Value of: Mackenzie Weegar

[Scintillating10]

Calgary looks to potentially need a retool especially with key players being UFAs this summer.

What would it cost to attain Weegar.

He is undoubtedly a very good top 4 dman with a reasonable 6.25 mil cap hit. The downside is he is 30 in a couple months and in yr one of an 8 yrs deal. The back side of which will likely look pretty bad.

So the risk is rather large. But his value to the Flames isn't as much as it might be to a team ready to compete over the next 4 yrs.

What do we think his value is?

It's Vlasic type contract but you may find a GM who is desperate.

 

[elitepete]

Didn’t know his contract was that long. I’d offer Garland+Myers.

 

[EK392000]

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.

Weegar to the Oilers would actually make the Oilers defence much more respectable.

Nurse-Weegar
Ekholm-Bouchard

Cap would be tough to figure out. Ceci and Foegle going back?

 

[Djp]

I don’t know why fans are such big fans of long contracts when signing players.

They always turn out absolutely badly and usually cost the team who signed them a 1st rd pick to get rid of.

Contracts like this are pretty much 4 years at a smaller cap hit so you can use a 1st to trade the last 4 years of the contract to someone rebuilding.

Why not just sign the player to 4 years?

the issue are long contracts for players shortly turning 30.

signing long contracts to a 25 or under player is fine.

if I was GM, I’d offer him a 4-5 year contract max. You would only give the 7 or 8 year contracts on the superstars/ gate drivers.

even the gate drivers once 33+ can fall off significantly. Getzlaf and Perry are examples. Anaheim bought Perry out. Getzlaf played out his contract but his numbers were not like he was in yr 1-2 of that contract extension.

 

[Nanuuk]

Calgary looks to potentially need a retool especially with key players being UFAs this summer.

What would it cost to attain Weegar.

He is undoubtedly a very good top 4 dman with a reasonable 6.25 mil cap hit. The downside is he is 30 in a couple months and in yr one of an 8 yrs deal. The back side of which will likely look pretty bad.

So the risk is rather large. But his value to the Flames isn't as much as it might be to a team ready to compete over the next 4 yrs.

What do we think his value is?

Horrors! He's turning 30! Run Logan. Run!

Weegar has a very good value contract and while he will no doubt have an off year or two, i also believe he won't fall off a cliff in the latter half of his contract.

So he will provide good value to the team that holds his contract barring an accumulation of injuries that may effect his play.

So the risk is rather minimal I would say.

I would say his value, at a minimum, would be a 1st and a prospect.

More likely it would be a 1st, a roster player, and a prospect.

 

[EquivalentStay]

Habs fans are adamant Savard gets a first, so Weegar should go for 4 1sts or so

 

[Johnsie19]

Horrors! He's turning 30! Run Logan. Run!

Weegar has a very good value contract and while he will no doubt have an off year or two, i also believe he won't fall off a cliff in the latter half of his contract.

So he will provide good value to the team that holds his contract barring an accumulation of injuries that may effect his play.

So the risk is rather minimal I would say.

I would say his value, at a minimum, would be a 1st and a prospect.

More likely it would be a 1st, a roster player, and a prospect.

Turning 30 and has an 8 yr contract. Don't selectively dismiss that important little detail.

Just so you are aware 11 defensemen over the age of 34 have played games this yr. That includes a number of useless overpaid players and a few legends. But thats 11 of the 250 or so NHL dmen.

Everyone always thinks their player is going to age well. Most don't though.

If Weegar's contract was 4 yrs I do believe you valuation would be correct. Given the extra 4 yrs it greatly diminishes his value, I think.

The value of Weegar is in the next 4 yrs. Are Calgary going to be competitive in the span? Maybe. I guess with Kadri and Huberdeau signed into their late 30s this team might have to kinda double down. But it doesn't look good for the next decade in Calgary.

It's Vlasic type contract but you may find a GM who is desperate.

It is a valuable asset for the first half of the contract. Not many teams have winning windows beyond 4 yrs anyway so if you are ready to win and need a dman it might be worth taking on the long term liability.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Flames will trade Tanev, Hanifin and Zaidov well before weegar.

 

[Johnsie19]

Literally the 2nd post in this thread :

Selective reading for faux outrage. Literally next line "yr one of 8 yr contract" kinda makes being 30 pretty important to the context of his value, no?

 

[Johnsie19]

Habs fans are adamant Savard gets a first, so Weegar should go for 4 1sts or so

Habs fans tend to be spot on with their values too!

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Selective reading for faux outrage. Literally next line "yr one of 8 yr contract" kinda makes being 30 pretty important to the context of his value, no?

And Devon Toews will be 31 when he starts his 7 year contract next year yet somehow that contract is considered fantastic.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Selective reading for faux outrage. Literally next line "yr one of 8 yr contract" kinda makes being 30 pretty important to the context of his value, no?

You said no one had said that in this thread and I then correctly pointed out that you were plainly wrong. That's not even the only instance.

It's not selective faux outrage. Simply pointing out that opining that the Flames would have to pay a 1st round pick or retain significantly in the deal to another team to give them a top pairing productive 2 way RHD with no significant injury history making a very reasonable $6.25 per is objectively a dumb opinion. No team in the league operates this way. No team in the league has ever operated this way.

 

[Bottle Rocket]

Habs fans are adamant Savard gets a first, so Weegar should go for 4 1sts or so

The value of a player is influenced by other factors than his talent. His cap hit, remaining contract years, position (righty vs lefty), trade context (trade deadline for a cup run vs 1st year of 8), ...

I don't know if Savard will get a first, certainly hope so since I'm a Habs fan. But I would say he is more likely to get one than Weegar four. Or even three.

Though if Weegar still plays like he does today in the 2nd or last tier of his contract, his value would be higher than Savard's.

 

[Johnsie19]

You said no one had said that in this thread and I then correctly pointed out that you were plainly wrong. That's not even the only instance.

It's not selective faux outrage. Simply pointing out that opining that the Flames would have to pay a 1st round pick or retain significantly in the deal to another team to give them a top pairing productive 2 way RHD with no significant injury history making a very reasonable $6.25 per is objectively a dumb opinion. No team in the league operates this way. No team in the league has ever operated this way.

No one said being 30 yrs old meant your career is over. You made that up. It was only mentioned in the context of his contract length. As that is clearly very important.

Also no one mentioned having to give up a 1st to get rid of him. You made that up as well.

So faux outrage over your own misunderstanding.

 

[Johnsie19]

And Devon Toews will be 31 when he starts his 7 year contract next year yet somehow that contract is considered fantastic.

Context matters. The Avs are in their cup contending window and hard pressed against the cap. They were able to get the AAV down which maximized their next few yrs opportunity to win. The latter half of the deal likely doesn't age well but that is a decision you make to sacrifice the future for the now.

The difference is Calgary isn't looking likely to compete in the front half of the Weegar deal. So it's a legit question do you cash in on him, get something back, shed the cap commitment and look to improve that way.

 

[Bounces R Way]

No one said being 30 yrs old meant your career is over. You made that up.

Neither did I. It's you who is making things up.

It was only mentioned in the context of his contract length. As that is clearly very important.

Also no one mentioned having to give up a 1st to get rid of him. You made that up as well.

Yes they did. Not sure why I have to quote it twice for you but here you go :

He turns 30 mid season
on yr 1 of an 8 yr contract
im expected to get a 1st to take that contract

id be interested if he just 4 yrs but the last 3+ yrs scares the crud out of me.

bolded and enlarged in case you somehow miss it a 3rd time

So faux outrage over your own misunderstanding.

What exactly am I misunderstanding here?

 

[Johnsie19]

Neither did I. It's you who is making things up.



Yes they did. Not sure why I have to quote it twice for you but here you go :


bolded and enlarged in case you somehow miss it a 3rd time



What exactly am I misunderstanding here?

"BUT HE'S GOING TO BE 30!
THIRTY YEARS OLD!!!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

Ill hold my hands up to that 1st comment. Odd grammar and literally the only person suggesting that amongst 100 replies. Even he said "it's the back half that scares the crud out of me"

You brought all the weird energy when the whole discussion board is pretty level headed, honest assessments. Making fair points regarding player, age, contract.

 

[drktmplr12]

50,000,000 reasons over the next 8 years not to do it.

 

[Bounces R Way]

"BUT HE'S GOING TO BE 30!
THIRTY YEARS OLD!!!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

No where here am I suggesting that his career is over. The rest of that post is actually arguing the exact opposite, and it's also pretty clear that that was meant to be hyperbolic what with it being all caps and exclamation marks.

Ill hold my hands up to that 1st comment. Odd grammar and literally the only person suggesting that amongst 100 replies. Even he said "it's the back half that scares the crud out of me"

Maybe the only post that directly suggests a 1st would need to be added, but here's some others in the 100s of replies that imply the same :

lol. This guy is negative value. 8 year deal on a 30 year old. No team is trading for that long term obligation.

Didn’t know his contract was that long. I’d offer Garland+Myers.

It's Vlasic type contract but you may find a GM who is desperate.

Tough to move a guy signed for another 7 years when he's about to turn 30. Can't see them getting much back. Part of the return is just getting rid of the contract.

You brought all the weird energy when the whole discussion board is pretty level headed, honest assessments. Making fair points regarding player, age, contract.

If there's something this subforum is known for it's definitely the level headed honest assessments and fair points regarding players, age, and contracts

Your takes on the player and what a trade involving him would look like in this thread I actually totally agree with. It would be complex to trade a player with that amount of term left on his deal at his age.

Doesn't change the fact that he is a performing top pair RHD signed for a very reasonable AAV when you look at what some other dmen are making around the league. Fans might be worried about the risk when he's 37 or whatever but I assure you GMs are not. Most of them won't even be with the same team in that time, and the teams themselves will all look vastly different. The cap is probably going to be near 100 million. They are concerned with the immediate future, they are concerned with producing results ASAP because that is how this business works if your name is not Jarmo Kekalainen.

There's not many pairings in this league that would be made worse by adding a MacKenzie Weegar to it for the next 3-4 years. That's what the value is. I actually think a 1st and a mid prospect isn't near enough, and am happy to keep him on the Flames for the foreseeable future unless someone blows us away with an offer.

 

[Captain Mountain]

I guess it depends on what kind of salary goes the other way, but assuming the return is only from what is in the poll (meaning no retention or salary going back in a trade), I'd say less than a 2nd and a prospect.

He's still a really, really good d-man and the AAV isn't a problem now, but the term means there is a lot of risk to assume, which teams tend to only take on in if signing the contract is the significant cost. Retention would increase the return significantly. So would making the trade more of a hockey trade with salary and term going back to Calgary. But the teams with cap space and trade assets would likely want to bet on someone younger and/or with less term, even if the cap will begin to rise.

 

[Some Other Flame]

You brought all the weird energy when the whole discussion board is pretty level headed, honest assessments. Making fair points regarding player, age, contract.

Eh, this whole thread is based around a fairly shoddy assumption that the Flames are at all interested in moving Weegar. They're not. There's been zero speculation or even consideration around it anywhere. That's the thing you're not really getting and makes all this whinging about his 8yr deal asinine; it's not a factor because the Flames aren't interested in trading one of the 2 NHL defensemen they have under contract past this year.

Again, the Flames have just 2 defensemen signed for next season in Andersson and Weegar AND they're 30 million below the cap ceiling. Believe it or not, they're actually below the cap floor for next year too. And with the two players that looked like they were going to take most of that in Hanifin and Lindholm seemingly on their way out, cap is not an issue going forward. So their not trading Weegar especially for quote unquote less just because.

If the Flames suddenly decided they wanted to move Weegar or he asked for a trade, then his contract might factor into the discussion. But since they don't, it doesn't.

 

[Johnsie19]

No where here am I suggesting that his career is over. The rest of that post is actually arguing the exact opposite, and it's also pretty clear that that was meant to be hyperbolic what with it being all caps and exclamation marks.

Hahah my good man. You said it exasperated that that was the opinion of so many people on this thread. Thats why it was all caps. Did you forget you were being sarcastic?

If there's something this subforum is known for it's definitely the level headed honest assessments and fair points regarding players, age, and contracts

It's been pretty good on this thread. That's why it was so odd that you seemed to come in from the top rope.

Doesn't change the fact that he is a performing top pair RHD signed for a very reasonable AAV when you look at what some other dmen are making around the league. Fans might be worried about the risk when he's 37 or whatever but I assure you GMs are not. Most of them won't even be with the same team in that time, and the teams themselves will all look vastly different. The cap is probably going to be near 100 million. They are concerned with the immediate future, they are concerned with producing results ASAP because that is how this business works if your name is not Jarmo Kekalainen.

There's not many pairings in this league that would be made worse by adding a MacKenzie Weegar to it for the next 3-4 years. That's what the value is. I actually think a 1st and a mid prospect isn't near enough, and am happy to keep him on the Flames for the foreseeable future unless someone blows us away with an offer.

Don't need to say anything about the player. Everyone knows hes a stud. Again it comes down to the direction of the club.

I think there is some validity to your point about shorter term thinking GMs. And thats why my vote would be a 1st +. But not a lot more. And i can totally understand how to some he wouldn't be worth giving up futures for because of the long term liability.

I wanna do an exercise with you though because you might have a bit too much skin in the game being hes on your team and a great player. JT Miller is a great comparable for age and level of play. Albeit Weegar's strength is defensive play and Miller's is offensive. They're both top top players. Both are signed till theyre nearly 38 yrs old. Last yr when the Canucks were struggling Miller's value was literally nothing despite coming off a 99 point season. And consistently being good for 3-4 yrs in a row. Now the Canucks have the young guns (Petey, Hughes) that Calgary doesn't, and seem to have turned it around so Miller isn't in trade discussions. But how much do you think teams would pay for Miller in a trade? First of all you have to be able to take on the 8 mil. And 7 more yrs of it. Half of which you can almost guarantee he'll underperform simply given his age. No one offered a 1st ++.

 

[Johnsie19]

Eh, this whole thread is based around a fairly shoddy assumption that the Flames are at all interested in moving Weegar. They're not. There's been zero speculation or even consideration around it anywhere. That's the thing you're not really getting and makes all this whinging about his 8yr deal asinine; it's not a factor because the Flames aren't interested in trading one of the 2 NHL defensemen they have under contract past this year.

Again, the Flames have just 2 defensemen signed for next season in Andersson and Weegar AND they're 30 million below the cap ceiling. Believe it or not, they're actually below the cap floor for next year too. And with the two players that looked like they were going to take most of that in Hanifin and Lindholm seemingly on their way out, cap is not an issue going forward. So their not trading Weegar especially for quote unquote less just because.

If the Flames suddenly decided they wanted to move Weegar or he asked for a trade, then his contract might factor into the discussion. But since they don't, it doesn't.

I mean this is a hockey forum message board where we talk about hypotheticals. The whole thing is based off the realistic (enough) premise that the Flames might have to retool. It's not an assumption that he's about to be traded it's a hypothetical situation that is plausible.

 

[Petes2424]

Calgary looks to potentially need a retool especially with key players being UFAs this summer.

What would it cost to attain Weegar.

He is undoubtedly a very good top 4 dman with a reasonable 6.25 mil cap hit. The downside is he is 30 in a couple months and in yr one of an 8 yrs deal. The back side of which will likely look pretty bad.

So the risk is rather large. But his value to the Flames isn't as much as it might be to a team ready to compete over the next 4 yrs.

What do we think his value is?

They can’t afford to move him. He and Andersson are the only two NHL contracts they have (on the blue line) next year.

 

[Some Other Flame]

I mean this is a hockey forum message board where we talk about hypotheticals. The whole thing is based off the realistic (enough) premise that the Flames might have to retool. It's not an assumption that he's about to be traded it's a hypothetical situation that is plausible.

Uh how is the suggestion that the Flames move one of the two (2) defensemen they have signed for next year a realistic premise or plausible in anyway? Is it realistic to think they're gonna go out and sign 4 or 5 UFA defensemen this summer?

Keep in mind, even you're saying retool, not a burn it to the ground rebuild. Retool usually means keeping at least some vets around.