CanucksCorner.com Forums

I was about to respond to Lancer but UW has covered it well.

I would just add that the Kings appear to have kept the number down by walking Byfield to UFA status with the five year term. This is bound to be penny wise pound foolish if the kid hits his ceiling.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 11:31 am

Lancer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 10:04 am

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:45 pm Byfield signed a five year deal. 5 x $6.25

https://puckpedia.com/

That’s a lot of scratch for someone who just potted 20 goals for the first time in his career after four seasons split with the big club. As long as it ties up cap space for a division rival, I guess.

6.25 million is not a lot of scratch for a 21 year old power forward type who is just beginning to unlock his game and scored 55 points (20 goals). Its not that different than what a 29 year old UFA coming off a season like that with a history of second line play would get, with one major difference -- Byfield has the capacity to do a lot more than what he's done to date. If he holds serve, its not a terrible contract. If he improves slightly, its a win for LA. And if he turns into a core Kings player, it is a steal. If he stick at center (he's bounced between wing and center), its a greater steal. And from what I can tell, he's pretty good all over the ice, so even if his offensive numbers stagnate, he's going to add value.

And who regresses at this age? Patrick Laine and guys with bad injuries, I suppose. But the point is it is rare. The Kings should be happy to get him at this price through the RFA years, and, IMO, are more likely to regret not getting more UFA years than they are to regret paying him $6.25M.

Betting on future growth can be just as dodgy as betting on past performance sustaining. Is he beginning to unlock his game, or has he reached his ceiling? Some folks are late-bloomers, and he likely has some runway left to prove that he may be one. If that's the case, the deal looks like a win for the club. I've just never been sold on the kid being anything more than a replacement-level middle-six winger.

Lancer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 12:03 pm

UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 11:31 am

Lancer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 10:04 am

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:45 pm Byfield signed a five year deal. 5 x $6.25

https://puckpedia.com/

That’s a lot of scratch for someone who just potted 20 goals for the first time in his career after four seasons split with the big club. As long as it ties up cap space for a division rival, I guess.

6.25 million is not a lot of scratch for a 21 year old power forward type who is just beginning to unlock his game and scored 55 points (20 goals). Its not that different than what a 29 year old UFA coming off a season like that with a history of second line play would get, with one major difference -- Byfield has the capacity to do a lot more than what he's done to date. If he holds serve, its not a terrible contract. If he improves slightly, its a win for LA. And if he turns into a core Kings player, it is a steal. If he stick at center (he's bounced between wing and center), its a greater steal. And from what I can tell, he's pretty good all over the ice, so even if his offensive numbers stagnate, he's going to add value.

And who regresses at this age? Patrick Laine and guys with bad injuries, I suppose. But the point is it is rare. The Kings should be happy to get him at this price through the RFA years, and, IMO, are more likely to regret not getting more UFA years than they are to regret paying him $6.25M.

Betting on future growth can be just as dodgy as betting on past performance sustaining. Is he beginning to unlock his game, or has he reached his ceiling? Some folks are late-bloomers, and he likely has some runway left to prove that he may be one. If that's the case, the deal looks like a win for the club. I've just never been sold on the kid being anything more than a replacement-level middle-six winger.

If you don't bet on future growth to young players with some kind of attribute, you get killed after short mini-deals and high performance, and expose yourself to the vicissitudes of arbitration. Petey signed for $11.6M; what if they signed him to 8 years 3 year ago? Would he have been $9M? How would you like $2.6M more now? And what if the Oilers hadn't inked Draisaitl to a long term deal? I know that you can always point out examples where the long term deals to young players worked for the team and its cherry picking, but what recent high performing player at 21-23 years old was inked to an 8 year deal and it became an unmovable albatross? It doesn't happen much, certainly less than free agent busts, and when it happens, its usually because of injuries that can happen to anyone.

But what's more, the Kings will win big if there's an improvement, but will still not be meaningfully overpaying for a player with Byfield's 2023-24 attributes on the UFA market (past performance sustaining).

As for looking like a "replacement-level middle six winger," even if your talent evaluation was correct, I don't even know what that means. But I know IM65 cost $4.75/4 in the flat cap days. I know Garland signed 5 years at $4.95M in flat cap days. I know neither produced as much as Byfield did last year, nor have the ability to play the coveted power game, nor were their ceilings anywhere close to Byfield's.

Also worth pointing out that power forward types tend to be the latest bloomers amongst top-6 prospects. At 21 the Kings could have a 30+G/70+P 23 year old at $6.25M for 3 seasons.

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:45 pm Byfield signed a five year deal. 5 x $6.25

https://boomerangsportsbookcanada.com/

that's impressive!

UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 1:37 pm

Lancer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 12:03 pm

UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 11:31 am

Lancer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 10:04 am

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:45 pm Byfield signed a five year deal. 5 x $6.25

https://puckpedia.com/

That’s a lot of scratch for someone who just potted 20 goals for the first time in his career after four seasons split with the big club. As long as it ties up cap space for a division rival, I guess.

6.25 million is not a lot of scratch for a 21 year old power forward type who is just beginning to unlock his game and scored 55 points (20 goals). Its not that different than what a 29 year old UFA coming off a season like that with a history of second line play would get, with one major difference -- Byfield has the capacity to do a lot more than what he's done to date. If he holds serve, its not a terrible contract. If he improves slightly, its a win for LA. And if he turns into a core Kings player, it is a steal. If he stick at center (he's bounced between wing and center), its a greater steal. And from what I can tell, he's pretty good all over the ice, so even if his offensive numbers stagnate, he's going to add value.

And who regresses at this age? Patrick Laine and guys with bad injuries, I suppose. But the point is it is rare. The Kings should be happy to get him at this price through the RFA years, and, IMO, are more likely to regret not getting more UFA years than they are to regret paying him $6.25M.

Betting on future growth can be just as dodgy as betting on past performance sustaining. Is he beginning to unlock his game, or has he reached his ceiling? Some folks are late-bloomers, and he likely has some runway left to prove that he may be one. If that's the case, the deal looks like a win for the club. I've just never been sold on the kid being anything more than a replacement-level middle-six winger.

If you don't bet on future growth to young players with some kind of attribute, you get killed after short mini-deals and high performance, and expose yourself to the vicissitudes of arbitration. Petey signed for $11.6M; what if they signed him to 8 years 3 year ago? Would he have been $9M? How would you like $2.6M more now? And what if the Oilers hadn't inked Draisaitl to a long term deal? I know that you can always point out examples where the long term deals to young players worked for the team and its cherry picking, but what recent high performing player at 21-23 years old was inked to an 8 year deal and it became an unmovable albatross? It doesn't happen much, certainly less than free agent busts, and when it happens, its usually because of injuries that can happen to anyone.

But what's more, the Kings will win big if there's an improvement, but will still not be meaningfully overpaying for a player with Byfield's 2023-24 attributes on the UFA market (past performance sustaining).

As for looking like a "replacement-level middle six winger," even if your talent evaluation was correct, I don't even know what that means. But I know IM65 cost $4.75/4 in the flat cap days. I know Garland signed 5 years at $4.95M in flat cap days. I know neither produced as much as Byfield did last year, nor have the ability to play the coveted power game, nor were their ceilings anywhere close to Byfield's.

Not saying it's a horrible deal or an albatross contract. A bit rich - you would think with management having the leverage they could have shaved a million AAV off of it - but not totally out of the wheelhouse. In terms of comparables, I would point to Drouin - although Tampa managed to get a good haul from Montreal when they traded him - which I would call a combination of foresight and taking advantage of an organization seemingly always looking for the next Franco star.

If his play improves over the contract; produces like, say, Neiderreiter, then it's a win for LA. He could also become a Pat Maroon, at which point LA has a useful roster piece that may be a tad expensive.

Management has to take chances, and this is a safer bet than some. At the end of the day, we'll see how the contract ages. Not being in a flat-cap environment changes things.

As an aside, we all assume that league revenues will continue to grow now that the pandemic's over and with sports betting revenue to come, but at what point does something naturally max out in terms of revenue? How many new revenue streams are left untapped?

Lancer wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 6:51 am In terms of comparables, I would point to Drouin - although Tampa managed to get a good haul from Montreal when they traded him - which I would call a combination of foresight and taking advantage of an organization seemingly always looking for the next Franco star.

Drouin's a good counter example; a guy signing and ELC that didn't pan out in terms of productivity. Like Byfield, didn't make the big club out of camp (Drouin to juniors; Byfield to AHL due to covid exception), each had two quiet years after than with time spent in the minors, and each had a good 20 goal 50 point campaign to close their ELC contracts. Their first post-ELC contracts were basically the same when evaluated by percentage of cap.

But even Drouin who disappointed had a contract that wasn't so bad. First, he was traded with that contract for Sergechev (a recent 12th overall) and a 2d. To get that return shows the contract wasn't "too much." (Similarly, if the Kings wanted to turn Byfield into a 1st and 2d tomorrow, they could).

Second, his first two seasons in Montreal were disappointing because there was no jump, but they weren't far off what he did that last year in Tampa and year two was basically value. I suspect Montreal could have received value for him in a trade then.

What ultimately did Drouin in, though, was injuries and reported mental health issues. And I will allow that there is always that risk with any long term contract; it is baked into the idea of a long term contract.

The irony is Drouin turned in a very good season last year (perhaps his best) on a near league minimum salary, he's no longer terrible defensively, and resigned for about half his value in order to stay in a good situation.

The flip side of Drouin is Mackinnon, who had a similar season to Byfield in his 3rd ELC season (21G-31A), though a better track record in his first two years (not a superstar yet, but a quality NHL player with a very good rookie season (he won the calder, IIRC) and a disappointing sophomore campaign where the entire Avs organization struggled a bit unexpectedly). After the 52 point third season, he signed @ 6 years/$6.3M, a contract that was more than Drouin's and Byfields as a percentage of cap and definitely had the risk averse making the same points you are making with Byfield. And we know how that contract turned out.

I'm not predicting Byfield is the next Drouin or Mackinnon. Just illustrating the poles.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 8:10 am

Lancer wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 6:51 am In terms of comparables, I would point to Drouin - although Tampa managed to get a good haul from Montreal when they traded him - which I would call a combination of foresight and taking advantage of an organization seemingly always looking for the next Franco star.

I'm not predicting Byfield is the next Drouin or Mackinnon. Just illustrating the poles.

If either of them were drafted in the 2nd round or further back, I don't think we'd have these conversations. The fact that they were top-3 picks, I think, creates a sunken-cost factor for management when it comes to the post-ELC contract - whether it turns out to be a sunken-cost fallacy or not only gets revealed with time.

I can imagine Byfield's numbers would get a significant bump if he played next to MacKinnon, though Kopitar is no slouch.

robbymic wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 1:06 am

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:45 pm Byfield signed a five year deal. 5 x $6.25

https://puckpedia.com/

that's impressive!

I think it's a fair contract both ways considering his trajectory.

I do think the Kings may regret the five year term though since it takes Byfield right to UFA.

And btw, welcome to the forum Robbymic

Lancer wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 8:21 am If either of them were drafted in the 2nd round or further back, I don't think we'd have these conversations. The fact that they were top-3 picks, I think, creates a sunken-cost factor for management when it comes to the post-ELC contract - whether it turns out to be a sunken-cost fallacy or not only gets revealed with time.

Or post-ELC contracts (and the desire to make it for term and betting on future improvement) might correlate strongly with a group of higher ceiling players. At 21, players are still developing. The higher the ceiling (presuming NHL competence has already been established), the higher the team interest in a long term deal. The player who reaches the ceiling or close becomes a can't-duplicate-any-other-way value-for-the-cost proposition.

2d round players (and after) are always going to have either a lower ceiling or a much less confident initial estimate as to the likelihood that ceiling will be reached. That's why they weren't drafted earlier, and every team sees a success after the first round as a bonus. And I'd agree with you we are less likely to have this conversation with 2d round players, but not because the team is acting rationally with respect to one group than another, but because of the correlation high draft status likely has with projectable ceilings even three or four years after the draft, and that's a material and rational thing to factor into a post-ELC deal.

And that's also not to say some times don't make mistakes because they are interested in their own picks succeeding for their own clubs. I am sure it happens -- especially in situations where its rational for the GM to make that move for his own job but isn't the optimal move. Its like raising with a mediocre hand but having a straight or flush draw. If you are going to get fired all the same if you "lose" (play it out and get bled) or if you "don't win" (fold), then you might as well play the hand confidently.

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:26 pm

Is that the dude with the crazy cocaine eyes?

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 3:47 pm

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:26 pm

Is that the dude with the crazy cocaine eyes?

Yeah, that's him. I think he coached the Giants a while back.

Good signing by Columbus I think.

Flyers re Konect with Konecny - 8 x $8.75

Megaterio Llamas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 3:35 pm Flyers re Konect with Konecny - 8 x $8.75

A bit more than Horvat; similar stats when they signed their deals, Horvat had more service time and I think a bit more skill, plays a harder/more important position, and wins more draws. Konecny strikes me as more of a gamer. Both underuse their teammates.

Seems like an overpayment to me, but the Flyers don't have a lot of guys that can score, so its kind of a necessary signing. I guess.