ever isn't worth his contract. We'll see. You don't get a player with a contract entirely in his 'prime' for nothing anymore, and every year people are somehow shocked at how much they get. Maybe they get him for a nice even 8M if they throw in a full NMC, but it's Ottawa so why would he want that?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I read the tweet, he's all over the place and has all his bases covered, so that no matter what contract is signed, he's always "close" by either length or value.

I appreciate that this guy has made predictions for every potential term, since it is frequently difficult to guess what individual players and teams are negotiating. However, in looking into his numbers, I don't see how you can claim that he is covering all of his bases. The difference he had projected between 1-year and 8-year deals for Evander Kane is around $1.2 m between a $6-m and $7-m deal. That is a difference of 16–20%, which seems quite reasonable to me. But the fact that his estimate of a seven-year contract was within 1.5% of the actual deal is pretty compelling.

His 2 year prediction for Kane is 6.5 and his 3 year prediction is 7.2

It makes no sense, just covering his bases to say how "close" he is.

It makes no sense because he has withheld his formula. I suspect that if he played out his method and various factors his projections would be much more obvious. This seems far from arbitrary as you suggest.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Kane isn’t worth that and I would be shocked if he got this deal on the open market.

This makes no sense. Kane's deal is absolutely a product of open market forces.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This makes no sense. Kane's deal is absolutely a product of open market forces.

The market never had a chance to offer so much as an opinion on Kane's value. I'd suggest that the deal is a product of a GM with a lot of cap space on his hands, paying a stiff premium to avoid risk.

[Oling_Roachinen]

The Sharks were at a disadvantage.

Any other team could have offered him 7M and 7 years for free. Sharks had to give up a first as well.

We're in a world where (as a UFA) the best players will make 12M+ during prime years.

Second tier players will make 10M during their prime years (Kopitar, Benn, Eichel as an RFA)

And players who put up 60 points make 8M (Johansen, Kuznetsov, Perry, O'Reilly).

Teams try not to get players just during their prime UFA years now to keep the cap-hit down. Either RFA's signed long term like Monahan, or players going until they are 40 like Burns. But when a player enters UFA during that 25-27 range, they have huge cap-hits.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I appreciate that this guy has made predictions for every potential term, since it is frequently difficult to guess what individual players and teams are negotiating. However, in looking into his numbers, I don't see how you can claim that he is covering all of his bases. The difference he had projected between 1-year and 8-year deals for Evander Kane is around $1.2 m between a $6-m and $7-m deal. That is a difference of 16–20%, which seems quite reasonable to me. But the fact that his estimate of a seven-year contract was within 1.5% of the actual deal is pretty compelling.

[/I]
It makes no sense because he has withheld his formula. I suspect that if he played out his method and various factors his projections would be much more obvious. This seems far from arbitrary as you suggest.

I guess the easiest way I can explain it is, at Kane's age, a short term contract should raise the dollar amount and a long term contract should lower it. That's why his numbers don't make sense.

There's no way Kane would have signed a one year 6 million dollar contract and if he would have signed a 4 year 7.3 million dollar contract, people would be commenting how great of a job SJ did negotiating the deal. Instead he has a 7x7, which IMO Kane won, negotiation-wise.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I don't know how he came up with the predictions. If it was simply guesses, it's a bit weird. But if it was algorithms, there could be a couple reasons why.

First would be at 26 many players are still RFAs or on their last RFA contracts so comparing contracts would push that down. For example, if Monahan was used as a comparable for Kane at ages 26-27, that s a 6.3M contract.

Second would be UFA signing for one or two years contracts are historically signing show me contracts, or at that age, arbitration deals. I'd say that one-year contracts at that age with those stats are near non-existent and his prediction does say so, as he gave it less than a 1% of happening so really no point even looking at it.

I also don't agree completely that a long-term contract should lower his contract at all significantly. He's 26, not 30. Even at 7 years he'll finish his contract before 35. I don't think you start seeing "discount retirement years" on contracts until the contract goes over 35. I'd bet that, given the option, the Sharks would rather have Kane at 7M for 7 years than Kane at 7M for 4 years. They're obviously banking on him, and if he does good in four years (given the rise in cap) if they wanted to sign him it could mean higher AAV or a contract that goes well past his prime.