Confirmed with Link: Islanders Re-sign Engvall

[IslesNorway]

The term is crazy but the AAVis okay.

 

[Isles Junkie]

Nick Paul

Fair enough. But all I say is that's a bad contract also. Locking up bottom 6 players for anything more than 4 seasons at a time is crazy town looney bin nonsense IMO.

 

[seafoam]

Fair enough. But all I say is that's a bad contract also. Locking up bottom 6 players for anything more than 4 seasons at a time is crazy town looney bin nonsense IMO.

When you trade 1st rounders for deadline acquisitions and 2nd (and beyond) rounders to move contracts (Bailey, Ladd, etc.) you kind of are forced into making these deals because your prospect pool sucks ass and you have no internal options to fill the bottom of the lineup.

Welcome to #LouLife, the pride of Little Italy, Rhode Island.

 

[Kevin27NYI]

Fair enough. But all I say is that's a bad contract also. Locking up bottom 6 players for anything more than 4 seasons at a time is crazy town looney bin nonsense IMO.

I think the word is use is unnecessary

I don’t think it’s a bad contract personally but I question the risk reward but 3 million is low enough for me not to complain

 

[Richie Daggers Crime]

No he’s not.

But for Islanders fans, who have been abused forever, 15 goals is a star.

He's a 3rd liner.

who are the other forwards who average 23 points a season that have 7 year contracts? (granted, covid shortened seasons skew this negatively for him)

I acknowledged already that 7 years is long.

 

[warrior60]

He's a 3rd liner.


I acknowledged already that 7 years is long.

Third liner on any other team but the Islanders where he will probably start the season on the first and move down to second after a few weeks.

 

[Throttle]

Seems like this and Mayfield were 5 year deals, to lower the AAV Lou added two years. 21/7 (3m) vs 21/5 (4.2).

 

[Skip To My Lou]

I really dislike long term deals for depth pieces (like that Mayfield deal), but this could have "high reward" type of ramifications. Just really liked the way he fit in with the Isles, and he goes well with Brock.

 

[PK Cronin]

If he can play at his current level for all 7 years it'll turn out to be a very good contract. The hope is that will happen because the bottom six players will be getting more expensive as the cap goes up and he'll be locked in at a reasonable AAV, even for today. This isn't a case of hoping his AAV looks good in a couple years, it looks good now. It's way too early to evaluate this one as a win or a loss, it's a very risky deal.

 

[Tahoeblue]

Like the player but hate the term. Can he play center? I know he had some success with Nelson on the wing, but he can't even check his coat.

 

[crasherino]

If he can play at his current level for all 7 years it'll turn out to be a very good contract. The hope is that will happen because the bottom six players will be getting more expensive as the cap goes up and he'll be locked in at a reasonable AAV, even for today. This isn't a case of hoping his AAV looks good in a couple years, it looks good now. It's way too early to evaluate this one as a win or a loss, it's a very risky deal.

This one at least has upside - Engvall can get to a place where he's on a steal of a contract. In 3 years, $3m will be an even smaller percentage of the cap. And if this was the only unusual long term deal, it would be OK. But these long deals just kill our roster flexibility. And we have to "hope" that they work out from a health perspective or early aging. Some guys can perform well into their late 30s (see Parise). Other guys decline pretty quickly (see Bailey).

Handing out multiple 7-8 year deals over a few year period is just making the roster construction a high risk proposition.

Even the deals that were meant to be buried without cap hit have somewhat bit us. I always assumed the last 2 years of Martin's deal were meant to be buried/LTIR'd - especially with Ross signed to replace him. But he's played just well enough that we can't reasonably waive him, but he's not really good enough to contribute meaningfully. All he's doing now is taking up a roster spot. And we have Ross right behind him - we don't want to waive him and risk him going to the Rags (or the like), but he doesn't really have a place to play.

Fast forward 4 years when we get out of a bunch of these long term deals (JGP, Casey, Anders, etc.) and we'll be in the same situation with Pulock, Pelech, Barzal, Horvat, Mayfield, Engvall, etc. Maybe those guys will all be at the peak of their games still - that would be great. But numbers tell you that at least half of them will be in some type of decline and we'll once again be in a crunch both for cap space and roster spots.

 

[IslandersFan17]

Money is fine, length is absolutely inexcusable.

 

[Kevin27NYI]

Money is fine, length is absolutely inexcusable.

They go hand and hand

 

[IslandersFan17]

They go hand and hand

If you need seven years to get a guy to stay at that price range than you don’t sign em

 

[heatedskates]

Money is fine, length is absolutely inexcusable.

You don't get the money without the length. He's worth more on the free market and shorter term. I don't get how you guys don't get this.

 

[IslandersFan17]

You don't get the money without the length. He's worth more on the free market and shorter term. I don't get how you guys don't get this.

It’s not that I don’t get that, it’s the fact if you needed to have a seven year deal to sign someone you don’t sign them.

 

[heatedskates]

It’s not that I don’t get that, it’s the fact if you needed to have a seven year deal to sign someone you don’t sign them.

Offer solutions for guys his age, speed and ability at this rate or better and term you'd prefer?

 

[IslandersFan17]

Offer solutions for guys his age, speed and ability at this rate or better and term you'd prefer?

27 year old middle six/bottom six type who has never hit 20 goals…

I really like Engvall and am glad we acquired him/retained him, but there is also no one with his resume getting seven year deals in the league.

 

[PK Cronin]

27 year old middle six/bottom six type who has never hit 20 goals…

I really like Engvall and am glad we acquired him/retained him, but there is also no one with his resume getting seven year deals in the league.

It simply doesn't matter much right now. It's cost certainty moving forward at a low cap hit that will look much better as the cap rises. If he shits the bed, then it's time to complain. Until then, what's the point?

 

[heatedskates]

It simply doesn't matter much right now. It's cost certainty moving forward at a low cap hit that will look much better as the cap rises. If he shits the bed, then it's time to complain. Until then, what's the point?

Agreed. If we knew the cap was going to be flat another 5-6 years, ok then we got a different conversation. But in 2-3 years, this deal is the equivilant of a $1.5m-2m deal today. Easy to shed.

 

[PK Cronin]

Agreed. If we knew the cap was going to be flat another 5-6 years, ok then we got a different conversation. But in 2-3 years, this deal is the equivilant of a $1.5m-2m deal today. Easy to shed.

It's not even about being easy to shed for me. Say we sign Engvall for the same amount but for three years. He does well and earns a raise, but the team doesn't have room to fit that raise so he walks. Now we're looking for a replacement and that replacement will cost the same or more than the deal Engvall is on right now. Salaries are going up, it'll be hard to find another player who is as good at that price point. We'd likely see a decrease in talent for the same price.

The assumption in my scenario is that Engvall plays at or above his contract for the duration. If he drops off we get into the question of whether or not it'll be easy to shed.

 

[heatedskates]

It's not even about being easy to shed for me. Say we sign Engvall for the same amount but for three years. He does well and earns a raise, but the team doesn't have room to fit that raise so he walks. Now we're looking for a replacement and that replacement will cost the same or more than the deal Engvall is on right now. Salaries are going up, it'll be hard to find another player who is as good at that price point. We'd likely see a decrease in talent for the same price.

The assumption in my scenario is that Engvall plays at or above his contract for the duration. If he drops off we get into the question of whether or not it'll be easy to shed.

If he'd sign for the same amount at 3 years, then I'd much rather that than 7 years honestly. But that is not reality, and given another flat cap year, we needed to buy the lower cap this year, and the players were willing to do it. I'll happily take both of the deals. Varly at 4 years is the one I wish we could have gotten 2-3 max.

 

[PK Cronin]

If he'd sign for the same amount at 3 years, then I'd much rather that than 7 years honestly. But that is not reality, and given another flat cap year, we needed to buy the lower cap this year, and the players were willing to do it. I'll happily take both of the deals. Varly at 4 years is the one I wish we could have gotten 2-3 max.

Why?

 

[heatedskates]

Why?

The rosters needs in year 4 will be vastly different than now. If I can have complete roster freedom, then yes I'd take that. Of course he wouldn't sign 3 years at the same price, and would cost us much more to do that. Given our team needs now, this was more than fine to make it work.

 

[PK Cronin]

The rosters needs in year 4 will be vastly different than now. If I can have complete roster freedom, then yes I'd take that. Of course he wouldn't sign 3 years at the same price, and would cost us much more to do that. Given our team needs now, this was more than fine to make it work.

Gotcha, that makes sense. It's just a preference thing at that point though, right?

Lamoriello prefers the cost certainty of that position/player compared to the flexibility you'd prefer.