[Signing] Coyotes re-sign Clayton Keller

[BPA]

This will undoubtedly provide the Marner camp with much needed ammo to prove he is worth 11M/year.

TO is screwed.

 

[Provost]

52 minutes ago, 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 see it that badly... If we could sign Brock at $7-7.5 on an 8 year deal, most people take that and run.  He isn't THAT much better than Keller..

 

Keller 114 points in 168 games

Boeser 116 points in 140 games.

Boeser played with much better linemates, and Keller led his very offensively terrible team in scoring in both of his years.  Keller has also been resilient, playing full seasons both years.  That evens out a lot of the production difference between the two which isn't that significant.

 

If Keller is worth a little more than $7 on that term, Boeser shouldn't be more than $7.5 or maybe even $7.75.

 

The issue is he wants $7 million on a short term deal which gives him a ton of leverage for his next contract and doesn't lock him up for any UFA years.

 

[rekker]

I agree that if we could get Boeser for 7 million per for 8 years you take it and run. I see Boeser's ceiling as a lot higher than Keller. For that reason I dont see Boeser signing that cheap. Still think we are on the 7 million for 4 year range. Maybe 6.5 if we are lucky. 

[.Naslund]

Are people not realizing that teams are choosing to forgo the "bridge contract" and lock up their stars for long term deals pretty much through their prime. I'm sure teams are aware these guys are not worth this amount of money right now, but they are looking at potential (you need to pay for potential) and hoping these guys hit that potential within the next two years or so. 

 

For all the bridge deal fanatics, if the player performs at his expected level of production ie., 1.00 PPG (which everyone hopes for), would you then rather choose to pay that player 10 million plus dollars in 2 years time, as opposed to forking over an extra million or two now and having that player play through his prime until he's about 30 years old or so and closer to their decline? 

 

For a young team that doesn't have any major players taking up cap space (we have players we can let go when their contracts are up), we definitely have the luxury to pay a bit extra for potential now, as opposed to being bitten in the butt by offering bridge deals to our young guys and then paying maximum money (I'm talking 2-4 million per year to an older player) in two years time, while risking having to ship one of the younger kids out. 

 

Long term contracts also signify a committment to the franchise and the building of chemistry and also we need to factor inflation and how these 7 million dollar deals will essentially be 5 million dollar contracts in 3-4 years, at which point you may have a PPG superstar on a very team friendly deal. 

[Borvat]

Based on the upside down market maybe things have reversed.  Trade the overpriced RFA's for futures - picks and prospects - and sign the proven UFA's at a discount.

 

Based on what RFA's are getting maybe the way to go is ELC's and UFA's.  Wait until the NHLPA figures this out maybe they will throw the youngin's under the bus in the next negotiation it is a union.

[Provost]

46 minutes ago, Borvat said:

Based on the upside down market maybe things have reversed.  Trade the overpriced RFA's for futures - picks and prospects - and sign the proven UFA's at a discount.

 

Based on what RFA's are getting maybe the way to go is ELC's and UFA's.  Wait until the NHLPA figures this out maybe they will throw the youngin's under the bus in the next negotiation it is a union.

That is absolutely true and no one is really talking about it.  I remember bringing it up last off-season.

 

Top end UFAs are getting similar money as top end RFAs, so where is the benefit to drafting, developing, and signing your guys?  You only have two or three years of that ELC to get a critical mass of young players before they get paid market rates.  It is especially the case if they really push for the Timo Mieir type of bridge contract to become UFAs quickly.  The benefit before was that you signed an RFA to max term at a decent price, and they become bargains over the years as the cap goes up.... that benefit goes away if you are overpaying them for “hoped for” future production.

 

Add into the mix, that a lot of Vanek level veteran players 30 and older can be had at way under market value for their production.  Lots of them can barely find jobs.  They can easily fill out the bottom end of the roster mixed in with some younger ELC players 

 

Some smart GM is going to decide to trade away an elite young RFA for a huge haul of picks, prospects, and more veteran roster players... and then use that saved cap money for an elite UFA.  

Edited September 4, 2019 by Provost

[Provost]

Dp

Edited September 4, 2019 by Provost

[Provost]

Dp

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, .Naslund said:

Are people not realizing that teams are choosing to forgo the "bridge contract" and lock up their stars for long term deals pretty much through their prime.

Are you not realizing that a bridge not only does not preclude that, but enables you to lock them up for that much more term through their prime?

[oldnews]

Talented player, but a Colin White deal all over again.

 

13 goals

33 assists.

66.8% ozone starts

49.6% corsi

no grit, no physicality, not really ready to play center in the NHL.

-21

2.3 on ice goals for per 60 5 on 5, 3.1 against.

18 of his 33 assists on the powerplay, otherwise rather anemic 5 on 5 production.

 

Just not a merit-based deal - a 'potential'-based gamble (of course everyone is a 'sure-thing' when they're a highly talented 20 year old).

 

Not a fan of this kind of (highly premature) deal, whether or not it turns into good value in 3 or 4 years....

 

The one mitigating factor - you'd think that cap conseration might not be a problem for money-ball, 'small market', low-budget Arizona - but they're actually spent to the cap....in any event, not an easy group to get a read on.

[Provost]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

Are you not realizing that a bridge not only does not preclude that, but enables you to lock them up for that much more term through their prime?

Well not unless you  think their prime includes several years into their 30’s.  Prime now is considered around 24-28 years old.

 

In Brock’s example, if you sign him to the reported 4 year bridge contract he is seeking... he is 26 when his contract is up.

 

He will then negotiate for a max term deal that takes him to 34... which is probably going to be an overpayment on the back half as his production is likely to drop as he ages.

 

Signing him to an 8 year deal now takes him to 30 (all of his prime years) and he has little chance of cashing in on a big contract after that.

Edited September 5, 2019 by Provost

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

Well not unless you  think their prime includes several years into their 30’s.  Prime now is considered around 24-28 years old.

 

Signing him to an 8 year deal now takes him to 30 (all of his prime years) and he has little chance of cashing in on a big contract after that.

?

 

Keller is 20 years old.  He'll now be a UFA in his prime, even as you define it - and you're assuming a bridge has to be 4 years and the subsequent deal maximum term.

None of this is really a counterpoint.

[86Viking]

I like this deal as a compareable for Brock Boeser actually.

 

Keller is the best player on his team, I know his ppg is not as good as Brock's but he doesnt have anyone good to play with.

 

So if Boeser is to sign for the max term like Keller an 8yr deal around the same 7.15-7.5m per year max should be a fair considering what Keller got imo.

 

I'm sure CDC will agree to DISagree with me though

[Provost]

11 minutes ago, oldnews said:

?

 

Keller is 20 years old.  He'll now be a UFA in his prime, even as you define it - and you're assuming a bridge has to be 4 years and the subsequent deal maximum term.

None of this is really a counterpoint.

Keller is 21 years old... tough for players to get out of their ELCs two years after being drafted as you seem to be suggesting would have to be the case if he was 20...

 

His 8 year deal also doesn’t kick in until next season when he is 22.  22 plus 8 equals 30.

 

You are off your game, normally you are wrong but at least have some numbers right.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Provost

[oldnews]

Just now, Provost said:

Keller is 21 years old... tough for players to get out of their ELCs two years after being drafted as you seem to be suggesting...

 

His 8 year deal also doesn’t kick in until next season when he is 22.  22 plus 8 equals 30.

 

You are off your game, normally you are wrong but at least have some numbers right

you're on your game - you've always got the tedium, the smarm and the pomp of the 'professor'.

I suggested nothing about ELCs - and mistakenly took his age from hockey reference for this season.

 

Regardless - the point was that a bridge does not prevent a team from locking up a player 'pretty much through their prime'.  You're welcome to otherwise micro the minutae all you want - and well done on that - as usual you've managed to bore me in no time whatsoever.  You've got 'game.'

[J-23]

Not surprised, sports layers just want more money these days. Look at NBA, feels like they handing out max contracts to everyone

[Provost]

6 hours ago, oldnews said:

you're on your game - you've always got the tedium, the smarm and the pomp of the 'professor'.

I suggested nothing about ELCs - and mistakenly took his age from hockey reference for this season.

 

Regardless - the point was that a bridge does not prevent a team from locking up a player 'pretty much through their prime'.  You're welcome to otherwise micro the minutae all you want - and well done on that - as usual you've managed to bore me in no time whatsoever.  You've got 'game.'

You are,as always, demonstrably proven wrong and then resort to ad hominem character attacks.

 

You are the one going around telling people they are wrong on here, and when I post that you are actually the one wrong, you suggest I am being professorial and tedious by doing so.

 

Maybe actually do your homework before calling out other posters, and no one will have to tediously correct you.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Provost

[KirkSave]

John Chayka believes the following about Keller and clearly was willing to pay for it!

 

"He is not only an All-Star and one of the premiere offensive playmakers in the league"

 

My question is the following:

 

In what world is John living in. I wouldn't draft Keller on my fantasy team...

[guntrix]

The value is also high because Chayka is paying Keller to stay in Arizona. 

 

This deal is not an excuse for Benning to overpay for Boeser. 

[oldnews]

25 minutes ago, Provost said:

You are,as always, demonstrably proven wrong and then resort to ad hominem character attacks.

 

You are the one going around telling problem they are wrong on here, and when I post that you are actually the one wrong, you suggest I am being professorial and tedious by doing so.

 

Maybe actually do your homework before calling out other posters, and no one will have to tediously correct you.

 

 

 

Only a professor would find a way to argue, actually merely sidestep, something so simple.

 

A bridge does not preclude a team from locking up their stars through their prime.

 

The whole "lock up your stars through their prime" is not a counterpoint to a bridge contract = should be easy to understand, even for a professor.

 

'Wrong, wrong, wrong'....says the professor...'do your homework!'  Keller is 21!!!zzz    And if it were a 4 yr bridge (a rarity - most bridges are 2 or 3 years - hence the idea of a 'bridge' whereas 4 years is more of a mid-term deal) and then sign him to a maximum length term, they may lock him up beyond his 'primez'!!  I stand corrected.   A 'bridge' does preclude a team from locking a player up through their prime.  Thanks for the 'schooling'.

 

You;'re always good for a laugh though, but essentially a waste of time - who can't identify or engage with the issue / the point.  Well done with correcting Keller's age though - you are right, right, right, and a genius.