Confirmed with Link: Kevin Hayes 5: signs 7 years, $50M

[Magua]

Today marks 1 year since I started here and not a single person has said anything about it. Consider me offended, upset, and heartbroken until further notice.

 

[achdumeingute]

I'm in agreement with the red. Hayes' versatility, even if overpaid, makes this a workable contract. You have the advantage, unlike JVR, of being able to play him with anyone, in any role, at 3 forward positions. While I'm still bullish on Patrick and Frost, there is room for the certainty NOW of Hayes with the unknown variability of Patrick and Frost's upside in the years to come. Top 9 roles exist for all three; Hayes doesn't block anyone on PP1.

The blue is "what is you doing, baby?" territory. Like it or not, it might cost us Frost or Patrick? We're not talking about Hartman and Laughton. If the signing of Hayes in ANY way leads to a future where Frost or Patrick -- upon even flashing their upside and being on cheap contracts -- get squeezed out "like it or not," Fletcher deserves to be tarred and feathered. Signing Hayes to lose a stud defenseman, only to trade a stud young forward with more upside to partially recoup the stud defenseman you lost is Chiarelli territory. Now, I don't think it's too much of a plausible scenario, but the nonchalantness is disconcerting.

if Patrick and Frost hit their ceilings...it will be G, Jake,and Couturier that are the cost...not those 2.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I didn't get this response in in time for the closing of the last post, but you all know I can't just let things die so here go!

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

Well then please explain to me what you are saying, because looking at your direct quotes it really looks to me like you are saying this is a bad move because we could lose someone at the expense of keeping Hayes.

Who can we lose? I don't know, pick one of TK, Frost, Farabee, Voracek, or JVR, or any other prospect who surprises us.

Will Frost or Farabee even be eligible? IIRC they will both be on their ELC with 2 or fewer professional seasons under their belts so I would think they are not going to be eligible. But let's assume they are both eligible. You are worried about losing Frost or Farabee. So protect them. Two years from now will JvR still be a 30 goal threat? Is he even a 30 goal threat now? Aren't there a lot of people (possibly you, I don't remember), that weren't happy with the JvR signing to begin with? Same thing with Voracek. Who knows? Which again, is why this isn't a big deal. We can't tell the future. If he didn't have this NMC...are you suggesting we would unequivocally not protect Hayes? And again you are assuming he WON'T waive the NMC and that all these players will STILL be here and STILL be worthy of the protection slots.

Your dismissal of risk is and always has been absurd. Let's review:

This should be fun.

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.

Can you provide examples? This is pretty broad and non-specific so I can't really refute this other than to say I don't remember a wrecked cap situation outside of a few isolated (and not all that impactful) instances. Wast here constant panic on the boards about a wrecked cap situation? Of course. Does that mean the cap situation was actually wrecked? I'm not so sure about that. The year this team was in the worst cap crunch I believe they went to the SCF. (I know I know, they would have won if it wasn't for Michael Leighton! Let's start that again!)

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.

Again, very broad and non-specific. I absolutely dismissed trading picks and prospects. While we were doing that, this team was making playoff runs. Now we hoarde picks and prospects and we are 4-5 years post Homer and we have not made it out of the first round or missed the playoffs every year? Trust the process.

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.

Guys like Briere = Just Briere (and maybe Hartnell, who eventually was traded). I'm sure the 16 point season he had when he was tried to be traded would have gotten a HUGE return that allowed the Flyers to make the playoffs that.

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.

I am not dismissing anything. I have acknowledged over and over again that there is a risk. I am saying the risk is A) not a huge risk because of how many unknowns there are and B) the ramifications of said risk are not as damaging as you are making them out to be. Once again, so you can see it: I UNDERSTAND THAT WE MAY BE FORCED TO PROTECT HIM AND I UNDERSTAND THAT MEANS THERE IS A CHANCE WE LOSE A PLAYER WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE OR HAVE TO TRADE AN ASSET TO KEEP THAT PLAYER, BUT A LOT CAN CHANGE BETWEEN THEN AND NOW THAT THERE IS NO POINT IN WORRYING ABOUT IT OR SAYING THIS IS A BAD DEAL SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE IS A CHANCE THAT IT DOESN'T WORK OUT THE WAY WE WANT.

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 don't know how you can possibly take me repeatedly saying there are too many unknowns and we can't assume anything and turn that in to me making wild assumptions, but let's go through them one by one.

If he doesn't plan on enforcing his NMC, why insist on one? Because it gives him protection. He very well may exercise it, but as we have seen, these clauses are waived routinely. Do you think that other players ask for them but don't really want them? Do you think management forced these guys who have them to take them?

Why would Seattle take a lesser player? They may not see whomever they take as a lesser player. Do you think PEB is a better player than Michael Raffl or any of the other guys that we had exposed? I certainly didn't. Do you think Vegas intentionally took a worse player? Or do you think that they don't consult HFBoards with regard to personnel decisions?

 

[achdumeingute]

Couturier is up in 3 years. For arguments sake, he hits 70pts each year no signs of falloff.

What contract does he get at age 29/30?

5 yrs x 10aav?

 

[Curufinwe]

He'll only get 5 if the new CBA makes that the max term. Otherwise it'll be 7 or 8.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

They are gonna def be worse on paper. Def a problem when you have a bunch of young expensive players, you can't keep them all.

Should not over pay Myers, trading Ehlers to improve the D make no sense, but when you go from Trouba Buff Myers on the right side to Buff Poolman Pionk, that is a MASSIVE step down.

I think Poink is going to be pretty good down the line. He isnt ready for top 4 minutes yet, but slotting him in on 5/6 is fine. I think the kid has some good upside

 

[achdumeingute]

He'll only get 5 if the new CBA makes that the max term. Otherwise it'll be 7 or 8.

so you would be cool giving him 8 years for say 9aav?

 

[Jtown]

Couturier is up in 3 years. For arguments sake, he hits 70pts each year no signs of falloff.

What contract does he get at age 29/30?

5 yrs x 10aav?

Extending a guy like that to 7/8 at at that age is is problematic.

 

[FlyerNutter]

Extending a guy like that to 7/8 at at that age is is problematic.

Depends where the team is at that point. If they have shown to be a viable cup threat, I think you have to make the deal happen.

I used to be iffy on Couturier in his younger years. He’s grown on me. Good for him.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Extending a guy like that to 7/8 at at that age is is problematic.

It is. You also have no choice.

He gets what he wants, then you rearrange the deck chairs, frontload the money, and hope he's had enough before it's a problem.

 

[Jtown]

Depends where the team is at that point. If they have shown to be a viable cup threat, I think you have to make the deal happen.

I used to be iffy on Couturier in his younger years. He’s grown on me. Good for him.

He has grown on everyone. He is a great player. IF he was a better athlete i would have more confidence in him aging well.

 

[Jtown]

It is. You also have no choice.

He gets what he wants, then you rearrange the deck chairs, frontload the money, and hope he's had enough before it's a problem.

I hate that way of thinking. But it's not even worth debating at this point, it's going to happen.

 

[achdumeingute]

Extending a guy like that to 7/8 at at that age is is problematic.

I agree. Will he take lesser term?

Do we not then have a problem right now with "the Couturier situation"?

 

[BiggE]

Extending a guy like that to 7/8 at at that age is is problematic.

Yup, he’ll turn 30 in year one of his next contract. It’s really impossible to predict a contract 3 years out. Who knows, the cap ceiling might be approaching 90 million by then with reasonable expectations that it would be north of 100 million in another 4, 5 years.

Based on his age and assuming he remained healthy and kept putting up 70+ point seasons, I’d prefer an extension of 6 years max. The aav could end up anywhere from 9-12 million, it all depends on where the cap ceiling is at that time.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

Couturier will be 29-30. Couture really the only example of a center who got an 8 year deal as a 30 year old that I can think of. Kessler got a 6 year deal as a 31 year old. Backlund just got a 6 year deal at 29. A lot of other guys were 26-28 when they got theirs.

Although Couturier’s contract is different than the previous era of guys who often just bridged to UFA in those age ranges.

 

[achdumeingute]

Depends where the team is at that point. If they have shown to be a viable cup threat, I think you have to make the deal happen.

I used to be iffy on Couturier in his younger years. He’s grown on me. Good for him.

this is like choose your own adventure, young guys have not stepped up and elevated us to serious contention. I think we all agree...we ride their backs to a cup.

Keep in mind too...this was essentially both Washington and STL...

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Couturier is so smart that he should be an effective player for a long time. He’ll easily transition to a top 3C once his offensive game slows down. Only worry is that he takes a beating because he doesn’t shy from the dirty work.

 

[achdumeingute]

Yup, he’ll turn 30 in year one of his next contract. It’s really impossible to predict a contract 3 years out. Who knows, the cap ceiling might be approaching 90 million by then with reasonable expectations that it would be north of 100 million in another 4, 5 years.

Based on his age and assuming he remained healthy and kept putting up 70+ point seasons, I’d prefer an extension of 6 years max. The aav could end up anywhere from 9-12 million, it all depends on where the cap ceiling is at that time.

if in this scenario Patrick and Frost both have hit....do we trade him rather than pay 9aav?

I would...

 

[JojoTheWhale]

I hate that way of thinking. But it's not even worth debating at this point, it's going to happen.

Exactly. I hate it too. Let's run it through:

Let him walk: DaveScott.jpeg

Trade him. When? Nothing that can happen this year will make them do it next summer. I doubt anything can change that by the 2020-21 deadline either, and that's your last chance to get 2 playoffs of trade value. What's he going to get as a rental? A low 1 and a B prospect? They're not blowing it up for that.

It's happening. I just hope it's not as crippling as the Doughty debacle.

 

[BringBackHakstol]

I also don’t know why we want to paint the picture that our young guys like Patrick, Frost, Farabee, Myers, to a lesser extent Sanheim are some sort of wild cards or 50\50 chances. These are super high pedigree players that have by all accounts had great - not good bu great development so far. I get Patrick hasn’t knocked anyone’s socks off but he’s 20 years old.

It’s true you won’t be able to fill everything from within and not all players pan out, but we shouldn’t treat all prospects as the same lottery ticket. You need to evaluate and use your judgement. Sure there’s risk something unexpected will happen with them, but to me that’s managing scared.

 

[FlyerNutter]

Couturier is so smart that he should be an effective player for a long time. He’ll easily transition to a top 3C once his offensive game slows down. Only worry is that he takes a beating because he doesn’t shy from the dirty work.

He’s definitely taken a beating. Over the last few years it seems other clubs have made him the number one target over Giroux.

 

[Jtown]

Exactly. I hate it too. Let's run it through:

Let him walk: DaveScott.jpeg

Trade him. When? Nothing that can happen this year will make them do it next summer. I doubt anything can change that by the 2020-21 deadline either, and that's your last chance to get 2 playoffs of trade value. What's he going to get as a rental? A low 1 and a B prospect? They're not blowing it up for that.

It's happening.

Why can't he just take a nominal raise and a few more years. Take a position with the team as an advisor to the GM where his salary is 10 million a year

I would be the best owner of all time.

 

[baudib1]

Couturier is up in 3 years. For arguments sake, he hits 70pts each year no signs of falloff.

What contract does he get at age 29/30?

5 yrs x 10aav?

MOAR

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Why can't he just take a nominal raise and a few more years. Take a position with the team as an advisor to the GM where his salary is 10 million a year

I would be the best owner of all time.

If the NFL lets Kraft get away with it, this group of dolts will never find it.

 

[achdumeingute]

I also don’t know why we want to paint the picture that our young guys like Patrick, Frost, Farabee, Myers, to a lesser extent Sanheim are some sort of wild cards or 50\50 chances. These are super high pedigree players that have by all accounts had great - not good bu great development so far. I get Patrick hasn’t knocked anyone’s socks off but he’s 20 years old.

It’s true you won’t be able to fill everything from within and not all players pan out, but we shouldn’t treat all prospects as the same lottery ticket. You need to evaluate and use your judgement. Sure there’s risk something unexpected will happen with them, but to me that’s managing scared.

I don't disagree. I think being part of a winning NHL environment is also a helpful point in development. Success breeds success.

As another example...Brayden Schenn. Was "the best prospect not in the NHL" when we got him. Looked solid in the AHL. It took 4 years for him to establish being a consistent 2nd liner.