Ceci long Term or Bridge Deal??

[Dino Tkachuk]

1 year deal doesn't matter at all, because he would have to be qualified at the same offer.

If the team walks away from Ceci because he is awarded too much in arbitration, he'll easily get 4-5 years 4M+ on the open market. So that's hardly a bad thing for him.

The key is, his qualifying offer is 3.35M. He can't get less than that. So he doesn't have much incentive to settle for a 2 year deal that isn't much more than that when he can use his leverage to try to either push for a long term deal, or go to arbitration where he might be awarded significantly more than what the Senators are offering with the 3.35M QO safety night.

The point is he doesn't get a choice. If he takes the team to arbitration the team chooses between 1 or 2 years. I don't think he's getting much of a raise over his QO so maybe 3.5M per year.

Ceci at 3.5 or 3.75 for 2 years is fine.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

The point is he doesn't get a choice. If he takes the team to arbitration the team chooses between 1 or 2 years. I don't think he's getting much of a raise over his QO so maybe 3.5M per year.

Ceci at 3.5 for 2 years is fine.

Because of qualifying offers, a 1 year deal is as good as 2 year deal though, that's the point.

If he gets awarded let's say 4M, and the Senators opt for a 1 year deal, his QO next season will be 4M anyways. So it's basically a 2 year deal at 4M in year 1, and at minimum 4M in year 2.

Yes, the Senators can opt to not qualify him in year 2, but that's probably not a realistic fear for Ceci.

He's got nothing to lose by going to arbitration. Best case scenario for him, the Senators walk from an overly high reward, and he becomes a UFA straight up and gets to sign a 4-5 year deal with somebody else on the open market. (Not that that is extremely likely or anything...). Ultimately, the Senators need to offer him something much higher than his QO on a 2 year deal in order to justify him doing that, which I don't think the Sens will do. So all roads either lead to arbitration since Ceci will have nothing to lose by going, or the Sens relenting and signing a 4+ year contract with the consolation being that the structure of the deal is backloaded and will provide the Senators with a cheap salary in year 1 and/or 2.

 

[CommonSens]

I think and hope that Ceci signs a 5 or 6 year deal around or a little less than 5 AAV. He is a top 4 guy and that term covers both RFA and UFA years. At that AAV if we have to move him down the line then we move him. He'll be movable at that price.

We are also going to need a bump in our internal budget. I know the TSN local deal we have increases year over year, I'm not sure though whether the money gets better with the big Rogers deal. But with the cap going up we need another 3 or 4 M added to the internal budget.

Ottawa has to sign Ceci and 5 for 5 would be great. There has to be Karlsson insurance, the Sens couldn't replace both.

 

[OmniSens]

Neither. #CeciOut

 

[Dino Tkachuk]

Because of qualifying offers, a 1 year deal is as good as 2 year deal though, that's the point.

Not really....from the Sens perspective a 2 year deal at 3.7 AAV (3.4 in year 1 and 4.0 in year 2) for Cody Ceci is better than 1 year deal. They take that any day of the week.

If he gets awarded let's say 4M, and the Senators opt for a 1 year deal

Why would the Sens opt for a 1 year deal at that price? That doesn't make any sense.

Ceci will have all the leverage on his next deal but his options are limited this time around.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

Lol you are kidding right ?

It's documented that multiple teams have actively tanked over the years.

Including Ottawa in 1992.

Simmer has admitted Washington tanked to get OV.

Etc

I guess I should have been a bit clearer.

The players and Coaching staff play every game to win, and not "tank" in a season such as the one we're seeing right now (for the Sens)

I will agree that the GM could trade away a lot of good players, for picks, and call up scrubs from the AHL so that the team can't compete with other NHL teams ......... but those "scubs" and the coaches are all still going into every game to win.


I think you mean the Senators "tanked" in 1993, when at the end of their (92-93) season Radek Hamr, add others, were called up to play defense, and was clearly not ready for the NHL ....................... but the players and the coaches still played all their reaming games that season trying to win.


Oh, by the way, the Senators were rewarded with the first over pick in 1993 .......... and just how did that work out?









On the topic of tanking http://nationalpost.com/sports/its-...cial&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1520082759

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Not really....from the Sens perspective a 2 year deal at 3.7 AAV (3.4 in year 1 and 4.0 in year 2) for Cody Ceci is better than 1 year deal. They take that any day of the week.


Why would the Sens opt for a 1 year deal at that price? That doesn't make any sense.

Ceci will have all the leverage on his next deal but his options are limited this time around.

4M was just an example. My intention was never to argue what kind of number the Senators would do a 1 year deal over after arbitration.

You were trying to make a point that arbitration can be a negative for Ceci because the Senators can opt for a 1 year contract. My counterpoint was that a 1 year contract isn't an issue, because Ceci's qualifying offer the next year would be the exact same as whatever he gets in a 1 year arbitration ruling.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Could be on here but how many RFA years does Ceci have left?

 

[dumbdick]

Short term deal please. Ceci has a lot to prove still.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

I look forward to watching he and harpur stabilize each other for the foreseeable future.

 

[Hale The Villain]

I mean I just don't get it.

Kid has been rock solid defensively all year, has been moving the puck well and is making more of an impact in the offensive zone, and still people rag on him as if he's some liability out there.

He's not amazing, but he's been a good 2nd pairing guy for us, and we'd be absolute fools to trade him now, given that EK is probably on the move in the summer.

 

[JungleBeat]

I look forward to watching he and harpur stabilize each other for the foreseeable future.

Stabilize themselves how? They both handle the puck like a gernade and provide zero offensive capabilities.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Stabilize themselves how? They both handle the puck like a gernade and provide zero offensive capabilities.

Pretty sure there was a healthy dose of sarcasm in that post

 

[Dino Tkachuk]

4M was just an example. My intention was never to argue what kind of number the Senators would do a 1 year deal over after arbitration.

You were trying to make a point that arbitration can be a negative for Ceci because the Senators can opt for a 1 year contract. My counterpoint was that a 1 year contract isn't an issue, because Ceci's qualifying offer the next year would be the exact same as whatever he gets in a 1 year arbitration ruling.

Haha! I must not have been explaining myself well. My thinking is that the Sens have all the leverage as most of the numbers favor them (other than TOI). Assuming they get a favourable number they will pick a two year term. None of this favours Ceci - my understanding of your original point.

 

[JD1]

Could be on here but how many RFA years does Ceci have left?

2 I believe

 

[SensFactor]

move him for a top 4 dman

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Stabilize themselves how? They both handle the puck like a gernade and provide zero offensive capabilities.

T’is the joke

 

[ottawah]

Could be on here but how many RFA years does Ceci have left?

2 years.

So the team will not opt for 2, because then he can walk. If it goes to arbitration, they should take 1, and work on an extension.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Dorion has indicated he’d like to ink Ceci long term. However, it’s still unclear where the 24-year old fits on the blue line. Is the Ottawa native a puck-mover, a shutdown d-man or a hybrid of both? Ceci’s 22:52 time-on-ice ranks second on the team to Karlsson. However, his 44.36 Corsi rating mark ranks 101st out of 103 defencemen who’ve played 900 or more minutes this season.

As uncertain offseason nears, some Senators will be left out of the picture

 

[Zorf]

I mean I just don't get it.

Kid has been rock solid defensively all year, has been moving the puck well and is making more of an impact in the offensive zone, and still people rag on him as if he's some liability out there.

He's not amazing, but he's been a good 2nd pairing guy for us, and we'd be absolute fools to trade him now, given that EK is probably on the move in the summer.

I find that he's prone to the brain farts a little too often for my liking. Yes, he's got the size, strength and speed to be a pretty good player, but he lacks the focus. He'll start watching the puck and just glide out of position and then have this befuddled look on his face when the guy he was supposed to be covering is wide open in front of the net and scoring a goal.


Given the lack of organizational depth at RD, I would extend him for another 2 years at $3.85m per.



that being said, I'd also call Peter Chiarelli and see if he wants to trade a really good fwd for Ceci...

 

[SenatorFrank]

IMO I think if you believe in him you sign him long term. If you don't, you trade him. I'm firmly against bridging players. That's how you get stuck with 30 year olds with crazy term who's production has fallen off dramatically.

Don't get me wrong I understand the goal of bridging a player. Kind of like a prove it deal. But I find you get in alot more trouble with these kinds of deals. Lock him in at a fairly reasonable price while you have the chance. If he busts then he'll still be much easier to move than a guy who gets a Bobby Ryan type deal.

A middling player paid like a top talent is impossible to move while a slightly over paid middling player can be managed.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Neither

 

[chipsens]

Bridge deal?! I gotta bridge i'd like to sell ya...the Brooklyn Bridge.

Ceci has shown nothing imo. I would move him at the trade deadline. He is no shut-down D, and has 0 offense. Local boy was former 1st rounder..another bust. Face it and move on.

 

[JungleBeat]

Bridge deal?! I gotta bridge i'd like to sell ya...the Brooklyn Bridge.

Ceci has shown nothing imo. I would move him at the trade deadline. He is no shut-down D, and has 0 offense. Local boy was former 1st rounder..another bust. Face it and move on.

Offensive defender
Defensive defender
Puck mover
Two-way defenceman
Physical/Enforcer

Don’t think he falls into any of those categories. He’s just bad, trade him.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Offensive defender
Defensive defender
Puck mover
Two-way defenceman
Physical/Enforcer

Don’t think he falls into any of those categories. He’s just bad, trade him.

Ceci is a two way #3-4 miscast as a top shutdown defender.

Why is it that Wideman is often viewed as a puck moving D with a semblance of offensive skillset, yet him and Ceci both had similar production last year despite Wideman getting more PP time and more favourable (in terms of competition/zone starts) ES minutes?