Official Armchair GM Thread 2015-2016

[bustaheims]

Nylander and Marner are the only two Marlies/prospects that I'd comfortably project being on next years team. Maybe Panik and Leivo too but they're sort of past the "prospect" point for me. Then I'd say that there will probably be one roster spot open for a Brown/Kapanen/Soshnikov type, a young guy with actual promise.

Matthews?

Cart....Horse?

Where's he projected to go?

He's projected to go 1st overall. Even if the Leafs finish 30th, they coudl end up drafting 4th. So, until the lottery, that's putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Kin]

He's projected to go 1st overall. Even if the Leafs finish 30th, they coudl end up drafting 4th. So, until the lottery, that's putting the cart before the horse.

I think you might be a half-step off this afternoon.

 

[bustaheims]

He's projected to go 1st overall. Even if the Leafs finish 30th, they coudl end up drafting 4th. So, until the lottery, that's putting the cart before the horse.

I think you might be a half-step off this afternoon.

Nah. I'm just expecting that, in typical Leafs fashion, they won't end up with Matthews.

 

[Kin]

Nah. I'm just expecting that, in typical Leafs fashion, they won't end up with Matthews.

I think that's a sort of sense we all share and so, by suggesting we should have a place in the line-up carved out for him, I was attempting to engage in some gallows humour. My follow up, wherein I wondered about the draft status of the player named "Cart Horse" you seemed so keen on was, if anything, even less successful.

 

[bustaheims]

I think that's a sort of sense we all share and so, by suggesting we should have a place in the line-up carved out for him, I was attempting to engage in some gallows humour. My follow up, wherein I wondered about the draft status of the player named "Cart Horse" you seemed so keen on was, if anything, even less successful.

Ahh. Fair enough. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the Leafs have drafted Cart Horse under many of his pseudonyms, like "Jeff Ware," "Eric Fichaud," and "Future Hall of Famer, # 316."

 

[Frank E]

He's projected to go 1st overall. Even if the Leafs finish 30th, they coudl end up drafting 4th. So, until the lottery, that's putting the cart before the horse.

I think you might be a half-step off this afternoon.

I just wanted to say that I got the joke.

That is all.

 

[Kin]

Ahh. Fair enough. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the Leafs have drafted Cart Horse under many of his pseudonyms, like "Jeff Ware," "Eric Fichaud," and "Future Hall of Famer, # 316."

 

[MetalRaven]

Ahh. Fair enough. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the Leafs have drafted Cart Horse under many of his pseudonyms, like "Jeff Ware," "Eric Fichaud," and "Future Hall of Famer, # 316."

Why do you have to remind me of sad things?

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I think guys like Panik and Leivo will play before Brown and Kapanen.

In fact, I think you might see that Leivo-Willie-Panik line with the Leafs at some point this season.

This year, yeah, although I'm not sure about Nylander being up for an extended time.

Yeah, I don't think they want to burn a year of his ELC on a meaningless season like this one, perhaps ten games after the sell off. I also don't want to burn his Calder eligibility as I think with a full season he'd be a strong favorite for it next year.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Ahh. Fair enough. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the Leafs have drafted Cart Horse under many of his pseudonyms, like "Jeff Ware," "Eric Fichaud," and "Future Hall of Famer, # 316."

In yet another of this week's "stats are weird" examples we have Luke Schenn who last I looked(last week) was leading NHL dmen in Pts P/60.

 

[Kin]

Yeah, I don't think they want to burn a year of his ELC on a meaningless season like this one, perhaps ten games after the sell off. I also don't want to burn his Calder eligibility as I think with a full season he'd be a strong favorite for it next year.

This is sort of a half-formed thought but assuming that we see the sort of career progression we'd like to from Nylander isn't there some genuine value in maybe burning a ELC year early?

Like the ELC is three seasons, right? So let's say, for the sake of argument that Nylander's next three seasons are in the NHL and they look something like this:

2016-2017:  15 goals, 48 points
2017-2018:  22 goals, 59 points
2018-2019:  27 goals, 70 points

If he produces like that or something similar...don't you want to negotiate a long-term extension with him in the summer of 2018 rather than 2019? You're still not going to get him cheap, no, but it seems to me like a pretty fair argument could be made that you'd probably save enough negotiating a year earlier that it would largely negate the effect on the cap that signing him a year later would have.

 

[L K]

Yeah, I don't think they want to burn a year of his ELC on a meaningless season like this one, perhaps ten games after the sell off. I also don't want to burn his Calder eligibility as I think with a full season he'd be a strong favorite for it next year.

This is sort of a half-formed thought but assuming that we see the sort of career progression we'd like to from Nylander isn't there some genuine value in maybe burning a ELC year early?

Like the ELC is three seasons, right? So let's say, for the sake of argument that Nylander's next three seasons are in the NHL and they look something like this:

2016-2017:  15 goals, 48 points
2017-2018:  22 goals, 59 points
2018-2019:  27 goals, 70 points

If he produces like that or something similar...don't you want to negotiate a long-term extension with him in the summer of 2018 rather than 2019? You're still not going to get him cheap, no, but it seems to me like a pretty fair argument could be made that you'd probably save enough negotiating a year earlier that it would largely negate the effect on the cap that signing him a year later would have.

Are we really seeing that with star-level players though?  It seems like a lot of these bigger name guys are bypassing the bridge contract and going right into big-money deals.

 

[Kin]

Are we really seeing that with star-level players though?  It seems like a lot of these bigger name guys are bypassing the bridge contract and going right into big-money deals.

Like I said, I think that in this hypothetical scenario you're paying "big money" sort of regardless but I suppose I'm thinking of this as the difference between what someone like Gabriel Landeskog got and what Tarasenko got.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Like I said, I think that in this hypothetical scenario you're paying "big money" sort of regardless but I suppose I'm thinking of this as the difference between what someone like Gabriel Landeskog got and what Tarasenko got.

I think that's an interesting point. Something that runs counter to your typical "make the best out of ELC" idea out there but does make some sense. Particularity if you we burn Nylander's first year with just say 20 or 30 games this season. That way he's negotiating his first post-ELC contract with basically just 2 full seasons of NHL play under his belt instead of 3 seasons.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Yeah, I don't think they want to burn a year of his ELC on a meaningless season like this one, perhaps ten games after the sell off. I also don't want to burn his Calder eligibility as I think with a full season he'd be a strong favorite for it next year.

This is sort of a half-formed thought but assuming that we see the sort of career progression we'd like to from Nylander isn't there some genuine value in maybe burning a ELC year early?

Like the ELC is three seasons, right? So let's say, for the sake of argument that Nylander's next three seasons are in the NHL and they look something like this:

2016-2017:  15 goals, 48 points
2017-2018:  22 goals, 59 points
2018-2019:  27 goals, 70 points

If he produces like that or something similar...don't you want to negotiate a long-term extension with him in the summer of 2018 rather than 2019? You're still not going to get him cheap, no, but it seems to me like a pretty fair argument could be made that you'd probably save enough negotiating a year earlier that it would largely negate the effect on the cap that signing him a year later would have.

There is definitely some merit to that argument.

I think though that he is going to get roughly the same money regardless, though. If you want to sign him long-term he's going to get a big number I would imagine.

I suppose in your example you could potentially try and get him on a bridge deal after the ELC because he potentialy won't be producing at the "elite" level yet, but PK Subban showed that a bridge deal can actually cost you more long term.

If he burns the 1st year of the ELC this season, you have him for two years a $950k and then you are probably looking for a bridge deal of two years at $4 million. Then you want to sign him long term it could cost you near the $9 million mark if you follow the thought that his production will steadily increase.

My Example
2016/17 - $950K
2017/18 - $950k
2018/19 - $950k
2019/20 - $5.5M
2020/21 - $5.5M
2021/22 - $5.5M
2022/23 - $5.5M

Total - $25ish Million

Your Potential Example
2016/17 - $950K
2017/18 - $950k
2018/19 - $4M
2019/20 - $4M
2020/21 - $9M
2021/22 - $9M
2022/23 - $9M

Total - 37 Million

Again, this is all just BSing of course, you could adjust lengths to keep him as RFA at certain points etc, nothing is set in stone.

 

[Kin]

I suppose in your example you could potentially try and get him on a bridge deal after the ELC because he potentialy won't be producing at the "elite" level yet, but PK Subban showed that a bridge deal can actually cost you more long term.

If he burns the 1st year of the ELC this season, you have him for two years a $950k and then you are probably looking for a bridge deal of two years at $4 million. Then you want to sign him long term it could cost you near the $9 million mark if you follow the thought that his production will steadily increase.

See, I think you go the other way. I don't think you(and I assume the you we're using refers to the team) look to a bridge deal. I think you try to do what NYI did with Tavares and what Boston did with Seguin and what Edmonton's done with their young guys. I think that when you're negotiating that first post-ELC deal you go in looking to do a 5 or 6 year deal but at a AAV probably between 5.5 an 6.5 million.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I suppose in your example you could potentially try and get him on a bridge deal after the ELC because he potentialy won't be producing at the "elite" level yet, but PK Subban showed that a bridge deal can actually cost you more long term.

If he burns the 1st year of the ELC this season, you have him for two years a $950k and then you are probably looking for a bridge deal of two years at $4 million. Then you want to sign him long term it could cost you near the $9 million mark if you follow the thought that his production will steadily increase.

See, I think you go the other way. I don't think you(and I assume the you we're using refers to the team) look to a bridge deal. I think you try to do what NYI did with Tavares and what Boston did with Seguin and what Edmonton's done with their young guys. I think that when you're negotiating that first post-ELC deal you go in looking to do a 5 or 6 year deal but at a AAV probably between 5.5 an 6.5 million.

Good point.

If you're his agent, do you push for the bridge so that he can get to the larger figure sooner?

 

[Frank E]

I suppose in your example you could potentially try and get him on a bridge deal after the ELC because he potentialy won't be producing at the "elite" level yet, but PK Subban showed that a bridge deal can actually cost you more long term.

If he burns the 1st year of the ELC this season, you have him for two years a $950k and then you are probably looking for a bridge deal of two years at $4 million. Then you want to sign him long term it could cost you near the $9 million mark if you follow the thought that his production will steadily increase.

See, I think you go the other way. I don't think you(and I assume the you we're using refers to the team) look to a bridge deal. I think you try to do what NYI did with Tavares and what Boston did with Seguin and what Edmonton's done with their young guys. I think that when you're negotiating that first post-ELC deal you go in looking to do a 5 or 6 year deal but at a AAV probably between 5.5 an 6.5 million.

I hope we have to deal with this, and if we do, I'd prefer a deal that he comes out of as an RFA...like Huberdeau, Galchenyuk, or Stone.  So, a bridge I guess.

 

[Kin]

Good point.

If you're his agent, do you push for the bridge so that he can get to the larger figure sooner?

I honestly don't know. You're potentially talking about a player turning down 20-30 million in guaranteed money by opting for the shorter deal and for players looking to get that first big contract that could be a tough sell.

The other question I think you'd have to ask is that while it might be reasonable to assume that Nylander's first few years will see significant gains in production, there almost certainly is going to be a plateau eventually. Even if we're unified in optimism about Nylander's future prospects there's still a wide gap between him being a 8+ million player and being a 10+ million player.

So, for instance, if the breakdown is this:

ELC
ELC
ELC
6 million
6 million
6 million
6 million
6 million

and the other track is:

ELC
ELC
ELC
4 million
4 million
9 million
9 million
9 million

Then in this situation, the breakdown is 35 million in the second scenario compared to 30 in the first. Would I want to risk injury/whatever over that 5 million? If Nylander is only a 8 million dollar player the difference is only two million, an amount small enough that getting the big contract up front might be more lucrative(especially if you back-dive it as much as the CBA allows).

 

[CarltonTheBear]

If you're his agent, do you push for the bridge so that he can get to the larger figure sooner?

Players, and agents, very rarely seem to be the ones interested in the bridge deals. You can tell just from how the situations are usually described in the press, it's usually the team pushing for that route. Like Nik just brought up, they'll take that security of a long-term (and still very lucrative) deal over the hopes of maybe getting a few more bucks if they improve and/or avoid injury.