Player Discussion Marcus Foligno

[Wabit]

Also, this "living up to the contract" is a false way of thinking. This is a 26 year old player with 5 more or less full seasons in the NHL, arguably as a 4th liner but definitely as a bottom 6 player (in a very bad team) with a career high of 23 points. You give him the contract he deserves based on his body of work while reflecting it to the contributions of a veteran UFA you can sign for ~1M in free agency. Anything else is a mistake.

That's what got Vanek $6.5m and Pommer $5.6m; their body of work, not the potential of decline. Most any of the $6mx6 contracts that get tossed around end up being bad contracts. The road goes both ways. Wild paid for Spurgeon, Brodin, Scandella, and Coyle on potential not just their body of work. Your $1m UFA plug is Ryan White.

$2.5-$3m/yr contracts (non-bridge) are 25-30p players in the prime of their careers. Panik has worse stats across the board, outside of his 1 year being on Toews everyday wing, it was also only a 2 year contract that covered at least one RFA season (not sure if it was 2 or not).

I think Foligno's contract is ~$300k too much and a year too long, but at least it's not the $3.5mx5 that Clutterbuck just got.

 

[absolute garbage]

That's what got Vanek $6.5m and Pommer $5.6m; their body of work, not the potential of decline. Most any of the $6mx6 contracts that get tossed around end up being bad contracts. The road goes both ways. Wild paid for Spurgeon, Brodin, Scandella, and Coyle on potential not just their body of work. Your $1m UFA plug is Ryan White.

$2.5-$3m/yr contracts (non-bridge) are 25-30p players in the prime of their careers. Panik has worse stats across the board, outside of his 1 year being on Toews everyday wing, it was also only a 2 year contract that covered at least one RFA season (not sure if it was 2 or not).

I think Foligno's contract is ~$300k too much and a year too long, but at least it's not the $3.5mx5 that Clutterbuck just got.

Guys like Vanek and Pominville, or Lucic and Eriksson, belong to a very different group of players. And yes, it's very common to sign these kind of players to contracts that take them to "declining years" where they end up hurting you. But that's part of the deal: the idea is that you'll improve your team for next couple of years significantly in a way you otherwise couldn't, in hopes of winning something soon-ish, and then take the penalty later. Of course, many GMs fail at this too.

Yeah, Coyle was paid for potential. But he had 1½ NHL seasons under his belt, not 5. Same thing for Brodin. Both were coming off ELCs and showed obvious potential. That's perfectly acceptable. It's the same thing that happened with Matheson. While acceptable, this strategy is overall very risky because you never quite know where the player will end up and you have to weight that to the dollars and term you give. Personally I'd be wary of using this because the requirement for this risk to be worth it is to get a significant discount a couple years down the road. Is that happening with Coyle and Brodin? To some extent yeah, especially with Coyle. Those risks were somewhat successful.

Other option is to go the Spurgeon and Scandella (and soon Dumba) route and give a "show me what you got" bridge deal followed by a long term extension. This is far safer, though with a smaller reward. I wouldn't really categorize these extensions as "paying for potential" anymore though. I think they both should've been signed for less money.

But at least those are the kind of players you don't feel terrible for giving slightly more money than you'd like to. Foligno is not in that group of players. He's simply not the kind of player you make these concessions for. He should've been paid at most 2M for 3 years. Maybe 2.3M for 2 years. Those would've been a fair market value deals. Ryan White is the replacement-plug if you are a bad GM. A good GM will find the likes of Winnik, Cullen, Upshall, Brodziak, Stempniak, Stafford, Kunitz, Hartnell etc. to fill up the bottom end of the roster. You never ever give a 26 year old career 23 point scorer 12M to do that.

 

[57special]

Seems like Fletcher felt the pressure to sign Foligno to justify the Scandella trade. To me, it's a classic case of throwing good money after bad.

 

[nt3005]

Other players on the team have played just as bad or worse than Foligno and people will blame Foligno because hes "overplayed" and they think we lost that trade.

I think its hypocritical to say you can sign other kinds of players to contracts projecting there future, but Foligno isn't allowed.

What happens when he continues to improve and has career points this year, and crazy enough he could keep improving over the length of his contract.

 

[absolute garbage]

Seems like Fletcher felt the pressure to sign Foligno to justify the Scandella trade. To me, it's a classic case of throwing good money after bad.

Seems like it, yeah. Foligno's camp probably realized this too and took advantage. The thing is... Foligno is not the kind of player who is in a position to make those demands. Losing him would be close to negligible. He shouldn't have any leverage, unless you are a weak GM of course.

Other players on the team have played just as bad or worse than Foligno and people will blame Foligno because hes "overplayed" and they think we lost that trade.

I think its hypocritical to say you can sign other kinds of players to contracts projecting there future, but Foligno isn't allowed.

What happens when he continues to improve and has career points this year, and crazy enough he could keep improving over the length of his contract.

I mean this is the Foligno thread after all. I wasn't talking about the trade either, just the player and his contract. Again, signing players coming off ELCs vs 26 year old 5-year veterans is like night and day. Foligno could literally win the Hart trophy and it would still be a bad contract. Why? Because he should've won the Hart on a contract he deserved, making 2M.

You can't build your business taking chances on career 4th liners thinking they will someday be "worth the money". 99/100 times it's not going to happen, and that makes it a bad decision 100/100 times.

 

[nt3005]

Seems like it, yeah. Foligno's camp probably realized this too and took advantage. The thing is... Foligno is not the kind of player who is in a position to make those demands. Losing him would be close to negligible. He shouldn't have any leverage, unless you are a weak GM of course.


I mean this is the Foligno thread after all. I wasn't talking about the trade either, just the player and his contract. Again, signing players coming off ELCs vs 26 year old 5-year veterans is like night and day. Foligno could literally win the Hart trophy and it would still be a bad contract. Why? Because he should've won the Hart on a contract he deserved, making 2M.

You can't build your business taking chances on career 4th liners thinking they will someday be "worth the money". 99/100 times it's not going to happen, and that makes it a bad decision 100/100 times.

Im pretty sure we will never have the same opinion on this, but your logic about if he won the Hart trophy he would still have a bad contract is flawed and comical.

Not all players are going to be superstars, and some develop slower than others, yeah there is a level of risk in the contract, but if Coaches see enough potential in a player they take the risk of signing them. BB has had pretty good experience coaching big power forwards, so Ill just wait and see how Foligno continues to improve.

for the points he puts up, the contract really isn't even that bad.

 

[absolute garbage]

Im pretty sure we will never have the same opinion on this, but your logic about if he won the Hart trophy he would still have a bad contract is flawed and comical.

No it's not. It would've been wrong to trade a couple 1st rounders for Martin St. Louis when he was toiling away in the minors. Because you could get him for cheaper. Same logic applies everywhere, including here. You can't just look at the end result and be happy if things happened to go well. The way you got there is the thing that matters. If that process is sound, you can expect the success to continue. If it's not, well, you'll end up with a bunch of overpaid 4th liners.

 

[57special]

Other players on the team have played just as bad or worse than Foligno and people will blame Foligno because hes "overplayed" and they think we lost that trade.

I think its hypocritical to say you can sign other kinds of players to contracts projecting there future, but Foligno isn't allowed.

What happens when he continues to improve and has career points this year, and crazy enough he could keep improving over the length of his contract.

How is signing a 21 yo Brodin and a 22y o Coyle the same as signing a 26 yo Foligno?

 

[nt3005]

No it's not. It would've been wrong to trade a couple 1st rounders for Martin St. Louis when he was toiling away in the minors. Because you could get him for cheaper. Same logic applies everywhere, including here. You can't just look at the end result and be happy if things happened to go well. The way you got there is the thing that matters. If that process is sound, you can expect the success to continue. If it's not, well, you'll end up with a bunch of overpaid 4th liners.

So with your logic, you would rather sign players like Vanek or Lucic and have their contracts because they have proved that at some time in the past they were good enough for that money.

I would rather have a slightly overpriced bottom sixer, than an overpriced player whose supposed to be a top mixer that ends up getting bought out and staying on the salary while playing elsewhere.

 

[nt3005]

How is signing a 21 yo Brodin and a 22y o Coyle the same as signing a 26 yo Foligno?

Were those players signed with the understanding that they would never get any better? Or do we think that their salary was based on the past and future?

 

[Bazeek]

Were those players signed with the understanding that they would never get any better? Or do we think that their salary was based on the past and future?

I think the point is that most forwards peak around 24-26, so there's little point in projecting with those players. Foligno's not a player that's likely to see much growth, and there's little sense in paying him as though he is.

20-23 year olds are completely different. At that point you're trying to figure out what they peak as, because you want to get those peak years as cheaply as possible without over-committing to a player that doesn't pan out. Coyle was not a $3.2m player when he signed and Brodin wasn't a $4.2m player when he signed, but they both seemed like safe bets to be worth at least that much in their prime years. Hence, they got the long contracts and (at the time) big bucks. Granlund, Dumba, Nino and Zucker were riskier, so they got smaller bridges with the chance to earn more lucrative contracts later (which they all have).

All of that is totally different than dealing with a 26 year old, though. The fact that it's not impossible for the player to get better is not a good reason to pay him as though he will.

 

[nt3005]

I would say a forwards prime would run through his late twenties into 30.

But regardless of that its still all about projections. Players come into their game at different times, some players play college until they are 23, that doesn't mean that they are never gonna be as good as a player who came into the league out of junior at 19.

If he finishes the season with 30-40 points, is he really overpayed?

He isn't great in any one aspect of the game, but he can be an effective player. I could see him coming in handy going through this stretch until the playoffs.

 

[Bazeek]

I would say a forwards prime would run through his late twenties into 30.

But regardless of that its still all about projections. Players come into their game at different times, some players play college until they are 23, that doesn't mean that they are never gonna be as good as a player who came into the league out of junior at 19.

If he finishes the season with 30-40 points, is he really overpayed?

He isn't great in any one aspect of the game, but he can be an effective player. I could see him coming in handy going through this stretch until the playoffs.

30-40 pts for a player making $2.85m is just fine by me, but I also agree with the underlying point that he should be making less regardless. At 26, he should have been offered a contract based on what he'd shown himself to be (a 20-25pt forward) and not based on what Fletcher thought he could turn into in the next few years (a 30-35 pt forward?).

That said, if you figure a forward's peak years tend to be 26-30 that changes the calculus a little, but I think that's a pretty late peak for your typical forward.

I'll also say that I'm not that hung up on Foligno specifically one way or the other. Moderately overpaying for a bottom-6 forward that brings qualities you think your bottom-6 lacks isn't indefensible. It just gets harder to ignore the tighter to the cap you are, and we are tight indeed. You have to stay disciplined on the Foligno's when you've got Parise's on the payroll.

 

[nt3005]

30-40 pts for a player making $2.85m is just fine by me, but I also agree with the underlying point that he should be making less regardless. At 26, he should have been offered a contract based on what he'd shown himself to be (a 20-25pt forward) and not based on what Fletcher thought he could turn into in the next few years (a 30-35 pt forward?).

That said, if you figure a forward's peak years tend to be 26-30 that changes the calculus a little, but I think that's a pretty late peak for your typical forward.

I'll also say that I'm not that hung up on Foligno specifically one way or the other. Moderately overpaying for a bottom-6 forward that brings qualities you think your bottom-6 lacks isn't indefensible. It just gets harder to ignore the tighter to the cap you are, and we are tight indeed. You have to stay disciplined on the Foligno's when you've got Parise's on the payroll.

I think that the peak really depends on the player, but from everything that I have ever heard about players and development, is that big power forwards tend to find their game later in their careers.

 

[Engebretson]

Part of me wonders whether Buffalo was going to tender Foligno last summer anyway. For a guy who hasn't cracked 23 pts in any season in his career, it may have been wiser for Buffalo to take the same approach as we did to Folin, non-tender him and then let him walk for a short-term deal for less money on the open market.

 

[57special]

Well, 2.85M to Foligno isn't going to kill this team. I'm not crazy about him as a player. Seems to have a dumb game, for want of a better word. I get that he's big, and hits. If he was on a fourth line i'd be fine with him.

His assists the last game were good to see. Would like to see more of that, but I'm not holding my breath.

I can't help comparing him with Haula, and feeling we got the short straw.

 

[2Pair]

Well, 2.85M to Foligno isn't going to kill this team. I'm not crazy about him as a player. Seems to have a dumb game, for want of a better word. I get that he's big, and hits. If he was on a fourth line i'd be fine with him.

His assists the last game were good to see. Would like to see more of that, but I'm not holding my breath.

I can't help comparing him with Haula, and feeling we got the short straw.

Even compared to Tuch, he's the short straw.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Well, 2.85M to Foligno isn't going to kill this team. I'm not crazy about him as a player. Seems to have a dumb game, for want of a better word. I get that he's big, and hits. If he was on a fourth line i'd be fine with him.

His assists the last game were good to see. Would like to see more of that, but I'm not holding my breath.

I can't help comparing him with Haula, and feeling we got the short straw.

An odd comparison. Haula's departure saved one of Dumba, Staal or Zucker; it wasn't to make room for Foligno.

 

[BagHead]

I don't think it's really fair to compare Foligno and Haula. It was never a question of having either Foligno or Haula. You guys realize Haula was gone because of the expansion draft, not his cap price, right? If the expansion draft didn't happen, then sure, keep Haula and trade just Scandella for Ennis or something in a 1 for 1 deal. But the expansion draft did happen, and that's why Haula is gone. The other option was losing Dumba, and if that happened we'd have to lose Haula (or a similarly paid player) in addition to Scandella for cap reasons. So pretty much no matter what, Haula was gone.

Now, you could compare them I guess based on being similarly paid players, but Haula and Foligno's games are nothing alike. They're not the same position, style, or role. It's like comparing Milan Lucic to Jordan Staal. Their salary is the same, but nothing else is.

Looks like Dr Jan Itor beat me to it.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

If the ED didn't exist, the move would've been to package Greenway (and maybe one of Reilly/Olofsson) with Pominville for a mid/late round pick. Then we'd still have all 5 of our top 4 defensemen + Haula and Tuch on the 3rd line + Eriksson Ek playing #1C minutes in Iowa + the Ennis/Foligno trade never has to happen.

But expansion was a SOB to us, so here we sit.

 

[DANOZ28]

mgmt wasnt willing to pay clutterbuck (although great trade return) , we werent willing to pay brodziak but we are willing to pay foligno more than stewart? dump scandella for an overpaid 4th line grinder? i dont see how you can justify that. if 3 mill is the going rate for a 4th liner thats news to me.

 

[BagHead]

I guess that depends on how he produces. If he scores about 30 points (give or take 3 points), is he really a 4th liner? That's 3rd line production in today's game, and it would also be enough offense to justify his contract. I too feel he should have come cheaper in the first place, but I won't complain about a player that actually lives up to their deal. That's really nitpicking! There are far greater areas of concern for the Wild. So far he looks like he may live up to it. Time will tell.

 

[ThatGuy22]

I guess that depends on how he produces. If he scores about 30 points (give or take 3 points), is he really a 4th liner? That's 3rd line production in today's game, and it would also be enough offense to justify his contract. I too feel he should have come cheaper in the first place, but I won't complain about a player that actually lives up to their deal. That's really nitpicking! There are far greater areas of concern for the Wild. So far he looks like he may live up to it. Time will tell.

Yes, even if he get's 30 points, he is still a 4th liner. Many 4th liners would get around 30 points when not getting 4th line minutes, and Foligno has played above 4th line minutes much of the season due to injury and BB's size fetish.

 

[Bazeek]

Yes, even if he get's 30 points, he is still a 4th liner. Many 4th liners would get around 30 points when not getting 4th line minutes, and Foligno has played above 4th line minutes much of the season due to injury and BB's size fetish.

If he puts up 3rd line points with 3rd line minutes, what metric are we using to classify him as a 4th liner?

It seems like a version of the Vegas Question: a bunch of "bottom 6" players are given top 6 minutes and put up top 6 points. Are they all still bottom 6 players? If so, why?

 

[ThatGuy22]

If he puts up 3rd line points with 3rd line minutes, what metric are we using to classify him as a 4th liner?

It seems like a version of the Vegas Question: a bunch of "bottom 6" players are given top 6 minutes and put up top 6 points. Are they all still bottom 6 players? If so, why?

His points per game, even strength primary points per 60 and all situations primary points per 60 all put him well outside the top 270 forwards.

He's been relatively healthy, and half his points are secondary assists (closer to 1/3rd is normal).

He's a 4th liner.