Confirmed Signing with Link: [WSH] Evgeny Kuznetsov re-signs (8 years, $7.8M AAV)

[Markus078]

If Marleaus contract is fine, this one is it too. Lot's of money but he is a great player. 10-20 pts more and he would have a 9m contract.

 

[KingsHockey24]

can't decide which of the three terrible signings is the worse today...

makes me scared what LA will offer Doughty next season...

Time to trade Doughty.

 

[Macbanan]

The price is a little high. But he's only 25, with that age he's likely to get a bit better and with the cap increases I think it's going to look very nice in 4 years.

 

[Slabber Chops]

Good for them for making a splash in keeping a player of genuine quality. I do question however how they're going to have enough in the kitty to pay for enough depth to go far post season.

 

[King 88]

If Drai is getting 9 or even 8 this is a steal.

 

[Oilyveins97*]

If Drai is getting 9 or even 8 this is a steal.

If Drai gets 8, how does that make this a steal?

 

[trick9]

If Drai gets 8, how does that make this a steal?

They are not comparable. Draisatl is a younger so if he gets 8 they are mostly RFA years, where as Kuznetsov only had 1 RFA year and 7 UFA years in this contract. Capitals already benefitted from signing him to a bridge deal before which also propably drove this number slightly higher.

7.8 is not that brutal number for a top-20 C that just happens to be one of the best ES players in the league in last 2 seasons. Especially as we are talking about his prime years and a contract that runs out when he's only 34. Sign Draisatl to a deal with max term now and he's going to hit the jackpot again when his contract expires as it's in middle of his prime years.

 

[iamjs]

Thought he looked a lot better in the playoffs this year, but yeah that is a lot of money. Still they do have a loaded top 6

Ovi-Backstrom-Oshie
MoJo-Kuzey-Burakosky

One is gone with nothing received in return to currently fill the lineup, the other is still unsigned.

 

[Kshahdoo]

I bet there are quite a few NHL teams, which would gladly sign Kuzya on this term. Montreal, STL, Vancouver... probably more.

 

[seadawg]

I bet there are quite a few NHL teams, which would gladly sign Kuzya on this term. Montreal, STL, Vancouver... probably more.

Exactly...young center, locked up for his prime years. Lots of teams covet players like this and would be super happy to have him.

Not that I expect this to happen, but it would be very interesting if Washington traded him to a team in need of a center. They'd get a very good return, solve their cap issues, and it would help them fill out the rest of their roster. His no-movement doesn't kick in for a few years, apparently.

 

[HarrisonFord]

If Marleaus contract is fine, this one is it too. Lot's of money but he is a great player. 10-20 pts more and he would have a 9m contract.

one contract is 3 years, where year 3 is paying the player just over $1M in real NHL salary.

the other contract is 8 years with no signing bonuses and pure NHL salary for a guy who has scored 20g once.

 

[K Fleur]

one contract is 3 years, where year 3 is paying the player just over $1M in real NHL salary.

the other contract is 8 years with no signing bonuses and pure NHL salary for a guy who has scored 20g once.

Well this is definitely all the details anybody needs...

 

[Hivemind]

one contract is 3 years, where year 3 is paying the player just over $1M in real NHL salary.

the other contract is 8 years with no signing bonuses and pure NHL salary for a guy who has scored 20g once.

Signings bonuses are guaranteed money. They're not performance bonuses, they're a big fat check the player gets on July 1 of the associated year.


Also, we don't know the details of Kuznetsovs contract yet. The $7.8 AAV is all we know. CapFriendly still has the "unconfirmed" marker on his deal for a reason, because they don't know the year-to-year breakdown of salary and signing bonuses yet.

 

[gretskidoo]

one contract is 3 years, where year 3 is paying the player just over $1M in real NHL salary.

the other contract is 8 years with no signing bonuses and pure NHL salary for a guy who has scored 20g once.

You forgot to mention the 13 year difference between the two.

 

[HarrisonFord]

Signings bonuses are guaranteed money. They're not performance bonuses, they're a big fat check the player gets on July 1 of the associated year.


Also, we don't know the details of Kuznetsovs contract yet. The $7.8 AAV is all we know. CapFriendly still has the "unconfirmed" marker on his deal for a reason, because they don't know the year-to-year breakdown of salary and signing bonuses yet.

What I'm saying is that the knock on Marleau's contract being unmovable is unwarranted. The only issue with his contract is the 3rd year, but lets be serious - if the Leafs don't want him there for year 3 he's not there for year 3.

You forgot to mention the 13 year difference between the two.

Does that really matter? There's still far more risk with an 8 year deal for somebody making $1.55M more than the 3 year deal guy.

$7.8M makes him the 16th highest cap hit in the league. He's most certainly not the 16th best player in the league.

 

[tictactoe]

Caps management = idiots.

 

[Hivemind]

What I'm saying is that the knock on Marleau's contract being unmovable is unwarranted. The only issue with his contract is the 3rd year, but lets be serious - if the Leafs don't want him there for year 3 he's not there for year 3.

You're aware he has a no movement clause, right? And that even if his NHL salary is low, his cap hit is still too large for many prospective suitors (aka the types of teams good enough for him to be willing to waive his NMC).

Does that really matter? There's still far more risk with an 8 year deal for somebody making $1.55M more than the 3 year deal guy

Yes it matters. Players decline at Marleau's age (he already is), while Kuznetsovs deal is his prime years. Further still, Marleaus is a 35+ deal, so reitrement doesn't get it off the books.

 

[mashedpotato]

You forgot to mention the 13 year difference between the two.

It's a given that if the player is older, they'd get less term to limit the risk to the club; Probably the reason why he only got 3 years; but compensates the player with dollar value.

If he was the same age, he'd probably get similar terms.

it's a reasonably easy formula to figure out.....

 

[mashedpotato]

You're aware he has a no movement clause, right? And that even if his NHL salary is low, his cap hit is still too large for many prospective suitors (aka the types of teams good enough for him to be willing to waive his NMC).





Yes it matters. Players decline at Marleau's age (he already is), while Kuznetsovs deal is his prime years. Further still, Marleaus is a 35+ deal, so reitrement doesn't get it off the books.

Marleau can be buried to the minors. The Leafs have done it before and will do it again. You're trying to find something wrong with a 3 year deal buddy. Get over it.

 

[Hivemind]

Marleau can be buried to the minors. The Leafs have done it before and will do it again. You're trying to find something wrong with a 3 year deal buddy. Get over it.

You realize burying Marleau in the minors still has a $5.5M cap hit on your NHL team right?

 

[Helistin]

Marleau can be buried to the minors. The Leafs have done it before and will do it again. You're trying to find something wrong with a 3 year deal buddy. Get over it.

Nope. The player with no movement clause can't be traded or sent to the minors without the player's permission.

 

[HarrisonFord]

You're aware he has a no movement clause, right? And that even if his NHL salary is low, his cap hit is still too large for many prospective suitors (aka the types of teams good enough for him to be willing to waive his NMC).


Yes it matters. Players decline at Marleau's age (he already is), while Kuznetsovs deal is his prime years. Further still, Marleaus is a 35+ deal, so reitrement doesn't get it off the books.

I am absolutely aware of that. People thought that the Leafs would have an issue with Phaneuf's salary. He had a NMC. He's gone. People thought Lupul's salary would be a problem. That has also been taken care of.

1 or 2 year contracts are easy to move. If the contract is that bad, you throw on a 3rd round pick and a cap floor team will take it. I also think Marleau would be on board to a Lupul year if it came to that. Don't want to taint that Hall of Fame legacy.

However, an 8 year deal is not easy at all. He's going to be here for 5-6 years easy. How many of those years do you think he'll be one of the top 16 players in the NHL? I will guarantee you that it won't be all of them. And how many of those 8 years do you think you'll look at his contract and say "man, that contract was a steal this year"? I think it will be 0. At best I think you'll have a few years where you say "he was accurately paid". And that's not the kind of contract you want to be giving out. Especially when you're eating up some RFA years there

 

[mashedpotato]

You realize burying Marleau in the minors still has a $5.5M cap hit on your NHL team right?

Interesting. How much is the hit when he's deemed unfit to play? Similar to Lupul, Robidas?

Why did you choose to limit the possiblity of the Leafs exploring the same decision when it comes to Marleau?

 

[Hivemind]

There's only 1 RFA year of Kuzys deal.

 

[mashedpotato]

Nope. The player with no movement clause can't be traded or sent to the minors without the player's permission.

Didn't Robidas and Lupul have NMC as well? Lol....