Value of: Cirelli, Sergachev, and Cernak extensions

[Sky04]

Would Tampa match a 7x7 for Sergachev? If I was a team with cap space I'd do it.

Probably not but at the same time I doubt Sergachev would sign with worse team.

 

[Zwui21]

Would Tampa match a 7x7 for Sergachev? If I was a team with cap space I'd do it.

No, but I don't see Sergachev leaving his best buddies Vas and Kuch for a couple more bucks

 

[Uncle]

Probably not but at the same time I doubt Sergachev would sign with worse team.

No, but I don't see Sergachev leaving his best buddies Vas and Kuch for a couple more bucks

money talks

 

[Zwui21]

money talks

Fans usually tend to stupidly think that, but it true only to an extent.

Situation A): Contract of 4.5M AAV for 3 years and then you know you'll get a big 8 years contract, while playing in one of the best spots in the NHL, on a team that will be a contender for years to come and you get a shot at the Stanley Cup every season. World class organization, chill environment where media and fans don't bother you, no state tax, you get to play with your buddies.

Situation B): Contract of 7M AAV on a shit team, no real expectations of even getting to the playoff in the near future. Worse climate than Tampa, media probably more invasive, worse organisation, no real expectation of getting the Stanley Cup.

Realistically, what would you choose? Do you really take B because of more money? You are getting a shitton of money in situation A regardless, but the environment and conditions are way better than be. And you are bound to make about the same amount of money (or more) in 3 years time in situation A too.

I sure as hell would take A, without even thinking too much about it. Money is not the only thing in play, the whole package is.

 

[JoVel]

Fans usually tend to stupidly think that, but it true only to an extent.

Situation A): Contract of 4.5M AAV for 3 years and then you know you'll get a big 8 years contract, while playing in one of the best spots in the NHL, on a team that will be a contender for years to come and you get a shot at the Stanley Cup every season. World class organization, chill environment where media and fans don't bother you, no state tax, you get to play with your buddies.

Situation B): Contract of 7M AAV on a shit team, no real expectations of even getting to the playoff in the near future. Worse climate than Tampa, media probably more invasive, worse organisation, no real expectation of getting the Stanley Cup.

Realistically, what would you choose? Do you really take B because of more money? You are getting a shitton of money in situation A regardless, but the environment and conditions are way better than be. And you are bound to make about the same amount of money (or more) in 3 years time in situation A too.

I sure as hell would take A, without even thinking too much about it. Money is not the only thing in play, the whole package is.

We'll get an RFA some time who won't buy into that "keep the the team together" thing. Who knows, it could be Sergachev. To say these guys don't care about money would be dumb.

Even Kuch has said he regrets taking a bridge deal. Although in his situation that's a rather dumb thing to say since there's no way he would've gotten 9.5 at that point.

 

[oilynutz]

You have to think at some point somebody is going to want to get paid in Tampa.

I assume these three will all sign for team friendly bridge deals

 

[HoseEmDown]

Would Tampa match a 7x7 for Sergachev? If I was a team with cap space I'd do it.

Easily. They're probably looking at paying him 5M already so 2M more isn't that much and we have him locked up long term. You trade Coburn and his 1.7 then replace with Guance at 700k and you got 1M right there. Trade Paquette and his 1.5 replace with Stephens at 800k and you're just 300k short. Carry at most 22 guys but more likely 21 to squeeze every dollar we can.

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

rights to Cernak and Palat to the Canes for Dzingle @ 50% and rights to Fleury? A pick from Tampa to balance out the cap gained value. Pre-sign Fleury to make sure it makes sense, cap wise. I would give up a righty but we dont have any to give up. Rights to McKeown could be added to give up a 6th defender on the right side to make the pick higher.

 

[2020 Cup Champions]

Fans usually tend to stupidly think that, but it true only to an extent.

Situation A): Contract of 4.5M AAV for 3 years and then you know you'll get a big 8 years contract, while playing in one of the best spots in the NHL, on a team that will be a contender for years to come and you get a shot at the Stanley Cup every season. World class organization, chill environment where media and fans don't bother you, no state tax, you get to play with your buddies.

Situation B): Contract of 7M AAV on a shit team, no real expectations of even getting to the playoff in the near future. Worse climate than Tampa, media probably more invasive, worse organisation, no real expectation of getting the Stanley Cup.

Realistically, what would you choose? Do you really take B because of more money? You are getting a shitton of money in situation A regardless, but the environment and conditions are way better than be. And you are bound to make about the same amount of money (or more) in 3 years time in situation A too.

I sure as hell would take A, without even thinking too much about it. Money is not the only thing in play, the whole package is.

Just looking at pick availability for offer sheets and not cap space, there's a number of teams that fall in between the two scenarios you offered. Colorado, New York (Rangers), Boston, Dallas, and maybe even Vancouver would be promising teams to play for in the near future (nevermind that Boston, New York, and arguably Denver are probably generally considered better places to live than Tampa, depending on what you want/like from a city).

 

[DistantThunderRep]

Players with NMC/NTC’s are in fact, traded. It can create an obstacle in certain situations, but it doesn’t make it impossible or unlikely. Especially if it’s a decent player.

You’re hellbent on trying to prove a failed point here. Take the L, and move on.

Aok smart man, explain why Gourde would leave sunny Tampa, one of the top contenders in the league, and ruin his job security to, I don't know...Montreal? He would want to win the cup with his best chance would he not? He has zero incentive to leave nor obligation. Usually the NTC that are waived are on aging players on losing teams. It's extremely rare that they are waived.

But yeah, you know best because you have the fact a few players have done it in bad situations.

Edit: explain to me why a player would downgrade their situation when they don't have to?

 

[God King Fudge]

Sergachev and Cirelli will get shorter bridge deals like everyone else has. This will carry them to when more of those middle 6 guys become easier to trade and then they can get their cash in like everyone else. I don't think either of them go past $5M.

Cernak should be relative inexpensive.

 

[God King Fudge]

Aok smart man, explain why Gourde would leave sunny Tampa, one of the top contenders in the league, and ruin his job security to, I don't know...Montreal? He would want to win the cup with his best chance would he not? He has zero incentive to leave nor obligation. Usually the NTC that are waived are on aging players on losing teams. It's extremely rare that they are waived.

But yeah, you know best because you have the fact a few players have done it in bad situations.

Edit: explain to me why a player would downgrade their situation when they don't have to?

Guys have pride. Guys bet on themselves. If he knows he's not gonna get a shot in Tampa and he's not wanted on the roster, it's very possible he waives. Not every player is going to be content with playing on the third line, seeing guys pass them on the depth chart just because they're in a favorable location.

It makes it more difficult, but sometimes Tampa fans get a little ridiculous with the talk about players not waiving.

 

[Yannickg]

Look like a good problem to have.
Tampa draft very well and they always have good young players on elc.
Trade Kilorn and maybe another player for draft pick.

 

[Geoff72]

Would Tampa match a 7x7 for Sergachev? If I was a team with cap space I'd do it.

I doubt it, but is a team really willing to give up two firsts, a second and a third for him?

 

[canuckking1]

I doubt it, but is a team really willing to give up two firsts, a second and a third for him?

It’d be a first/2nd/3rd

Whose firsts are they?

Not sure I was speaking in hypothetical. If you were a cusp playoff team and biggest weakness was D and had cap space to boot it’d be well worth the gamble.

 

[cheesymc]

Damn the Lightning... I really like all three players, especially Cirelli. Must be a nice problem to have...

 

[CupsOverCash]

Their recipe has made it possible for them to have a long window and winning. Proves it works because they have been a good team for a long time and its not easy to do that in this league. The biggest thing is that the guys buy in and as long as that happens we will see our ELC guys move slower than others towards that big pay day to keep the team flexible. Will Cirelli, Sergachev, and Cernak do the same? Not a lot of evidence to show otherwise but they still could go the other way I suppose.

 

[CraigsList]

It’d be a first/2nd/3rd

No, it would be 2 firsts, a 2nd and a 3rd. 7 x 7 = 49, 49/5 = 9.8

9.8m ranges in the 2 1sts + 2nd + 3rd range because any offer sheet over 5 years divides the total amount offered by 5.

If you wanted Sergachev for only one 1st, one 2nd, and 1 3rd, the maximum you can offer on a 7 year contract is $6,039,193.57 --> ($8,454,871 x5)/7

 

[VoluntaryDom]

They could have used the 1st they gave up for Barclay Goodrow to dump Yanni Gourde.

gourde is on a good contract actually

anyway killorn is sadly gone this summer when his NTC loosens. all 3 of these players will sign bridge contracts.

 

[Krewe]

It’d be a first/2nd/3rd



Not sure I was speaking in hypothetical. If you were a cusp playoff team and biggest weakness was D and had cap space to boot it’d be well worth the gamble.

7x7 would mean 1/1/2/3

The contract value is divided by 5 years. So 49/5 = 9.8 which is the second highest level

 

[canuckking1]

No, it would be 2 firsts, a 2nd and a 3rd. 7 x 7 = 49, 49/5 = 9.8

9.8m ranges in the 2 1sts + 2nd + 3rd range because any offer sheet over 5 years divides the total amount offered by 5.

If you wanted Sergachev for only one 1st, one 2nd, and 1 3rd, the maximum you can offer on a 7 year contract is $6,039,193.57 --> ($8,454,871 x5)/7

7x7 would mean 1/1/2/3

The contract value is divided by 5 years. So 49/5 = 9.8 which is the second highest level

Yeah, my mistake. Two first is a hefty price and I don't think teams would be willing to pay that.

 

[CraigsList]

Yeah, my mistake. Two first is a hefty price and I don't think teams would be willing to pay that.

All good! If a team really wanted to offer sheet Sergachev, which would be a really great offer sheet candidate, I think a 7m x 5 would make sense.

 

[Byrddog]

Fans usually tend to stupidly think that, but it true only to an extent.

Situation A): Contract of 4.5M AAV for 3 years and then you know you'll get a big 8 years contract, while playing in one of the best spots in the NHL, on a team that will be a contender for years to come and you get a shot at the Stanley Cup every season. World class organization, chill environment where media and fans don't bother you, no state tax, you get to play with your buddies.

Situation B): Contract of 7M AAV on a shit team, no real expectations of even getting to the playoff in the near future. Worse climate than Tampa, media probably more invasive, worse organisation, no real expectation of getting the Stanley Cup.

Realistically, what would you choose? Do you really take B because of more money? You are getting a shitton of money in situation A regardless, but the environment and conditions are way better than be. And you are bound to make about the same amount of money (or more) in 3 years time in situation A too.

I sure as hell would take A, without even thinking too much about it. Money is not the only thing in play, the whole package is.

The problem is Tampa has already played the Situation A card last offseason with Points contract. At some point you can no longer bridge the RFA's that merit big money. The cap does not increase enough to make this work. If you bridge Sergi, Cernak Cerilli added to Point all you are doing is ensuring you are going to lose two of them next contract. The shear number of NMC's that have been given out is impacting this as well with only Killorn's dropping to a MNTC this summer everyone has just accepted he will be one that will be moved. Ok your still going to need to replace him and his production and you still will not have enough Cap to get the three RFA's locked up without a bridge on all three. Moving Killer will only give you right at 10 mil of space to sign these three and replace or resign Maroon, Stephens, Verhagee, Killers spot and contracts for three other defensemen to get to 7 defensemen. Like it or not there are going to be a couple guys gone that we do not want to see leave. We are going to have to accept losing a top 4 guy RFA and Cerilli. There will be no way around it The one out could be to move one of Point, Kuch, Vasi something that none of us could stomach. Getting players like Yanni, Johnson, Palat to waive there NTC is just not reasonable. It will be hard enough to find a home for Killorn with his list due to other teams having Cap issues. Unless we think Killer will waive to go to a team that has zero chance of doing anything.

 

[DFC]

money talks

Not always. Stayed pretty silent with Point.

 

[valet]

It has to be Killorn, all their other mid-teir salary players have full NMCs til after next season, unless one of them wants to waive, which I find extremely unlikely.