Speculation: Will Treliving Show Bennett the Money?

[Johnny Hoxville]

Fair enough AS, Yak is a much better example. I'll simply reply giving him the bridge is the absolute safe play, for now. If though at the end of his 2nd year he records 60pts, he's basically getting Monahan money over 6+ years which is going to be tough to do with getting Tkachuk locked up. I feel confident that Sam is an everyday NHL player, Yak is not (I know hindsight but there were flags). So you would be gambling that he's going to be a player that you have high expectations for. With bridging him, you're also gambling on the fact that if he really breaks out, then you need to pay him a large contract.

As long as the cap is reasonable (under 4.5), I would try to get as many years as possible like 6 years or more.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

I think there are three options.

Option 1 - one year deal, <$2 million. This only benefits 21 year old Sam Bennett if he's poised for a break out, but also gives the team breathing room. Keep in mind this is a player who's averaged 0.42 PPG, including ploffs, with sub-par linemates. This is the least likely deal.

Option 2 - two to three year bridge. Around $3.5 million AAV. This is a safer bet for the team, but also benefits 23-24 year old Sam Bennett if he breaks out - all but guaranteeing him 8 years at large money.

Option 3 - seven or eight year extension, $4.5 to $5 million AAV. Zero risk to the player as he doesn't have to prove anything, and 28-29 year old Sam Bennett will be looking for another seven or eight year deal as a pending UFA. For someone with an injury "history" (sorta) this deal makes a lot of sense from the player's side.

I prefer option 3, slightly more than option 1. Option 2 is only desirable if he busts, which is probably not the case.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

I'm sorry, I like Bennett, but I'm still not comfortable with the idea of throwing that much term and money at him. I'd rather have to pay him an extra million or two a year if he breaks out than be overpaying him long term if he busts.

Rather pay him 6.5 million a year if he breaks out and proves himself than risk paying him 4.5 for 8 years and he stagnates essentially.

 

[Calgareee]

I think there are three options.

Option 1 - one year deal, <$2 million. This only benefits 21 year old Sam Bennett if he's poised for a break out, but also gives the team breathing room. Keep in mind this is a player who's averaged 0.42 PPG, including ploffs, with sub-par linemates. This is the least likely deal.

Option 2 - two to three year bridge. Around $3.5 million AAV. This is a safer bet for the team, but also benefits 23-24 year old Sam Bennett if he breaks out - all but guaranteeing him 8 years at large money.

Option 3 - seven or eight year extension, $4.5 to $5 million AAV. Zero risk to the player as he doesn't have to prove anything, and 28-29 year old Sam Bennett will be looking for another seven or eight year deal as a pending UFA. For someone with an injury "history" (sorta) this deal makes a lot of sense from the player's side.

I prefer option 3, slightly more than option 1. Option 2 is only desirable if he busts, which is probably not the case.

This is a tough one to peg for sure. I'm hoping for a 2 year around 2.5. He hasn't earned a 3.5 mill short bridge imo.

If he has a breakout year do we move/not resign Backlund? If Jankowski comes in and shows that he can be a solid 3C who moves where? Brouwer does throw a bit of a loop in the cap structure and trying to time new contracts (Jank, Tkachuk, Bennett) with expiring ones will be super important.

 

[Anglesmith]

The same Treliving who signed Johnny to $6.75M out of his ELC after a 78 point season isn't going to sign Bennett to >$4.5M out of his ELC after a 26 point season. I know it would be two more UFA years, but that just doesn't make sense.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

When Bennett-Backlund-Frolik was our second line, Bennett was better than Frolik in that role, aside from the occasional typical rookie mistake in the D zone.

Bennett has struggled when centered by Granlund or when centering Chiasson/Brouwer, but I have seen enough with Backlund, Gaudreau, Frolik, even Colborne to think that if he doesn't improve from where he was last year, he is a strong middle six forward with decent linemates. Not paying him strictly because he struggled centering a third line is missing the forest for the trees. He was a 2LW at age 18, at age 19 he was a defensively solid 2LW, and now he starting to become a defensively strong center and elite penalty killer. That is all based on past performance, not future. He probably would have put up 25 / 25 if he were our 2LW/RW with Backlund and Tkachuk last year, does anyone seriously think otherwise? i mean I wouldn't put it past him to have hit 30/30 with those two.

Bennett is a natural center and is being developed as one on a team with two strong centers, so his stats took a hit. His actual worth right now is a 4+ million dollar player.

Getting him to a Klefbom deal is not a risk. Even statistically he has around 1.4 P/60 at even strength on his career, which is right in line with guys like Silfverberg and Frolik.

 

[Calgareee]

Is 4 years the longest we can go for it to expire with one year before UFA?

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Is 4 years the longest we can go for it to expire with one year before UFA?

Three I believe someone said earlier.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

He's eligible for Group 3 UFA after the 2021 season.

 

[Spawn]

2x~2M would be my guess.

 

[King In The North]

2x~2M would be my guess.

This would be fine imo

 

[djpatm]

Where can you compare players possession metrics with and without a certain player on the ice?

I have my doubts that his line mates are the issue, since he doesn't his use his line mates well enough. But it's kind of a chicken and the egg scenario.

Are his line mates letting him down so he doesn't use them or does he not use his line mates so it looks like they're letting him down...

 

[Volica]

Where can you compare players possession metrics with and without a certain player on the ice?

I have my doubts that his line mates are the issue, since he doesn't his use his line mates well enough. But it's kind of a chicken and the egg scenario.

Are his line mates letting him down so he doesn't use them or does he not use his line mates so it looks like they're letting him down...

Puckanalytics use to be the easiest place for it, but that's gone now.

http://naturalstattrick.com/playerr...7&stype=2&sit=5v5&rate=n&v=t&playerid=8477935

There's a link to Natural Stat Trick. You can see, without Brouwer, Bennett's CF% almost jumps 10%

 

[djpatm]

Sweet thanks!

Interesting. Wait why are there two CF without columns?

 

[Dack]

Sweet thanks!

Interesting. Wait why are there two CF without columns?

The second CF without is the teamates CF without . For example Brouwer improves about 0.6% away from Bennett and Bennett improves about 8% away from Brouwer.

One of the other things that likely made him look worse than he was is his on Ice percentages. If I'm not mistaken he's either last or second last for both Oish% (on Ice shooting percentage) and Oisv (on Ice save percentage). He had almost no puck luck.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Puckanalytics use to be the easiest place for it, but that's gone now.

http://naturalstattrick.com/playerr...7&stype=2&sit=5v5&rate=n&v=t&playerid=8477935

There's a link to Natural Stat Trick. You can see, without Brouwer, Bennett's CF% almost jumps 10%

The old adage is that good players can make bad players look better than they are.

Not saying Brouwer is "bad" but does he perform worse without Bennett? Edit: didn't scroll to the end. So he doesn't perform worse. That's interesting.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Where can you compare players possession metrics with and without a certain player on the ice?

I have my doubts that his line mates are the issue, since he doesn't his use his line mates well enough. But it's kind of a chicken and the egg scenario.

Are his line mates letting him down so he doesn't use them or does he not use his line mates so it looks like they're letting him down...

C) Bennett uses his linemates as well as any typical 20 year old with high-end skills and speed, and you're letting confirmation bias colour your observation because this isn't recently familiar territory for Flames fans, as Monahan never carried the puck at the same age and Backlund was in the AHL.

The problem with a with or without you stat is that Bennett played with Brouwer a lot, and Brouwer deagged down everyone independant of Brouwer. Bennett also played most with Versteeg on LW rather than Gaudreau or Tkachuk, both of whom are more dynamic.

So with that in mind here is the Dangerous Fenwick % WOWY for Bennett per puckIQ. Would have done CF% too but see it was linked above.

#93 Bennett WOWY 2015-16

Winger|TOI W 93| DFF% W 93 | DFF% W/O 93 Bennett
All|972.53|47.40|49.00
Brouwer|376.45|40.70|42.40
Chiasson|413.65|51.90|50.90
Frolik|56.43|58.70|51.80
Versteeg|398.58|42.30|42.10
Tkachuk|60.42|51.90|53.40
Gaudreau|201.83|56.30|49.70
Ferland|120.50|48.60|45.10

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

^Ferland's W and W/O should be flipped above. IIRC Brouwer was the RW when Ferland was there as with Tkachuk.

 

[Mr Snrub]

This long wait time is making me concerned. Something tells me Treliving is trying to get a Klefbom-style deal and Bennett's camp isn't buying it.

 

[Anglesmith]

See, I don't really worry about this one because we're talking about a player who had <30 points last season. It gives Bennett's camp very little leverage to work with, which means it's not really realistic for him to hold out, IMO. The fact that Bennett still has so much to prove is what will create the pressure on him to sign.

 

[Mr Snrub]

See, I don't really worry about this one because we're talking about a player who had <30 points last season. It gives Bennett's camp very little leverage to work with, which means it's not really realistic for him to hold out, IMO. The fact that Bennett still has so much to prove is what will create the pressure on him to sign.

That's exactly what bothers me, though. Seems like everyone agrees in general what this deal should look like - there's maybe a million to a million and a half that can be argued over, or a year or two - unless we're talking about a very different contract than what everyone's expecting. It makes me concerned that one of the sides is trying something a little weird.

For the record I would not be down with a 4x6 or something to that effect. Too much risk involved.

 

[Anglesmith]

That's exactly what bothers me, though. Seems like everyone agrees in general what this deal should look like - there's maybe a million to a million and a half that can be argued over, or a year or two - unless we're talking about a very different contract than what everyone's expecting. It makes me concerned that one of the sides is trying something a little weird.

For the record I would not be down with a 4x6 or something to that effect. Too much risk involved.

Treliving right away went on record saying "these ones take time." And he's really taken a great deal of time with most of the contracts he's signed since taking over as GM. It's kind of his calling card at this point.

Remember, Ferland had zero leverage, too, and yet it still took him right up until near his arbitration date to settle.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Treliving right away went on record saying "these ones take time." And he's really taken a great deal of time with most of the contracts he's signed since taking over as GM. It's kind of his calling card at this point.

Remember, Ferland had zero leverage, too, and yet it still took him right up until near his arbitration date to settle.

Uh...

I definitely view arbitration as leverage, arguably one of the best leverages RFA's have. Ferland also had multiple comparable that signed right before he did.

 

[djpatm]

yeah but Bennett legitimately has no leverage.

Teams not going to miss his 20 points even if he decides to sit the whole season.

 

[Anglesmith]

Uh...

I definitely view arbitration as leverage, arguably one of the best leverages RFA's have. Ferland also had multiple comparable that signed right before he did.

Not in Ferland's case. Arbitration is leverage for both sides, depending on whose ask is more ridiculous. I can't imagine the Flames were offering him much less than what an arbitrator would have awarded.