Salary Cap: The Guds days are gone, now it's time to look forward

Status
Not open for further replies.

heysmilinstrange

Registered User
Nov 10, 2016
3,319
4,762
John Gibson is a good comparable, imo. Gibson got 8 years and 51 million, aka 6.4 mil a season.

I would offer Murray something similar. If he requests anything greater I would move on from him.

Murray has had more success than Gibson, but Gibson is clearly better. I wouldn't be mad if Murray were given that contract, but he's not on Gibson's level, imo.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,382
77,967
Redmond, WA
Lol. You literally just conveniently ignored me bringing up how demonstrably worse Markstrom is than Murray. I also did put aside all of the obvious flaws with what you want to do and settled on the fantasy scenario where we get Markstrom, a good trade for Murray, and use the cap space wisely. Even in that scenario we're still downgrading at the goaltender position. You're just ignoring that fact.

But feel free to take your ball and go home or whatever.

It's almost like the downgrade from Murray to Markstrom isn't nearly as significant as what you're saying it is, and you're dramatically undervaluing what they'd get back for Murray (1st rounder++ most likely) and how they can improve themselves with an additional $3-$4 million in cap space. That difference in money and assets can very likely be the difference between being limited to a Ron Hainsey type of addition to the defense and a Torey Krug addition to the defense. You're also ignoring that Jarry isn't just this bum, he was regarded as a good prospect, had a great WHL career with the Oil Kings and was good in the AHL.

Shocking news: if you don't respond to the discussion, people don't want you to respond to them. Shocking, I know.
 

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,515
46,230
By the way, people are really overrating Murray if they think there's a massive difference between him and Markstrom. Since Murray came into the NHL, here are their stats:

Markstrom: 189 games, .913 save% and .550 QS%
Murray: 173 games, .917 save% and .551 QS%

The difference between the 10th best goalie, which is around what Murray is, and the 15th best goalie, which is around what Markstrom is, really isn't significant. Once you get beyond the group of the elite goalies, there really isn't a big difference between goalies.

Over a large sample size, that's quite a gap. Let's round down to 164 games each (two full seasons worth) and assume both guys face 30 shots per game. That translates to 4920 saves over the 164 games.

At their save percentages, that means Murray would make 4512 saves and Markstrom would make 4492 saves. Over two full seasons, Murray's making 20 more saves, or averaging 10 more saves per season. How many 1-goal games would we lose if we allowed 1 more goal in 10 of those games? How many games that went to OT or SO where we came away with a point would we have lost in regulation?

I think you're underselling the gap between the two. I also think you see the teams around the league who've struggled to find good starting goaltending and how it's held them back should be a cautionary tale about expecting no noticeable difference if you downgrade on Murray.

On the flip side, I do agree that I don't favor overpaying him. So yes, it's a bit of a contradiction on my part. I don't like overpaying goalie, period, no matter who they are. Hated the Bobrovsky deal, wasn't a fan of the Price deal. So in that case, if Murray's asking for way more than the $7 to $7.5 million range, I'd probably favor moving him as well.

My post above was more about thinking you're underestimating the gap between Murray and the "average starter".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riptide and Peat

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,382
77,967
Redmond, WA
Over a large sample size, that's quite a gap. Let's round down to 164 games each (two full seasons worth) and assume both guys face 30 shots per game. That translates to 4920 saves over the 164 games.

At their save percentages, that means Murray would make 4512 saves and Markstrom would make 4492 saves. Over two full seasons, Murray's making 20 more saves, or averaging 10 more saves per season. How many 1-goal games would we lose if we allowed 1 more goal in 10 of those games? How many games that went to OT or SO where we came away with a point would we have lost in regulation?

I think you're underselling the gap between the two. I also think you see the teams around the league who've struggled to find good starting goaltending and how it's held them back should be a cautionary tale about expecting no noticeable difference if you downgrade on Murray.

We have no clue how many 1 goal games they would have lost, because we don't know how those goals were distributed. You can probably come up with a statistical model to get an idea (based on how many 1 goal games/OT games the Penguins had), but we don't actually know what this number would be. It's entirely possible that those 7-8 of those 10 goals would be essentially meaningless, where the extra goals against didn't change the outcome of the game.

Actually, I think we can come up with a simple statistical idea of how many points 10 goals against a season would cost, based on what the Penguins did last season. Last year, I counted the Penguins to have about 27 games either won by 1 goal or 2 goals with an ENG or decided in OT. That rounds to about a third of games decided in that case, so I'm just going to use that number. You had a 1/8 chance of one of those extra goals coming in any given game, and about a 1/3 chance of that extra goal influencing the game. That about a 1/24 chance of having the lower save% influence any given game, which ends up being about 3.5 games being influenced with that extra goal against. So 3 or 4 wins/OT losses would turn into OT losses/regulation losses in any average year, which I'd guess probably ends up about 4 points in the standings.

My guess was about 5-7 of the goals would meaningless, and it seems like that's about the right number.
 
Last edited:

Andy99

Registered User
Jun 26, 2017
49,999
32,174
Murray asking for 8.5 basically implies he's as important to the team as Sid.

I can see him wanting to stay part of this team for however many runs we have left and he, like Jake will take a more friendly deal. I'd say 6.25-7mil or so max.

people have thrown out $8.5 mil per for Murray on here and I wonder if that’s because it’s being put out by the media (via JR or Murray’s agent?)...because here’s another suggestion that Murray will get $8.5 mil AAV....I wouldn’t pay that

Paul Zeise's mailbag: Is James Conner the long-term answer at running back?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trade

Shady Machine

Registered User
Aug 6, 2010
36,691
8,111
It's almost like the downgrade from Murray to Markstrom isn't nearly as significant as what you're saying it is, and you're dramatically undervaluing what they'd get back for Murray (1st rounder++ most likely) and how they can improve themselves with an additional $3-$4 million in cap space. That difference in money and assets can very likely be the difference between being limited to a Ron Hainsey type of addition to the defense and a Torey Krug addition to the defense. You're also ignoring that Jarry isn't just this bum, he was regarded as a good prospect, had a great WHL career with the Oil Kings and was good in the AHL.

Shocking news: if you don't respond to the discussion, people don't want you to respond to them. Shocking, I know.

This is silly. No one is just getting a Krug at that price differential unless you draft them.

That's the thing I don't get. You save $3MM to downgrade from Murray to Markstrom (or whatever) and then you spend that money on a mythical addition that isn't overpaid in UFA?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peat and Pancakes

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,382
77,967
Redmond, WA
This is silly. No one is just getting a Krug at that price differential unless you draft them.

That's the thing I don't get. You save $3MM to downgrade from Murray to Markstrom (or whatever) and then you spend that money on a mythical addition that isn't overpaid in UFA?

No? Where did I ever say that?

I said the extra assets you'd have plus the extra cap space would be the difference between being limited to a Hainsey type of addition and going bigger. You have both extra assets and extra cap space, so you're not limited to signing a $3.5 million UFA defenseman or trading a 2nd rounder for a guy like Hainsey. You can get better than that, either in free agency or via trades, because of the extra assets and cap space you have.

For example, if you trade Murray to Calgary for Rittich and a 1st and sign Jarry to a similar contract to what Saros got (3 years at $1.25 million), you're paying your goalies $4 million combined (compared to like $9.5 million in this discussion) and you have an additional 1st to use as an asset to trade. That's a pretty significant difference IMO.
 

Trade

Guentzel is ELITE
Apr 13, 2015
7,077
6,294
No it doesn't.
Convincing...Might not be intentionally implied by Murray himself but by the action it certainly does.

Sid himself said on his Chiclet's interview that the "team friendly" deals don't work unless they start from the top-end guys down and other than our UFA signing's, we have some pretty damn good contracts.

You really think Murray is gonna show up and ask for 8.5 when Sid is making 200k more and he's an all-time great?

It's like AB marching into Belichick's office and demanding as much as Brady. AB ended up with 15 mil on a year deal and Brady is at roughly 22 mil this year. And obviously it goes without saying AB is a way better receiver than Murray is a goalie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hamurai

Pancakes

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Mar 4, 2011
25,929
17,610
It's almost like the downgrade from Murray to Markstrom isn't nearly as significant as what you're saying it is, and you're dramatically undervaluing what they'd get back for Murray (1st rounder++ most likely) and how they can improve themselves with an additional $3-$4 million in cap space. That difference in money and assets can very likely be the difference between being limited to a Ron Hainsey type of addition to the defense and a Torey Krug addition to the defense. You're also ignoring that Jarry isn't just this bum, he was regarded as a good prospect, had a great WHL career with the Oil Kings and was good in the AHL.

Shocking news: if you don't respond to the discussion, people don't want you to respond to them. Shocking, I know.

I did respond to the discussion. I mentioned the flaws with your premise but put those aside and responded directly to a scenario in which we do acquire Markstrom and trade Murray and use the cap space wisely.

A late first round pick is pretty irrelevant to me next to a goalie who is substantially better than the proposed goaltending tandem that would replace him. At best you use that pick for a good trade deadline addition but we already have our own pick we can use for that if JR sees the team as poised to succeed. And if you keep the pick and make two first round selections this year with the Calgary pick that's all well and good but you probably don't reap the results from that (if any) for 3-4 years, at which point are we even still a contender?

Resorting to personal attacks is lame. It was also childish of me to respond in kind though. Let's leave the personal barbs out of these posts and just argue like reasonable people here which I think we both are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Empoleon8771

vikingGoalie

Registered User
Oct 31, 2010
2,880
1,297
John Gibson is a good comparable, imo. Gibson got 8 years and 51 million, aka 6.4 mil a season.

I would offer Murray something similar. If he requests anything greater I would move on from him.
Gibson is better then murray too. I'd trade Murray + ZAR gibson, right meow.
 

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,515
46,230
No? Where did I ever say that?

I said the extra assets you'd have plus the extra cap space would be the difference between being limited to a Hainsey type of addition and going bigger. You have both extra assets and extra cap space, so you're not limited to signing a $3.5 million UFA defenseman or trading a 2nd rounder for a guy like Hainsey. You can get better than that, either in free agency or via trades, because of the extra assets and cap space you have.

For example, if you trade Murray to Calgary for Rittich and a 1st and sign Jarry to a similar contract to what Saros got (3 years at $1.25 million), you're paying your goalies $4 million combined (compared to like $9.5 million in this discussion) and you have an additional 1st to use as an asset to trade. That's a pretty significant difference IMO.

And you've got two unproven goalies you're banking the rest of Sid and Geno's best years on. Maybe if this were a "we're rebuilding and looking to the future" type situation, you go ahead and deal Murray to land a cheaper goalie and an asset. But when this team is clearly built around maximizing Crosby and Malkin's remaining years as elite talents, I think it's a HUGE gamble to go with two unproven goalies.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,382
77,967
Redmond, WA
Resorting to personal attacks is lame. It was also childish of me to respond in kind though. Let's leave the personal barbs out of these posts and just argue like reasonable people here which I think we both are.

This is very fair, I apologize if I was coming off as a dick. I'm in multiple debates right now on both here and reddit (AoT chapter 123 dropped today lol), so I'm a little testy rn :laugh:

I did respond to the discussion. I mentioned the flaws with your premise but put those aside and responded directly to a scenario in which we do acquire Markstrom and trade Murray and use the cap space wisely.

A late first round pick is pretty irrelevant to me next to a goalie who is substantially better than the proposed goaltending tandem that would replace him. At best you use that pick for a good trade deadline addition but we already have our own pick we can use for that if JR sees the team as poised to succeed. And if you keep the pick and make two first round selections this year with the Calgary pick that's all well and good but you probably don't reap the results from that (if any) for 3-4 years, at which point are we even still a contender?

I wouldn't plan on using the extra 1st to draft, I'd be using that 1st with the Penguins 1st to get an impact player right now. You're not just limited to trading a 1st for a rental or using it in the draft, you do have other options. If the Penguins went this route, I'd be trying to either use the return for Murray to get an impact top-6 F or top-4 D or just trade Murray for one of those two things. If you're only paying your goalie tandem $4-$6 million, you can shoot higher than just adding a Hainsey type of player on defense or another Kahun in your middle-6.

With paying Murray $8.5 million, I think you're pretty much at the cap with this lineup (assuming $12 million for Simon, Kahun, Pettersson and McCann combined and cheap deals for depth guys):

Guentzel-Crosby-Simon
McCann-Malkin-Rust
Kahun-Bjugstad-Hornqvist
ZAR-Blueger-Tanev
Lafferty-Blandisi

Dumoulin-Letang
Pettersson-Marino
Johnson-Riikola
Ruhwedel

Murray-DeSmith/Jarry

You can get roster flexibility by trading Bjugstad, Johnson and ZAR, which gives you like $8.5 million in cap space. I think this lineup has 2 glaring flaws, top-6 winger and top-4 D, and you only have the money to fix 1 of them. Now, let's say you do the Murray to Calgary trade you quoted, you're now at $14 million in cap space and you have additional assets to trade. You can afford both a good top-6 winger and top-4 D for that price. Yes, you're downgrading from Murray to Rittich, but that swap is also followed up by being able to afford both a top-6 forward and top-4 D, instead of one or the other. That's the justification I'd see for doing it, it's worth the downgrade in net from above average to average in order to get another good player.

Now, if Murray isn't asking for a ridiculous amount of money, you keep the better goalie. If Murray's only asking for $7 million a year, you don't trade him because there isn't a reason to move him. He just has to be asking for that crazy amount, like the $8.5 million mentioned figure, for that to happen.

And you've got two unproven goalies you're banking the rest of Sid and Geno's best years on. Maybe if this were a "we're rebuilding and looking to the future" type situation, you go ahead and deal Murray to land a cheaper goalie and an asset. But when this team is clearly built around maximizing Crosby and Malkin's remaining years as elite talents, I think it's a HUGE gamble to go with two unproven goalies.

Rittich and Jarry aren't "unproven" like you're trying to say they are. By the time we'd actually be considering this, Rittich wouldn't be any less unproven than Murray was in the 2017 off-season. You wouldn't be doing this just to get an additional asset, you'd be doing this to get cap space to upgrade one of your other areas of need on the roster. The cost of that would be going from above average to average goaltending.
 

Goalie_Bob

1992 Vezina (2nd)
Dec 30, 2005
4,176
1,862
Pittsburgh
Murray has not done enough in his career to warrant 8.5 mil. He just hasn't. To get that kind of money you have to be a regular season workhorse (65+ starts a year for many seasons) plus be a playoff performer.

While Murray has shown he can be a playoff performer. He has not shown he is a regular season workhorse. IMO, he won't get anywhere near 8.5 mil. At this point in his career he is a 6-6.5mil a year goalie at the most.
 

molon labe

Registered User
Jul 13, 2016
4,565
2,933
Florida
Saving 1, 2, 3, hell even 4M on Murray isn't about adding another depth piece-

It's the difference between trading a guy making 900K for a guy making 4M. The difference between trading a Bjugstad for a 7M defender. You can't look at a move as straight cap savings/UFA money. Also- we have guys like Sid, Guentzel, and Letang [Edit: and Dumo!] making less than they would on the open market....which is a huge reason we've been able to retain guys versus selling them off. We can't get away from that and overpay Murray. That's beside the fact that most of us don't feel he's worth anywhere near 8M a season - let alone above it.

Part of the reason JR has had issues getting rid of guys or making moves is because he's constantly spending to the cap. Whenever he has a hockey trade in mind he's forced to try and move salary laterally - and that isn't always easy (you've got to consider that contracts continually go up -so guys you'd like to do 1 for 1's on based on performance might come in 2M apart).
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,282
25,205
Before I get into the latest round of Murrmania, a thought I've had on this -

You can't guarantee getting full value for him because you can't guarantee an open market for him. Just like Kessel - or Trouba, to pick a more like for like example - Murray is in a position to say "Nope" to a trade to a team he doesn't like. That's because just like Trouba, all he has to do is say "I will not sign a long term contract with you" and the team's bid most likely disappears. In the unlikely and hypothetical scenario of Murray being difficult enough that he'd get traded, I can't see him not being difficult about this as well. So there's some added fun.

I want to add that I don't think adding uncertainty regarding trading Murray counts as a rebuttal to the idea of trading him. The idea is independent on its own, it's whether it's smarter to overpay Murray or trade Murray, run with Jarry as the "goalie of the future" and save a good chunk of cap space by running with a Jarry-Veteran tandem. I don't think saying "what if you can't get a veteran goalie?" or "who's going to trade for Murray?" is a rebuttal to the idea of trading Murray, it's not relevant to the actual idea being discussed.

It's like saying "what if Murray regresses back to 2017-2018 form after he gets his extension?" to argue against the idea of overpaying Murray. Like that's entirely possible, but that's not an argument against overpaying Murray.

But if expressed as "how likely is Murray to regress back to 17-18 form after he gets his extension?" an argument against giving Murray money though - with the more money you're willing to give Murray meaning the more okay you are to see Murray achieve consensus-overpaid. Pretty much everything about Murray's future performance is an argument either for or against.

And so is uncertainty about the trade and the replacement. It's been part of every RFA/UFA argument I've witnessed here. There's about 10 players in the NHL where it doesn't make sense to trade them if everything falls into place in the trade return/players pushing through. The number where it doesn't make sense to trade them because there'll probably be things that don't fall into place is a lot bigger. That's why the probability of things not working out or being more difficult than anticipated is relevant.

A bunch of them? There are a lot of good goalies in the NHL today. I think you're just so against the idea that you're refusing to even consider it an option.

Let me add some more specifics to make it an easier question to answer:

1. Overpay Murray at like $8.5 million a year or more
2. Trade Murray to Calgary for Rittich, a prospect and a 1st, make Jarry the "goalie of the future" and run with a Jarry-Rittich tandem until Jarry's fully ready to be the starter.

Its not that I'm just refusing to consider it per se so much as what most of the ideas are making me consider is "How often does that happen though?" and "What are some examples of that which are feasible" and so on. I mean, when was the last time two clubs traded okay goaltender for good goaltender? I honestly can't think of one at all. And if it doesn't happen that often, how likely is it to happen this time?

Although in this case, yes, I am very reluctant to consider entrusting a year or maybe more of the last few years of the window to David Rittich. If that's the standard of goaltender you're willing to trust a contender's fate to, then it makes sense why you're so reluctant to pay Murray a large sum. I'm not. My main priority here is to minimise the risk of goaltending just selling a season down the river. I'm willing to consider that there's other ways of doing it than Murray but Rittich isn't one of them. You can do a lot with 6m, a 1st and good prospect, but it's not necessarily enough to overcome a goaltender just crapping the bed.

Dubnyk (33, 4.33x1) would be my number 1 target. 6'6" goalie who's averaged 64 games a year on a mediocre Wild club putting up respectable numbers. You'd only get one year out of his current contract, but that would allow the expected salary cap bump to hit in the 21-22 season before giving him a raise in his final contract (if we stuck with him). The Wild would have to consider based on the ages of the two goalies and the 'rebuild' plan they surely have in place going forward.

If you believe in Dubnyk that's a solid shout, although I'm not sure why Minnesota would be looking to pay the price for a Murray while trying to rebuild if that's their plan, and if they're still trying to contend, why they wouldn't make high end forwards their main target.

But I'm not a Dubnyk fan. I think he's a system goalie. Minnesota's top 4 has been very formidable.

Outside of him - I'd consider some of the older guys on a short deal or expiring deal hoping that Jarry is ready to take the reins. Those types of deals would either be via offer sheet to Murray (at the cap hit we'd rake in some nice draft picks), or by trading him for X and then signing those guys or trading a cheaper offensive piece to those teams looking to get out of them. One thing is for sure this Summer - there is no shortage of teams (both younger and older) who are in need of a #1 goalie.

Like who? Jimmy Howard? Cam Talbot? Because most of the older guys look pretty darn bad right now.

And if there's a lot of teams looking for a #1 goalie, doesn't that make it difficult for us to get one if we trade ours?

You are right. It would depend on the deal we can get done with Brodie like 5 x 5. Would there be anything we could send to get Lindholm in the deal as well?

I think you'd be doing very well to get Brodie to sign 5x5 at a new org when he's that close to FA and as for Lindholm, I don't know.

8 for 3, 7 for 5 or 6 for 6

That's what I'd put on the table for him and his agent. Anything else is too damn much money for too long for THIS team to ice a solid roster in front of whoever is in goal.

Otherwise I'm renewing the contract on my Jitterbug and staying past closing at PF Chang's calling everyone in the league.

Que? What about this team makes you think it can't put a solid roster in front of a well paid goaltender? I mean, as things stand, assuming you're getting a 2m salary cap raise, you could hand Murray an extra 5m next summer without touching the rest of the roster (thanks to the money saved from Guddy). I know we've got a lot of other new contracts to hand out, but managing that by money in, money out shouldn't be impossible. Not that I want to do that of course...

Also... once you've handed out the number 8 for anything, why baulk at adding more term to it?
 

molon labe

Registered User
Jul 13, 2016
4,565
2,933
Florida
Before I get into the latest round of Murrmania, a thought I've had on this -

You can't guarantee getting full value for him because you can't guarantee an open market for him. Just like Kessel - or Trouba, to pick a more like for like example - Murray is in a position to say "Nope" to a trade to a team he doesn't like. That's because just like Trouba, all he has to do is say "I will not sign a long term contract with you" and the team's bid most likely disappears. In the unlikely and hypothetical scenario of Murray being difficult enough that he'd get traded, I can't see him not being difficult about this as well. So there's some added fun.



But if expressed as "how likely is Murray to regress back to 17-18 form after he gets his extension?" an argument against giving Murray money though - with the more money you're willing to give Murray meaning the more okay you are to see Murray achieve consensus-overpaid. Pretty much everything about Murray's future performance is an argument either for or against.

And so is uncertainty about the trade and the replacement. It's been part of every RFA/UFA argument I've witnessed here. There's about 10 players in the NHL where it doesn't make sense to trade them if everything falls into place in the trade return/players pushing through. The number where it doesn't make sense to trade them because there'll probably be things that don't fall into place is a lot bigger. That's why the probability of things not working out or being more difficult than anticipated is relevant.



Its not that I'm just refusing to consider it per se so much as what most of the ideas are making me consider is "How often does that happen though?" and "What are some examples of that which are feasible" and so on. I mean, when was the last time two clubs traded okay goaltender for good goaltender? I honestly can't think of one at all. And if it doesn't happen that often, how likely is it to happen this time?

Although in this case, yes, I am very reluctant to consider entrusting a year or maybe more of the last few years of the window to David Rittich. If that's the standard of goaltender you're willing to trust a contender's fate to, then it makes sense why you're so reluctant to pay Murray a large sum. I'm not. My main priority here is to minimise the risk of goaltending just selling a season down the river. I'm willing to consider that there's other ways of doing it than Murray but Rittich isn't one of them. You can do a lot with 6m, a 1st and good prospect, but it's not necessarily enough to overcome a goaltender just crapping the bed.



If you believe in Dubnyk that's a solid shout, although I'm not sure why Minnesota would be looking to pay the price for a Murray while trying to rebuild if that's their plan, and if they're still trying to contend, why they wouldn't make high end forwards their main target.

But I'm not a Dubnyk fan. I think he's a system goalie. Minnesota's top 4 has been very formidable.



Like who? Jimmy Howard? Cam Talbot? Because most of the older guys look pretty darn bad right now.

And if there's a lot of teams looking for a #1 goalie, doesn't that make it difficult for us to get one if we trade ours?




I think you'd be doing very well to get Brodie to sign 5x5 at a new org when he's that close to FA and as for Lindholm, I don't know.



Que? What about this team makes you think it can't put a solid roster in front of a well paid goaltender? I mean, as things stand, assuming you're getting a 2m salary cap raise, you could hand Murray an extra 5m next summer without touching the rest of the roster (thanks to the money saved from Guddy). I know we've got a lot of other new contracts to hand out, but managing that by money in, money out shouldn't be impossible. Not that I want to do that of course...

Also... once you've handed out the number 8 for anything, why baulk at adding more term to it?

That's why you get a veteran who's not at the top of anyone's list and split games with Jarry. You only deal Murray if you think Jarry is the future. Anderson will likely be available for a 1 or 2 year deal. Crawford is likely looking at a short term 'prove it' deal like Lehner did. There's quite a sample of guys who've been merely average who may like the idea of a short term deal with a potential contender.

With Dubnyk- Minnesota gets a guy 7+ years younger who - during the length of his 7 year deal, puts them right where they are with Dub today in 2019. From all accounts, it looks like Guerin is looking to restructure that team and having a younger #1 goalie is a great way to do that. Inversely - you look at the Rangers who are building with multiple pieces....who will probably all come together at the time Henrik retires.
 

Pancakes

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Mar 4, 2011
25,929
17,610
lots of stuff

No problem man. It happens. I'm a little grumpy myself from having to get up at 7am this morning for work related stuff. So I feel ya there.

So if you do get those cap savings and use the first+ to grab a higher tier talent, that's definitely an option. My question there would be who would be available. I could see an argument for example for making that move and trying to use the picks + cap savings to acquire Taylor Hall if he opts to leave NJ. Of course that seems insanely optimistic given A) the Devils almost never trade with us and B) it's an in division trade and would be predicated on Hall wanting to go to FA. But that is one scenario where I could see clearing up some cap space with the intention of taking a run at Hall either in trade or eventually via FA.

Rittich isn't unproven, but I'd argue Jarry is. Yes I'm aware Murray at one point was as well, but Murray had a track record of being an insanely dominant AHL goalie. Jarry doesn't have that. It was pretty clear based on what Murray was doing in the AHL that it was only a matter of time before he was an NHL goalie. I'd be very nervous about turning over lots of starts to Jarry. He has played well this year so far, but as we all know the more starts the more chance of exposure.

As far as what Murray's contract will actually be - I do hope that he doesn't ask for the moon. JR has had some bad free agent contracts but has generally done well enough with our RFAs. The Guentzel contract was very good. It sounds like Pettersson might land at around 4 million which I consider to be a good contract. So if Murray can be 7 or 7.5, that's great. If it's 8.5 I'd do it begrudgingly if I absolutely had to, but that's because I just think there is too much uncertainty involved with moving him. I'm not sure it's a risk I want to take. If it all worked out the way you hope, we would be a better team potentially, but there's just so much risk there as @Peat said as well.
 

Hamurai

Registered User
Jun 19, 2019
280
285
Pittsburgh
Convincing...Might not be intentionally implied by Murray himself but by the action it certainly does.

Sid himself said on his Chiclet's interview that the "team friendly" deals don't work unless they start from the top-end guys down and other than our UFA signing's, we have some pretty damn good contracts.

You really think Murray is gonna show up and ask for 8.5 when Sid is making 200k more and he's an all-time great?

It's like AB marching into Belichick's office and demanding as much as Brady. AB ended up with 15 mil on a year deal and Brady is at roughly 22 mil this year. And obviously it goes without saying AB is a way better receiver than Murray is a goalie.
You sign a team friendly deal, so the team has flexibility in signing others. If you do it to set an internal individual cap on player value then you handcuff the team through the general year over year economics of the nhl just as much as signing a full market deal.

That said, I am not advocating paying Murray $8.5m. I think the equilibrium between signing him vs. trading, collecting assets, and bringing in another starter (either Jarry and/or established vet) is $7-7.5m aav.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shady Machine

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,382
77,967
Redmond, WA
I think the biggest thing that scares me with the Murray contract is that JR does the same thing he did with Ward, where he gave him an absolute **** load of money that he didn't deserve, and mediocre goaltending holds the Penguins back going forward. At least from what the stats say, Ward from ages 23-25 has been pretty similar to Murray from ages 23-25, and Ward only had like 2 good seasons after his huge extension. Granted, I think Murray is much better than Ward was, but that doesn't lessen my concern because that just makes me think it's more likely JR overpays him.

With Carolina, they got like 2-3 good seasons out of Ward after the extension (depends on what you mean by "after", he signed his extension a year before his bridge deal was done), but he was a bad starter after that. I think the Murray equivalent of this would be great for 2-3 years, but an average to below average starter for the rest of the deal. JR really hurt the Canes by committing way too much money to a goalie who didn't deserve that, and I have serious concerns about him doing the same here.
 

EightyOne

My posts are jokes. And hockey is just a game.
Nov 23, 2016
12,697
12,034
...

Also... once you've handed out the number 8 for anything, why baulk at adding more term to it?

Because I don't trust him to get any less inconsistent or injury prone and if he regresses you want to put that money ANYWHERE else.

Everyone afraid of getting a worse goalie in the future,, why aren't you afraid of Murray BEING that worse goalie?

8mil for only 3 years would shut him up enough through what's pretty much the end of Sid/Geno, so it'd be what it is. You can revisit a moderate raise or a for sure ditch him after that...vs being stuck at 8 for FIVE more years.

I'm also fairly confident the cap increases will not be as lucrative as predicted.
 

Hamurai

Registered User
Jun 19, 2019
280
285
Pittsburgh
I think the biggest thing that scares me with the Murray contract is that JR does the same thing he did with Ward, where he gave him an absolute **** load of money that he didn't deserve, and mediocre goaltending holds the Penguins back going forward. At least from what the stats say, Ward from ages 23-25 has been pretty similar to Murray from ages 23-25, and Ward only had like 2 good seasons after his huge extension. Granted, I think Murray is much better than Ward was, but that doesn't lessen my concern because that just makes me think it's more likely JR overpays him.

With Carolina, they got like 2-3 good seasons out of Ward after the extension (depends on what you mean by "after", he signed his extension a year before his bridge deal was done), but he was a bad starter after that. I think the Murray equivalent of this would be great for 2-3 years, but an average to below average starter for the rest of the deal. JR really hurt the Canes by committing way too much money to a goalie who didn't deserve that, and I have serious concerns about him doing the same here.
I agree. The pens have been in talks with Murray though. I would think if they had already offered him an absolute shit load then he would be signed.

well I guess unless he thinks he’s worth more than a shit load lol
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,282
25,205
Because I don't trust him to get any less inconsistent or injury prone and if he regresses you want to put that money ANYWHERE else.

Everyone afraid of getting a worse goalie in the future,, why aren't you afraid of Murray BEING that worse goalie?

8mil for only 3 years would shut him up enough through what's pretty much the end of Sid/Geno, so it'd be what it is. You can revisit a moderate raise or a for sure ditch him after that...vs being stuck at 8 for FIVE more years.

I'm also fairly confident the cap increases will not be as lucrative as predicted.

If he stinks, I'm not sure whether it matters if he stinks for 3 years or 8 at this point. You're screwed for the important part either way and trading him would be easier, but not massively. Either you trust him or you don't. And if you trust him, why get picky over some extra years. And if you don't, why the hell are you giving him 8m for our window anyway?

Or do you sorta-kinda-semi trust him? :P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->