Patty16 Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Jordan Stall has had 50 pts onces, O'reilly has never had a 40 pt season. between 6-7 million dollars is the market value for guys like callahan. Oreilly is making $5M per. Staal is getting $6M per and is only 23 years old. Not turning 30. Both of those guys are young and arguably better two way forwards. OReilly has 20 goals this year already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Oreilly is making $5M per. Staal is getting $6M per and is only 23 years old. Not turning 30. Both of those guys are young and arguably better two way forwards. O'Reilly has 20 goals this year already. You are wrong. O'Reilly makes 6.5m. Neither is a better two way forward. They are young and they are getting that money because they are supposed to become like callahan is. Staal is there and that is why he got the long contract which is the only reason he isnt making more than 7 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Jordan Stall has had 50 pts onces, O'reilly has never had a 40 pt season. between 6-7 million dollars is the market value for guys like callahan. 1) O'Reilly got a 2yr deal and his cap hit is 5million... so no you are wrong. Also O'Reilly has had a 55pt season and is only 22... 2) Staal makes 6mil and is on a long term contract so you could compare him to Callahan... 6mil X6years would be my max on Callahan and that is in the Staal ballpark. Staal is 3 years younger than Callahan so again another thing to consider. Ryan Callahan is not worth over 6mil a year times 6 or 7 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Contracts go up over time. Some of those guys making that money would be getting raises if they happended to be pending UFA's now. Plus who else are we going to spend it on after Miller, Ott, and Moulson get traded away? Maybe there's a chance we can bring back Ott or Moulson, but without overpaying a guy like Callahan the roster is going to be twice as pathetic as it is now. This is what I keep coming back to. We are going to have to spend money. I'd rather overpay a good second-liner with captain's credentials than for Marian Gaborik, or two Brad Boyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Well more than one GM thought that they were. Which means that they are worth it. A player is worth what a GM is willing to pay, and there will be numerous GMs willing to pay 6-7 for Callahan. There is absolutely zero reason that we shouldn't give callahan that contract we have NOTHING to lose. We have the most desireable cap situation in the entire league and the ONE AND ONLY way we can get into cap trouble in 4-7 years is if we have 4-5 prospects become top players in the league where they will need 7 million+ themselves. That is a situation that we want to be in! It is the situation the blackhawks have been in. Who doesnt want that? The worst thing that could happen is that terry needs to buy out callahan towards the end or he could bury the contract if he cant retain some salary and trade him away. WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE! This team is going nowhere if they treat Pegula's resources like a family of red necks treat a winning lottery ticket. Terry Murray comes across as a smart man. This franchise is only turning around is it is done smartly. The "hey, I heard of that gut let's pay him $7 mil a year" way doing business is not the smart way of going about things. Maximize resources, maximum value should be this front offices mantra. Ask the question, all intangibles included, is Ryan Callahan a $7 million player. I can't get to a point to say yes. Just because there are some GM's will be willing to make a splash, likely to save their jobs, doesn't change my opinion. Substance over splash every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 You are wrong. O'Reilly makes 6.5m. Neither is a better two way forward. They are young and they are getting that money because they are supposed to become like callahan is. Staal is there and that is why he got the long contract which is the only reason he isnt making more than 7 million. His cap hit is $5M, he made 3.5 last year and 6.5 this year for a total of 10M over two years. Its a 5m cap hit and that's how GMs calculate these things going forward. It's the AAV. Especially on a team where cash isnt an issue, it's important to forecast out. Even if you're paying callahan $4M 6 years from now you dont want to have dead space.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 You are wrong. O'Reilly makes 6.5m. Neither is a better two way forward. They are young and they are getting that money because they are supposed to become like callahan is. Staal is there and that is why he got the long contract which is the only reason he isnt making more than 7 million. We are talking cap hit, not Salary. We can talk Salary if you want... go look at O'Reilly's numbers this year... keep in mind he is only 22 and then tell me how Ryan Callahan is equivalent to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) 1) O'Reilly got a 2yr deal and his cap hit is 5million... so no you are wrong. Also O'Reilly has had a 55pt season and is only 22... 2) Staal makes 6mil and is on a long term contract so you could compare him to Callahan... 6mil X6years would be my max on Callahan and that is in the Staal ballpark. Staal is 3 years younger than Callahan so again another thing to consider. Ryan Callahan is not worth over 6mil a year times 6 or 7 years. O'Reilly's cap hit is 5 million but Calgary structured the deal so that he'd have to be tendered at $6.5 million since that's what he made this year. They f'd Colorado good on it in hopes that they wouldn't match so now their only option is to sign him long term or deal him. Edited February 5, 2014 by Drunkard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 This is what I keep coming back to. We are going to have to spend money. I'd rather overpay a good second-liner with captain's credentials than for Marian Gaborik, or two Brad Boyes. This makes sense and is probably the best point to be made when selling the idea of signing a Callahan to that type of money. I still feel it maybe the wrong time and the wrong player to make that leap with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Ryan O'Reilly - 21g, 19a, 40pts in 54gp and is turning 23 Ryan Callahan - 11g, 13a, 24pts in 40gp and is turning 29 Now which one would I be willing to give a 7 year 7million dollar deal to? I will give you a hint, his first name is Ryan :flirt: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 1) O'Reilly got a 2yr deal and his cap hit is 5million... so no you are wrong. Also O'Reilly has had a 55pt season and is only 22... 2) Staal makes 6mil and is on a long term contract so you could compare him to Callahan... 6mil X6years would be my max on Callahan and that is in the Staal ballpark. Staal is 3 years younger than Callahan so again another thing to consider. Ryan Callahan is not worth over 6mil a year times 6 or 7 years. Who cares about his cap hit? He makes 6.5 million. We have no reason to worry about cap hit. Absolutely none! I missed his 55pt season. Staal took lees money to play with his brother for a contract length that is no longer allowed. If he had to sign for 7 years he would be getting paid 1-2 million more. Staals contract pays him until he is 35-36....... Pretty much the exact same as callahans will. 6-7 million dollars is the going rate for guys like this. We need guys like this. We have cap room for at least the next 5 years.We have no reason not to make this signing Ryan O'Reilly - 21g, 19a, 40pts in 54gp and is turning 23 Ryan Callahan - 11g, 13a, 24pts in 40gp and is turning 29 Now which one would I be willing to give a 7 year 7million dollar deal to? I will give you a hint, his first name is Ryan :flirt: Both of em! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 This team is going nowhere if they treat Pegula's resources like a family of red necks treat a winning lottery ticket. :thumbsup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 If we are so worried about cap hit we can give him 8.5 million his first three years then we will give him 4.25 the last four Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Who cares about his cap hit? He makes 6.5 million. We have no reason to worry about cap hit. Absolutely none! I missed his 55pt season. Staal took lees money to play with his brother for a contract length that is no longer allowed. If he had to sign for 7 years he would be getting paid 1-2 million more. Staals contract pays him until he is 35-36....... Pretty much the exact same as callahans will. 6-7 million dollars is the going rate for guys like this. We need guys like this. We have cap room for at least the next 5 years.We have no reason not to make this signing Both of em! Its not the cap hit now, it's the cap hit towards the end of the contract. It's not the cash that matters. If we are so worried about cap hit we can give him 8.5 million his first three years then we will give him 4.25 the last four You know that's not permitted by the cba right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Its not the cap hit now, it's the cap hit towards the end of the contract. It's not the cash that matters. That is why it truly doesnt matter. 6-7 million in 5 years is going to be a very small % of the cap. That is going of the most conservative metrics for estimating the growth in the cap. It is very plausible the cap will be between 90-100 million dollars by then. That is the best part of this deal it only gets cheaper and less of a percentage over the years. Thus if we need space it should be very easy to move a cap friendly contract for great veteran for a team looking to make a run. Again, that is only if we are in cap trouble due to our young kids playing so well. It is the blackhawks situation. It is the situation that we want to be in! Edited February 5, 2014 by FolignosJock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 This is what I keep coming back to. We are going to have to spend money. I'd rather overpay a good second-liner with captain's credentials than for Marian Gaborik, or two Brad Boyes. I agree. You always over pay in free agency. We have such a small number of players committed to long term contracts (Ehrhoff, Myers, and Hodgson) and only one decent pending RFA in Ennis that should be expecting a raise. Everyone else is either young and locked in for peanuts for the foreseeable future or doesn't have enough talent to command a noteworthy contract. Then of course they have to hope Leino is healthy so they can buy him out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Its not the cap hit now, it's the cap hit towards the end of the contract. It's not the cash that matters. You know that's not permitted by the cba right? Yes it is. You arent allowed to tack on 2 years at one million when you dont expect the player to play those years. Forecasting a player getting old is allowed. As long as callahan is playing here it is allowed. If he tried to get out of it then he would still count against the cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Yes it is. You arent allowed to tack on 2 years at one million when you dont expect the player to play those years. Forecasting a player getting old is allowed. As long as callahan is playing here it is allowed. If he tried to get out of it then he would still count against the cap. No no. You cannot have more than 35 percent year-over-year and no year less than 50 percent of the highest year is permitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 No no. You cannot have more than 35 percent year-over-year and no year less than 50 percent of the highest year is permitted. Oh my gosh! Really????? Dude do the math exactly if you want. You give him 8.5 the first year and it ends up becoming 4.25! You know what I meant and it is well within the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Oh my gosh! Really????? Dude do the math exactly if you want. You give him 8.5 the first year and it ends up becoming 4.25! You know what I meant and it is well within the rules. Sigh. You said ""If we are so worried about cap hit we can give him 8.5 million his first three years then we will give him 4.25 the last four" That violates the 35% variance rule. Dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Sigh. You said ""If we are so worried about cap hit we can give him 8.5 million his first three years then we will give him 4.25 the last four" That violates the 35% variance rule. Dude. Whatever, you must be a CBA lawyer. Lower the cap hit in accordance with the rules if you guys are so worried about it. It isnt an issue though. Edited February 5, 2014 by FolignosJock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Whatever, you must be a CBA lawyer. Lower the cap hit in accordance with the rules if you guys are so worried about it. It isnt an issue though. close. I'm worried about cap purgatory for a player who many say is on the decline. Projecting the cap to go up 30+Million in 6 years is pretty aggressive especially when a huge TV contract was just signed and accounted for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 close. I'm worried about cap purgatory for a player who many say is on the decline. Projecting the cap to go up 30+Million in 6 years is pretty aggressive especially when a huge TV contract was just signed and accounted for. It hasnt been accounted for actually. so it hops 10 million just based off that for next year. That isnt even counting the increased revenues this year, it being an olympic year where if past years are any indication, will help the game a lot. So 19+ million over 6 years is very do able. " That’s how the NHL will become a nearly $4-billion business and have a salary cap of almost $75-million in less than two years. The crazy part is what happens if you project that continued 5 per cent growth into the future. With the new TV deal added in, the league could easily have an $80-million cap by 2016-17 and a $100-million cap by the time the CBA expires in 2022. The floor projects to more than $75-million by that point." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/mirtle-how-the-nhls-salary-cap-will-jump-10-million-in-two-years/article15627506/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicknfla Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Some of you guys must really enjoy being the worse team in hockey. This team is so handicapped with offensive talent both here, in Rochester, and in the juniors that if you don't think we have to overpay for top 6 forwards something is wrong. This is not turning around anytime fast and it will be much longer if we are going to put all our eggs in the draft basket. This is a guy that, if management truly goes after him, that they feel is the kind of player they want leading the team. Stats are not everything. Look at Vanek. I would take RC over him all day long. Not because of stats but because of the kind of character and leadership he brings. That will be invaluable as all these young kids start coming through the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) The agreement with Rogers, the largest media-rights deal in League history, begins next season and money from that deal impacts the League's projection for next season's salary cap The salary cap for the 2014-15 season is projected to be approximately $71 million... up from 64M This article was after the BOG meeting and the one you cited, where the picture became more clear. http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=695203 Edited February 5, 2014 by Patty16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.