Poll: Should the Canucks sign Brock Boeser for 8 years

[IBatch]

53 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

The only justification I can see here is that maybe these days, the best years are coming from the RFA times, so they may be deservingly justified to be paid well. But then the UFA market needs to get back in check if players are indeed declining past 30 and players need to accept lower payouts at that point. Unfortunately, no one will agree to that either. The reality is that during the RFA years, most players will still be developing and growing before really seeing a final product. There may indeed be some players at the absolute top of their game at a young age and are deserving of a big deal, but it's quite uncommon. Players (RFAs) shouldn't be paid for what their potential may be as it inflates their dues during the growing period which really would mitigate any savings should the player exceed beyond the contract. If young players feel they can take their game to another level in a short time, then sign a short bridge and prove it.

 

I don't like the way things are trending, but it's even worse to just accept it despite it being such a negative. The NHLPA can't be happy either if this is the norm because players will be getting pushed out of the league far sooner who are actually decent players in the league only to be replaced with budget players or players being forced to take a massive paycut in their older years to remain in the league. The league can't be happy because even though these young players are what today's game is trending to, it is creating massive cap problems that is going to catch up soon where the quality of the league is down and you'll see even more plugs getting signed and taking out said top players only to have these young players deteriorate faster or not be in the games where paying customers are expecting. The only beneficiaries are the RFAs despite all their limitations in doing so. Unfortunately there are a few poor GMs running the show that seem to set the precedent and the agents can band together, but the GMs and executives cannot and panic. There have been a few bad deals of late, but Dubas should've sent the message and let Nylander sit the year especially considering there team wasn't missing him at all.

Can’t say that I’m not a little bummed out about this...Burke made a huge rancous dispute over Lowe’s offer sheet to Penner all those years ago (I think it was 5 million which was a lot back then)...and predicted that this was coming for years and complained about it and rightfullyt so.  Penner turned out to be a bust at that pay scale...

 

Have said several times the last few years that the NHLPA has a big internal problem occurring with the league getting young and 80% of the pay doing to 15% of the players.  Decent guys that should still be playing are out now in favour of cheaper ELC options (careers for journeyman are getting three years shorter) and a class system that’s always existed is becoming a lot more divided as the margins keep increasing.  When you have teams like TO with three guys taking up over 30 million in cap space ... we’ll when their team can’t compete as a result they better look hard into the mirror.  Except for Tavares, he’s earned his pay cheque as his last one was team friendly and how things should and used to work.

 

I hate it the most becuase of how it could affect our team with EP, Hughes and Boeser up next/soon and what that could mean for our teams cap situation.

Mckinnon might be the last of the fair contracts for star players... 

 

What is a fair contract under the old system for Boeser?  5-6million at 6-8 years.   That’s with inflation.  What will he get?  6-8 depending on the length and if their are any clauses.  It’s too bad.  Don’t think the league can run well with a few players getting huge money BOTH RFAs and as UFAs...this could end up as Burke said all those years ago, throwing a hand grenade into every other GMs team.  In the end it will push more guys out, and force teams to work with a lot less than they used to be able to.

 

Ken Campbell wrote an excellent article on this a year ago and pointed that the star players (pretty much all of them) had their best seasons from 21-28, most of those years are RFA contracts and that maybe they should get paid the most for it and maybe that’s  the way it should be....but it only works if they take huge discounts later on...and he pointed out that for the most part they are getting paid for past production during their UFA contract.  Stamkos, Tavares, Malkin, Crosby, Toews, Kane, Subban, Price, Ovi, Suter, Weber, Phanuef, Ryan, LE, Seguin, Benn and on and on...soon to join the list or just on it, Stone, EK, Panarin and Skinner...only a few of these guys will be worth their third contracts (Phanuef, LE, Okposo, Ryan, Foligno, Neal are good examples of guys getting way overpaid for what they added to their teams).   At some point it could hit a tipping point and cause a rebellion within the NHPLA to add some policies to curb this ... or the NHL could also step in and want to add some draconian things to the next CBA like not accepting contracts that are inflationary (which they’ve done before with Kovi) or just plain ridiculous.   Too bad they didn’t step in with Nylander and AM, but I think it’s too late for anything at least until the next CBA.

[theo5789]

3 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Can’t say that I’m not a little bummed out about this...Burke made a huge rancous dispute over Lowe’s offer sheet to Penner all those years ago (I think it was 5 million which was a lot back then)...and predicted that this was coming for years and complained about it and rightfullyt so.  Penner turned out to be a bust at that pay scale...

 

Have said several times the last few years that the NHLPA has a big internal problem occurring with the league getting young and 80% of the pay doing to 15% of the players.  Decent guys that should still be playing are out now in favour of cheaper ELC options (careers for journeyman are getting three years shorter) and a class system that’s always existed is becoming a lot more divided as the margins keep increasing.  When you have teams like TO with three guys taking up over 30 million in cap space ... we’ll when their team can’t compete as a result they better look hard into the mirror.  Except for Tavares, he’s earned his pay cheque as his last one was team friendly and how things should and used to work.

 

I hate it the most becuase of how it could affect our team with EP, Hughes and Boeser up next/soon and what that could mean for our teams cap situation.

Mckinnon might be the last of the fair contracts for star players... 

 

What is a fair contract under the old system for Boeser?  5-6million at 6-8 years.   That’s with inflation.  What will he get?  6-8 depending on the length and if their are any clauses.  It’s too bad.  Don’t think the league can run well with a few players getting huge money BOTH RFAs and as UFAs...this could end up as Burke said all those years ago, throwing a hand grenade into every other GMs team.  In the end it will push more guys out, and force teams to work with a lot less than they used to be able to.

 

Ken Campbell wrote an excellent article on this a year ago and pointed that the star players (pretty much all of them) had their best seasons from 21-28, most of those years are RFA contracts and that maybe they should get paid the most for it and maybe that’s  the way it should be....but it only works if they take huge discounts later on...and he pointed out that for the most part they are getting paid for past production during their UFA contract.  Stamkos, Tavares, Malkin, Crosby, Toews, Kane, Subban, Price, Ovi, Suter, Weber, Phanuef, Ryan, LE, Seguin, Benn and on and on...soon to join the list or just on it, Stone, EK, Panarin and Skinner...only a few of these guys will be worth their third contracts (Phanuef, LE, Okposo, Ryan, Foligno, Neal are good examples of guys getting way overpaid for what they added to their teams).   At some point it could hit a tipping point and cause a rebellion within the NHPLA to add some policies to curb this ... or the NHL could also step in and want to add some draconian things to the next CBA like not accepting contracts that are inflationary (which they’ve done before with Kovi) or just plain ridiculous.   Too bad they didn’t step in with Nylander and AM, but I think it’s too late for anything at least until the next CBA.

The league implemented a system that doesn't allow a major drop in pay to lower the cap with lengthy contracts for cap circumvention. Why not implement something into how a growth of a contract can happen or something of the like? The way it is set up is that the pay can never really dropped, but it cant skyrocket in a hurry. It's no wonder we are headed in the direction it is.

 

By limiting the number of years a player can sign, I don't why a team couldn't simply sign a 30 year old player to an 8 year deal that pays them peanuts by the time they are 37-38 and lowers the cap hit for these types of players if they feel they are likely done by that age anyway. But the league has implemented a % allowed to be lowered annually. I understand before when teams were signing players to like 10+ year deals going into their 40s where it's obvious of the intention, but it doesn't make sense anymore with the max 8 year deal signing with your own team. By opening this up more, it would allow for the RFA's to be paid when during their good years and hopefully by making all that money already, then possibly sign a diving deal to keep the longevity of their career given they can still play well. It would almost shift the "bridge" deal to their 3rd contract as teams will be more worrisome if there will be a decline in production and players will have to prove themselves if they want to continue being paid well. Not saying this is the solution, but spitballing an idea to hopefully counter what trending today that doesn't look like it's going to stop anytime soon thanks to some boneheaded GM decisions.

[J.I.A.H.N]

A couple of thoughts on our 2 most pressing contracts (Boeser and Edler)

 

Here they are...…..

 

#1 Edler...……….I think back to Hamhuis and us letting him walk away because we thought his playing days were over. Only to see him still playing a very good supportive role.

I personally think Edler is playing much better hockey than Hamhuis was back then, so I look at Edler being our best Defenseman for now. So in saying that, and asking the question of how important his role on our team is, than that should give us some idea of how much to pay him and for how long. Edler is 33 and his birthday is in April, so he is a young 33, and will basically play a given year at the same age as he started the year. Not that that is how we gauge a player, but it does indicate wear and tear to some point.

 

I would offer Edler 1 of 2 contracts...………...

 

1. ………..(22 Million) 4 years @ 5.5 Million with a NTC for the 1st 2 years  (2.5 M - 1st yr, 9.5 M -2nd yr, 7.5 M 3rd yr, 2.5 M 4th yr)

 

or

 

2. ………..(18 Million) 3 years @ 6.0 Million per year for the 1st 2 with a NTC for 1st 2 years  (8 M -1st yr, 9 M 2nd yr, 1 M-3rd yr)

 

#2 Boeser………..I am under the opinion that 2 years of scoring does not establish a trend (although it looks like it), as there are so many factors, including injury, which he had (spine and wrist), so I am more inclined to say, ok, show me you can stay healthy, and score consistently, it should also give us time to see what he is like in the playoffs, so I am more inclined to offer the following...……...

 

1. …………(19.5 Million) 3 years @6.5 Million, with a NTC in the 1st - 2 years, which allows us to move him if his demands are too big, or his production falls in the last year. Personally, I don't think it will, but it is a safe guard. I am in favour of bridge deals, unless the team is getting discounts with no limitations.

 

I have a question on Edler's current contract...………..

 

Even though Edler has a NTC this year, he is on an expiring contract, could we not trade him for a mid -2nd, with the understanding that if he signs with the club, then we get a first or an additional 2nd. I do not imagine it will be with a western team, so is there anything preventing us from doing that?

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by janisahockeynut

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

The league implemented a system that doesn't allow a major drop in pay to lower the cap with lengthy contracts for cap circumvention. Why not implement something into how a growth of a contract can happen or something of the like? The way it is set up is that the pay can never really dropped, but it cant skyrocket in a hurry. It's no wonder we are headed in the direction it is.

 

By limiting the number of years a player can sign, I don't why a team couldn't simply sign a 30 year old player to an 8 year deal that pays them peanuts by the time they are 37-38 and lowers the cap hit for these types of players if they feel they are likely done by that age anyway. But the league has implemented a % allowed to be lowered annually. I understand before when teams were signing players to like 10+ year deals going into their 40s where it's obvious of the intention, but it doesn't make sense anymore with the max 8 year deal signing with your own team. By opening this up more, it would allow for the RFA's to be paid when during their good years and hopefully by making all that money already, then possibly sign a diving deal to keep the longevity of their career given they can still play well. It would almost shift the "bridge" deal to their 3rd contract as teams will be more worrisome if there will be a decline in production and players will have to prove themselves if they want to continue being paid well. Not saying this is the solution, but spitballing an idea to hopefully counter what trending today that doesn't look like it's going to stop anytime soon thanks to some boneheaded GM decisions.

Last CBA the league tried hard to limit contracts to 5 years...it was a hill that the NHLPA was willing to die on and they knew it so settled on 7 or 8.   The easiest way to deal with this is to install an RFA cap like they do with rookies with a bonus system (also capped), so let’s say no more than 8 million with bonuses up to ten (so the McDavids and Kuckerovs of the world get paid well and fairly).   That would start a bit high but by the time the next CBA is up it would lean towards team friendly deals (which would continue well into the next deal).   This should make the current players happy as they can still get their juicy deals, but three or four years in the new draftees would be the one who’d take the hit (and NHL players won’t give a rats ass about them).   Depending on how things go just adjust it a little with each CBA to make the current players ok with it etc.   The system we have now is broken... NHL players careers are shortening because GMs just can’t help themselves...same as it ever was right?

[theo5789]

36 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

I have a question on Edler's current contract...………..

 

Even though Edler has a NTC this year, he is on an expiring contract, could we not trade him for a mid -2nd, with the understanding that if he signs with the club, then we get a first or an additional 2nd. I do not imagine it will be with a western team, so is there anything preventing us from doing that?

 

 

 

I assume you're talking about moving his rights. Technically yes we could, but who's going to give up a pick for a guy that could hit UFA soon. The only incentive is to get early negotiating rights and being able to offer an 8 year deal rather than 7 to make it more enticing of an offer (this is unlikely to have an effect in bringing in a guy like Edler). So where does Edler want to go especially when he's been insistent on staying in Vancouver? Too much for a team to gamble and you might get at best a 6th round pick for his rights and if you could negotiate it to have conditions, then it might get bumped to a 3rd, otherwise I would just wait it out for him to hit UFA and give up nothing and still have a chance to sign him.

 

Trading the rights would be better for guys like Panarin and EK who will clearly have a bidding war over them, so having a leg up could be advantageous.

[mll]

50 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

A couple of thoughts on our 2 most pressing contracts (Boeser and Edler)

 

Here they are...…..

 

#1 Edler...……….I think back to Hamhuis and us letting him walk away because we thought his playing days were over. Only to see him still playing a very good supportive role.

I personally think Edler is playing much better hockey than Hamhuis was back then, so I look at Edler being our best Defenseman for now. So in saying that, and asking the question of how important his role on our team is, than that should give us some idea of how much to pay him and for how long. Edler is 33 and his birthday is in April, so he is a young 33, and will basically play a given year at the same age as he started the year. Not that that is how we gauge a player, but it does indicate wear and tear to some point.

 

I would offer Edler 1 of 2 contracts...………...

 

1. ………..(22 Million) 4 years @ 5.5 Million with a NTC for the 1st 2 years  (2.5 M - 1st yr, 9.5 M -2nd yr, 7.5 M 3rd yr, 2.5 M 4th yr)

 

or

 

2. ………..(18 Million) 3 years @ 6.0 Million per year for the 1st 2 with a NTC for 1st 2 years  (8 M -1st yr, 9 M 2nd yr, 1 M-3rd yr)

 

#2 Boeser………..I am under the opinion that 2 years of scoring does not establish a trend (although it looks like it), as there are so many factors, including injury, which he had (spine and wrist), so I am more inclined to say, ok, show me you can stay healthy, and score consistently, it should also give us time to see what he is like in the playoffs, so I am more inclined to offer the following...……...

 

1. …………(19.5 Million) 3 years @6.5 Million, with a NTC in the 1st - 2 years, which allows us to move him if his demands are too big, or his production falls in the last year. Personally, I don't think it will, but it is a safe guard. I am in favour of bridge deals, unless the team is getting discounts with no limitations.

 

I have a question on Edler's current contract...………..

 

Even though Edler has a NTC this year, he is on an expiring contract, could we not trade him for a mid -2nd, with the understanding that if he signs with the club, then we get a first or an additional 2nd. I do not imagine it will be with a western team, so is there anything preventing us from doing that?

 

 

 

 

The CBA does not allow that kind of salary structure.  The lowest year cannot be less than half of the highest.  There is also a variability rule where the difference year on year cannot be more than 35% of the 1st year of the contract.  

 

Using the numbers from option 2.  Year 1 is 8M so the difference between each adjacent year cannot exceed 2.8M (35% of 8M).  The variability rule is not respected between year 2 and 3.  Also if the highest salary is 9M than the lowest cannot be less than 4.5M.

 

As for Boeser, it's not possible to have a trade clause (NTC or NMC) on RFA years.  Reason why it was so complicated for Toronto to sign Nylander.  

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by mll

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, mll said:

 

The CBA does not allow that kind of salary structure.  The lowest year cannot be less than half of the highest.  There is also a variability rule where the difference year on year cannot be more than 35% of the 1st year of the contract.  

 

Using the numbers from option 2.  Year 1 is 8M so the difference between each adjacent year cannot exceed 2.8M (35% of 8M).  The variability rule is not respected between year 2 and 3.  Also if the highest salary is 9M than the lowest cannot be less than 4.5M.

 

As for Boeser, it's not possible to have a trade clause (NTC or NMC) on RFA years.  Reason why it was so complicated for Toronto to sign Nylander.  

 

Are you sure about that?  A few years ago Tarasenkos contract at 7.5 x 8 has the last four years with NTC in it...and that’s with the current CBA...I think they can put them in once they are a certain age plus how long they’ve played in the league.  Horvats contract Could of had clauses too...

[mll]

7 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Are you sure about that?  A few years ago Tarasenkos contract at 7.5 x 8 has the last four years with NTC in it...and that’s with the current CBA...I think they can put them in once they are a certain age plus how long they’ve played in the league.  Horvats contract Could of had clauses too...

The last 4 years of Tarasenko's deal are UFA years and that's allowed.  It's on the RFA years where it's not possible.  

 

Boeser will be a UFA in 5 years.  If he signs for say 6 years - he can have a trade clause on the 6th year but not the 5 years before.

 

UFA starts at the earliest between age 27 or 7 pro years.  The pro years start to accrue the 1st year where the player has 40 NHL games.  Edmonton sent Draisaitl back to juniors before he reached 40 games his 1st year - they burned a year of his ELC but did not want to start to accrue towards free agency.

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by mll

[appleboy]

I think the Leafs have set the bar for contract values to a new level.  They shot themselves and everyone else in the foot.

[IBatch]

1 minute ago, mll said:

The last 4 years of Tarasenko's deal are UFA years and that's allowed.  It's on the RFA years where it's not possible.  

 

Boeser will be a UFA in 5 years.  If he signs for say 6 years - he can have a trade clause on the 6th year but not the 5 years before.

 

UFA starts at the earliest between age 27 or 7 pro years.  The pro years start to accrue the 1st year where the player has 40 NHL games.  Edmonton sent Draisaitl back to juniors before he reached 40 games his 1st year - they burned a year of his ELC but did not want to start to accrue towards free agency.

 

Yep, and AHL games count too.  I’m glad Hughes contract was delayed a year ...  and it will affect OJ too.   So Boesers deal could have clauses, just as Horvats could have in the end...I’m hoping Benning keeps it up and doesn’t add them to any of his RFAs.  We had enough issues with the last core to last a long long time.

[IBatch]

1 minute ago, appleboy said:

I think the Leafs have set the bar for contract values to a new level.  They shot themselves and everyone else in the foot.

Yep.  One more reason to dislike them.  AM is ridiculously high.  Guess they were expecting him to score at the 80 goal rate he stated the season at ha ha...too bad for them.

[appleboy]

Canucks should follow the Ave's and set an internal cap. Bo is on a solid contract and we expect Petey to become the highest paid in the future. Is Boeser worth more then Bo? That is a question that the club must answer before signing him. They need to be prepared to move him if he demands too high of a price tag. For me his injuries are a concern for a long term deal. I would do a bridge just to see how he deals with the rigors of the game. Just like with Bo I don't want to  see any NTC clauses . They need to keep their options open. 

[mll]

23 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Yep, and AHL games count too.  I’m glad Hughes contract was delayed a year ...  and it will affect OJ too.   So Boesers deal could have clauses, just as Horvats could have in the end...I’m hoping Benning keeps it up and doesn’t add them to any of his RFAs.  We had enough issues with the last core to last a long long time.

AHL games don't count for free agency - it's 40 NHL games on the roster where the 7 pro years towards free agency start to accrue.  Everyone will reach free agency at age 27 at the latest.  

 

Nylander's UFA years start in the 2023/24 season: https://www.capfriendly.com/players/william-nylander

If the AHL counted he would be a UFA earlier - he played more than 40 AHL games in his draft+1 and draft+2.  Instead he's a UFA the season after he turns 27.  

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by mll

[IBatch]

31 minutes ago, mll said:

AHL games don't count for free agency - it's 40 NHL games on the roster where the 7 pro years towards free agency start to accrue.  Everyone will reach free agency at age 27 at the latest.  

 

Nylander's UFA years start in the 2023/24 season: https://www.capfriendly.com/players/william-nylander

If the AHL counted he would be a UFA earlier - he played more than 40 AHL games in his draft+1 and draft+2.  Instead he's a UFA the season after he turns 27.  

 

Sorry AHL games count against your ELC...or getting to your second contract..

 

Plus there are rules for guys that don’t play in the NHL but get drafted...then play in College.  Or don’t get drafted at all, these are guys that become UFAs at a younger age, around 25.

Edited June 3, 2019 by IBatch

[alt kilgore]

I don't see why both the Canucks and the Boeser camp would not rather want a 'bridge' deal.  From the Canucks point of view, Brock has not quite proven himself, with injuries limiting his seasons, and I'm sure they see his defensive liabilities. I find his decision making in tight situations below average a lot of times. Not reaching 30 goals, especially since his potential is not a Bergeron but a Brett Hull. More of a pure sniper than a "200 foot" player. They may want to see more before such a long commitment.

 

From Brock's point of view, if he's full of confidence about himself as any good young player would have, and thinks he's going to be a top player for over a decade to come, he'd probably be open to get more per year in dollars by keeping this first contract less in regards to term. And after any bridge, whether 3, 4, or 5,  the prices would only rise.  His price, the cap, and of course ticket buyers to pay for it all.  Instead of "only" 7.5 x 8, he'd think why not 8.5 x 4, and THEN 10+ x 8 either for us or a team that will pay it?

[mll]

18 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Sorry AHL games count against your ELC...or getting to your second contract..

 

Plus there are rules for guys that don’t play in the NHL but get drafted...then play in College.  Or don’t get drafted at all, these are guys that become UFAs at a younger age, around 25.

There are just so many different definitions for pro years and it does get confusing.  

 

For example Shinkaruk played in the AHL in his draft+1 and the contract was able to slide because he did not have 10 NHL games.  It counted towards a pro season for expansion though. 

 

Hughes is still 19 but because he turns 20 later this year his 5 games count towards a pro-season and doesn't slide - 1 pro game was sufficient.  It doesn't count towards expansion though because it's not 10 NHL games and he was still 19.

 

Group 6 UFAs.  Players who have been under contract for more than 3 years and have not played in 80 NHL games by age 25 become UFAs - happened with Kenins, Rodin, Grenier and now MacEneny and Kero.  

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by mll

[stawns]

50 minutes ago, appleboy said:

Canucks should follow the Ave's and set an internal cap. Bo is on a solid contract and we expect Petey to become the highest paid in the future. Is Boeser worth more then Bo? That is a question that the club must answer before signing him. They need to be prepared to move him if he demands too high of a price tag. For me his injuries are a concern for a long term deal. I would do a bridge just to see how he deals with the rigors of the game. Just like with Bo I don't want to  see any NTC clauses . They need to keep their options open. 

At some point GM's are going to have to stop giving these very young players these massive contracts they haven't earned yet.  The goal is to win a Stanley Cup and you do that with a mix of age groups, carried by a veteran core.  Teams that give big contracts, with term, to RFA's are doing nothing but taking themselves out of Cup contention, imo.

 

You build to a Cup

[stawns]

14 hours ago, mll said:

 

The market is changing.  Philadelphia have a few RFAs of their own like Sanheim, Provorov, Konecny.  Fletcher has had preliminary discussions with their agents - he says this to the Flyers website:

 

The sense I'm getting right now from the player perspective, from the [agent] perspective, I think there's a sense that the market for young players may be shifting and we've seen some contracts over the past couple years that have been market changers and I think they feel that will continue this summer. So I think there's much more of a wait-and-see approach from the player's side. My expectation is, and it's not that much more unusual than most years, my assumption is none of them will get done quickly, but it will get done. We'll just patiently go about it. We've had good dialogue with all the agents. I think we have a sense of what they want to do, but I think there's a sense from the other side, for all of them, this will be a market-changing summer, and I don't think anybody wants to get in front of that."

The GM's forget they have most of the leverage over RFA players, they just don't have the backbone to use it.  To me, the best solution is a standard scale of raises based on years or games played.  A players numbers can influence it, but only by a certain percentage.  

 

Young players might be flashy and skillful, but I find the league and the overall gameplay is not as good as it was 10 years ago.

[IBatch]

27 minutes ago, mll said:

There are just so many different definitions for pro years and it does get confusing.  

 

For example Shinkaruk played in the AHL in his draft+1 and the contract was able to slide because he did not have 10 NHL games.  It counted towards a pro season for expansion though. 

 

Hughes is still 19 but because he turns 20 later this year his 5 games count towards a pro-season and doesn't slide - 1 pro game was sufficient.  It doesn't count towards expansion though because it's not 10 NHL games and he was still 19.

 

Group 6 UFAs.  Players who have been under contract for more than 3 years and have not played in 80 NHL games by age 25 become UFAs - happened with Kenins, Rodin, Grenier and now MacEneny and Kero.  

 

Thanks for the brush up on these things...it absolutely does get confusing at times especially now when GMs are glossing through the NCAA looking to sign the top defenseman and forwards to lighten their cap hit (Butcher, Stecher etc).  Some of these guys are coveted free agents that teams want because they are pretty certain they can do the same job or better than someone on their bottom six or bottom pairing that’s been drafted and is in their second or third contract and is getting paid 3-4 million.    The NCAA and the KHL have become more important in recent years than ever before...they get very experience players (vets) for a portion of the standard route cost of guys on their second or even third contract.  Benning is quite active in this arena too, which bodes well for our club (more so than the average GM for sure, he’s an early adopter at the minimum for this trend).   A good add through these systems could mean you can trade a player for picks or prospects as well.  Or at least plug a hole. 

[IBatch]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

The GM's forget they have most of the leverage over RFA players, they just don't have the backbone to use it.  To me, the best solution is a standard scale of raises based on years or games played.  A players numbers can influence it, but only by a certain percentage.  

 

Young players might be flashy and skillful, but I find the league and the overall gameplay is not as good as it was 10 years ago.

Well Dubas didn’t waver with Nylander and look how that worked out.   Players know that they have power and they don’t seem that worried about using it either, especially right now.   Times are changing.   Millennials are vets now maybe their unwavering confidence and sense of entitlement is also a factor.  It’s like when salary was disclosed a bit, salaries skyrocketed...but for different reasons.  They want their money and they want it now.