How was Garbutt v Nashville? Worth keeping up/roster spot next season?
He is a guy who will have a great story to tell his kids about his 3 or 4 games in the show. Getting to where he has says a lot about his work ethic, but no, he will not be on this team in the long run.
He should stick over both Dowell and Petersen. It's the smart thing to do. So he won't, then.
He definitely fits the "energy" kind of player everyone could use. Buzzing around everywhere, and he actually seemed to be in the offensive zone quite a bit.
If I had a say, outside of Wandell, the entire 4th line would be made up of AHLers getting rotated through until two really stand out, just so they get the experience and know the organization hasn't quite given up on them. That, and they can't all be worse than Petersen and Dowell. I'm sure we could find a pretty solid 4th line like that.
But I'd still prefer to see us go after another young guy like Vincour, bump Ott to the third line, drop Morrow somewhere, and roll with a third line of Ott - Wandell - Vincour/New Guy and have our current third line become our fourth. That'd be some pretty sick depth.
In the grand scheme of draft picks, 4th round vs. 5th round isn't that big of deal. However, the Phili trade for Kubina is an example why contract numbers is an important issue. The original deal was for a 2nd and 5th round pick until TB was forced to take back a contract. It bumped the 5th up to a 4th.
In the grand scheme of draft picks, 4th round vs. 5th round isn't that big of deal. However, the Phili trade for Kubina is an example why contract numbers is an important issue. The original deal was for a 2nd and 5th round pick until TB was forced to take back a contract. It bumped the 5th up to a 4th.
Wait, what?
Where's the contract that went back...? Or was that compensation?
I wonder if they bumped the limit up to 60 would teams still hover around the number? Actually the entire idea of a contract limit seems foolish to me.
Might want to put some of the R. Smith roster projections on hold.
My goal when I came in here was to play all four years. I haven’t had to change that at all. Obviously my goal is to play pro and if the opportunity presents itself, then I’ll obviously think about it, but my main goal is to play all four years here and get my degree. It’s really important. It puts it on paper all the hard work that collegiate athletes put into their education and how hard it is to balance the lifestyle of daily school and playing high-level hockey.
I think it'll look something like this, depending on the term which is very important when determining cap hit. 1-3 year deals use Neal's bridge contract as a comparison, 4 year uses Loui's, 5-8 uses Neal's current contract. UFA refers to how many UFA years are bought, age is age at the end of the contract.
I think it'll look something like this, depending on the term which is very important when determining cap hit. 1-3 year deals use Neal's bridge contract as a comparison, 4 year uses Loui's, 5-8 uses Neal's current contract. UFA refers to how many UFA years are bought, age is age at the end of the contract.
Years
Cap Hit
UFA
Age
1
$4.2M
0
23
2
$4.2M
0
24
3
$4.8M
0
25
4
$5.5M
0
26
5
$6.0M
1
27
6
$6.2M
2
28
7
$6.4M
3
29
8
$6.6M
4
30
I could see this happening, more likely (1 million more per in the first 4 years). Comes out to just under a 5.5 cap hit, as I don't see him signing for any less than Neal, barring a huge hometown deal.
Just for example .... Goligoski could have gone to arbitration and probably got a pretty significant raise that would have allowed him to become an UFA next season.
That's a pretty good argument for an agent: meet our demands or we'll go get a big arbitration settlement and test free agency.
Goli was already making $2.5 million this year, and he would easily get a raise into the $3 to $4 million range.
So consider a 1 year deal for let's say $3.5 million vs. the 4 year deal he signed. It's a good trade off. Arbitration just gives players a very good negotiating chip.
The Neal comp was just convenient. I can't find a long term comp for a 22 y/o that wasn't arbitration eligible except for guys who signed offer sheets (Vanek, Kessel).
Kane and Toews are the closest (Kane was 21). Both signed 5yr/$6.3M in 2011 (10.6% of the cap, which is $6.8M now). The difference in play is negated in a way by Chicago being a much more desirable place to spend a career at the time than Dallas is now.
In any case I just assumed that if Benn were to sign long term, arbitration eligibility would be irrelevant because his other option is to sign short term and accumulate arbitration credentials anyway. Why would the player want to skip that piece of leverage unless he were being paid to do it? Similar logic to the monetary value of UFA years on RFA contracts.
I still don't see why you can't compare those contracts. When the team and agent talk, all of those will be fair game when both sides try to set value.
In Benn's case, the threat of arbitration is pretty meaningless. He'd win a one year deal and still be a restricted free agent the next season. Unless the two sides are miles apart, I doubt arbitration will be a factor in this at all. I presume they both want a long-term, big-money deal, which arbitration does not provide.
Also, offer sheets are very rare, but Benn is one of the best targets for an offer sheet since Kessel (if not the best). The limit for a compensation of 1st, 2nd, 3rd round picks is ~$6.2M. That has a much greater effect on his value than arbitration eligibility.
