• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Around the League 2019-2024 Edition

The issue with Hyman's deal is the length, it's going to hurt in the not so distant future. Also, his numbers in Edmonton last year is predicated on Connor & 1st unit PP time he shouldn't be given if he was in Toronto. We saw what he was with Auston & Mitch, and what he was with them was entirely replaceable.
 
5.5 is very good value in the near-term tho at the very least. At some point you need to take some risks with these contracts and sacrifice some sweet spot of shared risk type stuff with the possibility that a contract ages poorly in the final 2-3 years. Leafs being consistently the #3-6 team is great but taking that next step up by accepting some risk (i.e. Hyman, Ekholm) to take them to a clear #1/2 team would arguably be preferable.
 
zeke said:
well, he was definitely $5m good when he was here, too.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the question was whether he was going to be worth 5.5 to us when he was 33-34-35 yrs old too.

I guess it depends on who you think he is. Is he the 83 point guy from last year, or the 55-60 point guy over the previous 3 years? When a 55-60 point guy starts to decline, he becomes worth less than 5.5 million in a hurry.
 
Leafs also probably could have got him for under $5 at 8 years.

it might hurt one day but it’s been a massive deal so far. Even as a 50 point guy,
 
Preston said:
5.5 is very good value in the near-term tho at the very least. At some point you need to take some risks with these contracts and sacrifice some sweet spot of shared risk type stuff with the possibility that a contract ages poorly in the final 2-3 years. Leafs being consistently the #3-6 team is great but taking that next step up by accepting some risk (i.e. Hyman, Ekholm) to take them to a clear #1/2 team would arguably be preferable.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but Tavares was the risk. In a capped world you can't only toss your dice once or twice.

Agreed regarding Ekholm because his role carries that value. I disagree about assigning that level of risk to your 3rd best winger though. The team needs to be generating that level of player internally.
 
The #1 concern with Hyman was never that he wouldn’t pay off in the short-term. It was that with his age and style of play, he could have a precipitous decline sooner than later.

I like the guy, but he’s on OilChange now, so fuck it—hopefully he crashes & burns soon.
 
MindzEye said:
Agreed, but Tavares was the risk. In a capped world you can't only toss your dice once or twice.

Agreed regarding Ekholm because his role carries that value. I disagree about assigning that level of risk to your 3rd best winger though. The team needs to be generating that level of player internally.
Click to expand...
By the end of his contract, based on cap estimates, 5.5m won't be as crippling as it may seem today, same goes for Ekholm's contract really. Tavares' contract is on a different level in terms of cash allocation.

I get why the Leafs didn't do it and I don't even blame Kyle for that. It was a tough decision and I was leaning towards not keeping him too. But he sure has been excellent value so far for the Oilers so I'm willing to accept that I was probably wrong. I felt Ekholm was way more of a no brainer too of course.
 
zeke said:
i mean the cap will be approaching $100m by then.
Click to expand...

Maybe

I think we've gotten caught with our pants down already expecting a massive increase in the cap that didn't happen. There's enough goofy shit going on in the world for us to not spend today like we're going to have 100 million tomorrow.
 
F7r9DcBXMAA4q5R
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top