Value of: Mackenzie Weegar
- Thread starter Johnsie19
- Start date
I keep waiting for Weegar to be the player I had thought he would become. I went with less. Unless he just has not had the right coach tap into him, I think he is a useful bust.
Strangle
Registered User
- May 4, 2009
- 9,238
- 6,449
I’ve learned how literal people tend to be on the internet. I know that if I say “xyz is always….” Someone will turn around with ‘well, actually….”
Some people don’t understand hyperbole on the internet.
So I’ve learned to write “… almost always” or “… more often than not”. Or “most of the time….”
I’d have to go back to read if I wrote that or something like it. Regardless, when someone makes a sweeping generalization online, they almost never are being absolutely literal.
You can find examples that prove the rule. The point still remains, for every one great 8 year deal you find, anyone else can find 10 that were disasters.
Anyways, remember this when you read hyperbole online
What'd you expect from him? He is a legit top pairing guy.
CanadienShark
Registered User
- Dec 18, 2012
- 37,675
- 11,004
It took around a split second to come up with a counter example to your claim. Need I go on? Josi? MacKinnon? Come on dude.
Strangle
Registered User
- May 4, 2009
- 9,238
- 6,449
Weegar?
If your aim is to say 8 year deals are good for the team, you’re going to lose
I expected him to hit the back of the net with a puck more. He looks like he has the moves, I just had higher expectations for him. However he has halfed his total goals last year already.
CanadienShark
Registered User
- Dec 18, 2012
- 37,675
- 11,004
No no, don't change the subject. You said long term deals never work out. You've been proven wrong. One bad deal doesn't equal all bad deals.
You and @Strangle are talking about different things. From what I could gather, @Strangle is talking exclusively about 8 year deals signed late in a player's career, i.e. Weegar, Huberdeau, etc. It sounds like you're talking about 8 year deals in general. You're attacking a point that @Strangle didn't actually make, but he could have been clearer I suppose.
lol. This guy is negative value. 8 year deal on a 30 year old. No team is trading for that long term obligation.
I mean he is one of the best defensive dmen in hockey. Whatever he gives you offensively is a bonus really. What he did his last yr in Florida is not what I would expect as that team had the the highest GF in about 30 yrs.
A few more than 4 goals would be nice though.
I'd be willing to trade for Weegar as a Canucks fan. I think he opens the window for the team to win over the next 4-5 yrs. Beyond that it's unlikely any Pettersson, Hughes window would still be open. Especially with Miller's contract.
Ledge And Dairy
Registered User
I mean he's been one of the best shutdown defenseman in the league over the last 3 years and is absolutely capable of producing at a consistent 40+ point pace
malcb33
Registered User
Obviously, it's not ideal to trade him to a rival, but I think Weegar could help the Oilers and I don't think their management would be too concerned about the backend of his contract as they need to win now/ soon.
It would have to be a dollar in/out type deal, and I doubt you would get high-end value, but I'm not sure which team would give it.
I do think the Flames would be better served trading Hanifin.
It would have to be a dollar in/out type deal, and I doubt you would get high-end value, but I'm not sure which team would give it.
I do think the Flames would be better served trading Hanifin.
oceanchild
Registered User
They should have front loaded the contract to make him easier to trade at the end of it. I think he has some value as GMs can be short sighted, but I don’t think it’s much given his level of play. I put a second and a prospect but that is more a B prospect IMO.
violaswallet
Registered User
- Apr 8, 2019
- 9,254
- 7,557
As a Panther fan, I wouldn’t mind him back next offseason: trade Ekblad for some futures and pick up Weegar cheap. Run:
Forsling-Weegar
Mikkola-Montour
OEL-Whoever
Forsling-Weegar
Mikkola-Montour
OEL-Whoever
HockeyWooot
Registered User
- Jan 28, 2020
- 2,387
- 2,016
The term would definitely change the price, number of suitors.
Other than that he's a great player that would be in demand.
Other than that he's a great player that would be in demand.
With that amount of term and cap hit, you’re not going to get pure futures for him, which will drastically change the price. He’s also got a full NTC, so he’s very much in control of where he would go, which also affects his price.
Bounces R Way
Registered User
Some proper HF idiocy on display in this thread.
BUT HE'S GOING TO BE 30!
THIRTY YEARS OLD!!!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Karlsson just won a Norris last year and is 33. Giordano won it at 35. Pietrangelo looked pretty damn good playing #1D on the VGK and he's 33. Doughty, Letang, Josi, Hedman? These guys are all just chewed up meat or what?
Yeah some players drop off a cliff in their mid 30s. Does not mean they all do. Weegar is not as good as those guys but he is a damn solid top pairing player. 'Attach a 1st to get rid of that contract' lmao get a clue
BUT HE'S GOING TO BE 30!
THIRTY YEARS OLD!!!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Karlsson just won a Norris last year and is 33. Giordano won it at 35. Pietrangelo looked pretty damn good playing #1D on the VGK and he's 33. Doughty, Letang, Josi, Hedman? These guys are all just chewed up meat or what?
Yeah some players drop off a cliff in their mid 30s. Does not mean they all do. Weegar is not as good as those guys but he is a damn solid top pairing player. 'Attach a 1st to get rid of that contract' lmao get a clue
The irony of your comment is none of that was even said, so we have exasperated outrage (by you) because of your own misunderstanding.
Weegar is 30 and in yr 1 of an 8 yr contract. I don't think anyone expects him to fall off a cliff in the next couple yrs but certainly when you consider that only 11 NHL defensemen over the age of 34 have played games this yr, acquiring a contract of that length represents a huge liability and greatly diminishes his trade value.
Yup. I would say if the Flames do decide to rebuild/retool and wanted to move the long term liability that is his contract, a way to extract more value from it might be to take back shorter term bad contracts along with futures.
Bounces R Way
Registered User
Literally the 2nd post in this thread :
Well that's just fine, because the Flames should not be trading him.
GMs acquiring a player like Weegar aren't thinking 6-7 years into the future. They're thinking how they can best ice a competitive roster right now.
voted "less" due to horrific long term
retaining would up the return, prob signif, but carrying cap for 7 yrs is a not good
results vary w/#s
consider something akin to this Rangers model:
Retain 1.25 to max cap at 5
take on a short [max half-ish of the 7 years] contract who is a useful cap dump like goodrow [not deadwood]
get 4th and 2 good but not elite prospects like McConnel-Barker +]
get a sweetener for short term cap like Jones
somethin like dat
retaining would up the return, prob signif, but carrying cap for 7 yrs is a not good
results vary w/#s
consider something akin to this Rangers model:
Retain 1.25 to max cap at 5
take on a short [max half-ish of the 7 years] contract who is a useful cap dump like goodrow [not deadwood]
get 4th and 2 good but not elite prospects like McConnel-Barker +]
get a sweetener for short term cap like Jones
somethin like dat
In a vacuum true and we all see these gambles and even stupider rentals.
At least this is a quality add until the guy breaks down, which odds say would be later not sooner.
But also true, the can can only be kicked so far
These moves come back to bite in the ass
Juggling cap + roster w/moves like this eventually straightjackets braintrust decisions
I mean he would instantly be by far the best defender on the Oilers lol. He is a solid defenseman.
There is no guarantee of the cap going up though. 6.25 for a top 4 D-man could look great, but if there is only a small increase, its fine for now, and could look bad by the end of the contract. I personally don't view Weegar at a 6.25 cap hit as a negative, its welcoming in fact, but it's his 7 years of guaranteed cap hit that worries me.
Hronek, who is younger (I know, I know, but from a matter of serviceable future years a team can get out of a player, it does matter) and has team control at the end of his lower cap hit deal, got a 1st and a 2nd. I know I'm biased, but I think Hronek and what he has brought is more valuable then Weegar is now.
Also, the idea of anyone going to "stash players on the third pair" doesn't solve the issue that the cap hit is still present, even if everything works out with ELCs leap frogging Weegar (or who ever, I'm not trying to rag on the guy), there is still a combined hit of 7+ million. Not terrible under the current cap, but not exactly a selling point for what I think would end up being a top four and a bottom pair D.
I dunno, everything factored in, I don't know that I'd want to go higher then a 2nd and a prospect or youngish roster player, plus what ever is needed to work the cap hit out. That is if Calgary was willing to trade him, which I don't think they should be at present.
