Alexander Wennberg

[major major]

Good point. Other than the Murray equivalency.

Wennberg is many times the player that Murray is or will ever be. He's currently tied for 40th in NHL scoring and was in the 20s not that long ago. That's the type of upside Murray can only dream of having (not in points-in overall defenseman performance).

There is no reason to not sign him to a bridge deal. He's done nothing to earn a long term $6 million/year deal.

I highly doubt $6m is being considered by the FO. Do we even have a poster promoting that? I think $5m x 6 is reasonable - based on deals like Victor Rask's.

There are very good reasons to avoid bridge deals, in general and especially in this case. In general it wastes money over the long run. In our case we have more cap flexibility in the next two years and we'll probably have much less of it in 2019. Bob and Werenski will both need new deals then. That could be $15m+ just between the two of them, not to mention several other young players that need raises. If we bridge Wennberg now we'll have a much harder time keeping him the next contract - I'd wager 90% chance that he'll command more than $5m if he's up for a contract in 2019.

 

[MAHJ71]

Game winning goal going to the dirty areas

Nice, but we need that x5 before things have changed in terms of the next contract.

 

[CBJx614]

Nice, but we need that x5 before things have changed in terms of the next contract.

What?

He's had a bad stretch of what 10-12 games? Outside of those games he's been nearly a ppg player this year. He's still gonna get locked up and is a major piece of the core. My views on Wenny haven't changed one bit because a stretch of bad play. He looked good tonight and we'll see if he's back on track, he has what 9 games to find his groove.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

2 years 3.5 per is my guess.

Still holding to this

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I highly doubt $6m is being considered by the FO. Do we even have a poster promoting that? I think $5m x 6 is reasonable - based on deals like Victor Rask's.

There are very good reasons to avoid bridge deals, in general and especially in this case. In general it wastes money over the long run. In our case we have more cap flexibility in the next two years and we'll probably have much less of it in 2019. Bob and Werenski will both need new deals then. That could be $15m+ just between the two of them, not to mention several other young players that need raises. If we bridge Wennberg now we'll have a much harder time keeping him the next contract - I'd wager 90% chance that he'll command more than $5m if he's up for a contract in 2019.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I'm a believer in having as much flexibility as possible. Wennberg is one who I'd roll the dice with on contract. I just don't see him as being a stud #1C who's going to get the big money.

I think that you are completely tied to the current roster. I'm not as much I guess. I think that the CBJ have hit their high water mark in terms of regular season points with this roster. Many of the forwards have hit their peaks and it's always a "who knows" with the likes of the Andersons and Bjorkstrands over the long run. Tying up even $5m per year on a Wennberg isn't a necessity right now. He's an RFA who's at least 4 years away from being a UFA. With Jarmo committing long term to both Saad and Jones prior to their UFA years, he's already reduced his flexibility considerably. Tying up Wennberg would further do so. I don't see the need to do so when he's got 4 years until he's a UFA. If going bridge turns out to be a mistake, it's not a fatal one. If Wennberg ends up signing a 7 year deal after a bridge, it would probably be a $1m year (over the 9 years) mistake at worst.

 

[major major]

Maybe. Maybe not.

I'm a believer in having as much flexibility as possible. Wennberg is one who I'd roll the dice with on contract. I just don't see him as being a stud #1C who's going to get the big money.

I think that you are completely tied to the current roster. I'm not as much I guess. I think that the CBJ have hit their high water mark in terms of regular season points with this roster. Many of the forwards have hit their peaks and it's always a "who knows" with the likes of the Andersons and Bjorkstrands over the long run. Tying up even $5m per year on a Wennberg isn't a necessity right now. He's an RFA who's at least 4 years away from being a UFA. With Jarmo committing long term to both Saad and Jones prior to their UFA years, he's already reduced his flexibility considerably. Tying up Wennberg would further do so. I don't see the need to do so when he's got 4 years until he's a UFA. If going bridge turns out to be a mistake, it's not a fatal one. If Wennberg ends up signing a 7 year deal after a bridge, it would probably be a $1m year (over the 9 years) mistake at worst.

To me the big issue in this case isn't saving money - I agree we probably wouldn't forfeit more than a million per by doing a bridge deal, hardly catastrophic. The issue is how do we do that in 2019? By my calculations it could be razor thin just to pay Werenski and Bob, and that's already assuming the usual departures of Hartnell and Johnson. Having to do Wennberg at the same time seems foolish.

How confident are you that this roster has peaked with all this pre-prime-age talent? I'm having a hard time taking you seriously on this one given how much you've been moving the goal posts on Wennberg and any non-Joey talent. Not that long ago you called me delusional for expecting around 60 points from Wennberg.

 

[EspenK]

To me the big issue in this case isn't saving money - I agree we probably wouldn't forfeit more than a million per by doing a bridge deal, hardly catastrophic. The issue is how do we do that in 2019? By my calculations it could be razor thin just to pay Werenski and Bob, and that's already assuming the usual departures of Hartnell and Johnson. Having to do Wennberg at the same time seems foolish.

My feeling is we will offer 6 years at a reasonable rate 5 -5.5. Similar to Jones' deal. Or we offer a 3.5 2 yr bridge.

Cap could be at 80mm by 2019 so more room there.

I don't think it will be razor thin. We won't have lots to work with but enough to retain everyone. One wild card could be if Bob wants 10 mill or more. Then I think we could have an issue.

 

[major major]

My feeling is we will offer 6 years at a reasonable rate 5 -5.5. Similar to Jones' deal. Or we offer a 3.5 2 yr bridge.

Cap could be at 80mm by 2019 so more room there.

I don't think it will be razor thin. We won't have lots to work with but enough to retain everyone. One wild card could be if Bob wants 10 mill or more. Then I think we could have an issue.

What's your assumption on Werenski? I'm thinking he'll be asking for the Ekblad contract ($7.5m), and if he's as good as I think he is, he'll get it.

Bob looks like Hasek right now, about to pick up Vezina #2. If he stays healthy through 2019 and adds another Vezina, $10m is maybe not far-fetched. That's not my expectation, but it's possible. For the calculations I did I just put in $8m.

And what are you paying Anderson, Jenner, Atkinson, and Wennberg? All will need raises in either 2018 or 2019.

 

[Xoggz22]

I highly doubt $6m is being considered by the FO. Do we even have a poster promoting that? I think $5m x 6 is reasonable - based on deals like Victor Rask's.

There are very good reasons to avoid bridge deals, in general and especially in this case. In general it wastes money over the long run. In our case we have more cap flexibility in the next two years and we'll probably have much less of it in 2019. Bob and Werenski will both need new deals then. That could be $15m+ just between the two of them, not to mention several other young players that need raises. If we bridge Wennberg now we'll have a much harder time keeping him the next contract - I'd wager 90% chance that he'll command more than $5m if he's up for a contract in 2019.

Bridge deals aren't just about money. It's cap management and also a way to extend a player's term with a team (or provide flexibility if things don't progress). I'm a huge fan of Wennberg but I am an advocate for a bridge deal. Yes, we'll likely pay more on the follow up contract to the bridge but we'll also have other players off the books and Dubi and Foligno with shorter terms remaining on their deals as they age.

I'm not opposed if they sign him to a long term deal but I think he's going to be a solid #1 (not elite) and would like his all around game for a longer period. I'd also like to see him prove another year of growth or show consistency without committing big bucks. RyJo's contract is going to be a tough negotiation for Nashville. Starting at $6M+ per year for a player that hasn't shown consistency but has all the talent in the world. Wennberg doesn't appear to on the same path but I'd still prefer to see what he does over the next year or two before committing to him with 1C money.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

To me the big issue in this case isn't saving money - I agree we probably wouldn't forfeit more than a million per by doing a bridge deal, hardly catastrophic. The issue is how do we do that in 2019? By my calculations it could be razor thin just to pay Werenski and Bob, and that's already assuming the usual departures of Hartnell and Johnson. Having to do Wennberg at the same time seems foolish.

How confident are you that this roster has peaked with all this pre-prime-age talent? I'm having a hard time taking you seriously on this one given how much you've been moving the goal posts on Wennberg and any non-Joey talent. Not that long ago you called me delusional for expecting around 60 points from Wennberg.

I think that this roster finishing 1st to 5th overall in the NHL is about as much as one can expect. Everything came together this season. It won't every year. Do you really think that this is a 120 points team? With Bob regressing next season-a probability-this team will be fortunate to get 100 points.

I had very high hopes for this team two seasons ago. This season-like many here-not so much. Glad to have been wrong. Getting married to every piece of this roster is a big mistake in my opinion.

 

[CBJx614]

I think that this roster finishing 1st to 5th overall in the NHL is about as much as one can expect. Everything came together this season. It won't every year. Do you really think that this is a 120 points team? With Bob regressing next season-a probability-this team will be fortunate to get 100 points.

I had very high hopes for this team two seasons ago. This season-like many here-not so much. Glad to have been wrong. Getting married to every piece of this roster is a big mistake in my opinion.

Bob has shown when he can stay healthy that this kind of play is what you get. Most of his seasons in the past were down because of injuries. With a capable backup there's no reason to assume Bob is going to regress.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Bob has shown when he can stay healthy that this kind of play is what you get. Most of his seasons in the past were down because of injuries. With a capable backup there's no reason to assume Bob is going to regress.

He has a 93.4% save percentage this season. No one does that season to season. His 1.99 gaa is also unlikely to be repeated.

This isn't to say that Bob will be bad. It is to say that a Vezina season (which I'd imagine he's in line for right now) is something one can't reasonably expect to be repeated next season-hence, regression.

 

[CalBuckeyeRob]

He has a 93.4% save percentage this season. No one does that season to season. His 1.99 gaa is also unlikely to be repeated.

This isn't to say that Bob will be bad. It is to say that a Vezina season (which I'd imagine he's in line for right now) is something one can't reasonably expect to be repeated next season-hence, regression.

There is a difference between having somewhat worse stats and true regression. If he remains an elite goaltender that is in the battle for a Vezina every year that is not regression to me, even if the stats do "regress", i.e. get worse. He performed as an elite goaltender during his first two years in Columbus, then became more pedestrian for two seasons. He is now back at an elite level. Since that seems to be a result of getting in better "goalie" shape there is no reason to expect that to change in the next 3-4 years.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

There is a difference between having somewhat worse stats and true regression. If he remains an elite goaltender that is in the battle for a Vezina every year that is not regression to me, even if the stats do "regress", i.e. get worse. He performed as an elite goaltender during his first two years in Columbus, then became more pedestrian for two seasons. He is now back at an elite level. Since that seems to be a result of getting in better "goalie" shape there is no reason to expect that to change in the next 3-4 years.

Fair enough. But he's not going to have a 93.4 save % over the next 3 or 4 years nor will he have a 1.99 gaa. My basic point is that the CBJ performance this season is as good as one can expect out of this group. Certainly one can't expect better from Bob. His stats almost certainly have to decline from this season's exceptional numbers. How much is the big question.

 

[CalBuckeyeRob]

Fair enough. But he's not going to have a 93.4 save % over the next 3 or 4 years nor will he have a 1.99 gaa. My basic point is that the CBJ performance this season is as good as one can expect out of this group. Certainly one can't expect better from Bob. His stats almost certainly have to decline from this season's exceptional numbers. How much is the big question.

I don't disagree. But a decrease to a GAA of 2.20 and a save percentage of .925 would still have him in the top 5 at the position and with the team scoring growth to more than 3 goals per game, they would still be a top team. In fact it is the gains on offense that really solidified the record and that part of the team figures to have more potential growth in light of the age of the roster.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I don't disagree. But a decrease to a GAA of 2.20 and a save percentage of .925 would still have him in the top 5 at the position and with the team scoring growth to more than 3 goals per game, they would still be a top team. In fact it is the gains on offense that really solidified the record and that part of the team figures to have more potential growth in light of the age of the roster.

As I see the offensive side over the next 2 seasons.

Good growth potential: Bjorkstrand, PLD*

Moderate growth: Anderson, Werenski, Jones, Wennberg-but I put all of these in a "maybe" category. I wouldn't be surprised if these guys remain flat in their offensive production.

Flat: Foligno, Atkinson, Saad, Jenner

Declining: Dubinsky, Hartnell, Gagner

The rest are plugs or low point producing defensemen.

I think this team is likely at peak or near peak in terms of offensive production on this roster. I see a few maybes in terms of mild growth and I doubt Anderson or Bjorkstrand will be high end producers.

*Don't know enough about PLD to shake a stick at so I can't eliminate the possibility of him being a top 25 NHL scorer and I'll respect his 3OA draft position and acknowledge high end potential.

 

[EspenK]

As I see the offensive side over the next 2 seasons.

Good growth potential: Bjorkstrand, PLD*

Moderate growth: Anderson, Werenski, Jones, Wennberg-but I put all of these in a "maybe" category. I wouldn't be surprised if these guys remain flat in their offensive production.

Flat: Foligno, Atkinson, Saad, Jenner

Declining: Dubinsky, Hartnell, Gagner




The rest are plugs or low point producing defensemen.

I think this team is likely at peak or near peak in terms of offensive production on this roster. I see a few maybes in terms of mild growth and I doubt Anderson or Bjorkstrand will be high end producers.

*Don't know enough about PLD to shake a stick at so I can't eliminate the possibility of him being a top 25 NHL scorer and I'll respect his 3OA draft position and acknowledge high end potential.

I think this is a pretty good assessment with one or two exceptions. I expect Saad to be better so I'd put him in the moderate growth. And Gagner maybe flat if we re-sign him.

 

[MoeBartoli]

I think this is a pretty good assessment with one or two exceptions. I expect Saad to be better so I'd put him in the moderate growth. And Gagner maybe flat if we re-sign him.

Also agree with overall CR's offensive and with your Saad exception. Not as sure about Gagner.

Where I see the biggest improvement next year is defensively as I think Jones and Zach will show some improvement and Nuti or Harrington - or both - will show moderate To good growth.

 

[DarkandStormy]

Bob, at age 30 going on 31, is not going to get $10m per. Sorry, just don't think that's happening. I don't see his style of play with insane athleticism and the flexibility in his groins lasting into his 30s. Just my 2 cents on that.

 

[Forepar]

I highly doubt $6m is being considered by the FO. Do we even have a poster promoting that? I think $5m x 6 is reasonable - based on deals like Victor Rask's.

There are very good reasons to avoid bridge deals, in general and especially in this case. In general it wastes money over the long run. In our case we have more cap flexibility in the next two years and we'll probably have much less of it in 2019. Bob and Werenski will both need new deals then. That could be $15m+ just between the two of them, not to mention several other young players that need raises. If we bridge Wennberg now we'll have a much harder time keeping him the next contract - I'd wager 90% chance that he'll command more than $5m if he's up for a contract in 2019.

I emphasize the +; not advocating anything, but if Werenski continues to progress and is not bridged and Bob gets market as well, this likely would be in the $18M range. The cap likely inching up even more. The issue for Bob in '19 will likely be more about term than dollars. If he continues w years like this season, he will be pushing, $10-11M, especially as cap inches up. Sounds crazy, but he's already at $7.25M based on a partial Vezina year. Hard to envision, but assuming Werenski continues to get stronger and better, long-term will cost $7+ for him. The prices are going up as we get better as a team - stars on good teams get paid more, and there are more stars on the good teams. Doesn't mean CBJ HAS to pay it, but how do they not pay Bob and Werenski IF the two presumptions prove true (Bob still performing at elite level; Werenksi continuing trajectory)? CBJ would likely be in the middle of their window in 2019, as some like to call it - and they are not going to jettison their elite G, who is also a fan-favorite, if he is still performing, amidst the peak years of the core.

I agree with CR on one point - in the long run, cannot be married to current roster. By 2019, Hartnell will be gone (retired or not re-signed), with Dubinsky, Gagner, Foligno, JJ and possibly others following (Murray? Personally, I think he will be top 4 easy, but I get it). Yes, I know there are NTC's, etc... but I predict 3.5 is the over/under on how many of those 5 (SH, BD, SG, NF & JJ) will be gone. That would free up almost $20M - to fill with younger, more cost-controlled players (PLD, Bjorkstrand, etc...(Abramov!!! we should be so lucky!), and pay the now-young studs for a term that matches their prime (along with Bob for a few more years). I put Wennberg in that "now-young stud - prime years ahead" group.

Our perceived strength now (depth at F) will need some boosting in 2019 - We better not be a lottery pick team, so it won't be a first round grand slam like Matthews, Laine or McDavid.

BTW, I am married to our team for the next 3 months!
I don't expect, but for that very reason half-expect, them to run the table.
Would make it hard to part with any of them if that happens, but other than expansion draft and possibly Hartnell, there seems to be no plan to part with any of them before or during 2017-18 season. After next season - we will see. Not to blow it up, but to keep what will then be the prime core.

 

[major major]

I emphasize the +; not advocating anything, but if Werenski continues to progress and is not bridged and Bob gets market as well, this likely would be in the $18M range. The cap likely inching up even more. The issue for Bob in '19 will likely be more about term than dollars. If he continues w years like this season, he will be pushing, $10-11M, especially as cap inches up. Sounds crazy, but he's already at $7.25M based on a partial Vezina year. Hard to envision, but assuming Werenski continues to get stronger and better, long-term will cost $7+ for him. The prices are going up as we get better as a team - stars on good teams get paid more, and there are more stars on the good teams. Doesn't mean CBJ HAS to pay it, but how do they not pay Bob and Werenski IF the two presumptions prove true (Bob still performing at elite level; Werenksi continuing trajectory)? CBJ would likely be in the middle of their window in 2019, as some like to call it - and they are not going to jettison their elite G, who is also a fan-favorite, if he is still performing, amidst the peak years of the core.

I agree with CR on one point - in the long run, cannot be married to current roster. By 2019, Hartnell will be gone (retired or not re-signed), with Dubinsky, Gagner, Foligno, JJ and possibly others following (Murray? Personally, I think he will be top 4 easy, but I get it). Yes, I know there are NTC's, etc... but I predict 3.5 is the over/under on how many of those 5 (SH, BD, SG, NF & JJ) will be gone. That would free up almost $20M - to fill with younger, more cost-controlled players (PLD, Bjorkstrand, etc...(Abramov!!! we should be so lucky!), and pay the now-young studs for a term that matches their prime (along with Bob for a few more years). I put Wennberg in that "now-young stud - prime years ahead" group.

Our perceived strength now (depth at F) will need some boosting in 2019 - We better not be a lottery pick team, so it won't be a first round grand slam like Matthews, Laine or McDavid.

BTW, I am married to our team for the next 3 months!
I don't expect, but for that very reason half-expect, them to run the table.
Would make it hard to part with any of them if that happens, but other than expansion draft and possibly Hartnell, there seems to be no plan to part with any of them before or during 2017-18 season. After next season - we will see. Not to blow it up, but to keep what will then be the prime core.

When I did the calculations I assumed Gagner, Hartnell, and Johnson were gone. We're already married to Dubinsky and Foligno, a divorce isn't impossible but the marriage would have to go a lot further downhill to justify such a thing.

 

[CBJx614]

Bob, at age 30 going on 31, is not going to get $10m per. Sorry, just don't think that's happening. I don't see his style of play with insane athleticism and the flexibility in his groins lasting into his 30s. Just my 2 cents on that.

Id say it's definitely possible, however, with those dollars it won't be long term (my guess is 2-4 years Max)

 

[theD86]

Not sure what kind of deal Wennberg will get.

Saad was traded for for the playoffs. He hits another gear. At least he did with the Blackhawks.

 

[major major]

Just give him Rickard Rakell's contract.

You get that kind of deal if you sign before they break out.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

You get that kind of deal if you sign before they break out.

Not necessarily. Rakell had 20 goals and 43 points the year prior to his extension, and 9-22-31 the year before that.