Willy Ny contract thread part Se7en

[hotpaws]

So we are close on the 6 year contract.

I said 6.2 you said 6.6...

6.4 over 6 years...sign the papers.

yup we got there , now we just have to convince the hipster and Willies dad , lol

 

[Throw More Waffles]

You seem like a rational character that fits right into this thread.

I mean... the guy was saying that Nylander was being held back by playing in the first line with Matthews. I gave the appropriate emotional response to such insanity.

 

[4thline]

Delete

 

[KPower]

yup we got there , now we just have to convince the hipster and Willies dad , lol

You do realize if you signed the 6.8 for 8 instead you would have made $16 million those last 2 years.

So you’re leaving 16 million on the table.

Huge risk imo

But either way we got a deal done..haha

 

[Confucius]

if we don't need him then trade him , why bother wasting time never mind 6 plus million in cap space on aplayer so easily replaceable

If he wants 6+ million a year you’d think getting a 6+ million dollar player for him would be fair. If I remember some of the trade proposals some fans don’t even want to give you a 3.65 million dollar a year man. So we have to wait out it out for a suitable deal. I think nothing is going to happen in the near future.

 

[hotpaws]

So if we go 6.6 x 6, that’s precisely Pastrnaks contract.

If we’re going to pay 20/60 guys the same amount of money that a rival team pays their 34/70 guys... that really can’t bode well for us.

Is Nylander the only exception(for some weird reason), or in your opinion do we have to pay ALL of our players substantially more money than what the Bruins pay? And if that’s the case, how do you expect us to compete with them?

you didn't take into account inflation or the fact Marchand might and i'll repeat might (since i don't want to start a argument) be a better player than Hyman which could inflate Pasta's numbers

and if Willie signs for 2-3k less what would difference would it make?

what i find amusing is how people say we need to save cap space because we're tight next season then want to sign Willie to a higher cap hit but at a longer term

 

[Drytoast]

Well how many times have we successfully negotiated willie's contract for him now?

7?

 

[Notsince67]

Well how many times have we successfully negotiated willie's contract for him now?

7?

you are using the word successfully quite liberally

 

[4thline]

what i find amusing is how people say we need to save cap space because we're tight next season then want to sign Willie to a higher cap hit but at a longer term

Adult life is going to be difficult if your reaction to weighing tradeoffs and balancing multiple objectives is confused amusement.

See my mortgage example. You need to pick a rate that you can afford in the short term. But if you afford the higher rate to lock in at a longer term you might do that for the security and to hedge against rising interest rates and save money. But you're not going to willingly pay the premium for the longer term without getting said term. That would be stupid.

Now tweak the example, and assume that bank is free to sell your house to whatever customer will pay a higher rate at the end of the fixed term.

TL;DR: If we can afford it in the short term there is value to be gained from trading a higher ave for more term. But its a trade, not something to be freely given.

 

[hotpaws]

Lol "prime years for cheap and let him walk". If he's the player that's worth all this discussion his 3rd contract will be worth more than his second regardless of if he expires at 28 or 30.

The point of the breakdown is showing what those contracts actually value him as. Do think that a player worth 11+ in his last year is going to have trouble getting a good 3rd deal?

It's pretty simple

A1. It's overpaying in the shorterm without the long term benefit because we're paying an inflated average and not getting the years.
B. It sets him to expire at a time we can't afford to re-sign him and no longer have RFA rights = gone for nothing

B is big for me. Regardless of the overpay I don't offer him a 5 year contract, it's bad big picture thinking given where Willy slots in our lineup. We either need to keep him as long as possible at good value or get great value in the short term and then cash out. A 5 year deal does neither.

It's honestly like you don't understand the RFA/UFA relationship. Contracts need to include UFA years to raise the averages.

i understand completely but unfortunately you ignore everything except buying ufa years

we can't give him Larkin's deal because he included one ufa year even though Willie
-is more proven/productive with less opportunity
-there contracts expire at the exact same age
-Willie has the higher upside based on performance to date

i could go on for every comparable but we'd get no where until you stop ignoring everything and simply concentrate on how many ufa years are included

also there's a huge difference between being a ufa at 27 compared to 30 even though this too you ignore

 

[4thline]

i understand completely but unfortunately you ignore everything except buying ufa years

we can't give him Larkin's deal because he included one ufa year even though Willie
-is more proven/productive with less opportunity
-there contracts expire at the exact same age
-Willie has the higher upside based on performance to date

i could go on for every comparable but we'd get no where until you stop ignoring everything and simply concentrate on how many ufa years are included

also there's a huge difference between being a ufa at 27 compared to 30 even though this too you ignore

Not if you're the class of player everyone thinks willy is going to be. You fundamentally don't understand the RFA/UFA value curve. If players want term they get "underpaid" on 2nd contracts and overpaid on 3rd, and it largely all nets out.

Larkin's deal was also not smart, and given by the gm of a team with no one else to pay when it ends

 

[hotpaws]

You do realize if you signed the 6.8 for 8 instead you would have made $16 million those last 2 years.

So you’re leaving 16 million on the table.

Huge risk imo

But either way we got a deal done..haha

you do realize that makes our cap situation worse than signing him for 6 yrs so why are people so determined to get him on an 8 year deal when our cap crunch is in the near future ?

also if he performs up too expectations he'll easily make up that much more by becoming a ufa 2 yrs earlier

it's the reason these type of players don't sign 8 yr deals

 

[DarkKnight]

If it does prove that bringing in JT means we can't keep all the kids as was a fear, then I'm good with it. Net positive imho, even if it costs us a piece in the end, JT's that good.

 

[hotpaws]

Adult life is going to be difficult if your reaction to weighing tradeoffs and balancing multiple objectives is confused amusement.

See my mortgage example. You need to pick a rate that you can afford in the short term. But if you afford the higher rate to lock in at a longer term you might do that for the security and to hedge against rising interest rates and save money. But you're not going to willingly pay the premium for the longer term without getting said term. That would be stupid.

Now tweak the example, and assume that bank is free to sell your house to whatever customer will pay a higher rate at the end of the fixed term.

TL;DR: If we can afford it in the short term there is value to be gained from trading a higher ave for more term. But its a trade, not something to be freely given.

so it now not about saving cap space in the near future due to our cap crunch next year , it's become trying to use up all his prime years for cheap which if fine but that's a different discussion

 

[Notsince67]

i understand completely but unfortunately you ignore everything except buying ufa years

we can't give him Larkin's deal because he included one ufa year even though Willie
-is more proven/productive with less opportunity
-there contracts expire at the exact same age
-Willie has the higher upside based on performance to date

i could go on for every comparable but we'd get no where until you stop ignoring everything and simply concentrate on how many ufa years are included

also there's a huge difference between being a ufa at 27 compared to 30 even though this too you ignore

Larkin is a center. Why are you still comparing him?

 

[DarkKnight]

Well how many times have we successfully negotiated willie's contract for him now?

7?

6.5 times

 

[hotpaws]

Not if you're the class of player everyone thinks willy is going to be. You fundamentally don't understand the RFA/UFA value curve. If players want term they get "underpaid" on 2nd contracts and overpaid on 3rd, and it largely all nets out.

Larkin's deal was also not smart, and given by the gm of a team with no one else to pay when it ends

so you're saying if Mathews wants to get overpaid on his third deal we should be expecting a 5/6 yrs deal around 8m ? or does the rfa/ufa thing not apply to him ?

 

[hotpaws]

Larkin is a center. Why are you still comparing him?

so would Willie if allowed

but i guess we should stick to just the one comparable since that works best for the team

 

[pcruz]

so you're saying if Mathews wants to get overpaid on his third deal we should be expecting a 5/6 yrs deal around 8m ? or does the rfa/ufa thing not apply to him ?

Players like McDavid, Crosby, Ovechkin and the likes, the very best in the league have a set of rules that are different from the other players.
These guys are irreplaceable.
At the end of this current season, how does one go about upgrading or replacing one of the very best players in the game?

 

[Notsince67]

so would Willie if allowed

but i guess we should stick to just the one comparable since that works best for the team

Centers are not his comparable period

 

[kb]

Better for you to put your finger in the air and make a proclamation. I apologize. I forgot that I was talking to a guy renown for his precision.

It's "renowned" if you are trying to use big words in their proper context. But my point stands. Any metric that says Nylander played with better linemates last year than Ehlers while having played with either Hyman or Komarov 80% of the time and not playing with Matthews for at least one quarter of the season is horribly flawed.

 

[Notsince67]

It's "renowned" if you are trying to use big words in their proper context. But my point stands. Any metric that says Nylander played with better linemates last year than Ehlers while having played with either Hyman or Komarov 80% of the time and not playing with Matthews for at least one quarter of the season is horribly flawed.

I already apologized oh great evaluator of talent.
You ever figure out that Gardiner (a 52 point dman) also played with that line or are you being totally ignorant?

 

[hotpaws]

Players like McDavid, Crosby, Ovechkin and the likes, the very best in the league have a set of rules that are different from the other players.
These guys are irreplaceable.
At the end of this current season, how does one go about upgrading or replacing one of the very best players in the game?

so you're saying different rules apply to different players which i agree with

i'm just trying to make a point that there's no set in stone rules with contract negotiations

 

[hotpaws]

Centers are not his comparable period

especially since it weakens the teams bargaining position but Willie has and could play center if given the opportunity

 

[pcruz]

so you're saying different rules apply to different players which i agree with

i'm just trying to make a point that there's no set in stone rules with contract negotiations

Yes, but you have a younger and better player of the same exact position on the same team as Nylander.
Whatever leverage Nylander's camp comes towards the Leafs with is all but eliminated by that one sentence alone.
Everyone wants Nylander to sign an extension here. It's always best to maximize the talent available to you and if you already own the rights to it, you want to make the most of it.

That's as far as it goes in terms to pressure points Nylander has on Dubas. "I'm a great player and if I sit out, you're losing out on my talents"

To which Dubas responds: "You're a great talent, but we have better talent at your position and if you sit out we may lose a little bit of offensive flair, but you lose out on a full year of development and salary. I want you on my team, but don't fool yourself into believing that I absolutely need you on my team. You on the other hand, need to be in the league"