Sign in to follow this  
-Vintage Canuck-

[Signing] Coyotes re-sign Clayton Keller

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, RRypien37 said:

Uhh..how? Boeser is clearly the superior scorer so far and has put up much better numbers in comparison vs first 2 season. Arizona overpays everyone though so irrelevant. 

Same point totals in the last two seasons while on a weaker offensive team. He led his team in scoring each of the last two years. His PPG is lower but the fact that he hasn’t missed a game in that time counts for a lot. He’s also able to slot in at centre at times which (I imagine) would up his value a bit. I expect his point totals to climb this year playing with Phil the Thrill. 

 

Not to mention the fact he signed long term. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Yep.  MacKinnon and Landeskog with Colorado is probably the most obvious example.  Lock up the guys you want to build around long-term, and actually build around them.  I'm all for a little overpayment for Brock now for a bargain on the back end of his contract.

You think MacKinnon and GL are comparable for Boeser?  For Petey, maybe.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, stawns said:

You think MacKinnon and GL are comparable for Boeser?  For Petey, maybe.

I'm saying if you think a guy is good enough to be a core piece, lock him up.  Colorado's situation is the best case scenario of that working; they have the best player in the world locked up at an absolute bargain.  I do realize there's a risk there but I'm comfortable with it in Boeser's case.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't like this contract..but nice if it's dumping a sand dune atop the Yotes' cap-oasis. They once had their books in order.

 

Bet there's a lotta' Cdn overpriced tix(REV sharing..lol, mystery numbers) gonna be funneled south for these a$$hat contracts.

 

Hopefully BB looks at guys like Meier & White for comparables...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Outsiders said:

I'm in the camp that I'd rather just pay the guy now than have to later. 8x8 would be my offer. With the cap expected to go up a lot over the next few years, this will be a good deal by year 3 or 4. Then for the last 4-5 years you have a great deal and can sign other players to help you win since you are saving 3-4 million essentially . It would suck to give him 7 million on a 4 year deal to then have to pay him 10-12 million later on a 6-8 year deal(Depends how much cap goes up). Playing with Pettersson who IMO will be a top 10 player in the league in 2-3 seasons I can't see Boeser not hitting close to 40 goals every year if he's healthy. He going to get big dollars anyhow why not save the extra money now? 

The cap doesn’t always increase significantly every year and with the CBA expiring as soon as next year (opt out), who knows what the cap will be in the new CBA. It could potentially go down. 

 

Regardless of a bridge deal or not, you are still going to have to pay your RFAs once his second contract is up (if they continues to produce). IMO, its a risk especially for players like Boeser/Keller/Nylander to pay them now long term. They’re not in the same tier group as a McDavid, Eichel, or even Marner. 

 

You pay Boeser a 7m+, 7 years deal now, that will take him to 29. You are going to have to pay him a similar deal on his next deal. Which in his final years of that contract will be a disaster to deal with. Ideally, I would pay him on a bridge deal now, 2yrs at 6.5M. Then pay him, big dollars later on, that will end when he’s 33. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, stawns said:

You think MacKinnon and GL are comparable for Boeser?  For Petey, maybe.

I said in another thread that were I GMJB, I'd be pointing at Teravainen and Larkin and saying "you think you're better than those guys?"

 

Boeser shouldn't be a cent over $7m, and in a normal market really ought to be a $6m guy. He's not even played 200 NHL games and we're going to pay him for production we don't even know he's capable of.

 

But whatever he signs for, I just want him to sign :frantic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, aGENT said:

I'd rather have MacKinnon on MacKinnon's contract ::D

I’d rather have Mackinnon at any contract lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, shiznak said:

The cap doesn’t always increase significantly every year and with the CBA expiring as soon as next year (opt out), who knows what the cap will be in the new CBA. It could potentially go down. 

 

Regardless of a bridge deal or not, you are still going to have to pay your RFAs once his second contract is up (if they continues to produce). IMO, its a risk especially for players like Boeser/Keller/Nylander to pay them now long term. They’re not in the same tier group as a McDavid, Eichel, or even Marner. 

 

You pay Boeser a 7m+, 7 years deal now, that will take him to 29. You are going to have to pay him a similar deal on his next deal. Which in his final years of that contract will be a disaster to deal with. Ideally, I would pay him on a bridge deal now, 2yrs at 6.5M. Then pay him, big dollars later on, that will end when he’s 33. 

No one is predicting a flat or decreasing cap.  The bigger risks by far is the cap going up significantly.  That leads to long term deals being more advantageous than short term ones.

 

The most likely scenario:

- cap pretty flat over the next two years with the players not exercising the escalator clause so that escrow mostly goes away

- IF the CBA is opened up, it is by the players wanting more revenue included in the hockey related revenue calculation.  The NHL has already declined their option to open it up, because they are deliriously happy with how it benefits them.

- in a couple years the new US TV deal hits.  The recent deals for sports have been huge.  You can expect several suitors willing to buck up huge bucks for the NHL rights.  That will inflate the cap immediately.

- The NHL is getting into sports gambling and that can also skyrocket the revenue and cap.

- Seattle is going to be an upper end revenue team which increases the revenue and cap

- There is a decent chance within a few years of one of the low revenue teams being relocated finally and being put in Quebec or another higher revenue location.  Switching out a low revenue team increases the average and cap

Edited by Provost
  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 6:59 PM, Provost said:

It is such a waste of time responding to you.

And ironically, that's what you do - engage using your signature smart-ass, know-it-all (ironically professorial) smarm, and then you act like you're a victim (dramatic drivel about ad hominen blah blah) when you get a response in kind.

 

Let me spell this out very simply for you.

 

Again - what I pointed out was that a bridge does not preclude a team from locking up a player through their prime.

 

If you sign a player coming off their ELC to a bridge - you still retain their rights as an RFA when that bridge expires and are able to re-sign them. 

 

A bridge does not preclude signing your young stars through their prime - it's realy simple and easy to understand actually.

 

And as a counterpoint to the people that think it's genius to follow up ELCs with long term deals, what better example/counterpoing than the recent Islanders experience - where John Tavares walked away - as a 27 year old - in his prime - to sign as a UFA with another club.

Tavares is a franchise player - so granted teams may make / need to make exceptions in cases like his - where he may have more 'leverage' than lesser players.

 

It may not seem to be as significant an issue at the time the deal is signed (lacking/unable to have the foresight of the context they will be in 6/7/8 years later)  - but as it's expiring - and Tavares walking as a 27 yr old - as the team enters what could be perceived as a window - becomes a significant issue.

 

The point should be pretty clear - and players like Clayton Keller are not in the same class as John Tavares.  The Canucks could face a similar set of circumstances with Horvat in 2023, at a similar stage of his career.   That, as well as a number of other reasons I've already flushed out - are why I prefer bridge deals wherever possible.

 

Carry on with if it serves you, with the daft act of being unable to understand such a simple point.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 12:27 PM, rekker said:

Not good for us as a comparable for Brock if Brock wants the same length of contract. Put it to this way. Would you trade Brock for Keller? Nope. Brock is worth more IMHO. Chayka is a tool. 

I don't think so and I don't think most people would trade Keller for BB.  keller is the better, more versatile player atm.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, stawns said:

I don't think so and I don't think most people would trade Keller for BB.  keller is the better, more versatile player atm.

Not sure on that. But to be honest I have always had a tough time evaluating anyone playing in Arizona. The lines there just never seem right. Never click. Too much sunshine, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rekker said:

Not sure on that. But to be honest I have always had a tough time evaluating anyone playing in Arizona. The lines there just never seem right. Never click. Too much sunshine, lol.

true story.........the kid impacts the game though, that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stawns said:

I don't think so and I don't think most people would trade Keller for BB.  keller is the better, more versatile player atm.

Based on what?

 

Since their rookies years....

Year 1.  Brock finished 2nd in calder voting with 750 points, Keller finished third with 492 votes.   Most of the voting observers obviously missed something right?

Year 2. Keller 14 goals in a full season.  Enough said.  I can only imagine your arguments if Brock only managed 14 goals last year :-)

 

More versatile? how? he mostly plays wing.  Put him at center ...sure? He would be the third line center on the canucks.

 

I think your dislike for the player is skewing your subjectivity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Darius said:

Based on what?

 

Since their rookies years....

Year 1.  Brock finished 2nd in calder voting with 750 points, Keller finished third with 492 votes.   Most of the voting observers obviously missed something right?

Year 2. Keller 14 goals in a full season.  Enough said.  I can only imagine your arguments if Brock only managed 14 goals last year :-)

 

More versatile? how? he mostly plays wing.  Put him at center ...sure? He would be the third line center on the canucks.

 

I think your dislike for the player is skewing your subjectivity. 

because I don't look at points as the only measuring stick, or even the main measuring stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stawns said:

because I don't look at points as the only measuring stick, or even the main measuring stick.

of course you are not, BB almost doubled Keller's goal total last year playing less games to boot.  basically it comes down to your opinion, and thats fine.  I just dont trust it in this case because you have had something against this player since day one.  If i recall correctly you were even saying they should send him down to Utica at the start of the same year he ended up 2nd in the Calder race.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Darius said:

of course you are not, BB almost doubled Keller's goal total last year playing less games to boot.  basically it comes down to your opinion, and thats fine.  I just dont trust it in this case because you have had something against this player since day one.  If i recall correctly you were even saying they should send him down to Utica at the start of the same year he ended up 2nd in the Calder race.

 

I value different things than you, that's all.  I absolutely said a year in Utica wouldn't hurt him if he started out slow.  Is that a bad thing to think a development year is beneficial for players who haven't played in the league yet?

 

  I said the same thing about Petey and believe the same thing about QH.  They need to prove they can play in the NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stawns said:

I value different things than you, that's all.  I absolutely said a year in Utica wouldn't hurt him if he started out slow.  Is that a bad thing to think a development year is beneficial for players who haven't played in the league yet?

 

  I said the same thing about Petey and believe the same thing about QH.  They need to prove they can play in the NHL.

Fair enough stawns.  I still think you (and some others in here) are undervaluing this kid.  Until Petey came along he was the Canuck drafted player that had the best first two years since like Bure....

 

Hes in this sort of company (note...last twenty five years!!!)

 

 

Edited by Darius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darius said:

Fair enough stawns.  I still think you (and some others in here) are undervaluing this kid.  Until Petey came along he was the Canuck drafted player that had the best first two years since like Bure....

 

Hes in this sort of company (note...last twenty five years!!!)

 

 

No argument, apart from the twins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stawns said:

No argument, apart from the twins.

Twins weren't very good their first year.  They developed pretty slowly as a matter of fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.