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

Around the League 2019-2024 Edition

MindzEye said:
That's his 33 yr old season though. Dude is a 6'5 225lb, fast, 12-15 goal bottom 6 analytics demigod. What the hell else are you spending 1.5 on (remember, I'm suggesting half his AAV) that is going to be better than a 31-32-33 yr old Engvall?
Click to expand...
That's assuming there isn't regression in his play. He's 28 and forwards usually start to see regression around this age.

Personally, that's not a gamble I'm willing to take.
 
GGpX said:
That's assuming there isn't regression in his play. He's 28 and forwards usually start to see regression around this age.
Click to expand...

Even if his play regresses somewhat (28-30 is generally a plateau), we're still talking about 1.5 millie a year here. He's going to be surplus value for a few years, even if some regression occurs.

Fwiw (from evolving wild):

1728257744128.png

Eric Tulsky (yeah, that one) has a bunch of articles in SBNation from before his front office days and the takeaway is that the average player will retain 90% of their peak offensive ability to 29 and then decline from there as a general rule. But other work on the subject shows that defensive skills are a bit more durable for another year or two. Engvall was considered surplus value at 3 million a year (Dom's model had him a 3.9 million at the time of signing fwiw). At 1.5 he would be surplus value for at least the first few years of the deal, and as mentioned, pretty easy to bury (or trade) after that. I just don't see the risk you're concerned about.
 
axlsalinger said:
Remember that no one is going to give you retention for 6 fucking years. So he would cost you $3m per year those last 2-3 years. I'll pass.
Click to expand...

Then they can keep him.

But with that said, long retention isn't something completely unheard of.

- Edmonton is retaining Jack for 4 years
- Sharks retained 4 years on Karlsson and then again on Hertl
 
Last edited:
Seriously though…seems silly to entertain bringing on Engvall for six years at $1.5M, when we’re already desperate to get rid of Yarncock’s 2 x $2.1M.

Essentially the same player, right down to the long well-documented history of being a complete non-entity in the playoffs.
 
That's fair, but 600k is a lot of reasons to prefer one over the other. A 6'5 28 yr old Janrkrok for 1.5 million doesn't sound terrible.

This isn't a hill worth dying on, I just like surplus value and Engvall would be surplus value for at least 2-3 years and probably longer.
 
I don't think the rules make it so you can retain salary on some years, but can't on others.

If you retain 50% of the salary on the contract, it's for the duration of the whole contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top