Thorny

If Dahlin is sitting at about 10, I could see him going down to 9.75 purely because it negligibly changes what he makes in all reality yet the message it sends out to the fanbase ala “Wow! Insane underpay, vibes!” I don’t think can be denied by anyone reading the overall discussion. I’m actively shifting my stance because of this. People will ignore the substance and react extremely based on 250 thousand dollars for sure. Adams probably pushes strong for the oft @thewookie1mentioned ”9.99” million - it’s no different than 10, substantively, but it’s clearly being suggested for a reason and that reason is optics

But your explanation of the psyche of the players is beyond question, right?We can ONLY suppose “making Samuelsson rich” made other players buy in more, right? It can’t be that, others may look at his deal and say “oh, that guy is making way too much. I should too.” Im not saying that’s the case, not at all - but I’m not the guy slotting the unknown variables where I want them to because a negative can’t be proven. We do not know that Samuelsson being paid early helped culture. Why? You are just assuming. Its all well and good but it’s a purely “feel” based discussion. By the same token I could say “culture is most improved by players being shown they need to earn it.” Why not? We can say a team’s culture is appropriate, for them, regardless of how it presents itself if the results are good, right? There’s no one way. We are just looking at the results and then retroactively filling in the answers we want. It’s fine it’s just not interesting

Yes, I know. I understand the argument ”Perhaps we can question the specifics of the Samuelsson deal, but a world where Kevyn Adams doesn’t reward his players early isn’t a world with the real Kevyn Adams at all.” That without him operating by those principles with Samuelsson we wouldn’t have got that same operation that led to Thompson being at a bargain. I get it and it makes sense - it’s just very boring. It’s a boring argument. Rather than an interesting discussion of how Adams’ particular set of skills results in oodles of positives with the trade off being a wonky evaluation here or there, it’s “no move is beyond question because of the sum total”. low brow message board fodder he paid a 5 point stay at home defender 4.5 per over a million years before he showed squat. If Samuelsson signed on the *open market* today he wouldn’t get that. It’s a wonky evaluation to pay that early regardless of the fact it looks like he probably will be right one day in a few years. Saying “well I can only assume it aided the culture”, supposing that, what, if Samuelsson was just playing here still but not YET signed we’d somehow be worse, other players would have lost out on something necessary is a massive “can’t prove a negative” stretch its “I have a rock that keeps away tigers, do you see any tigers around me right now?” Level stretch At least the “what do 5 point stay at home defenders get on the open market” discussion has a basis in provable data. The other discussion is just wading through the weeds.

Team friendly 9.5? I can see it but don’t think it likely Team friendly 7-7.5 like Tage? More confident than usual my brain is hardwired to some sort of matrix I’ve now somehow subconsciously developed the ability to control

I think the guy (me) is saying something just by pointing out that McDavid’s contract by way of value is even *close* to comparable to the value being had within two contracts the whole hockey world is saying represent a massive steal. The fact that the per point cost is in the same ballpark to the best player in the world is my point - McDavid provides not just exceptional play but insane contract value, too

I mean we may get to the point where any evaluation can be swept under the rug with “well, the team is good, any chance if we alter this variable everything changes ala butterfly effect? So I’m happy with it.” ... it’s just a far less interesting breeding ground for discussion. Ya, maybe paying Samuelsson before he earned it, when he still hasn’t done anything to prove he’d get any more upon signing now, help caused such a phenomenal environment it led to Cozens playing well and signing, sure. That’s not snark it’s just me saying “ok”. There’s no answer that can really be given or allow the discussion to move forward. We can’t know how the motivation of another random player was affected. I can see that we paid Samuelsson the money players who statistically perform better then him, still, make, but I can’t pretend to guess at or know the internal thinking of all the human beings in range If Dahlin DOESN’T sign for a bargain are we blaming the Samuelsson and Tage deals for leading to that thinking? It’s just a messy and murky avenue

I don’t even include the Samuelsson deal because, like with the Tage deal, I’m comfortable with my analysis at the time: Kudos to KA being “right” on Samuelsson but shrewd evaluation or not, it still seems to have been needlessly risky at the time: as I said then, it’s points that pay and if we just look objectively at the season he’s had, even had we waited and signed him now, looking at his production, the numbers these guys take into negotiations, what these types of players make LT, we’d probably get him for a negligibly different deal this coming summer Id guess I’d say distinction is the Tage deal *reveals* Adams potential genius, whereas he “gets away” with what I’d still deem an odd decision at the time on Samuelsson *because of* his potential GM genius. He was right on MS I just don’t think he needed to be, that soon it bodes well - the better his evaluation skills are the quicker he’ll have information on players and assets before others attain said knowledge. You can get away with a lot if you are a great judge of talent and how it fits into *what you are building*

Both the Tage and Dylan deals to me appeared to be fair under the context/scenario where both continued to play at the rate they did at time of signing. Ie if either levelled out at ~70 points per, the deals looked good. For this reason to me these deals are “no brainers” from KA’s point of view, if the players were willing to sigh them. If you trust your evaluation skills at all, *of course* you’d be happy to pay the guys you like what they’ve already proven to be worth (should it sustain, but again, you HAVE to take some risk or have no chance, anyways) - so the deals at their *baseline* already are reasonable, they don’t need to improve to live up to them, Adams already highlighted the players most deserving of being bet on, when you have to bet on someone, and locked them up to deals where the real real wiggle room can be found in outperforming them, there’s a much more apparent avenue there than the other way.

I cannot oversell how crazy McDavid just is in general. The Tage deal is an astronomical steal, and when we add in another good value contract to the equation, that insane combined *value* is still being equaled by the BIGGEST contract in the league for the game’s *far and away* best player. Oilers should be way better. McDavid should also be making way more. Any other sport, man

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Makes sense, thanks. I guess re/ Ventura my thought was that I thought paying off ELC was a common thought good practice now, that bridging your good players was seen as a mistake, on the whole. If he’s on the forefront there where others are NOT, all the better for us

When I say negligible I mean you clearly have a range laid out where either end of that 2 million falls within “reasonable” for his worth ie the 2 mil one way or the other doesn’t change your interpretation on whether it’s a fair deal or not I agree with the first bit - that’s why I see Dahlin’s deal being at least 10 - same principles but the deal being signed ~ 2 years later. I’ve always used them as a comparison, Thompson doesn’t present a great one under the context

Boooooooooone

They should absolutely go 8 I’d be disappointed with 7

Half a season, yes, in a full season that wasn’t even point a game. When prior to that, there were questions about whether he’d even be an NHLer, long term. The body of work prior to deal is not a close comparison. This is why their deals won’t be in the same ballpark, right? But we may not even agree on that - you are indicating forgoing 2 million per, 21% of potential pay, as a non-negligible difference between what he “could/should” get and the level you say he might settle at deemed “fair.” This is a rather easy discussion as our differences in the interpretation of the numbers is clear. If we think Dahlin’s play is worthy of 11.something is an accurate reading of his value, and I do, as I think he’s the best dman in the nhl, I cannot think 2 million less to be “fair”. I’d call it a significant underpay. Cozens’ deal seems about right under the prism of the “paying early” deal. If Dahlin, a significantly better player, signing under the terms of it NOT being a pay early deal, only gets 2 million more than Cozens, how is that not an underpay? I don’t really see how you can say plus/minus 2 mil is negligible when it comes to “fair” when it would be the entire difference between Cozens and Dahlin at 7 and 9.

When you’re right, you’re right

The last Jedi, sure. But I thought nhl deals could only be 8 years?

That’s a good point, learning from the failings of year 1. Reminds me of something Yoda says in the best Star Wars movie, the last Jedi. What do you have Dahlin coming in at?

COVID could be the biggest factor, certainly.

So which is it? Is he accurately paid at 9.6 or is it a point for proven culture? I want to see you take a side so you can’t just argue the opposite or what I say all the time 😉 And don’t just say “the culture improved to the point where reasonable, fair deals can be signed”. That’s fine but it’s just base level competence. I more want to dial in on if you think Dahlin is underpaid at 9.6 or if that’s termed a fair deal. Because you are posting comps for why it fits but also saying it’ll look great on the GM. It can look “good” for both but if it’s under the umbrella of “fair deal” in your opinion I don’t count that as a steal indicative of great GM aptitude

For me it’s more about the point at which the deal is signed re: experience, and how that player’s talent and aptitude has revealed itself so far: how sizeable the “bet” is. We already know Tage sorta came out of nowhere, the distance to ufa thing is more a technicality - Dahlin already took his “prove it” bridge, and proved it. We KNOW Dahlin is a Norris level guy when signing, Tage wasn’t close to that level in negotiations If players signed “security” deals after “proving it” there would be no existence of the “prove it” bridge.

For me “trolling” has got to willfully be a pretty high bar, in the aim of doing our collective best to avoid the death knell that’s the echo chamber. In this specific case I didn’t personally think it was even close to the line, not in a thread where there are *analytical models* being posted that even say the deal is a slight overpay, in manner of speaking. Of course I subscribe to the theory and strategy it’s the right play to make from a good GM but there’s certainly lots of wiggle room in arguing the other side, imo - - - Random unrelated tangent - I occasionally fear people are sometimes afraid to not fall in line with (What has become a powerful) consensus, in that their takes may get called out later. All fans here, should be a safe space

3/4 sorry (better than 8 would have him in top 75% not top 66.6%). Stupidly pedantic

If Dahlin does sign for 9.something, at that point I’ll say we definitely seem to have somehow cultivated a situation where players (Or at least one, so it’d be demonstrably possible) want to be here to the extent they are taking discounts. Both the Thompson deal and Cozens deal are deals they took forgoing a bridge where they “bet on themself”, electing for long-term security sooner. Dahlin’s deal is well past that point, there’s no “lock him up early” discount to be had. Entirely different ballgame so we’ll see where it ends up

I wouldn’t call it trolling