Jump to content

Nick Suzuki extension


GHT120
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Fanpuck33 said:

... But 60 points and hoping for 65 is not worth the contract he just got ...

It's the type of decision GM's have to make ... sign him now or wait until next spring/summer when his having the type of season you clearly expect him capable of having would increase his "price" ... if you wait for a player to "be worth" a long-term deal then you don't get the type of cap friendly AAV that makes the GM's life easier over its term ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fanpuck33 said:

 

Exactly, and I don't disagree. But 60 points and hoping for 65 is not worth the contract he just got.  He got the contract for an established, consistent 70+ player. Even with a 70-80 point season, he still won't have the resume of Zibanejad has, and Zibanejad's contract is buying out more UFA years. And that is an especially good contract to compare if you're going to make the tax argument, as New York's taxes are closer to Montreal's than any other US city. 

The last 3 or 4 years of Zibanejad's contract may be ugly. The last 3 or 4 for Suzuki should be a bargain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GHT120 said:

It's the type of decision GM's have to make ... sign him now or wait until next spring/summer when his having the type of season you clearly expect him capable of having would increase his "price" ... if you wait for a player to "be worth" a long-term deal then you don't get the type of cap friendly AAV that makes the GM's life easier over its term ... 

yep. They have know choice after the KK offer sheet. Glad it was for max term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm certainly glad that he's locked in for 8+ years.  However, part of me thinks the amount of $ is sorta crazy for a young unproven player when its unknown what his ceiling will be.  He is a great player and he has shown that he will likely be in the 70 pts range, but with an aav at close to $8 mil he'll have to become close to an 80pt guy for him to have an equal value contract. 

 

Either way, if he needed to be replaced that is less $ than acquiring a UFA or similar skilled players on other teams get paid.  The Habs would have to pay him a lot more if they took the "wait and see" route, so its likely to be a really good contract. 

 

What's the break down of the contract?  Does it start at $5 mil/yr and end with $10 mil/yr - if yes then that could be a problem.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

... He is a great player and he has shown that he will likely be in the 70 pts range, but with an aav at close to $8 mil he'll have to become close to an 80pt guy for him to have an equal value contract. ...

think a near point per game player would be more expensive than what Suzuki will get ... looking at last year, if I did it properly, of the 13 forwards whose AAV was $7.375M-$8.375M (+/- $5M from Suzuki's future AAV), only two were over 0.9 pts per game (O'Reilly and Wheeler) ... the median (half above, half below) was 0.62 p/gm ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GHT120 said:

It's the type of decision GM's have to make ... sign him now or wait until next spring/summer when his having the type of season you clearly expect him capable of having would increase his "price" ... if you wait for a player to "be worth" a long-term deal then you don't get the type of cap friendly AAV that makes the GM's life easier over its term ... 

 

Exactly, it's all about making a projection on the type of player Suzuki will be. Obviously MB has seen enough evidence that he should be locked up long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

think a near point per game player would be more expensive than what Suzuki will get ... looking at last year, if I did it properly, of the 13 forwards whose AAV was $7.375M-$8.375M (+/- $5M from Suzuki's future AAV), only two were over 0.9 pts per game (O'Reilly and Wheeler) ... the median (half above, half below) was 0.62 p/gm ... 

 

That's exactly why I said it would be way more $ to replace him.  

 

Personally, I like the idea of having a collection of players that are reasonable and want to win so they accept slightly less than what they are worth - or at least dont expect the most $ that they could possibly get.  There seems to be a big problem because a lot of GM's are willing to over pay players by a minimum of 2-3 mil.    

 

I like when a player is willing to take .5-1 mil less than what they could get.  i.e. 20 players on a team getting paid 500k more than they are worth adds up to $10 mil, which equals having two less $5 mil/yr guys.  If they all take 500k less then a team would have two more $5 mil/yr guys.  i.e. its a way to legally circumvent the cap and be more competitive. 

 

His contract will be worth it, but I'd prefer if his contract was for $500k less/yr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

What's the break down of the contract?  Does it start at $5 mil/yr and end with $10 mil/yr - if yes then that could be a problem.      

 

This feels like a good spot to plug our contract page - http://www.habsworld.net/2007/08/montreal-canadiens-salary-information/

 

It's a front-loaded deal - Starts at $10M for three years, then $8.5M, $6.25M, and three years at $6M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

This feels like a good spot to plug our contract page - http://www.habsworld.net/2007/08/montreal-canadiens-salary-information/

 

It's a front-loaded deal - Starts at $10M for three years, then $8.5M, $6.25M, and three years at $6M.

Somewhat surprising as "escrow" is expected to be high in the near term and hopefully decline once the cap starts rising ... no difference to Habs but may cost Suzuki some money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Somewhat surprising as "escrow" is expected to be high in the near term and hopefully decline once the cap starts rising ... no difference to Habs but may cost Suzuki some money.

 

Escrow is actually set to drop to fixed percentages in the next few years so he's not losing as much as you might think.  The uncertainty is what it'll look like in the next CBA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that was quick.  Suzuki's contract looks better already.  i.e.:  The Senators signed Tkachuk to a seven-year $57.5M contract with an aav of $8.214 million/yr.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

Well, that was quick.  Suzuki's contract looks better already.  i.e.:  The Senators signed Tkachuk to a seven-year $57.5M contract with an aav of $8.214 million/yr.

 

 

But Tkachuk is better than Suzuki isnt he, so should be paid more, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DON said:

But Tkachuk is better than Suzuki isnt he, so should be paid more, no?

 

Tkachuk

 

45 points as a rookie

then 44 points in 71 games in shortened season.

then 36 points in 56 games last year

 

How is he better than Suzuki and he plays Wing, a position that is generally played less than centre. 

 

Suzuki

41 points in 71 games in shortened rookie season plus 7 points in 10 playoff games

41 points in 56 games last year, plus 16 points in 22 playoff games.

 

Suzuki's defensive game is better as well, and by a lot. 

 

So where is Tkachuk better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

So where is Tkachuk better?

 

Tkachuk is better physically and he is more of a pain in the ass of a pest type of player.  However, exactly like you say that doesnt make Tkachuk a superior player that should be paid more.    It seems unlikely that Tkachuk will ever get as many goals or assists as Suzuki.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if two teams traded Tkachuk for Suzuki, people would call that an even trade, depending on team need. If you want sandpaper, Tkachuk’s your guy. If you want a slick pivot to play C, it’s Suzuki. What I can say is that the Habs would not make that trade in a million years because of the smoking crater it would leave at C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I think that if two teams traded Tkachuk for Suzuki, people would call that an even trade, depending on team need. If you want sandpaper, Tkachuk’s your guy. If you want a slick pivot to play C, it’s Suzuki. What I can say is that the Habs would not make that trade in a million years because of the smoking crater it would leave at C.

They could have Tkachuk if they wanted him at the draft. But Han we only want to use first round picks on big guys with zero skill like Mccarron and Tinordi.

 

even if Tkachuk was a lot better player. With our situation at centre, we couldn’t afford to make a move.  Last year we were talking about how we finally had depth at centre. Now we are back to pretty much where we were in the Koivu years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

They could have Tkachuk if they wanted him at the draft. But Han we only want to use first round picks on big guys with zero skill like Mccarron and Tinordi.

 

even if Tkachuk was a lot better player. With our situation at centre, we couldn’t afford to make a move.  Last year we were talking about how we finally had depth at centre. Now we are back to pretty much where we were in the Koivu years.

 

Well, so far Dvorak is reminding me of KK in the specific sense of doing nothing much out there…

 

I’m glad we didn’t pay Danault those bucks, but honestly, I think the team misses him as the defensive glue up front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Well, so far Dvorak is reminding me of KK in the specific sense of doing nothing much out there…

 

I’m glad we didn’t pay Danault those bucks, but honestly, I think the team misses him as the defensive glue up front.

52% in the faceoff circle (yes, three games is a small sample). A lovely pass from behind the net tonight accounts for one-third of the Habs' scoring this month.

 

Personally, I think Dvorak looks good so far, but it's still very early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

52% in the faceoff circle (yes, three games is a small sample). A lovely pass from behind the net tonight accounts for one-third of the Habs' scoring this month.

 

Personally, I think Dvorak looks good so far, but it's still very early.

same here, he doesn't have great chemistry with the others but he is well positioned on the ice and is not a drag on the others

 

he seemed to holding on the puck a bit too long, looking for his wingers and also seemed like he was out of sync with them on when to dump and chase vs when to dump and change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...