Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
If he can average 67 points, he's worth 5.75 a year. But he should average more when you consider the 67 points were obtained as a 19/20 year-old while playing under 17 minutes per game on a very defensively responsible line (thus the +34).
Not just him though. It's that way with just about every Bruin's player. But +/- is a terrible stat and anyway wanting to use that as a reason Tyler Seguin was good defensively last year need not look further than Phil Kessel, who was +23 in 2008-2009 with the Bruins.
There have been some seriously misinformed posts in this thread. The whole two year trend thing is ridiculous, and a total misuse of an intrinsically predictive tool.
Also, Danishh is right in saying that Tambellini bought an extra UFA year for $7.5mil, assuming there's no difference in value between Seguin and Hall. UFA years are paid out higher than RFA years, so if a GM wants to extend an RFA contract into the player's UFA years then he'll likely have to up the cap hit over the RFA years too.
In this situation Hall gets paid an extra .25mil than Seguin over each of the first 6 years of his deal, but is still signed for one more year at the 'discount' of 6mil. Seguin will likely be making around 7.5mil in year 7 when he signs his next contract, meaning the actual salary will probably balance out over the seven years at $42mil total. What don't balance out are cap hit and player security. Basically what it comes down to is Boston valued having a slightly lower cap hit to accommodate their current salary issues, while Edmonton valued player security and ensured that Hall would be an Oiler for that extra UFA year. Given the statuses of both franchises I think the two GM's made the right calls for their respective clubs.
This is a great post. Edmonton is happy. Boston is happy. Carolina is happy. Leave the measuring contests for the poll threads please.
This off-season made me realize that super-high level talent like Suter and Parise actually comes at a discount compared to slightly lower "star" level players. I suppose the Bruins are buying in now hoping Seguin ends up rising like Stamkos and being a Sedin-esque discount.
This off-season made me realize that super-high level talent like Suter and Parise actually comes at a discount compared to slightly lower "star" level players. I suppose the Bruins are buying in now hoping Seguin ends up rising like Stamkos and being a Sedin-esque discount.
I don't know if I'd characterize it as a discount. Parise's contract runs well after the age where he is likely to still be effective (35) and only looks ok from a cap hit standpoint because he only makes $4M between the ages of 38-40. During the time between when he is 28 - 35, he makes $80M over 8 years and $25M of it is in guaranteed signing bonuses.
Compare that to this deal where Seguin make $5.75M over 6 years and is still likely in his prime (27) by then.
I don't know if I'd characterize it as a discount. Parise's contract runs well after the age where he is likely to still be effective (35) and only looks ok from a cap hit standpoint because he only makes $4M between the ages of 38-40. During the time between when he is 28 - 35, he makes $80M over 8 years and $25M of it is in guaranteed signing bonuses.
Compare that to this deal where Seguin make $5.75M over 6 years and is still likely in his prime (27) by then.
That's quite a difference.
I pretty much agree with this.
I love Parise as much as the next guy, but if guys like Seguin, Hall, Eberle, etc. continue to improve (or simply stay consistent in Eberle's case), I would take that deal every day of the week over a deal like Parise's deal.
He gets paid $60 million in salary and bonuses in the first 3 years alone, and the deal like you mentioned takes him far past his prime.
I don't think Parise needs to get back to his 90 point form to earn the money, but he put up less than 70 last year in his first full year after major surgery, so this deal could look a little less than desirable if he only puts up 65 points a year for the remainder of the deal, despite his leadership and other intangibles.
The plus side is he gets such little salary in the end that they could buy him out near the end, but still a lot of money up front.
This off-season made me realize that super-high level talent like Suter and Parise actually comes at a discount compared to slightly lower "star" level players. I suppose the Bruins are buying in now hoping Seguin ends up rising like Stamkos and being a Sedin-esque discount.
Had they not gotten such lengthy deals do you think their cap hit would be so comparable? None of these guys need to be Stamkos or Sedin-esque to justify their contracts, does Parise or Suter have to be Crosby-esque to justify theirs?
__________________ Treat Others As You Would Like To Be Treated
Not just him though. It's that way with just about every Bruin's player. But +/- is a terrible stat and anyway wanting to use that as a reason Tyler Seguin was good defensively last year need not look further than Phil Kessel, who was +23 in 2008-2009 with the Bruins.
I agree about + / - being a flawed stat. But all you have to do is use the eye test to see that Seguin is leaps and bounds ahead of where Kessel was in their seconds years in the league, but offensively and defensively. You can also use the eye test when watching Bruins games to see that Seguin had a solid year overall defensively. He makes mistakes...but who doesn't? What you're looking for is consistency and Seguin for the most part was pretty consistent defensively all year.
Probably a big reason for the much lower +/- is because the Bruins offense started to go south once Horton and Peverely went on the shelf.
I agree about + / - being a flawed stat. But all you have to do is use the eye test to see that Seguin is leaps and bounds ahead of where Kessel was in their seconds years in the league, but offensively and defensively. You can also use the eye test when watching Bruins games to see that Seguin had a solid year overall defensively. He makes mistakes...but who doesn't? What you're looking for is consistency and Seguin for the most part was pretty consistent defensively all year.
Probably a big reason for the much lower +/- is because the Bruins offense started to go south once Horton and Peverely went on the shelf.
Not to mention Seguin was easily our best forward in the playoffs.
I agree about + / - being a flawed stat. But all you have to do is use the eye test to see that Seguin is leaps and bounds ahead of where Kessel was in their seconds years in the league, but offensively and defensively. You can also use the eye test when watching Bruins games to see that Seguin had a solid year overall defensively. He makes mistakes...but who doesn't? What you're looking for is consistency and Seguin for the most part was pretty consistent defensively all year.
Probably a big reason for the much lower +/- is because the Bruins offense started to go south once Horton and Peverely went on the shelf.
Well, yeah I think he's better than Kessel. But it's a bad stat, especially when people use it for a player like Seguin, who isn't Kessel bad, but still isn't good defensively.
And I agree, they had trouble scoring + some bad defensive/goaltending games (vs. Tampa, vs. Pittsburgh, etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptxMorgan
Not to mention Seguin was easily our best forward in the playoffs.
He wasn't. Peverly was better.
And if he had been, it wouldn't say much.
In all seriousness, happy for both teams right now. That Cup run and Seguin's highlights against Tampa will last me a lifetime just as all the Oilers fans memories from the dynasty years will resonate.
