Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,140
- 13,104
Not necessarily someone internally, but it might block someone we could have gotten in trade/free agency down the road. $3.5 is also a bit expensive for a 3rd line C. Not a ton. But the cap could block us from making acquisitions elsewhere as well.
Capfriendly has 63 centers currently set to make $3.6M+ next year and we'll add at least a few guys to that list over the summer as free agents are signed. The expectation should be for a quality 3C at that price point, but I wouldn't say it is expensive for that role. Whenn you factor in the number of top 6 Cs on ELCs and bridge deals, I'd wager that a significant portion of teams are spending more than $3.6M on their 3C.
I think we'd all prefer a cheaper, younger, higher ceiling option. But as you outline in the next sentence, those don't come cheap. You're not getting one on waivers, they don't exist in UFA, and teams aren't looking to move the ones they have unless you really make it worth their while.Hayes just doesn't move the needle for me. Army just likes to add these midldle 6, middle pair vets when we need gamechangers. $3.5M for a 30+ year old defensively suspect middle 6 forward is just not something I am going to get excited about. I'd rather roll the dice on a cheaper, youner guy with a lower floor and higher ceiling given the spot we are in. Newhook cost too much, but something along those lines would have been preferable.
Its a nit pick I know. I just can't help feeling a little meh about bringing in another vet cast off.
A 'Newhook-light' player is still going to cost you one of the late 1sts and likely more. Pick #29 and one of the 2024 2nds is a worse package than what Newhook returned (#31 and #37 in a consensus good draft plus a modest prospect). A package like #29, #76, and a prospect like Skinner is probably what it would take to snag a a guy along the lines of Newhook (but not as good).
If you are willing to go a bit older and more proven, the Avs just flipped #37 for Ross Colton. He has arbitration rights and can go UFA as early as next summer. The #29 would have landed us Colton and maybe we could have even gotten Tampa's 2024 3rd back too. He is going to want more than $3.6M to sign for more than 1 year and frankly I think he'd get close to $3.6M in arbitration. I'll take the Hayes deal over that type of deal. I'm not interested in moving one of the 1sts for a 2-3 year solution to the middle 6 and I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable giving Colton a 4+ year extension after spending a 1st to get him.
Improving the left side of the blue line is the only roster help I want to move those late 1sts for and we weren't getting the type of center you want without moving at least one of those late 1sts.
I get that Hayes isn't a franchise-changing move. But I don't think it is fair to compare it to a dream scenario that isn't a realistic option. If you're comparing it to getting a younger guy with more upside then you can't ignore that the cost for such a deal starts with one of the late 1sts. GMs have figured out the value of cap space and young NHL guys with upside (but lack of a resume) are cheap. Teams aren't parting with them for mid-value futures.
Last edited: