Confirmed with Link: Kevin Hayes 4: Don't sell when it only costs 50 million dollars to buy in (7x7.14)

[Captain Dave Poulin]

The only arguments on the pro-Hayes’s signing side that holds up to scrutiny is if you accept the premise that Hayes had to be signed, and had to be signed on June 19th. But this is jumping so far out that the discussions about the move are non-productive. There’s multitude options other than painting yourself into a corner with Hayes like Fletcher decided to do.

- We don’t know at all that other teams would have been willing to make this large of a commitment to him after July 1, no matter how many people like to state this as some sort of fact. It’s not hard at all to believe that no other team offers an NMC, for example, and Fletcher walks out of this with a better contract. He lost every bit of leverage trading that pick and deciding this just had to be done on his accelerated timeline.

- Other team’s cap situations will change drastically over the next month. Patience here could easily see a decent center shaking loose to be had

- Things change dramatically in even just one year. What doesn’t change are signed in ink guaranteed deals. You put together long term winners by finding market inefficiencies and developing as much talent on cheap contracts as possible. Going into the year with a youngster at center absolutely was and should have been on the table as an option, the reward is far higher. If the player doesn’t pan out you still optionality moving forward. Committing these assets now is also a future lost opportunity cost.

Hayes isn’t some unicorn, guys like this would hit UFA or the trade block in the coming year or two for sure. Fletcher’s desperation force him to compensate Hayes like a borderline franchise player.

 

[achdumeingute]

For those of you who couldn't live with the possibility of Patrick being the 2C, do you have the same concerns about Provorov at 1D? Or did the Niskanen acquisition assuage your fears?

you are being extreme here....it's not black and white. Hayes mitigates the risk of Patrick taking longer to figure it out. That's it.

Niskanen isn't replacing Provorov on the roster.

 

[Rebels57]

 

[BringBackHakstol]

It’s funny when people mix up people’s opinions and thoughts into one generalized group in order to make a “funny” meme on twitter.

 

[Jettany]

For those of you who couldn't live with the possibility of Patrick being the 2C, do you have the same concerns about Provorov at 1D? Or did the Niskanen acquisition assuage your fears?

At this point I believe Provy is closer to being a 1D then Patrick a 2C. I could be wrong but that's what I see.

 

[Beef Invictus]

It's not a strawman, it is what you are saying. You literally say it right here in this post (see bolded). I am sorry but it is ludicrous to sit here and say that this is a bad move because we are going to have to expose someone that is better than Kevin Hayes. It is absolutely possible...just like it is possible that we won't. You can't complain about a move because there is a chance something bad will happen. There is ALWAYS a chance that something bad will happen. Player X might not hold up. Player Y might not be the best option. Player Z might get injured. This isn't like they signed a guy on the brink of retirement who sucks and gave him a NMC. If that were the case...then ok I can see your point. But this is a guy in his prime who should at least be pushing 20-20 every year.

Who exactly are you afraid of losing or exposing because of Kevin Hayes that you are so certain will A) still be here in two years; B) will be better than Kevin hayes; and C) would absolutely get chosen in the ED? And why are you so certain he won't waive his NMC? Because he asked for it? Do you think that he is the first guy to ask for a NMC who will be asked to waive it? You think if he sucks the next two years and hates it he won't waive it? It seems that you are focusing only on the absolute worst case scenario and pretending like because a worst case scenario exists that this is a bad move.

No, it's what you invented to pretend I'm saying it. That's a strawman by definition.

Who can we lose? I don't know, pick one of TK, Frost, Farabee, Voracek, or JVR, or any other prospect who surprises us. Your dismissal of risk is and always has been absurd. Let's review:

1. You dismissed overpayment of players. You refused to accept that those little overpayments could add up to wreck the cap situation, and then they did.

2. You dismissed constantly trading picks and prospects. You refused to accept that draining the prospect pool could create a dire situation, and then it did.

3. You dismissed handing out NTCs and NMCs. You refused to believe they could limit the team. Then when the cap and prospect mismanagement slammed the team, sure enough, you had guys like Briere refusing to waive to grant relief on both fronts.

Now, you're dismissing the notion that we will lose a player we don't want to lose, or have to pay to keep him, because you somehow do not accept that giving Hayes a NMC forces us to expose another player even though it's a plain fact. You're going to be wrong again. It's the simple, brutal math of the situation. You like to pretend all risk is equal and totally inconsequential and wave it all off. It isn't. Numerous times in the past you've refused to believe that risk can end badly, and numerous times you've been wrong. You add enough risk and it blows up, inevitably.

You're the one who is making all the wild assumptions here. If he doesn't plan on enforcing his NMC, why insist on one? Why would Seattle take a lesser player? This is hardly an overdramatic worst case scenario. It's simple math. We can only protect so many players. Now we are forced to protect one who will be older, with less upside than one of our prime young guys or even less upside than guys of an equivalent age. Risk isn't equal. This NMC is not a good risk to take.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

For those of you who couldn't live with the possibility of Patrick being the 2C, do you have the same concerns about Provorov at 1D? Or did the Niskanen acquisition assuage your fears?

Yes.

 

[achdumeingute]

The only arguments on the pro-Hayes’s signing side that holds up to scrutiny is if you accept the premise that Hayes had to be signed, and had to be signed on June 19th. But this is jumping so far out that the discussions about the move are non-productive. There’s multitude options other than painting yourself into a corner with Hayes like Fletcher decided to do.

- We don’t know at all that other teams would have been willing to make this large of a commitment to him after July 1, no matter how many people like to state this as some sort of fact. It’s not hard at all to believe that no other team offers an NMC, for example, and Fletcher walks out of this with a better contract. He lost every bit of leverage trading that pick and deciding this just had to be done on his accelerated timeline.

- Other team’s cap situations will change drastically over the next month. Patience here could easily see a decent center shaking loose to be had

- Things change dramatically in even just one year. What doesn’t change are signed in ink guaranteed deals. You put together long term winners by finding market inefficiencies and developing as much talent on cheap contracts as possible. Going into the year with a youngster at center absolutely was and should have been on the table as an option, the reward is far higher. If the player doesn’t pan out you still optionality moving forward. Committing these assets now is also a future lost opportunity cost.

Hayes isn’t some unicorn, guys like this would hit UFA or the trade block in the coming year or two for sure. Fletcher’s desperation force him to compensate Hayes like a borderline franchise player.

most outsiders who like Hayes think he was. 5 yr 6.5 aav was fair. The Aav. Is a slight overpay. The term is the bad part. Is that a point we can agree on? 5 yrs 6.5 aav is acceptable?

That said...ONE expensive 2 extra year deal isn't going to be the ruin. Couturiers current savings allowed for this deal.

We can't resign Braun to a 5x5 deal. We can resign Niskanen to 3x5, ect...that is where we will get into trouble.

I have NO doubt that GMs informally have a level of understanding around the league about who is going where and for what.

 

[BringBackHakstol]

At this point I believe Provy is closer to being a 1D then Patrick a 2C. I could be wrong but that's what I see.

I would put it far more likely that Patrick plays at “2c” level this year against Provorov ever being is generally accepted as a #1 D

 

[achdumeingute]

Now, you're dismissing the notion that we will lose a player we don't want to lose, or have to pay to keep him, because you somehow do not accept that giving Hayes a NMC forces us to expose another player even though it's a plain fact.

...this scenario existed before Hayes was here.

 

[Jettany]

I would put it far more likely that Patrick plays at “2c” level this year against Provorov ever being is generally accepted as a #1 D

I hope you are right. Just saying that 2 years ago Provy DID play at a number 1 level. That has already happened.

 

[BringBackHakstol]

most outsiders who like Hayes think he was. 5 yr 6.5 aav was fair. The Aav. Is a slight overpay. The term is the bad part. Is that a point we can agree on? 5 yrs 6.5 aav is acceptable?

That said...ONE expensive 2 extra year deal isn't going to be the ruin. Couturiers current savings allowed for this deal.

We can't resign Braun to a 5x5 deal. We can resign Niskanen to 3x5, ect...that is where we will get into trouble.

I have NO doubt that GMs informally have a level of understanding around the league about who is going where and for what.

The term, the AAV, and the NMC and even NTC bundled together are all an issue.

If you go out and look to fill your holes this way you won’t be successful in the long run. It’s a philosophical thing. Every team is going to have holes every year and using UFA in this capacity is simply a bad way to fill it.

Instead of going out and looking at it like Fletcher does in “I want to spend X (cap space or assets like picks or players) to get Y” is how you make inefficient moves. The way it should be approached is reading what others are doing and making value plays on other’s mistakes or misevaluations.

 

[BringBackHakstol]

I hope you are right. Just saying that 2 years ago Provy DID play at a number 1 level. That has already happened.

No it didn’t.

 

[DancingPanther]

No, it's what you invented to pretend I'm saying it. That's a strawman by definition.

Who can we lose? I don't know, pick one of TK, Frost, Farabee, Voracek, or JVR, or any other prospect who surprises us. Your dismissal of risk is and always has been absurd. Let's review:

1. You dismissed overpayment of players. You refused to accept that those little overpayments could add up to wreck the cap situation, and then they did.

2. You dismissed constantly trading picks and prospects. You refused to accept that draining the prospect pool could create a dire situation, and then it did.

3. You dismissed handing out NTCs and NMCs. You refused to believe they could limit the team. Then when the cap and prospect mismanagement slammed the team, sure enough, you had guys like Briere refusing to waive to grant relief on both fronts.

Now, you're dismissing the notion that we will lose a player we don't want to lose, or have to pay to keep him, because you somehow do not accept that giving Hayes a NMC forces us to expose another player even though it's a plain fact. You're going to be wrong again. It's the simple, brutal math of the situation. You like to pretend all risk is equal and totally inconsequential and wave it all off. It isn't. Numerous times in the past you've refused to believe that risk can end badly, and numerous times you've been wrong. You add enough risk and it blows up, inevitably.

You're the one who is making all the wild assumptions here. If he doesn't plan on enforcing his NMC, why insist on one? Why would Seattle take a lesser player? This is hardly an overdramatic worst case scenario. It's simple math. We can only protect so many players. Now we are forced to protect one who will be older, with less upside than one of our prime young guys or even less upside than guys of an equivalent age. Risk isn't equal. This NMC is not a good risk to take.

 

[Jettany]

No it didn’t.

Lead the league in goals...19th in ice time. Sounds like one of the best 30 dmen in the league.

 

[achdumeingute]

The term, the AAV, and the NMC and even NTC bundled together are all an issue.

If you go out and look to fill your holes this way you won’t be successful in the long run. It’s a philosophical thing. Every team is going to have holes every year and using UFA in this capacity is simply a bad way to fill it.

Instead of going out and looking at it like Fletcher does in “I want to spend X (cap space or assets like picks or players) to get Y” is how you make inefficient moves. The way it should be approached is reading what others are doing and making value plays on other’s mistakes or misevaluations.

I agree you can't fill every hole with a UFA. Filling one...with a useful 2 way C isn't the end of the world. I'd be pissed if we signed Skinner to his deal. I don't like Hayes 7x7, but it's liveable imo. I like Hayes the player...and the ripple effect he has on the PK, 2nd line.

Waiting on internal fixes to solve every hole isn't necessarily going to work either. There is risk in every choice.

Imo being receptive to different options isn't a bad thing.

 

[Curufinwe]

No it didn’t.

Provorov's 17-18 was season far closer to being at the level of a #1 dman than Patrick has been to playing at 2C level.

 

[Curufinwe]

Well knowing what they have as their RHD...only Zaitsev...you can bet the Leafs would be asking for Ghost, Sanheim or Myers.

Probably Myers and a pick cause they need to clear cap space.

Ghost or Sanheim wouldn't have done that.

 

[RebusFlyer]

No, it's what you invented to pretend I'm saying it. That's a strawman by definition.

Who can we lose? I don't know, pick one of TK, Frost, Farabee, Voracek, or JVR, or any other prospect who surprises us. Your dismissal of risk is and always has been absurd. Let's review:

1. You dismissed overpayment of players. You refused to accept that those little overpayments could add up to wreck the cap situation, and then they did.

2. You dismissed constantly trading picks and prospects. You refused to accept that draining the prospect pool could create a dire situation, and then it did.

3. You dismissed handing out NTCs and NMCs. You refused to believe they could limit the team. Then when the cap and prospect mismanagement slammed the team, sure enough, you had guys like Briere refusing to waive to grant relief on both fronts.

Now, you're dismissing the notion that we will lose a player we don't want to lose, or have to pay to keep him, because you somehow do not accept that giving Hayes a NMC forces us to expose another player even though it's a plain fact. You're going to be wrong again. It's the simple, brutal math of the situation. You like to pretend all risk is equal and totally inconsequential and wave it all off. It isn't. Numerous times in the past you've refused to believe that risk can end badly, and numerous times you've been wrong. You add enough risk and it blows up, inevitably.

You're the one who is making all the wild assumptions here. If he doesn't plan on enforcing his NMC, why insist on one? Why would Seattle take a lesser player? This is hardly an overdramatic worst case scenario. It's simple math. We can only protect so many players. Now we are forced to protect one who will be older, with less upside than one of our prime young guys or even less upside than guys of an equivalent age. Risk isn't equal. This NMC is not a good risk to take.

I thought first and second year pro players were exempt. If that's so, then Frost and Farabee can't be taken in the ED. If I'm incorrect, then . . . . nevermind.

 

[Jettany]

I thought first and second year pro players were exempt. If that's so, then Frost and Farabee can't be taken in the ED. If I'm incorrect, then . . . . nevermind.

Thought the same thing.

 

[Deadpool8812]

1st and 2nd year pro players are exempt. Frost and Farabee are fine

 

[Qyburn]

you are being extreme here....it's not black and white. Hayes mitigates the risk of Patrick taking longer to figure it out. That's it.

Niskanen isn't replacing Provorov on the roster.

I think the question is a fair one and it deserves a little more than that. The answer is about the fear that these players will not turn out to be everything they can and should be. In Patrick's case there's a very valid fear that he never will, that if you keep him in that role it's not about whether he'll "recover" or not, because he's never made it there yet at this level. Taking the pressure off right now should improve the chances he gets there at all.

With Provy it is a question of recovery. But the fear is nearly the same. The fear is just that he never recovers. We know this is in all cases a confidence thing and both are still developing (arguable in Provy's case - but he's so young it's close enough), and we know that if a developing player busts (or some lesser level of a bust) it was because he was managed incorrectly. It's often because too much was placed on him too soon.

All of these assumptions are wrong: or at least assuming they are right is stupid:

- Both Provy and NP will blossom/return to their full potential because that's just what good players do, and it's only ever a matter of how long the process takes.

- Hayes' relieving the pressure on Patrick will 100% keep him from busting.

- The new defensemen's relieving the pressure on Provorov will 100% "fix" him.

The moves are done because nothing is certain, except that you've got to fight. You've got to do everything you can to guide things towards the best possible outcome.

 

[Beef Invictus]

...this scenario existed before Hayes was here.

Do you think the situation got better or worse with Hayes' NMC?

 

[FlyerNutter]

Do you think the situation got better or worse with Hayes' NMC?

Forgetting about the mistake with the NMC simply because you have a slightly increase chance at winning a playoff round next season...

Is like sleeping with a stripper. You got laid, but just wait until your next check up.

 

[Tripod]

Provorov's 17-18 was season far closer to being at the level of a #1 dman than Patrick has been to playing at 2C level.

Dreger saying a C would be needed back if Kadri was traded. So maybe they were also pushing for Patrick or Frost. That would give them cap relief for 2 or 3 years depending on who it was, upside from both, and only need them to be a #3C....forever...lol.