|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 16, 2019 19:22:29 GMT -5
Hagelin gets extended, four years at $11MM. The price seems ok, but Hagelin will be 31 in August, so you're hoping he's productive enough for a $2MM player for another 4 years. Course, I didn't like the Tom Wilson contract and that one looks a lot better one year later, so maybe McLellan knows what he's doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Jun 16, 2019 19:46:34 GMT -5
The good news for Washington is that at least you are being generous term-wise to a veteran who can skate like the wind. So Hagelin is fine in the contemporary NHL on that dimension.
Considering the Caps are a veteran heavy team with plenty of leaders who have been through all of the battles, I kind of think it is not great to have to use that much cap space on a 31 year old who is basically just a third/fourth liner tweener and super valuable PKer.
I guess this explains the Niskanen move a couple of days ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 17, 2019 5:46:48 GMT -5
$2.75 million.  It's not an overpay for a guy that is a great skater and reasonable defensive player. He won't provide any offense, which is what kept the hit down. For 700k more, Montreal has the vastly better player in Byron. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 17, 2019 9:00:25 GMT -5
$2.75 million. It's not an overpay for a guy that is a great skater and reasonable defensive player. He won't provide any offense, which is what kept the hit down. For 700k more, Montreal has the vastly better player in Byron. I am generally of the opinion that anybody making under $4 million isn't really a cap problem. Sure, there are some guys who you wish weren't taking up space, but in general they aren't the main problems on your team. I would go so far as to say that the perception of the player - how they were acquired, who they were acquired for, what people were expecting of them - has a much bigger impact on our perception of their cap hit than anything else. It's died down some, but Matthew Peca for example, got way more "bad contract" press than was really warranted, as did David Schlemko. On the other hand, nobody seems to be saying anything about Dale Weise, whose cap hit is as big if not bigger, with arguably less production. Now I get it, we needed to take on Weise to get rid of Schlemko, but it just seemed to be overly disproportionate, the complaining about the Schlemko cap hit, which with Weise hasn't gone away. But the player has, which seems to have made some people happier. Another good example would be Andrew Shaw, in my opinion. Some people hate that contract, which in the grand scheme of things really isn't all that bad. Might even be good by a lot of measures. But some people are hell-bent on trading him, to get rid of his contract.  |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 17, 2019 12:45:53 GMT -5
$2MM here, $3MM there and pretty soon you're talking real dollars.
When looking at 'bad' contracts like Alzner's for example, I'm more concerned about the term. Yes, the dollars count, but getting stuck with Lucic for one year is not as bad as getting stuck with him for 4 more years.
I can understand why Wilson was ok with giving Karlsson 8 years. His team is a smidgen away from winning the cup with Karlsson and a lot further away without him. It also says something about what Wilson thinks of Karlsson's injuries. But 8 years? Man that's tough. Now Karlsson's game isn't like Weber's. He's much more of a skater and his skating style is probably going to have a long shelf life. Still, those last 3 years may cause some angst. But if they win a Cup before then, I don't think any Shark fans will complain.
|
|
