Confirmed Signing with Link: [ARI] F Matias Maccelli re-signs with the Coyotes (3 years, $3.425M AAV)

[biturbo19]

Bill Armstrong prefers short deals in large part because it keeps players motivated to prove themselves and earn more. If Maccelli is asking for the moon in a few years, it's because he's become a star. That's good for the player and good for the team.

I guess. I see the reasoning on it. But given context, it comes off as being a bit "cheap".

Most teams don't screw around with their "star players" like that. They lock them up and don't ask questions.

 

[lanky]

I guess. I see the reasoning on it. But given context, it comes off as being a bit "cheap".

Most teams don't screw around with their "star players" like that. They lock them up and don't ask questions.

Feels like you might have a narrative that you want to push so I'm gonna step aside.

 

[FinlandPanther]

Good deal. Kid is a gamer.

 

[biturbo19]

Feels like you might have a narrative that you want to push so I'm gonna step aside.

Fair enough. I'm not trying to push a "lolPhoenix" sort of narrative. The team does enough of that as is. But i do think that a contract like this raises questions.

The conventional approach is to do a shorter 1-2 year bridge for the player to establish themselves as a star, and then just pay them. It's unusual to stretch that term to 3 years for a few extra bucks.

I get that they aren't going to hand him the whole bag right now. I wouldn't expect any team to pay a guy based on part of 1 season basically. But it's going to raise questions when a team does something...unconventional like this. That's where the surrounding context starts to colour perceptions of what they're angling for.

 

[mouser]

Weird deal. It's either going to be a steal, or it'll be one of those contracts that you kinda wonder...why? Personally, i've like Macelli a ton since he was a prospect, so i lean toward it being a steal. But it creates a really awkward situation a few years from now, when he's going to probably be asking for the moon on his next contract. But i guess Arizona aren't really worried about thinking that far ahead. They're just trying to survive right now.

Having a player outperform their contract is never a terrible thing. It’s the big contracts where the player underperforms that do the most damage.

 

[biturbo19]

Having a player outperform their contract is never a terrible thing. It’s the big contracts where the player underperforms that do the most damage.

That's true. It's still a weird deal though. Basically precludes any opportunity to get Macelli locked up on a long-term "outperforming" contract. If he plays as well as he can over those three years, it becomes a huge 8-year megadeal at the end. Whereas a 1-year bridge...maybe you can still lock him up for 6+ years at a little bit less.

 

[Albatros]

That's true. It's still a weird deal though. Basically precludes any opportunity to get Macelli locked up on a long-term "outperforming" contract. If he plays as well as he can over those three years, it becomes a huge 8-year megadeal at the end. Whereas a 1-year bridge...maybe you can still lock him up for 6+ years at a little bit less.

Well, the team gets value and the player his financial future secured as well as an opportunity to look for the big payday still. It's a low-risk win-win.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

How did no one taken a chance on this guy well before the 98th pick back in ‘19?

 

[biturbo19]

Well, the team gets value and the player his financial future secured as well as an opportunity to look for the big payday still. It's a low-risk win-win.

Sure, the player is being paid well. And is set up with the opportunity for an absolutely massive payday in a few years.


I don't really get what this does for Arizona though. Maybe they get a couple years of bargain price compared to the conventional route. But that'll come due in the next contract being bigger.


It basically just crosses off the potential of getting him locked up to multiple years of a $4-6M mid-range sort of contract. Those are where you really make the biggest savings on the cap.

 

[ijuka]

Grossly underpaid. Why would Maccelli do this? He's easily a point per game played on a decent team.

At least do 1 year if you cannot get more than this.

How did no one taken a chance on this guy well before the 98th pick back in ‘19?

I think he had work ethic concerns.

 

[Lempo]

How did no one taken a chance on this guy well before the 98th pick back in ‘19?

"As a top player of his own age cohort he had always had his own things and tricks. We were at odds every now and then when we were learning what it is to be a team player. That there is other things to the game than fine tricks and points. He's a strong and a hard-headed guy, those teen years weren't easy."
- Hermanni Vidman, his coach in B juniors in Turku

"They [Dubuque Fighting Saints in USHL] asked me who they could draft and I threw them Mattias' name. I guess there were some differences of opinion with him and the coaching in Turku too, when he called me mid-season to ask if he should come there."
- Santeri Virtanen, a teammate in Finland and in Dubuque on recommending Mattias to team GM Kalle Larsson

Matias Maccelli kulki värikkään matkan NHL-sensaatioksi – lähipiiri näki erityispiirteet: ”Aika lujaa otettiin välillä yhteen” (in Finnish)

 

[ck26]

Sure, the player is being paid well. And is set up with the opportunity for an absolutely massive payday in a few years.


I don't really get what this does for Arizona though. Maybe they get a couple years of bargain price compared to the conventional route. But that'll come due in the next contract being bigger.

What do you mean "what it does for ARZ?" They get a good player at a fair price for 3 years.

It basically just crosses off the potential of getting him locked up to multiple years of a $4-6M mid-range sort of contract. Those are where you really make the biggest savings on the cap.

Or the player regresses or chronically gets hurt and you're stuck with $6m tied up long term on a player not as good as you hoped. Like Loui Eriksson in VAN.

Maccelli's development has been steady, stayed in Europe post-draft, came to North America and was very good in the AHL, then he was very good in the NHL his first full year as a 22 year old. But that doesn't mean you lock him up for $45m.

 

[biturbo19]

What do you mean "what it does for ARZ?" They get a good player at a fair price for 3 years.

Or the player regresses or chronically gets hurt and you're stuck with $6m tied up long term on a player not as good as you hoped. Like Loui Eriksson in VAN.

Maccelli's development has been steady, stayed in Europe post-draft, came to North America and was very good in the AHL, then he was very good in the NHL his first full year as a 22 year old. But that doesn't mean you lock him up for $45m.

That's exactly my point though.

Yes, there's some mild utility getting a player cheaper for the next three years. But how does that actually help Arizona long-term? It doesn't really...

It's a team thinking 3- years at a time just trying to survive.

 

[ck26]

That's exactly my point though.

Yes, there's some mild utility getting a player cheaper for the next three years. But how does that actually help Arizona long-term? It doesn't really...

It's a team thinking 3- years at a time just trying to survive.

This is Playstation logic, where the AI lets you re-sign everyone for 8 years for cheap and all the young players rated "HIGH" on potential are guaranteed to become stars.

Real life doesn't work this way. You don't just sign everyone with upside to a ****ing 8 year contract. Unless you're Kyle Dubas.

 

[biturbo19]

This is Playstation logic, where the AI lets you re-sign everyone for 8 years for cheap and all the young players rated "HIGH" on potential are guaranteed to become stars.

Real life doesn't work this way. You don't just sign everyone with upside to a ****ing 8 year contract. Unless you're Kyle Dubas.

It's not that whatsoever.

the Coyotes had Macelli in a specific bargaining position. They chose to make it a 3 year one. That's a weird ass decision.

Normal teams sign him to a 1-2 year deal to see if it's real or a mirage. Then back up the Brinks truck.

 

[LaMasquerade]

Edit: Back when he was playing in Finland he was my favorite player because he's got that mini-Kane look to him, of course he played for the wrong team in my city so i couldn't say it out loud.

Hah, are you sure you're not me? I could've written that comment..

 

[Jormungandr]

Nikita Kucherov, Brayden Point, Anthony Cirrelli, Elias Pettersson, Brock Boeser, Filip Hronek. These are all guys who signed 3 year contracts after their entry level deals expired. And these are only SOME names on the first 3 teams listed on capfriendly. i didn’t look at everyone on each roster, and I didn’t feel like going any further because it was painfully obvious after only 3 teams that a 3 year deal following an entry level is not uncommon at all.

As Lanky said. Someone is pushing a narrative.

 

[Vitto79]

Didn’t real ice he was that good
Maybe AZ has some depth thus year ?

 

[Schemp]

That's exactly my point though.

Yes, there's some mild utility getting a player cheaper for the next three years. But how does that actually help Arizona long-term? It doesn't really...

It's a team thinking 3- years at a time just trying to survive.

Trying to survive?
They are called a bridge contract, a cross between prove it some more and rewarding said player. Seen too many teams hampered by what happens to players long term. Trying to survive, what a mind set... more like a good business decision and a not-so-greedy player coming together. Trying to survive ... LOL

 

[ThirdPeriodTurtle]

The article above reminded me of one of my favorite Maccelli passes (here's the full thing):



Mind for the offense.

 

[kcunac]

3 year bridge is pretty much the most normal expected outcome for all second contracts. Pettersson won the Calder and also got a 3 year bridge.

 

[Heldig]

It's not that whatsoever.

the Coyotes had Macelli in a specific bargaining position. They chose to make it a 3 year one. That's a weird ass decision.

Normal teams sign him to a 1-2 year deal to see if it's real or a mirage. Then back up the Brinks truck.

Are you sure you are not just looking for reasons to dump on the Coyotes?

 

[DatDude44]

For three years term I’d guess somewhere around in the low $3.xM range.

Not even close

 

[BringTheReign]

Watched Maccelli play in the AHL quite a bit--he was the best player on the ice every time I saw him (except for one game where Zegras still played for the Gulls). I'm glad he's developing nicely for the 'Yotes.

 

[bossram]

That's true. It's still a weird deal though. Basically precludes any opportunity to get Macelli locked up on a long-term "outperforming" contract. If he plays as well as he can over those three years, it becomes a huge 8-year megadeal at the end. Whereas a 1-year bridge...maybe you can still lock him up for 6+ years at a little bit less.

That's the issue. Macelli had a really promising rookie season. If he breaks into star status, he will be getting an extreme bag on his next contract. A 3 year bridge prevents the Coyotes from building in any cost-savings when they might potentially be competitive.

3 year bridge is pretty much the most normal expected outcome for all second contracts. Pettersson won the Calder and also got a 3 year bridge.

And that bridge deal was a very obvious and clear mistake by Jim Benning.