Speculation: Nylander contract discussion

[MyBudJT]

1) There is no way Nylander signs a bridge at 4.5m. He's already worth ~1m more than that AAV based purely on current production
2) It wouldn't be in our favour anyway

Some comparables for Nylander:

Drouin signed jun 15 2017, 6 years, 5.5m = 5.83m with 6% cap increase
Ehlers signed oct 4 2017, 7 years, 6m = 6.36m with 6% cap increase
Huberdeau signed sep 6 2016, 6 years, 6.3m = 6.82m with 8.18% cap increase
Forsberg signed jun 27 2016, 6 years, 6m = 6.49m with 8.18% cap increase
Gaudreau signed oct 10, 2016, 6 years, 6.75m = 7.3m with 8.18% cap increase
Pastrnak signed sep 14 2017, 6 years, 6.66m = 7.06m with 6% cap increase

Of these, Forsberg, Gaudreau & Pastrnak all scored 30+ in their final ELC year. And 2 of the 3 were near a point per game. They represent the absolute ceiling for where a Nylander contract could go, but Gaudreau/Pastrnak are both likely above.

If you average Drouin, Ehlers, Huberdeau, & Gaudreau's adjusted cap you'll get 6.375m slighty adjust for the fact that Nylander has been a bit more productive over 2 first seasons then Drouin/Ehlers were and make it 6.5m

If people think saving 1m on this contract is worth lopping off 5 years, idk what to tell you. The folly in that logic will become very clear when Nylander puts up near a point per game, the cap goes up another 4-5m dollars, and we're looking down the barrel off of an 8m+ extension in 2 years.

Nylander is not worth 5.5mil now, at least not in my opinion. If he was a UFA, sure!

None of your comparables were bridge contracts.

If we can get a good deal on a bridge now, you can deal with the larger contract later. None of your comparable s were bridge contracts.

I think a 2x4.5 followed up by an 8x8 is much better than a 8x7 now!

 

[A1LeafNation]

1) There is no way Nylander signs a bridge at 4.5m. He's already worth ~1m more than that AAV based purely on current production
2) It wouldn't be in our favour anyway

Some comparables for Nylander:

Drouin signed jun 15 2017, 6 years, 5.5m = 5.83m with 6% cap increase
Ehlers signed oct 4 2017, 7 years, 6m = 6.36m with 6% cap increase
Huberdeau signed sep 6 2016, 6 years, 6.3m = 6.82m with 8.18% cap increase
Forsberg signed jun 27 2016, 6 years, 6m = 6.49m with 8.18% cap increase
Gaudreau signed oct 10, 2016, 6 years, 6.75m = 7.3m with 8.18% cap increase
Pastrnak signed sep 14 2017, 6 years, 6.66m = 7.06m with 6% cap increase

Of these, Forsberg, Gaudreau & Pastrnak all scored 30+ in their final ELC year. And 2 of the 3 were near a point per game. They represent the absolute ceiling for where a Nylander contract could go, but Gaudreau/Pastrnak are both likely above.

If you average Drouin, Ehlers, Huberdeau, & Gaudreau's adjusted cap you'll get 6.375m slighty adjust for the fact that Nylander has been a bit more productive over 2 first seasons then Drouin/Ehlers were and make it 6.5m

If people think saving 1m on this contract is worth lopping off 5 years, idk what to tell you. The folly in that logic will become very clear when Nylander puts up near a point per game, the cap goes up another 4-5m dollars, and we're looking down the barrel off of an 8m+ extension in 2 years.

Love this.

Not only Nylander, your argument can be used for Marner as well.

6.5-7m x 6-7 years for both of them.

 

[Sypher04]

Nylander is not worth 5.5mil now, at least not in my opinion. If he was a UFA, sure!

None of your comparables were bridge contracts.

If we can get a good deal on a bridge now, you can deal with the larger contract later. None of your comparable s were bridge contracts.

I think a 2x4.5 followed up by an 8x8 is much better than a 8x7 now!

You're right, none were bridges, because it'd be stupid to do it

What you're saying with that last statement is that you'd rather save money now when we don't need it than save money later when we will.

Not to mention that you're also sending a pretty clear message to Nylander that you aren't prepared to commit to him in the same way you are the rest of your core.

Unless his ask is outrageous, there is no bridge.

 

[Cotton]

Its old school Gramps but sooo true, the big guys make you keep your head up and on a swivel and they also breathe confidence in the rest of your team, they must be decent skaters with a good tape to tape 1st pass as well, big physical defense quells the other teams cycle because they are strong enough to knock guys down and off the puck take 2 strides and make a nice outlet pass. when Chara, Ekblad etc. are on the ice there are alot of guys knocked down on their arses

Ekblad isn’t a bruiser, he had only 68 hits this years.

 

[moon111]

I know hockey fans get a little weird about player's not being humble. I still get an uneasy but unsubstantiated vibe from Nylander. There are simple assignments you know Babcock would of pointed out. Does he listen? If his agenda is bigger then the Leaf's agenda, then there's always trades to be made.

 

[IBeL34f]

You're right, none were bridges, because it'd be stupid to do it

What you're saying with that last statement is that you'd rather save money now when we don't need it than save money later when we will.

Not to mention that you're also sending a pretty clear message to Nylander that you aren't prepared to commit to him in the same way you are the rest of your core.

Unless his ask is outrageous, there is no bridge.

Our biggest cap crunch in the foreseeable future is in 2019/20 - Not sure how you've determined we don't have a need for cheap contracts during that season, or how you've determined we will have a need for cheap contracts after that point, when that's when everything kind of opens up for us (Marleau/Horton contracts off the books, any additional cap increases, etc.).

If the difference between a long-term deal for Willy now and a long-term deal for Willy in 2 years is only ~$1M per year, it would absolutely be in our best interests to bridge him way below cost for 2 years, and then take the hit and pay him what he's worth afterwards.

If you sign Willy to a long-term $6-7M contract now, you're basically guaranteeing that one of Marleau/Zaitsev/Brown/Kapanen, etc. is traded before the 2019/20 season (barring a ~$7M bump in the cap next off-season), which is a year where we should most definitely be considered among the Cup favourites - I have a hard time seeing our management staff being keen on stripping away players when we should be focusing on being as competitive as possible.
If you bridge Willy for 2 years, you don't have to trade away any current players from our roster, and you can absorb the hit in 2020/21 and onward as Marleau's $6.25M comes off the books.

Don't get me wrong, I do love the idea of getting Nylander locked up long-term, and believe he's an important core piece for us moving forward - But there is plenty of merit to the idea of bridging him for a short-term contract, when our cap issues are at their greatest.

 

[NikoPopp]

I know hockey fans get a little weird about player's not being humble. I still get an uneasy but unsubstantiated vibe from Nylander. There are simple assignments you know Babcock would of pointed out. Does he listen? If his agenda is bigger then the Leaf's agenda, then there's always trades to be made.

what about nylander makes you think he is not humble?

 

[Sypher04]

Our biggest cap crunch in the foreseeable future is in 2019/20 - Not sure how you've determined we don't have a need for cheap contracts during that season, or how you've determined we will have a need for cheap contracts after that point, when that's when everything kind of opens up for us (Marleau/Horton contracts off the books, any additional cap increases, etc.).

If the difference between a long-term deal for Willy now and a long-term deal for Willy in 2 years is only ~$1M per year, it would absolutely be in our best interests to bridge him way below cost for 2 years, and then take the hit and pay him what he's worth afterwards.

If you sign Willy to a long-term $6-7M contract now, you're basically guaranteeing that one of Marleau/Zaitsev/Brown/Kapanen, etc. is traded before the 2019/20 season (barring a ~$7M bump in the cap next off-season), which is a year where we should most definitely be considered among the Cup favourites - I have a hard time seeing our management staff being keen on stripping away players when we should be focusing on being as competitive as possible.
If you bridge Willy for 2 years, you don't have to trade away any current players from our roster, and you can absorb the hit in 2020/21 and onward as Marleau's $6.25M comes off the books.

Don't get me wrong, I do love the idea of getting Nylander locked up long-term, and believe he's an important core piece for us moving forward - But there is plenty of merit to the idea of bridging him for a short-term contract, when our cap issues are at their greatest.

My comment was mostly regarding this year. Next year, well that's just 1 single year. I don't think you make Nylander's contract decision based on the cap management of a single year. There are countless ways they could choose to address cap space in that season that don't involve needing to bridge Nylander. You bridge him now, and you will almost no doubt pay for it for 5-6 consecutive seasons thereafter.

As for a ~1 million difference; I certainly didn't say it'd be only ~1m. I said he should get around 6.5m right now on a long term extension (7 years). It was said that we should bridge him 2 years at 4.5m per (which is a low-ball imo), but if he has a good couple seasons (approaching pt/g), and the cap grows 4-5m in that time (both things with a good chance of coming to fruition, we could suddenly be looking at closer to 8m+ per. Yes, these are obviously my estimations, but I feel like every part of it can be supported well. As we start needing to pay defenseman, and some of the key depth forwards we wish to keep an extra 1.5m+ of cap isn't going to be insignificant. Also, the sooner we lock extensions in the sooner we can reap the benefits of the rising cap to improve their value. Sign Nylander now at 6.5m x 7 and 2 years from now a 4-5m rise in cap ceiling will have dropped his percentage of the cap, sign him to a bridge however and you're just giving the second year cap increase away to Nylander. There's also quite possibly value in having all our young stars locked up, with term, before Seattle expansion is made official and dated; it took just 2 years for Vegas expansion to increase the cap by 7m!

 

[IBeL34f]

My comment was mostly regarding this year. Next year, well that's just 1 single year. I don't think you make Nylander's contract decision based on the cap management of a single year. There are countless ways they could choose to address cap space in that season that don't involve needing to bridge Nylander. You bridge him now, and you will almost no doubt pay for it for 5-6 consecutive seasons thereafter.

As for a ~1 million difference; I certainly didn't say it'd be only ~1m. I said he should get around 6.5m right now on a long term extension (7 years). It was said that we should bridge him 2 years at 4.5m per (which is a low-ball imo), but if he has a good couple seasons (approaching pt/g), and the cap grows 4-5m in that time (both things with a good chance of coming to fruition, we could suddenly be looking at closer to 8m+ per. Yes, these are obviously my estimations, but I feel like every part of it can be supported well. As we start needing to pay defenseman, and some of the key depth forwards we wish to keep an extra 1.5m+ of cap isn't going to be insignificant. Also, the sooner we lock extensions in the sooner we can reap the benefits of the rising cap to improve their value. Sign Nylander now at 6.5m and 2 years from now a 4-5m rise in cap ceiling will have dropped his percentage of the cap, sign him to a bridge and you're just giving the increase to Nylander. There's also quite possibly clear value in having all our young stars locked up before Seattle expansion is made official and dated; it took just 2 years for Vegas expansion to increase the cap by 7m!

The numbers I provided were based off of the post you were initially replying to.

If Willy earns his way to becoming an $8+M player, I have no problem with giving him that, and think we can handle that reasonably comfortably after the 2019/20 season. I certainly can't argue that there isn't risk involved in this kind of move - there 100% is risk in any bridge contract (just as there's risk in any long-term contract) - but I think our cap structure moving forward would allow us to take on and mitigate that risk quite well. External factors that could impact Willy's future contracts (such as rising cap, and the League's expansion, as you've pointed out) should definitely be taken into consideration when looking at this kind of scenario, and luckily we have just the right guys in place to properly assess those factors.

I just don't think it's quite as short-sighted or as stupid an idea as you initially made it out to be.

 

[Sypher04]

The numbers I provided were based off of the post you were initially replying to.

If Willy earns his way to becoming an $8+M player, I have no problem with giving him that, and think we can handle that reasonably comfortably after the 2019/20 season. I certainly can't argue that there isn't risk involved in this kind of move - there 100% is risk in any bridge contract (just as there's risk in any long-term contract) - but I think our cap structure moving forward would allow us to take on and mitigate that risk quite well. External factors that could impact Willy's future contracts (such as rising cap, and the League's expansion, as you've pointed out) should definitely be taken into consideration when looking at this kind of scenario, and luckily we have just the right guys in place to properly assess those factors.

I just don't think it's quite as short-sighted or as stupid an idea as you initially made it out to be.

I'm confident they'll also determine a bridge would be short-sighted and as stupid as I think it is

 

[IBeL34f]

I'm confident they'll also determine a bridge would be short-sighted and as stupid as I think it is

We'll see - If they value $1-2M in savings each year more than they value Connor Brown, for example, then you could very well be right.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

I'm confident they'll also determine a bridge would be short-sighted and as stupid as I think it is

By that logic, isn't a long term term short sighted and stupid for Nylander?
IMO wants a bridge, he thinks (right or wrong) he can get further riches in the future by just signing short term.

Fact is the Leafs may/not have enough cap in the future for all of Matthews.Tavares, Marner and Nylander. It's the contract of players like Dermot, Johnson, Grundstrom even they are deserving of big contacts that may force a "cap trade" by the Leafs.

 

[dirk41]

Elias Lindholm got $4.85 over 6. He isn't a direct comparable, as he has two extra years of service time.

Five seasons: zero 60+ point seasons; zero 50+ point seasons. Zero 20-goal seasons.

Let's look at the averages over the last two seasons, seasons in which Lindholm has had two years of a development advantage over Nylander
Lindholm 14 goals and 44.5 points in 18:03 minutes per game.
Nylander 21 goals and 61 points in 16:21 minutes per game.

50% more goals and 40% more points in less ice-time with two fewer years of development. Yes, Nylander plays with Matthews, but Lindholm's most common linemates were Skinner, Aho, Staal.

I'd rather pay Nylander $6.5-$7 a year long-term than pay Lindholm$4.85.

 

[Nithoniniel]

I'd rather pay Nylander $6.5-$7 a year long-term than pay Lindholm$4.85.

Ultimately, I don't think the Nylander contract will matter much. His kind of talent can't really be replaced, so we pay for rarity. A million more or less is not the end of the world.

It's when you pay big money to guys that could be replaced fully or in large part by guys in their ELCs that you have a problem.

 

[biotk]

Didn't Ehlers and Pastrnak go well into September before signing?

In Ehlers case it was in October but with a year of ELC left.

 

[Spirit of 67]

Torn.
Voted for early September it could be late August

 

[MyBudJT]

You're right, none were bridges, because it'd be stupid to do it

What you're saying with that last statement is that you'd rather save money now when we don't need it than save money later when we will.

Not to mention that you're also sending a pretty clear message to Nylander that you aren't prepared to commit to him in the same way you are the rest of your core.

Unless his ask is outrageous, there is no bridge.

Are we not allowed to have a civil debate...? Just because someone has a differing view point doesn't mean that their view point is 'stupid' or doesn't have merrit.

We need to save money next season when Matthews and Marner get their new contracts, so yes... we kind of do need it. I don't think Marleau is a garuntee to be gone, so we're going to need to prepare as if he's staying on our roster.

The concept of bridging isn't all that bad... Its taking a gamble... It could pay off, it could not. If it doesn't 'pay off', then that ultimately is a good thing, because that means that the said player is developing and improving. Briding also gives us a couple more value years of the player in their prime...

If we were to sign Nylander to a 6 year contract now at 6.5 million, he becomes a UFA at 28 years old. At 28 years old (if he's playing up to expectations), he will undoubtedly want more term at a higher rate, which means the latter half of his deal will be non-prime years. Not only that, he will have more leverage because he's a UFA.

If we were to sign Nylander to an 8 year contract now at 7 million, he becomes a UFA at 30 years old. At 30, he would still be looking for term at high cap hit, and has leverage to get what he wants.

If we were to sign Nylander to a 2 year contract at 4 million now, he is still an RFA at 24 years old. We will have a much better idea of they calliber of player he is, and what he's worth. We can THEN lock him up to the 8 year contract... Hypothetically, lets say its 8x8.5... So what if its 1-2 million higher for the first 4-6 years of that contract... the contract would still be good value on the latter half, and we retain him for all of his prime years as he wouldn't become a UFA until he's 32!


Look, its okay to dislike the bridge contract, but the concept certainly isn't 'stupid'. If we were to bridge any of our 'big 3', it should be Nylander IMO... Matthews and Marner are much more of a 'sure thing'.

 

[Menzinger]

I’d say it gets signed in the first couple weeks of September.

Funny enough regarding bridge deals, if Marner’s agent opts to play hardball (not to say he wil) and push for a huge money deal next offseason after a big year with tavares it would make a lot more sense to bridge him.

At the moment if you can lock Nylander up for 7-8 seasons at about 7 mil you jump at that chance.

That said I’m not anticipating much of an issue, I think Marner and Nylander will come in at around a combined 14ish mil.

 

[Nithoniniel]

It's funny, but in a way Matthews is the guy it would make the most sense, from a cap management perspective, to bridge. He's already looking at a huge deal, the kind of deal he'd likely get two years down the road after establishing himself. Both Marner and Nylander could see their case and comparables rush up quite quickly if they string together a few great seasons.

Marner and Nylander look at comparables that get around $7M now, but with a two year bridge they could start pushing for contracts much higher than that. Matthews in two years probably has Tavares as a great comparable, so pretty much the same as now.

 

[MorrisSmit89]

I know hockey fans get a little weird about player's not being humble. I still get an uneasy but unsubstantiated vibe from Nylander. There are simple assignments you know Babcock would of pointed out. Does he listen? If his agenda is bigger then the Leaf's agenda, then there's always trades to be made.

what does this even mean? lmao

 

[MagicalRazor]

Nylander 7x7 expiring 2025
Marner 7x7 expiring 2026
Matthews 8x10 expiring 2027

Marner is gonna make more than Nylander IMO

 

[613Leafer]

If we pay 7M for Nylander, we're overpaying. Ehlers got 6M, and is the best comparable in the entire league by far. Same draft, drafted one spot apart, offensive production almost identical, both are smallish wingers, long-term contract would start in the exact same year under the same cap, neither are THE driving force on their line, tax situations are very similar, etc.

Hard cap on Nylander should be 6.5M. If he wants more than that, bridge him on a ~2-3 year deal. When he's up for a new contract, re-evaluate and figure out if we should sign him long-term or trade him.

We can't fall in love with our players and overpay them just cause. I see a lot of suggestions of paying Nylander 7M on a long-term deal. Why? When you look at Ehlers, Forsberg, Pastrnak, MacKinnon, Barkov, Monahan, Gaudreau, etc, consider who is the driving force on the line (players are worth more if they are), if they're a centre (worth more), and factor in cap growth since some of those contracts were signed, and Nylander should not be getting 7M.

 

[Nineteen67]

I'm curious. It this your opinion or do you know this for a fact?

Who wasn’t? He was pretty soft.

 

[The Iceman]

I think the Adam Henrique signing should help our cause when signing Nylander. $29.1 million, five-year contract. He is also a centre which adds value. A nice signing by The Ducks should help us a bit in negotiations.

 

[ZEBROA]

If we pay 7M for Nylander, we're overpaying. Ehlers got 6M, and is the best comparable in the entire league by far. Same draft, drafted one spot apart, offensive production almost identical, both are smallish wingers, long-term contract would start in the exact same year under the same cap, neither are THE driving force on their line, tax situations are very similar, etc.

Hard cap on Nylander should be 6.5M. If he wants more than that, bridge him on a ~2-3 year deal. When he's up for a new contract, re-evaluate and figure out if we should sign him long-term or trade him.

We can't fall in love with our players and overpay them just cause. I see a lot of suggestions of paying Nylander 7M on a long-term deal. Why? When you look at Ehlers, Forsberg, Pastrnak, MacKinnon, Barkov, Monahan, Gaudreau, etc, consider who is the driving force on the line (players are worth more if they are), if they're a centre (worth more), and factor in cap growth since some of those contracts were signed, and Nylander should not be getting 7M.

Dont know but can it have someting to do with taking percentage of the cap?

I think Nylander is a little bit underrated. If leafs dont want him maby some other team will want Will.

0,5 more or less... i dont care. But ok let Will have 6.5 that seems ok.