Toggle sidebar

If the league held an auction for Bedard, how much would a team actually pay?

ORRFForever

ORRFForever

Registered User
Oct 29, 2018
18,730
10,126
1656815749272.png
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,502
15,331
I don't think Bedard is good enough.

If this was Crosby/McDavid/Lemieux - maybe. Bedard is below that, and carries some risks. Imagine spending 100M and then he crashes and burns? I think enough owners would be weary of it from a potential embarrassment standpoint.

Maybe ~30-40M, but doesn't get close to 100M$ imo.
 
TheDoldrums

TheDoldrums

Registered User
May 3, 2016
12,261
18,368
Kanada
The Nuge said:
Not only that, but a rich owner who is willing to throw some extra money around. Everyone will assume that a team like the Leafs would be in on him, but their majority owner is a publicly traded company, which makes it harder to justify burning 100 million dollars. Katz probably wouldn’t blink at that if he thought his name would be on the cup
Click to expand...

The Leafs spent $25 million on an injured Nathan Horton simply to move David Clarksons contract off their books for cap space lol. Really weird take, they would have no qualms about spending whatsoever.

Rogers and Bell are hands off with a blank cheque. But its pretty easy to justify it financially too. Considering their ratings tank whenever the Leafs aren't on TV or being talked about, I think adding Bedard would be a pretty easy call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RBZ
TheBeastCoast

TheBeastCoast

Registered User
Mar 23, 2011
31,497
31,870
Dartmouth,NS
The Nuge said:
Not only that, but a rich owner who is willing to throw some extra money around. Everyone will assume that a team like the Leafs would be in on him, but their majority owner is a publicly traded company, which makes it harder to justify burning 100 million dollars. Katz probably wouldn’t blink at that if he thought his name would be on the cup
Click to expand...
MLSE is the company that owns the Leafs and makes hundreds of millions in profits a year. This hypothetical scenario it isn't like the money would be coming out of Rogers or Bells companies and would have to be cleared. Money has never been and likely never will be an object that gets in the way of business with the way things work right now with an MLSE owned team.
 
TGWL

TGWL

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 28, 2011
15,206
9,999
MahomesforPresident said:
In terms of trade value, Colorado would be looking at having to give up MacKinnon at minimum. Unfortunately.

Edmonton would probably have to decide whether it's better to have Bedard at no real expense for awhile. Or keep McDavid and risk him leaving after 2026.

Bedard is a once in a generation type player.
Click to expand...
Are we in a new generation?
 
895

895

Registered User
Jun 15, 2007
8,413
7,106
It's going to depend entirely on if it's a one time thing or how every player is drafted going forward.

If it's a one time thing, you are basically a mega asset for free (in terms of draft and trade assets). 100 million is possible.

If it's how players how drafted now on, you can look at European football transfers and divide by 10. 10 million max. The desire to acquire bedard would be balanced by the opportunity costs of using that money to buy other players.
 
Lays

Lays

Registered User
Jan 22, 2017
13,559
12,630
MahomesforPresident said:
In terms of trade value, Colorado would be looking at having to give up MacKinnon at minimum. Unfortunately.

Edmonton would probably have to decide whether it's better to have Bedard at no real expense for awhile. Or keep McDavid and risk him leaving after 2026.

Bedard is a once in a generation type player.
Click to expand...
why the hell would Colorado give up MacKinnon for a player that might be as good as him? So dumb. This doesn’t even include team and fan morale after trading their best forward who just won a cup for them lmao even in EANHL where Bedard is guaranteed to be a star it would be dumb to do
 

UKLightning

Registered User
Aug 19, 2020
38
40
Maybe Tampa will tank a season and get him, would be awesome to see the wailing and gnashing of teeth from everyone else.
 
Future GOAT

Future GOAT

Registered User
Apr 4, 2017
3,549
2,501
MahomesforPresident said:
In terms of trade value, Colorado would be looking at having to give up MacKinnon at minimum. Unfortunately.

Edmonton would probably have to decide whether it's better to have Bedard at no real expense for awhile. Or keep McDavid and risk him leaving after 2026.

Bedard is a once in a generation type player.
Click to expand...
Highly unlikely Bedard ends up at McDavid level. He'll probably end up just below that at around Crosby level, maybe even a bit below that.
 

Gordievsky

Registered User
Jan 18, 2019
393
470
If you bought him for $100m, you don't really have to worry about an insane salary, do you? I mean if his only other option is the KHL, because OP says you'd "own his rights", then I guess you can pay him league minimum unless he threatens to retire.

So I guess this is one of the reasons why the league needed a union in the first place.
 
Hockeyholic

Hockeyholic

Registered User
Apr 20, 2017
16,493
10,145
Condo My Dad Bought Me
Lays said:
why the hell would Colorado give up MacKinnon for a player that might be as good as him? So dumb. This doesn’t even include team and fan morale after trading their best forward who just won a cup for them lmao even in EANHL where Bedard is guaranteed to be a star it would be dumb to do
Click to expand...
Not saying Colorado or Edmonton should give up stars for Bedard. I'm just merely saying team with 1 OA may only part with Bedard if an established star is coming back in return.

Future GOAT said:
Highly unlikely Bedard ends up at McDavid level. He'll probably end up just below that at around Crosby level, maybe even a bit below that.
Click to expand...
There's not much separation between regular season of prime McDavid & Crosby. So...him being at a Crosby level is very near on par to McDavid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom