Rumor: Strickland: EDM has 7 and 8yr deals confirmed with Hyman

[ManofSteel55]

True but this guy is still pretty unproven. Oilers management should have learned from the Lucic contract. There's no guarantee that Hyman will even have chemistry with McDavid. It wouldn't surprise me if he gelled better with Draisatl since Leon is a more versatile player for what kind of players seem to gel with him.

It isn't actually all that similar to the Lucic deal, so I don't know why that keeps getting brought up.

Lucic was already showing dropping numbers and had a few injuries over the years prior. His production led to his trade from Boston, and LA realizing that they didn't want to compete with UFA signings. Hyman on the other hand is coming off of his best two deals, and has less than half the NHL games that Lucic did at the time. I also think Chiarelli and Oiler fans convinced themselves that Lucic might actually not suck for most of the contract. For this deal, it seems obvious that Edmonton management doesn't care about 4 years from now, and fans are really worried about it.

 

[North Cole]

Who has offered Hyman over 6M?

Can't find the tweet now, but I had seen that a rebuilding team offered 6.5x7. This tweet was thrown around on this forum in a few other threads:

Completely reasonable take. For me the cap savings of $500K are simply not worth the pick, especially since it adds that extra year that will be a part of buyout calculations if Hyman falls off a cliff at age X. Holland's successor would be cursing his name as he contemplates X more years x $5.0 vs X-1 more years at $5.5M.... that extra $5M spread over the buyout would almost certainly add >$500K/season.

Overall though, I find the situation quite intriguing given it's a bit different than other cap retention deals of the past. The fact Dubas doesn't actually retain is creating a pretty interesting debate about what another team's cap benefit is worth to a team that is not directly impacted.

I don't blame Dubas for not wanting to retain since they are a contending cap team themselves and have pieces they need to be adding. Toronto only takes on dead money they can roll over the cap. Yes, I agree the 8th year is actively worse for the Oilers.

I know sometimes teams are included in discussions just to add leverage for other deals (edmonton has been used for this before) but its never been like this. Multiple media people as well as the agent saying clearly that Hyman is not re-signing in Toronto and he is going to Edmonton. If it didnt end up this way, and the Oilers were being used dishonestly in this, that would cross a line.

Maybe a thin moral line, but it's not really any different than an employee interviewing and getting an offer from a new company, only to use it as leverage to get a raise from their current employer. There's no recourse for any party in this situation. You just kind of say, "that sucks", and move on. That's why GMs shouldn't just sit around only looking at one or two guys, because once their gone off the market you're left scrambling - then the panic signings happen. If the risk is truly there then you pay the 2nd or 3rd and lock the player up before going to market. It's just about cost/benefit.

I'm not happy to get Hyman for this contract, but if we go to FA and he goes somewhere else which results in us getting no top 6 forward, then the 3rd we keep is probably poor compensation. I think that's a worse situation than EDM just paying the 3rd and signing the 5x8. However, if he leaves and we get a comparable player then keeping the 3rd looks good. Hard for us to judge the likelihood of these scenarios. According to the insiders the risk seems to be closer to zero, which is why we haven't caved on the 3rd (I assume). I think if the risk were real that Hyman could go elsewhere, Holland would pay the 3rd - he's already proven that he has no issues throwing 2nds around. The only thing he seems to care about is keeping his first (you know, the pick that actually gets you good players)...

I'm not convinced this isn't a panic signing in itself anyway...I wish we were either targeting a better player or not signing retirement term in this contract, but it is what it is at this point. Getting no top 6 forward is probably slightly worse in my mind.

 

[A1LeafNation]

It would be funny after all this to see Hyman sign with some other random team like Colorado.

 

[bucks_oil]

Can't find the tweet now, but I had seen that a rebuilding team offered 6.5x7. This tweet was thrown around on this forum in a few other threads:




I don't blame Dubas for not wanting to retain since they are a contending cap team themselves and have pieces they need to be adding. Toronto only takes on dead money they can roll over the cap. Yes, I agree the 8th year is actively worse for the Oilers.



Maybe a thin moral line, but it's not really any different than an employee interviewing and getting an offer from a new company, only to use it as leverage to get a raise from their current employer. There's no recourse for any party in this situation. You just kind of say, "that sucks", and move on. That's why GMs shouldn't just sit around only looking at one or two guys, because once their gone off the market you're left scrambling - then the panic signings happen. If the risk is truly there then you pay the 2nd or 3rd and lock the player up before going to market. It's just about cost/benefit.

I'm not happy to get Hyman for this contract, but if we go to FA and he goes somewhere else which results in us getting no top 6 forward, then the 3rd we keep is probably poor compensation. I think that's a worse situation than EDM just paying the 3rd and signing the 5x8. However, if he leaves and we get a comparable player then keeping the 3rd looks good. Hard for us to judge the likelihood of these scenarios. According to the insiders the risk seems to be closer to zero, which is why we haven't caved on the 3rd (I assume). I think if the risk were real that Hyman could go elsewhere, Holland would pay the 3rd - he's already proven that he has no issues throwing 2nds around. The only thing he seems to care about is keeping his first (you know, the pick that actually gets you good players)...

I'm not convinced this isn't a panic signing in itself anyway...I wish we were either targeting a better player or not signing retirement term in this contract, but it is what it is at this point. Getting no top 6 forward is probably slightly worse in my mind.

But nobody was asking Toronto to actually retain. The sign and trade simply leveraged their ability to sign the longer contract with a lower cap hit, something the Oilers can't do themselves. There is value to the Oilers certainly, but no actual harm to the Leafs. People have argued "precedent of what 500K is worth over an 8 year deal (there is none by the way)" and "competitive harm in the open market if one more team has an extra $500K", but those are weak arguments IMO.