Markus078
Registered User
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.
can't decide which of the three terrible signings is the worse today...
makes me scared what LA will offer Doughty next season...
If Drai is getting 9 or even 8 this is a steal.
If Drai gets 8, how does that make this a steal?
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
I bet there are quite a few NHL teams, which would gladly sign Kuzya on this term. Montreal, STL, Vancouver... probably more.
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.
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.
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.
You forgot to mention the 13 year difference between the two.
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).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.
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
You forgot to mention the 13 year difference between the two.
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.
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'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.
You realize burying Marleau in the minors still has a $5.5M cap hit on your NHL team right?
Nope. The player with no movement clause can't be traded or sent to the minors without the player's permission.