• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

153 Good

About Matt_T83

  • Rank
    Comets Prospect
  1. Sorry, I should have clarified that point. I meant to say that revenues aren't going to increase drastically. McDavid is set to make $13M AAV if reports are accurate, which is almost 30% higher than the other highest paid players. And a lot of those players are overpaid with albatross like contracts, and not exactly good comparables for a 'fair' contract (i.e. Weber, Kopitar, Toews, Kane). Right now teams are getting away with abusing LTIR to hide bad contracts. The Blackhawks are doing it with Hossa, and the Detroit Red Wings have been doing it for years with Johan Franzen. However, you can bet Bettman is going to start closing that loophole. Hossa is 'injured' because of a skin condition? Really? So you can't point to some of these contracts as good comparables. I would argue that $10M AAV is a fair value for the NHLs 'best' players right now (meaning Crosby is underpaid). Revenues aren't going to increase by 30% over the next 4-5 years, which means the cap isn't going to increase by 30% in 5 years. The cap will most likely rise by ~15% over the next 5 years. When you're increasing the max AAV value of a contract by 30% in a period where the cap rises by 15%, the math is clear -- this is a significantly overpaid player. I don't care how good he is. He's not scoring 30% more points than other comparable players, and he doesn't deserve a 30% pay raise. A fair contract AAV for McDavid is a 15% raise over the NHLs highest paid players. That would be around 1.15 * 10M AAV = 11.5M AAV. And that's without McDavid leaving any money on the table, which he should. He should want to help his team win a Stanely Cup, not fill his bank account. He should sign a contract that sees him slide up in pay over 8 years to 12M, leaving money on the table and signing for 10.68M AAV. I would suggest a fair McDavid contract would look like: Year 1 - 9.0M Year 2 - 9.5M Year 3 - 10.0M Year 4 - 10.5M Year 5 - 11.0M Year 6 - 11.5M Year 7 - 12.0M Year 8 - 12.0M This way his team can stay competitive and he's not massively overpaid.
  2. I agree. Except 15% of the current cap (73 million) is 10.95 million. That's 2.3 million less than McDavid is set to make. He's going to make 18.15% of the cap which is really unprecedented. That's a lot of money. That extra 2.3 million is money you can't spend to get a depth 3rd line player or depth defenseman. That can be the difference between winning and losing a playoff series if you get injuries. But your post actually addresses an interesting idea for the next CBA: Should contracts be allowed to pay players a percentage of the salary cap? One of the biggest conflicts between players and GMs when signing contracts is the uncertainty of the cap in future years. If McDavid signs for $13.25M/year and the cap only goes up by 1-2 million per year for the next 8 years, then the Oilers SERIOUSLY overpaid. However, if the cap rises by $3-4M/year for the next 8 years then his contract makes sense. However, there is absolutely no way to predict which scenario will work out. Perhaps the new CBA should allow GMs to offer a player a percentage of the cap as a salary. That way you give McDavid 15% of the NHL salary cap per year for 8 years. If the cap rises, his pay rises. Would that make sense?
  3. Normally that would be true. But you'll note in my post I'm arguing that he's being given a hefty raise during an RFA period. I would argue the Oilers could hammer him with an $8.5M/year bridge deal for 2 years easily right now. However, they want to sign him long term. But does that mean he should start making $13M per year right after his ELC? He should take a pay cut for the 4 years of RFA, and then get $11-12M/year for the last 4 years. This contract is going to be an albatross and cause chaos in the NHL.
  4. With the Oilers apparently set to pay McDavid around $13 million per year... I'm starting to wonder what NHL players are really worth at that level. You can't just keep having a linear increase in salary. At some point there have to be diminishing returns. Reports are that Draisaitl is going to get ~7-8M (in that range), or at least that's what he's 'worth'. So then is McDavid really worth 5-6M more per year? No way. You shouldn't pay 60-70% more money for 25% more point production. The reality is that hockey is totally different than other sports. You look at basketball and players can play almost the whole game in the playoffs. McDavid can't be on the ice for more then 35-40% of the game, tops. Sure, if he was a basketball player he'd be worth $30 million. But in the NHL with limited playing time, he can't be worth more than $11-12. And what are the comparables? To me, Chicago really screwed up with Toews/Kane. Kane is still producing, but there's no way those guys are worth 10.5M. The better comparables are Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, and Steven Stamkos. With those comparables, I'd say McDavid is worth around $10-11M tops. And considering they're giving him a huge raise during his RFA period, he should take a pay cut. I'd suggest ~8M average for 4 years and then $11M average for the next 4 years for his contract. That's an AAV of $9.5M, right around what he's worth right now. If the Oilers sign McDavid for $13M it's going to doom them long term, and cause huge salary disputes between players and owners. I would go so far as to say this contract would be bad for the NHL in general. Revenues aren't going to increase. This isn't going to get hockey more exposure. This is just going to create fights between owners and players, with players citing McDavid's contract as the new standard.
  5. Quite the opposite. My Senators won. I'm complaining that the Penguins shouldn't have won a single game. They only split the first 2 games because they had the last line change.
  6. I've mulled this over for a while, and the Senators-Penguins series has convinced me that the home team having the last line change for faceoffs is unfair in a 7 game playoff series. The series looked tight in games 1-2, but that's because the Penguins had last change. When the Senators had control of the matchup in game 3, they blew them out of the water. This was 100% because of matchups dictated by the last change. The Senators should be 3-0 in the series right now. But how would you determine who gets last change? I will agree that one team needs to have last change, or coaches would just endlessly delay at every faceoff. I would suggest the team on the offensive side of the ice always get last change. In other words, if your team has a faceoff in your half of the ice, you must change your lines first. This gives the offensive team the ability to dictate matchups, which in my opinion would also help increase scoring ever so slightly. The exception to this would be center ice facecoffs, which could still go to the home team. That would be chaos! Games would take forever. A common argument against any rule change is that it will confuse players, delay games, and generally ruin the game. This is almost always made by ignorant people that are blind to history. Players and coaches are smart people. Within half a season of this rule change taking effect they will have adjusted. But you play all season for home ice advantage! It has been earned. Sure, you play all season for home ice advantage in the playoffs. That's why you get an extra home game in your arena, in front of your hometown fans (if the series goes 7 games). That extra home game is reward enough. Having a tangible advantage within the game itself is too much. Edit: I'm a Sens fan! I'm surprised that people are thinking I'm a salty Penguins fan. I'm definitely a Sens fan, and I am arguing that the Sens should be 3-0 right now. The only reason they lost game 2 was they had to change their lines first every game. I just think having last change for the home team is too much of an advantage.
  7. So stupid. They gave Ottawa a penalty on a FOLLOW THROUGH. The frigign rule book STATES that you can't penalize someone for high sticking on a follow through. Otherwise that would allow penalty killers to skate directly face first into point men and draw high sticking penalties. Meanwhile Pittsburgh gets away with all kinds of interference, Crosby vicious slash on Phaneuf, and a clear high stick to Bobby Ryan. No calls on any of them. This reffing is a joke. I honestly hope the NHL goes bankrupt and closes up shop. Hockey is a joke.
  8. Make no mistake if a Pen had hooked a senator like that, no call. The referees are told to let Pittsburgh win. Ottawa has already had 2 penalties called against them. Then Cullen high sticks Ryan and no call. The refs can't let Ottawa get a power play in a 0-0 game. That might let them score the first goal and hurt the pens chances of winning.
  9. One thing that's really frustrated me with hockey lately is the inconsistency in refereeing, and the all-or-nothing nature of penalty calls. Just watching the Ducks-Oilers game: I'm cheering for the Oilers, but I couldn't help but feel for Corey Perry when his stick was slashed and broken. Of course the problem is either referees call a penalty or do nothing, which is stupid. And there are so many more examples I could give where referees are forced to either make a weak call or give a team an advantage for a foul. I think hockey needs to give referees the ability to call minor fouls as in soccer, where a team is given possession of the puck automatically at a certain point on the ice. For example, if a players stick is broken but the slash wasn't intended to break the stick, the puck is placed in the offensive zone face-off dot, and the team is given a 'free' faceoff with play starting when they touch the puck. This could also be combined with a no-change rule (similar to icing) for the offending team. Calls like this would allow the referees to penalize teams for fouls without having to give full 2-minute penalties. Obviously we don't want more whistles in hockey, but I think something like this needs to be done. There are way too many marginal fouls that don't get called, with no recourse for the referees but to do nothing or make weak calls.
  10. There are no 'proper methods'. However, I'm doing a lot of leave half out models where I take the draft years from say 2000-2011 and pick even numbered years to build models on. I'll rank prospects in all draft years based on how they turned out. Then I look at all possible different combinations and weights of aggregate statistics, picking the best settings that recapitulate the observed order. Then I apply that combination/weighting of aggregate statistics to the odd year drafts and see how well I predict those rankings. If you don't do that, you risk overfitting your model to the data. The metrics you can use are almost endless. And because these are prospects, you need to look at development factors as well. How good were the players line mates? We all know that Jonathan Drouin was boosted playing with MacKinnon in Junior. Drouin has had an 'okay' year with the Lightning, but he's far from living up to a top 5 1st round draft pick. How good is a goalie if he's playing in front of the best defense in the CHL? What about a goalie playing in front of the worst defense in the CHL? Teasing apart the players individual contributions and development trojectories are almost more important than looking at their actual performance by any standard metrics. I'm trying to make predictions right now on current drafts, and see how they work out. We'll see..
  11. They do have similar numbers, but there's other things to consider. For example, high calibre centers are just worth more than high calibre LW. One of the biggest factors NHL teams are looking for now is size down the middle. Vilardi has the size down the middle. He could easily be a #1 or #2 center on an NHL team. To me the only question are the prices: how much would it cost to acquire an extra first round pick to draft him? I agree that Jason Roberston is undervalued being outside the top 30. I'd put him in the top 20 easily. However, another team will pick him in the first round I'm sure. We won't get him at #33-34.
  12. Why do you think I'm wrong, out of curiosity? I have a PhD and I'm working on statistical models for the NHL draft, and late bloomers have a much better chance of transitioning to the NHL.
  13. My guess is we already draft 5th, and Middlestadt is ranked 5th overall. We are currently 4th last in the league, and will probably finish around #3-4 worst record. Knowing how the NHL hates the Canucks, one or two teams will leapfrog us and we'll draft 5th overall.
  14. The reason I suggest Vilardi is the price will lower. The prices for the #1-2 spots will be too high. I think we could get the #4 overall spot cheaper, and I believe Vilardi will be as good or better than either Patrick or Hischier.
  15. I was looking at the upcoming NHL draft, and I do believe we should trade to acquire another top 5 1st round pick. Specifically, we should target Gabriel Vilardi. Why, you might ask? He's got the telltale signs of recent improvement and overcoming adversity. In 2014-2015 he was only playing in Midget AAA, with decent stats: 21G 18A in 21 games. Then he got into the OHL in 2015-2016 and had a bit of a rough year, with 62 games, 17G 21A and a -7 rating. But he managed to overcome this has 29G 32A in 49 games played with a +13 rating in 2016-2017. And it's not like this guy is on a dynamite team; the Windsor Spitfires are 5th in their OHL conference. This guy got into the OHL a full year later than most top 5 draft picks, and had a rough 1st OHL year, and has now moved into the consensus #4 overall draft spot. To me this guy has late bloomer written all over him, and he's 6'2 192 pounds now. I can see this guy being NHL ready at 20 years old and making an immediate impact.