Campbell's leverage is the part where he is the starting goalie and Mrazek is the backup, by default Campbell should get at least 4m. The term is the tricky part.
Tribute (Jack Campbell is my life) Jack Campbell Extreme Appreciation Thread
- Thread starter ottomaddox
- Start date
- Status
Campbell's leverage is the part where he is the starting goalie and Mrazek is the backup, by default Campbell should get at least 4m. The term is the tricky part.
Ehlers contract was 2017 for 7 years, Nylanders was 2018 for 6 years. Generally less years means less dollars.
2019 Provorov signed for 6.75 for 7 years. He played 25 mins a night the season before his contract.
Point signed a bridge deal for 6.75 for 3 years September 2019.
6.9 million is an overpayment, maybe not by alot but it's an overpayment.
Last edited:
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 30,040
- 22,441
Yikes. I thought people talking about a 5 million cap hit for Jack were high on whatever but after looking up these guys, it would seem that I was out of touch. I think you're right, 4x4 does seem like it would be a good deal for us. Holy moley are we ever going to have scrape the bottom of the bargain bin to ice a roster next season, unless of course we trade Marner. FML.
Kerfoot, Ritchie and Mrazek look like players you should be able to replace for less if you play your cards right.
Both kerfoot and Mrazek have 10 team NTC next year so may not be incredibly easy if they don't want to go. Ritchie can be moved pretty easy I would think but it is only like 1.5 million in relief if you bring in a min contract to replace him
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 30,040
- 22,441
Yeah you can still trim a little here and there but not much. We're so tight against the cap as it is, next year Rielly is gonna cost more, so is Campbell no matter what we sign him for. And I believe Sandin and Liljegren are RFA's next season so they're probably going to need raises as well. We're also nowhere close to being able to say we don't need Mrazek, and frankly it's hard to see how we're ever going to get there if we resign Campbell considering he doesn't seem to be a guy who can play a lot of games which means that some "2 guy isn't gonna cut it, we need a "tandem 1A/1B" type guy who can share the load. There's not many of those around and if we do find one, he's not gonna be any cheaper than Mrazek anyway. And if Ritchie doesn't improve then we're stuck with him as well.
Kerfoot might be the only place where you can realistically create some space but even that only goes so far. The guy's also a pretty good player, stick some random guy in his place and the team is almost certainly just a little bit weaker overall. It just seems like pretty soon our forward group is gonna be the big 4 and the rest ... hoping to get lucky with bottom of the barrel bargain bin finds. One year it's 4 minimum wage guys, the next year it's 6 and the year after that, who knows? That's the direction were headed in at present and I'm not sure how much confidence it's possible to have in this "model".
Stonehands1990
Registered User
- Apr 2, 2021
- 1,381
- 1,454
The cap went up from 2017 to 2018. If you’re comparing $ to $ you’re doing it wrong
kb
Registered User
- Aug 28, 2009
- 15,287
- 21,728
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 30,040
- 22,441
Yeah I'd say in the ballpark is accurate. I mean if someone wants to say overpayment then fine but no need to yell and scream about it. The overpayment (assuming it even is an overpayment) is so small that it's not worth arguing about and it's therefore not worth more than a whisper.
makbeer
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2006
- 1,234
- 1,251
1A/1ab system in net is good when you’re trying to get value goaltending on the cheap.
problem is if they re-sign Campbell for 4.2 that puts them at 8m in 2 goalies.
Dubas is just backing deeper and deeper into a corner every season.
problem is if they re-sign Campbell for 4.2 that puts them at 8m in 2 goalies.
Dubas is just backing deeper and deeper into a corner every season.
The cap went up up in 2018-2019 more than it did between 2017-2018 but Provorov and Point came in less than Nylander.
kb
Registered User
- Aug 28, 2009
- 15,287
- 21,728
Or, one might realize that if Campbell is the real deal, they can trade Mrazek for a cheaper backup?
Man, the lengths some will go.....to make themselves look foolish.
kb
Registered User
- Aug 28, 2009
- 15,287
- 21,728
You are comparing a D to Nylander, and a bridge deal. You have no clue how to compare contracts and should probably stop....
No, actually take that probably out.
ITM
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...
- Jan 26, 2012
- 4,566
- 2,541
Well there are other better questions you're ignoring other than the above which is obviously implied in the question posed to you on Mrazek.
I think there's a glaring pause on Mrazek which is, his recent history looks like an ebbing goalie, albeit in his late twenties. And it looks like Anderson's played more hockey in the last five years. So doubly, triply, and for the context provided, yes, yes, yes, I'd move Mrazek and stock up on prospects/picks and pay Anderson $750,000 to offset Jack.
The best part is, we'd be paying a 40 year with reasonable expectations inherent in 40 year old players rather than a 29 year old goalie who also just happens to justify concerns he'll play like an oft-injured 40 year old goalie.
And, we'll have an extra three million for depth defense or forwards. Because that's the kind of depth this team needs to worry about.
Nah I think we trade mrazek.
Try to get a goalie for cheap.
that was our biggest mistake. Not getting vanacek or hill.
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 30,040
- 22,441
So the plan is to trade the guy we just signed for three years for a cheaper option? I'm skeptical. And as I've said earlier, considering Campbell doesn't seem like a guy who can handle a big workload, we need more than just a cheap backup, we need someone at least at the 1B level. Unless Campbell can show he can handle a full workload but there's been so much load management going on with him from day one, that it would be surprising to say the least if that happened. And I love Campbell as much as anyone but he only has 85 career starts so even if he can handle more work, ditching the 1B guy and counting on Jack to be the guy is a huge gamble. When we're seriously talking about possibilities such as this it only goes to show how desperate our cap situation is, the team is basically hanging together by a thread and there's no room for error whatsoever.
Menzinger
Kessel4LadyByng
That depends on how things look by seasons end though. There's a chance Mrazek/Campbell may come close to splitting the remaining games for most of the season (health depending)
I'll be surprised if Campbell plays significantly more than 45 games before the playoffs.
Cecithepylon
Registered User
- May 4, 2017
- 1,780
- 1,397
Campbell is a great guy. I’m happy he finally got a starting role and is nailing it. Red lobster and ginger ale for everyone
DraftSchmaft
Registered User
- Jul 29, 2021
- 2,251
- 2,758
I'd be extremely surprised if Leafs don't kick him out the door if he asks for 5.
ITM
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...
- Jan 26, 2012
- 4,566
- 2,541
There are/were cheaper options for the 1B. After all, Jack Campbell was a 1B option turned bona fide starter.
Opportunity to be a starter has been limited working behind Kari Lehtonen and Jonathan Quick.
There's no real way to know if Campbell can handle the load other than to give it to him.
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 30,040
- 22,441
His 8th year in the league and he has played in 94 games, started 85. 5 million per year seems extreme today. The whole thing is to get this done soon. If we wait until season's end it could be a disaster for us and maybe someone does offer him 5 per.
Anyway I love the guy hope he gets another shutout tonight.
ottomaddox
Registered User
123offtheglass
Registered User
Gotta get this guy extended, it's a good thing he's 'less proven' because he's proving to be really good.
- Status
