Confirmed Signing with Link: [EDM] Leon Draisaitl signs extension (8 years, $8.5M AAV)

[CantHaveTkachev]

Exactly. As Jonathan Willis put it in his article:

Willis fails to mention the Bruins are also leaving 2 UFA years on the table

his contract would be a lot closer to Taresenko territory if they wanted the full 8 years...buying 4 UFA years

 

[TheDoldrums]

Willis fails to mention the Bruins are also leaving 2 UFA years on the table

his contract would be a lot closer to Taresenko territory if they wanted the full 8 years...buying 4 UFA years

The section I quoted literally said "Boston certainly would have had to pay more annually to get to an eight-year term" so how did he fail to mention that? He still arrived at the conclusion in the article title.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

The section I quoted literally said "Boston certainly would have had to pay more annually to get to an eight-year term" so how did he fail to mention that? He still arrived at the conclusion in the article title.

because i can't read

 

[Daishi]

These won't be the contracts that will haunt the Oilers. It's contracts like Lucic and Russell that could be problematic, maybe Sekera as well if he never returns to form after the injury. It's usually the contracts to complimentary players who are being paid for what they have proven not what they will be (usually UFAs) that generally cause cap issues

You're missing the obvious point. Nobody is refuting the fact that McDavid and Drai will produce. They're only saying that you overpaid to keep them. You're countering by saying the overpayment isn't a problem because they'll produce, and you'll just cut costs elsewhere.

You were already told that every team has good and bad contracts on the bottom lines and on the D because sometimes guys pan out and sometimes they don't, and sometimes guys can maintain their pace and sometimes they can't. How on earth do you have the confidence in your management to make sure that you have no bad contracts anywhere on the roster? What has Chiarelli done to prove you that he's capable of something very few (if anyone) in the league is capable of doing, especially as he's the one who seemingly without exception always overpays 'his guys', ESPECIALLY third line grinders and role players. He did it in Boston, and he'll do it with you, and when it's all said and done you would've liked to save cap anywhere you could.

 

[hockeyguy1967]

Are people here new to hockey?

There are many reasons why Drai got paid what he did.

1. Drai out performed him
2. Drai is a better player
3. Drai is much much better in the Dzone
4. Drai is much bigger
5. Drai is much stronger
6. Drai has a better track record (He performed the year before centering his own line)
7. Drai has the best PPG in the playoffs.
8. Drai plays the more sought after position
9. Drai has the draft pedigree

Was he overpaid at 8.5? Not really.

Ryan Johansen got 8 million as a 61 point player. Drai is much younger and better. Johansen's contract takes up a ton of UFA years but again Drai is younger and better.

Evgeny Kuznetsov got 7.8 million as a 59 point player. Again, Drai is much younger and better.

Drai got 8.5 for 77 Points and the best PPG in the playoffs.

Yes, most likely the Oilers could have held out for say 8 million and Drai would have most likely missed training camp. That is not how you treat your stars it is bad to try to nickle and dime them. They miss training camp and most likely hold ill will (see Gaudreau and how his season went)

Also, McDavid could have gotten league max of 15 million if he demanded it. Any team in the NHL would give it to him, he is worth it. He took less and it more then offsets Drai's very small overpay.

Keep hating haters, Oilers are going to run a train on the league for a long time.

 

[CupofOil]

You're missing the obvious point. Nobody is refuting the fact that McDavid and Drai will produce. They're only saying that you overpaid to keep them. You're countering by saying the overpayment isn't a problem because they'll produce, and you'll just cut costs elsewhere.

You were already told that every team has good and bad contracts on the bottom lines and on the D because sometimes guys pan out and sometimes they don't, and sometimes guys can maintain their pace and sometimes they can't. How on earth do you have the confidence in your management to make sure that you have no bad contracts anywhere on the roster? What has Chiarelli done to prove you that he's capable of something very few (if anyone) in the league is capable of doing, especially as he's the one who seemingly without exception always overpays 'his guys', ESPECIALLY third line grinders and role players. He did it in Boston, and he'll do it with you, and when it's all said and done you would've liked to save cap anywhere you could.

No, my point is that these are great players that will be well worth the contract and that they were going to get paid a ton regardless. McDavid isn't overpaid. He could have demanded max money if he really wanted not only because of on ice contribution which is MVP of the league but also his off ice importance to the franchise as the new face of the league. 12.5 will be considered a discount 3-4 years from now as salaries continue to escalate.

I'm not going to argue that Draisaitl isn't currently overpaid but it's only slight. He was going to get in the neighborhood of 8x8 based on comparables, skillset, production and position. I would rather Chia have gone 6 years to get the number down a bit like Boston did with Pasta but I'm fine with 2 extra UFA years bought at a higher number.

Once again, it's the secondary contracts that could be the anchors. Lucic, Russell and Sekera are valuable contributors now but will they be in a couple of years? Not so sure. On the other hand, I'm very confident that McDavid and Drai will be well worth their contracts, those contracts will not be the problem going forward.

Just about every team has overpaid players and just about every good team runs into cap issues at some point, this isn't exclusive to the Oilers. I'm more than fine going into battle with a core of McDavid, Draisaitl, Talbot, Klefbom and Larsson for the next half decade at least. Most GMs would love to have a core like that locked up long term (Talbot will be locked up as well I'm sure). What isn't being discussed enough is that the Oilers have their top pairing locked up for the next 5 years at just north of 8 mil so even if Drai and McDavid are slightly overpaid, it more than balances out when the top pairing is vastly underpaid.

 

[McXLNC97]

Kane and Toews came off entry level deals 7 years ago and had 6.3m cap hits with a salary cap under 60m. You now have a cap that's 15m higher so it shouldn't be surprising to see contracts off entry level pushing higher.

 

[Mr Positive]

Kane and Toews came off entry level deals 7 years ago and had 6.3m cap hits with a salary cap under 60m. You now have a cap that's 15m higher so it shouldn't be surprising to see contracts off entry level pushing higher.

cap percentage is an argument lost on people.

Kane and Toews signed for an equivalent of 8.4 based on the season during which they signed, and 8.0 based on the cap when their contracts started. It was only 5 years (1 year UFA ?), vs 8 years for Drai

Kane was only a 70 point player at that time, on his way to scoring an 88 point season (but had not yet got there)

Toews was a 68 point player on his way to a 76 point season

Neither player had yet won a cup.

Both had a roughly equal playoff resume at that point as Draisaitl has now. Drai actually has the edge

 

[TheDoldrums]

Ryan Johansen got 8 million as a 61 point player. Drai is much younger and better. Johansen's contract takes up a ton of RFA years but again Drai is younger and better.

What in the world? Johansen's contract takes up 1 RFA year and 7 UFA years. There's no need to fabricate things.

 

[hockeyguy1967]

What in the world? Johansen's contract takes up 1 RFA year and 7 UFA years. There's no need to fabricate things.

Obviously I meant UFA years...

 

[Mr Positive]

What in the world? Johansen's contract takes up 1 RFA year and 7 UFA years. There's no need to fabricate things.

it's pretty obvious from the way he worded it that he meant to write UFA there but just wrote it wrong, or else why qualify it by pointing out that Drai is younger and better?

And yes, assuming I'm right and he meant UFA, he has a point. Having more UFA years drives up the price, and that does push up Johansen's cap number, but in all these RFA years he hasn't had a season as good as what Drai just had, and he had quite a few rough seasons in there where he was bad. It's a case where having more experience only matters if you showed consistent greatness in that time, but no, he was consistently inconsistent

 

[TheDoldrums]

Obviously I meant UFA years...

Fair enough. I just don't know why it's difficult to admit it's an overpay. Just because we're not used to guys that aren't elite superstars getting this kind of money with so much RFA years on the deal. It's not going to destroy the Oilers or anything, I just don't think it was a great deal for Edmonton. Even the GM seemed to admit as much.

Certainly when you look at the comps in each case, it's not marginally close to those comps, Chiarelli said. I'm not trying to defend either, I'm just saying you have to look at the uniqueness of Connor and with Leons case you have to look at his position, his size, his ability and his performance in the playoffs vis-a-vis his comp group. But they're high. They're high. The numbers are high.

When you're using the small sample size of two playoff rounds to justify a 8 year deal, that's probably not a great sign. Luckily the Klefbom contract is so good that it balances out somewhat.

 

[Riptide]

I’m not a big fan of these contracts and I don’t think they should’ve been so high for such young and controlled assets.

McD and Drai are already taking up about 28% of the cap space next season for only 2/20 roster spots, not counting the scratched players. That leaves less than 3M on average for each spot.

It’s going to be a tough go cap-wise for the Oil.

You're not wrong... but if you're going to overpay for someone, you do it for your top centers and your top blueliners. Which means if those players (C in this case) are good enough, you can fill in around them with more complementary players who will cost less (see Sheary in Pittsburgh).

What it really means is that Edmonton must be on point with their mid/late round picks at the draft. The main way to get skilled/semi skilled cheap talent is from the draft, and then (assuming you picked someone good enough) developing them to the point where they can step in and fill a role cheaply.

That is just wrong.

You just have to eliminate bad contracts on middle line players.

While also having cheap players - aka young players on ELCs or their 2nd contracts who can out perform those contracts.

Every team has good and bad middle contracts, they balance out.
No team has nearly 30 % of their cap space on 2 players...thats dumb

Wrong. Some, perhaps even most do. But not every team.

 

[zar]

Exactly. As Jonathan Willis put it in his article:

Boston certainly would have had to pay more annually to get to an eight-year term, but the actual balance between RFA and UFA years is nearly identical on these two contracts. Pastrnak's new deal covers four RFA and two UFA years (a 67/33 percent split) while Draisaitl's covers five and three (a 63/37 percent split).

Given that Draisaitl also had the advantage of playing with the NHL's reigning Hart Trophy winner during his big year, why is there such a disparity in contracts?

The answer is that the Bruins stuck to established norms for second contracts. The Oilers did not.

I've seen it said a couple times now that Drai's contract was 5 RFA and 3 UFA years... I was of the understanding that once a player plays 7 years in the league he is then considered a UFA. Draisaitl just finished his 3rd season in the NHL which would mean the contract he just signed is 4 RFA + 4 UFA years... no?

 

[TheDoldrums]

I've seen it said a couple times now that Drai's contract was 5 RFA and 3 UFA years... I was of the understanding that once a player plays 7 years in the league he is then considered a UFA. Draisaitl just finished his 3rd season in the NHL which would mean the contract he just signed is 4 RFA + 4 UFA years... no?

He only played 37 games his first season. That was enough to burn a ELC year, but not enough to burn a RFA year.

 

[hockeyguy1967]

You're not wrong... but if you're going to overpay for someone, you do it for your top centers and your top blueliners. Which means if those players (C in this case) are good enough, you can fill in around them with more complementary players who will cost less (see Sheary in Pittsburgh).

What it really means is that Edmonton must be on point with their mid/late round picks at the draft. The main way to get skilled/semi skilled cheap talent is from the draft, and then (assuming you picked someone good enough) developing them to the point where they can step in and fill a role cheaply.



While also having cheap players - aka young players on ELCs or their 2nd contracts who can out perform those contracts.



Wrong. Some, perhaps even most do. But not every team.

Care to name which teams do not?

 

[DavidBL]

Care to name which teams do not?

Cant think of a bad middle contract on the Ducks.

 

[Riptide]

Care to name which teams do not?

Pittsburgh, Toronto, Chicago and Winnipeg all come to mind. There's probably a few others, but I'm too lazy to look any further. I'm not saying I like all of their contracts (thinking specifically of Toews/Kane in CHI and Marleau in TOR), but looking at their roster... they do not have bad middling contracts. But looking at Pittsburgh and Winnipeg's rosters, I do not see a "bad" contract there. Which is pretty impressive cap/roster management.

Cant think of a bad middle contract on the Ducks.

Pretty sure Bieska says hi.

 

[DANTHEMAN1967]

Cant think of a bad middle contract on the Ducks.

I'm not sure what a middle contract is (not an ELC?) but Corey Perry's, with four years left, is starting to smell.

 

[Fourier]

IF you look at typical cap inflation and project out 6 years Pastrnak's deal would be worth approximately $9.5M in years 7 and 8 so that brings his comparable 8 year deal to something like $59M or $7.375M. Personally I think Draisaitl's deal should have been in the $7.5-8M range. Had it been in that range then I think the clear advantage would have been to Leon. As it is the $.5-1M difference muddies the waters a little. But as an Oiler fan I'd still prefer Leon at his numbers over 8 years than Pastrnak because Leon's ability to play any of the forward positions is hugely valuable to the team. Of course time will tell. There is still lots of unknowns with both players and this thing could easily go either way.

 

[b in vancouver]

You're not wrong... but if you're going to overpay for someone, you do it for your top centers and your top blueliners. Which means if those players (C in this case) are good enough, you can fill in around them with more complementary players who will cost less (see Sheary in Pittsburgh).

What it really means is that Edmonton must be on point with their mid/late round picks at the draft. The main way to get skilled/semi skilled cheap talent is from the draft, and then (assuming you picked someone good enough) developing them to the point where they can step in and fill a role cheaply.



While also having cheap players - aka young players on ELCs or their 2nd contracts who can out perform those contracts.



Wrong. Some, perhaps even most do. But not every team.

I get why people say to 'pay the top talent' but that's also where you can get the most savings and flexibility as it can shift in the millions as compared to a few hundred k towards the bottom half of the roster.
You can point out Sheary in Pittsburgh but Crosby only makes $8.7 which is how they could afford to bring in Kessel and win two Cups. It just gets hard to round out your roster. McDavid is something special and Draisatl could be very very good, but it just seemed early to give him $8.5.

Second contracts are tough for teams that have been near the bottom of the league for awhile as they have to market them heavily and sell the future to STHs and sell merchandise and it gives players a lot of power in negotiations.
ELCs aren't as great for bad teams as unless they can really flip the switch, by the time the team has crawled out of the basement, those players are already hitting their second contracts and all that savings is gone. Plus with those ELCs, teams already have to start budgeting beforehand so rarely can bring in enough veteran talent during those years to really make a jump.

Toronto and Edmonton both made the playoffs relying heavily on their ELC players and that's great and hopefully they can build off that. Was actually nice to see them in the playoffs. But these kids were going to get paid and it makes it tough on the franchises.

Boston was in a different position with Pastrnak. They already have marquee talent and face of the franchise players and (although missing the playoffs the year before) came off an extended run of success. Not all negotiations are created equal. I'm actually surprised Pastrnak got as much as he did. Boston was just in a better position to keep the cost down.

But saving $3-$5M on Bergeron, Marchand and Pasta's combined contracts adds up to a good player you can add to your roster.

 

[Riptide]

I get why people say to 'pay the top talent' but that's also where you can get the most savings and flexibility as it can shift in the millions as compared to a few hundred k towards the bottom half of the roster.
You can point out Sheary in Pittsburgh but Crosby only makes $8.7 which is how they could afford to bring in Kessel and win two Cups. It just gets hard to round out your roster. McDavid is something special and Draisatl could be very very good, but it just seemed early to give him $8.5.

Yes and no. Yes you can potentially get the most savings there. I mean if Drai received something that many thought he would, he'd be getting 7-8m. So based on the fact that the bigger the contract, the greater potential for bigger savings... sure.

But I disagree that that is where you get the most savings. Insert whatever number you think Drai should have received (6.5m, 7m, 7.5m, 8m, whatever). At most you're talking what... 2m? A team - any team can handle having 1 player overpaid by 2m (and personally I think that number is <1m). That's not where the cap issues come into play. That comes from the mistakes given to depth/complementary players who management think can help the team win. In Pittsburgh that would have been overpaying Sheary or Bonino or Daley. People have called out Lucic and Russell's contracts for the same thing here (but I'll defer to them on that).

Boston was in a different position with Pastrnak. They already have marquee talent and face of the franchise players and (although missing the playoffs the year before) came off an extended run of success. Not all negotiations are created equal. I'm actually surprised Pastrnak got as much as he did. Boston was just in a better position to keep the cost down.

But saving $3-$5M on Bergeron, Marchand and Pasta's combined contracts adds up to a good player you can add to your roster.

Pasta's contract doesn't surprise me in the least. And I disagree that Boston was in a different position with him. They took a different stance on him (choose to wait him out to get a more favorable LT deal done), but both had the same opportunities - Boston just seemed to take a firmer stance on what they'd pay him.

And while potentially getting 3-5m does wonders for ones cap... so does not signing Backes and Beleskey to the tune of 9.8m. 15g/40pt players are not all that hard to come by... and a pair should not cost 10m. That is where teams get into cap trouble.

 

[CupofOil]

I get why people say to 'pay the top talent' but that's also where you can get the most savings and flexibility as it can shift in the millions as compared to a few hundred k towards the bottom half of the roster.
You can point out Sheary in Pittsburgh but Crosby only makes $8.7 which is how they could afford to bring in Kessel and win two Cups. It just gets hard to round out your roster. McDavid is something special and Draisatl could be very very good, but it just seemed early to give him $8.5.

Second contracts are tough for teams that have been near the bottom of the league for awhile as they have to market them heavily and sell the future to STHs and sell merchandise and it gives players a lot of power in negotiations.
ELCs aren't as great for bad teams as unless they can really flip the switch, by the time the team has crawled out of the basement, those players are already hitting their second contracts and all that savings is gone. Plus with those ELCs, teams already have to start budgeting beforehand so rarely can bring in enough veteran talent during those years to really make a jump.

Toronto and Edmonton both made the playoffs relying heavily on their ELC players and that's great and hopefully they can build off that. Was actually nice to see them in the playoffs. But these kids were going to get paid and it makes it tough on the franchises.

Boston was in a different position with Pastrnak. They already have marquee talent and face of the franchise players and (although missing the playoffs the year before) came off an extended run of success. Not all negotiations are created equal. I'm actually surprised Pastrnak got as much as he did. Boston was just in a better position to keep the cost down.

But saving $3-$5M on Bergeron, Marchand and Pasta's combined contracts adds up to a good player you can add to your roster.

It's the price that teams have to pay for success especially nowadays when RFA forwards are getting paid more than ever. Winnipeg and Florida are lucky that Schiefele and Barkov blew up the year after their ELC expired or they would have had to likely pay them the Draisaitl contract this offseason especially in Schiefele's case.
It was good and bad timing that Draisaitl had a great 2nd half of last season and playoff, good that it benefited the team last season and bad that it happened just when Drai was due for his 2nd contract. McDavid was going to get paid top dollar regardless so better to do it sooner than later.

I mentioned it earlier that while everybody is focused on these 2 contracts taking up a chunk of the cap, there isn't as much focus on the smart calculated risks that are the Klefbom and Larsson contracts. How many teams can claim that they have their top pairing locked up for a little more than 8M/yr through their prime years? Granted, Klef/Larsson isn't a top tier top pairing but it's still a solid top pairing on a really good team.
Those bargain contracts allowed the Oilers a little more flexibility to spend a bit more elsewhere so while it could be argued that Drai is slightly overpaid now, it's counterbalanced by Klefbom and Larsson's contracts being bargains.

 

[McShogun99]

Edmonton has their top 2C's and top 2 D locked up long term for under 30 million. One of those C's is arguably the top player in the game and the other C is arguably top 10 at his position. This is equivalent to what most teams will spend on their top 2 forwards and top 2 defenceman. It's how they use the other 37 million that will determine how far a team goes.

 

[Riptide]

Edmonton has their top 2C's and top 2 D locked up long term for under 30 million. One of those C's is arguably the top player in the game and the other C is arguably top 10 at his position. This is equivalent to what most teams will spend on their top 2 forwards and top 2 defenceman. It's how they use the other 37 million that will determine how far a team goes.

Agreed. Here's a couple other teams top 2 forwards and top 2D (looking at most expensive):

Pittsburgh: 30.95m
Chicago: 33.41m
Edmonton: 30.66m
Washington: 28.58m
Rangers: 25.45m
St Louis: 26.5m
LA: 26.8m
Nashville: 27m
Anaheim: 26.94m

So while sure Edmonton is certainly one of the more expensive teams in regards to what they're paying those 4 players (looking at McD's 2nd contract), they're:

A) certainly not the only team do spend like this, and
B) even if they are over the top a little, they're certainly not doing so by an amount that will cripple them long term.
C) And even if both A and B are wrong... Edmonton is a team with those 4 guys locked up for the prime of their careers. The cap can raise a lot over the next 5+ years to the point where these deals won't even be on people's radars in regards to "overpaid contracts" or whatever term one wants to use.