William Nylander Value/Contract

Status
Not open for further replies.

MyBudJT

Registered User
Mar 5, 2018
7,429
4,576
I was against burning a year off his ELC at the time. I remember a lot of people critciszed me for saying it was a stupid move. Look what I posted on March 31, 2016:



If we didn't burn a year on his ELC and waste money on guys like Martin... we could have signed Tavares to a long term contract, and signed Jumbo Joe and Kovalchuk to one year deals. Sounds like fantasy hockey, but we could have done it. The reason we could do it is because we could have had Matthews, Marner, and Nylander all making less then $3 million combined. That's the most insane value ever in cap hockey. Imagine running with these forward lines next year:

Kadri - Matthews - Marner
Kovalchuk - Tavares - Nylander
Marleau - Jumbo Joe - Brown

We could have assembled basically a dream team this year. But we wasted a year of his ELC on a tanking season for no good reason. We signed guys like Martin to bad contracts. These little mistakes could add up to a player like Kovalchuk or Jumbo Joe not coming here because of cap space.

Imagine if we handed things over to Dubas this year with the big 3 all earning their ELC contracts. Dubas would have had a mountain of cap space to work with.

You were wrong then, and you're still wrong now.

Nylander would probably demand more money on his contract extension, has he had another ELC year to 'prove himself'.
Having Nylander, Marner and Matthews' new contracts kick in at the same time would be VERY hard to manage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nithoniniel

PuckMagi

Registered User
Apr 13, 2013
5,459
1,965
Toronto
You were wrong then, and you're still wrong now.

Nylander would probably demand more money on his contract extension, has he had another ELC year to 'prove himself'.
Having Nylander, Marner and Matthews' new contracts kick in at the same time would be VERY hard to manage.


So you brought up two points... both of which I don't think are correct.

1) You're basically claiming that if he was on the last year of his ELC season, he could play very well and demand more money. Yes, that's possible. It's also possible he plays the same and gets the same money. It's also possible he plays worse and gets less money. It's possible he gets an injury this year which would make us not want to lock him up long term. So there are advantages and disadvantages. When you average everything out, I'm not sure the savings are all that significant. And it's certainly a much safer approach to get an extra free year to evaluate him before handing him a big contract. I also don't see a lot of other teams doing this with their star players. Generally they try to get good value out of the ELC contract by getting 3 full seasons at that cheap cap hit. I'm just guessing here, but I don't think many other organizations have their top prospect play around 20 games in a tanking season and burn a year of an ELC contract. Maybe it happens occasionally, but it certainly doesn't seem like an optimal strategy that coaches and GMs are using.

2) It would not be very hard to manage the cap situation. You basically have two options. First option is to have an extra $5 million in cap space this year. Second option is to not have an extra $5 million in cap space this year. Which option would you choose? Obviously you take free cap space. Next year we are in the same situation where the big three are all under contract. The only difference is whether Nylander gets paid $1 million this coming season, or $6 million this coming season.

Your first point is subjective... so you can argue it either way.

Your second point is just wrong. Free cap space is always good. If you don't spend it... fine, then don't spend it. But it's good to have so that you can sign players to 1 year contracts.
 
Last edited:

Bigmarycombo

Registered User
Jul 15, 2017
1,439
1,365
Nylander is a very good young player with lots of potential to become an elite player if he puts everything together.
So far he hasn’t shown the desire to get to the next level by
Elevating his game. He is still young and can learn from his short comings.
I hope he can put it all together.

I think he would be better at center because he wouldn’t have to play as much as a physical game as he would in the wing. He hasn’t developed that part of his game and he has too many skate bys where the dman has the puck and he skates towards him and swipes at the puck and just continues on by.

If you look at his body of work he seems to really use his skill on big ice surfaces where he utilizes his speed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcinnesja

Maplebeasts

I See Demons!!!!!
Oct 26, 2014
20,706
12,323
Barrie, Ontario


Interpret this and then slap yourself in the face if you've ever suggested trading Nylander for a non-top pair D or similar aged D with top pair potential.

Easily worth 6y/6-7M

Some people actually wanted to trade him for Josh Manson. Center depth is an issue and a number of us want to to move the second highest upside center in the organization who's an established first line player at 21 with potential for more. I don't understand either
 

Menzinger

Kessel4LadyByng
Apr 24, 2014
40,973
32,364
St. Paul, MN
Some people actually wanted to trade him for Josh Manson. Center depth is an issue and a number of us want to to move the second highest upside center in the organization who's an established first line player at 21 with potential for more. I don't understand either

He’s one of the best players the Leafs have drafted and developed in 20+ years, I also don’t understand how he pops up so often in trade proposals
 

PromisedLand

I need more FOOD
Dec 3, 2016
41,839
52,030
Hogwarts


Interpret this and then slap yourself in the face if you've ever suggested trading Nylander for a non-top pair D or similar aged D with top pair potential.

Easily worth 6y/6-7M


Can someone retweet this to Craig Button.

Now that I think about it; hey Leafs Nation can all of you tweet this to that buffoon.
 

Nithoniniel

Registered User
Sep 7, 2012
20,913
16,749
Skövde, Sweden
The more I've thought about this, the more I question the conventional wisdom of giving a full eight year contract.

The reason is that there are good reasons to consider the full career if possible, and so you want the deals you make to coincide as well as possible with the prime and drop-off ages. For high-end players, they usually reach their prime at around 23, a few years later they start to drop off offensively while getting better defensively, and then start to see a substantial decline as they pass the 30-mark. For the average player, the curve is even earlier.

As such, there's a huge risk in bringing Nylander up to the age of 30. At that point he's likely still good enough to be worth a big contract, but such a contract would have huge question marks attached to it. It'll be a decision on whether you want to roll the dice that Nylander is one of those guys that maintain their game for a long time, or lose him already at 30.

That's why I wouldn't necessarily mind a three year bridge at this point. A two year bridge might be even better. It gets us through this cap-related bottleneck we have coming up, and it puts us in a position to sign him for an eight year deal where he'll be in a prime for the majority of the contract, and it will put him at 33 when it expires. At an age where he is in all likelihood not the same player, and we have a much more prudent decision at that point. If he's valuable, we can likely retain him on short contracts with manageable cap hits, and if he is not it's an easier decision to let him go.

I think aspects like that might outweigh the higher cap hit we'll get over the first eight years. We buy a longer period with him as a controlled asset, and we buy a more versatile contract situation in his twilight years. Plus, for those who are still not completely sure about him, it gives him time to answer those, and if we don't like the answers then he's still an RFA asset and we can trade him for good value.

22-24 = Lower cap hit, entering prime.
25-29 = Higher cap hit throughout his prime.
30-32 = For sure under contract, and cap hit might even be lower.
33+ = Flexible contract situation instead of lost or on a scary contract.

I know some people will say this is being premature. Of course it is, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't factor into the planning.
 
Last edited:

SniperOnTheWing

Registered User
Apr 28, 2017
1,966
2,798
22-24 = Lower cap hit, entering prime.
25-29 = Higher cap hit throughout his prime.
30-32 = For sure under contract, and cap hit might even be lower.
33+ = Flexible contract situation instead of lost or on a scary contract.

Are you suggesting we sign him to a bunch of small term deals, one career phase at a time? Makes sense from a fan standpoint but I doubt he goes for it.

Bridge deals make sense for certain players depending on the circumstances at the time they sign them, like a player coming off a so-so ELC year who is confident they can do better than the offer they're likely to get on a long term contract - Nylander might be one of those guys, and Kucherov for example pulled off a textbook bridge - but at the same time players want and need job security and want the longest term deals they can get especially once they start passing 25 or 26 years of age. Kucherov bet on himself when he signed his bridge and will hit the jackpot because of it, but he's definitely not taking a bunch more short term deals the rest of his career. He'll want eight years and a contract that gives him security until he turns 34, then maybe look for a three or four year contract after that Patrick Marleau style.

Nylander won't put up Kucherov numbers on a bridge deal but he would definitely come out of it looking for maximum term and more money, then you're paying him more and for longer. May as well try and get him for 7-8yrs now at a lower number if we can. Whether he wants to do that or not remains to be seen but I suspect he will. Back to back 61pt seasons to start a career and a rising cap puts you in that $6.5M territory and is a pretty solid number. I'd be happy to lock him up for that full term. Better than a short bridge then an big $8M AAV contract going into more uncertain tail end years.
 

Nithoniniel

Registered User
Sep 7, 2012
20,913
16,749
Skövde, Sweden
Are you suggesting we sign him to a bunch of small term deals, one career phase at a time? Makes sense from a fan standpoint but I doubt he goes for it.
Well no. A bridge deal, an eight year deal, and then we'll see.

Point is that it would be better now, worse in the five coming years, and then potentially better for what remains of his career. It also means that he's around for 11 years guaranteed, rather than 8. But like you said, it all depends on whether or not he'd be fine with a bridge deal.
 

DarkKnight

Professional Amateur
Jan 17, 2017
31,304
47,699
The more I've thought about this, the more I question the conventional wisdom of giving a full eight year contract.

The reason is that there are good reasons to consider the full career if possible, and so you want the deals you make to coincide as well as possible with the prime and drop-off ages. For high-end players, they usually reach their prime at around 23, a few years later they start to drop off offensively while getting better defensively, and then start to see a substantial decline as they pass the 30-mark. For the average player, the curve is even earlier.

As such, there's a huge risk in bringing Nylander up to the age of 30. At that point he's likely still good enough to be worth a big contract, but such a contract would have huge question marks attached to it. It'll be a decision on whether you want to roll the dice that Nylander is one of those guys that maintain their game for a long time, or lose him already at 30.

That's why I wouldn't necessarily mind a three year bridge at this point. A two year bridge might be even better. It gets us through this cap-related bottleneck we have coming up, and it puts us in a position to sign him for an eight year deal where he'll be in a prime for the majority of the contract, and it will put him at 33 when it expires. At an age where he is in all likelihood not the same player, and we have a much more prudent decision at that point. If he's valuable, we can likely retain him on short contracts with manageable cap hits, and if he is not it's an easier decision to let him go.

I think aspects like that might outweigh the higher cap hit we'll get over the first eight years. We buy a longer period with him as a controlled asset, and we buy a more versatile contract situation in his twilight years. Plus, for those who are still not completely sure about him, it gives him time to answer those, and if we don't like the answers then he's still an RFA asset and we can trade him for good value.

22-24 = Lower cap hit, entering prime.
25-29 = Higher cap hit throughout his prime.
30-32 = For sure under contract, and cap hit might even be lower.
33+ = Flexible contract situation instead of lost or on a scary contract.

I know some people will say this is being premature. Of course it is, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't factor into the planning.
Only quibble I have with this rationale, when you say players hit their prime at 23, but get better defensively later. For myself, that would mean a more complete player say age 26 in totality, what you've lost offensively, you've gained in experience and defensive acumen. So the prime is still 26 or so for me. A net decline after that, and I too think a bridge deal has certain merit here.
 

Daisy Jane

everything is gonna be okay!
Jul 2, 2009
70,212
9,189
The more I've thought about this, the more I question the conventional wisdom of giving a full eight year contract.

The reason is that there are good reasons to consider the full career if possible, and so you want the deals you make to coincide as well as possible with the prime and drop-off ages. For high-end players, they usually reach their prime at around 23, a few years later they start to drop off offensively while getting better defensively, and then start to see a substantial decline as they pass the 30-mark. For the average player, the curve is even earlier.

As such, there's a huge risk in bringing Nylander up to the age of 30. At that point he's likely still good enough to be worth a big contract, but such a contract would have huge question marks attached to it. It'll be a decision on whether you want to roll the dice that Nylander is one of those guys that maintain their game for a long time, or lose him already at 30.

That's why I wouldn't necessarily mind a three year bridge at this point. A two year bridge might be even better. It gets us through this cap-related bottleneck we have coming up, and it puts us in a position to sign him for an eight year deal where he'll be in a prime for the majority of the contract, and it will put him at 33 when it expires. At an age where he is in all likelihood not the same player, and we have a much more prudent decision at that point. If he's valuable, we can likely retain him on short contracts with manageable cap hits, and if he is not it's an easier decision to let him go.

I think aspects like that might outweigh the higher cap hit we'll get over the first eight years. We buy a longer period with him as a controlled asset, and we buy a more versatile contract situation in his twilight years. Plus, for those who are still not completely sure about him, it gives him time to answer those, and if we don't like the answers then he's still an RFA asset and we can trade him for good value.

22-24 = Lower cap hit, entering prime.
25-29 = Higher cap hit throughout his prime.
30-32 = For sure under contract, and cap hit might even be lower.
33+ = Flexible contract situation instead of lost or on a scary contract.

I know some people will say this is being premature. Of course it is, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't factor into the planning.


that's what i've been saying.
bridge'em.
 

Sypher04

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
11,360
9,539
Bridging them will not work in favor, and there's no good reason for them to even be open to it.

You don't bridge guys like Matthews and Marner especially, but I don't think doing it with Nylander is at all smart either.
 

MR4

Registered User
Oct 20, 2014
6,270
2,253
I think you take the lower cap during the team's prime years (years 2-7 on the Nylander contract if 7 years long), and then figure it out down the line. Maybe you sign him to a big deal, play him for the first 3 years, and see if he's the type projected to deteriorate quick or not (I don't think he will be, I could see a zetterberg like career for 30+ yr old Nylander)
 

Trapper

Registered User
Nov 21, 2013
23,736
11,002
Bridging them will not work in favor, and there's no good reason for them to even be open to it.

You don't bridge guys like Matthews and Marner especially, but I don't think doing it with Nylander is at all smart either.
Nylander is in a slightly different situation IMO.
Is he a center or winger?
Matthews is pretty straight forward. Center. We are looking at the Eichel contract for starters.
Marner = RW.
What are you paying Nylander as? Does Nylander (and his agent) believe in his long term ability as center in the NHL? And then what type of center? No. 1? No. 2? Kuznestov?
Winger? Pastrnak? Nylander is currently a 60 point winger in the NHL. Pastrnak is currently an 80 point winger (last year 70 point winger) in the NHL.
 

Sypher04

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
11,360
9,539
Nylander is in a slightly different situation IMO.
Is he a center or winger?
Matthews is pretty straight forward. Center. We are looking at the Eichel contract for starters.
Marner = RW.
What are you paying Nylander as? Does Nylander (and his agent) believe in his long term ability as center in the NHL? And then what type of center? No. 1? No. 2? Kuznestov?
Winger? Pastrnak? Nylander is currently a 60 point winger in the NHL. Pastrnak is currently an 80 point winger (last year 70 point winger) in the NHL.

I think he gets paid as a RW because that is what he's played. He may ultimately move to center afterwards, but thems the breaks. He has little to no Center history in the NHL to base contract on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: therealkoho

Sypher04

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
11,360
9,539
Would love if we could get Nylander and Marner on an Ehlers contract - 42M/7 Year’s

Increased a bit for inflation that's exactly what I expect Nylander to get. Marner will likely be a bit more though.
 

daner

Registered User
Feb 18, 2009
395
77
Whatever he comes in at hopefully management can leverage our bargain contracts such as kadri, andersen, reilly into negotiations. Perhaps use a T-bay approach. For the good of the overall team. Can Nylander really say he is more valuable or integral to the team than any of these three players? His camp will probably state these above mentioned broke out after they had already been locked up though.
 

Walshy7

Registered User
Sep 18, 2016
25,326
9,343
Toronto
Whatever he comes in at hopefully management can leverage our bargain contracts such as kadri, andersen, reilly into negotiations. Perhaps use a T-bay approach. For the good of the overall team. Can Nylander really say he is more valuable or integral to the team than any of these three players? His camp will probably state these above mentioned broke out after they had already been locked up though.

kadri as the only forward there, only hit 50 points once before he signed his extension. I know he got 44 in 48 in the lock out year but the 50 point barrier was reached once. Nylander reached kadri's career high twice in his first 2 seasons in the league. Rielly and Andersen aren't comparables
 

daner

Registered User
Feb 18, 2009
395
77
kadri as the only forward there, only hit 50 points once before he signed his extension. I know he got 44 in 48 in the lock out year but the 50 point barrier was reached once. Nylander reached kadri's career high twice in his first 2 seasons in the league. Rielly and Andersen aren't comparables

I disagree. Everything is comparable. No one makes as much as stamkos because he is there captain/best/most valuable player. Hedman was never going to be paid more than him because that’s t-bays motto. Pitt has similar view. No one ever gets paid more than Malkin/Crosby.

Sure nylander had more points than kadri but what about winger vs centre? Blocked shots? Hits? Etc?

All I’m saying is I hope they can talk nylander, Marner, Matthews into looking at how much others (even on low contracts) on the team make and leverage them into somewhat lower deals.
 

SniperOnTheWing

Registered User
Apr 28, 2017
1,966
2,798
I disagree. Everything is comparable. No one makes as much as stamkos because he is there captain/best/most valuable player. Hedman was never going to be paid more than him because that’s t-bays motto. Pitt has similar view. No one ever gets paid more than Malkin/Crosby.

Sure nylander had more points than kadri but what about winger vs centre? Blocked shots? Hits? Etc?

All I’m saying is I hope they can talk nylander, Marner, Matthews into looking at how much others (even on low contracts) on the team make and leverage them into somewhat lower deals.

It gets to a point that new contracts have to get with the times and surpass old ones, no matter who the player is. Crosby's deal for example was signed years ago and was one of those long front loaded deals that drove the AAV down that isn't possible today, so saying a player can't sign more than him in 2018 is ridiculous. We also can't expect Stamkos' deal to hold back someone like Kucherov just because it's supposed to be some sort of arbitrary barrier. Kuch can and will make more than Stamkos, probably $10M, whether Stamkos likes it or not. The market changes every year and contracts adapt.
 

Duke Silver

Truce?
Jun 4, 2008
8,610
1,942
Toronto/St. John's
I disagree. Everything is comparable. No one makes as much as stamkos because he is there captain/best/most valuable player. Hedman was never going to be paid more than him because that’s t-bays motto. Pitt has similar view. No one ever gets paid more than Malkin/Crosby.

Sure nylander had more points than kadri but what about winger vs centre? Blocked shots? Hits? Etc?

All I’m saying is I hope they can talk nylander, Marner, Matthews into looking at how much others (even on low contracts) on the team make and leverage them into somewhat lower deals.

Kadri's career high for points is 61. Nylander has accomplished that twice by the age of 22, in his first two full seasons.

Not to mention that Kadri signed his contract prior to his 61-point breakout, during a time in his career where he was getting suspended by the team and the league for dumb decisions. Lou smartly locked him up at one of the lowest points in his career. A shrewd move to offer his job security during a time when his long-term future looked uncertain.

The circumstances are different, so they're not a good comparisons. Plus the cap will have gone up by roughly $7m (~10%) since then.

If you can get all the Big 3 signed for less than $25m combined, you do a happy dance in the streets. Matthews $11m, Marner $7.5m, Nylander $6.5m would do it. The real wild card here is Marner.
 

SniperOnTheWing

Registered User
Apr 28, 2017
1,966
2,798
Marner waits until next summer IMO. He's a confident enough kid to bet on himself improving next year and is under zero obligation to sign right now. Today he would probably get $7M, next summer and 75pts later he's probably looking for $8M.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->