[Speculation] Hurricanes Rumors: Jake Guentzel Likely to Hit Market, Rights available for mid round pick

[RWJC]

1 hour ago, RWMc1 said:

 You obviously did as you went ahead and ignored my point as well.

 

You're  arguing that he's worth 9.5 million because of his past stats and the fact that we'll be competing with other teams for his services. My point is that salary is not the only factor. You ignored term. I'm suggesting that term will have an effect on his AAV.

 

How would you structure his 7 year contract to come up with a 9.5 million AAV?

What you bolded was what I responded to. That’s what didn’t make sense to me.

 

And no, I’m not ignoring term at all.

 

I’m arguing that he will paid at the top end of the spectrum for his type of player, and also contingent on what suits him best.
Whether that’s just top rate, or a haircut on a long term deal with the right club, it all depends what he chooses to accept. 

 

The Pens apparently offered him 8.5mill over 6 years and he declined and as such was traded.

 

The 9.5mill being thrown around is somewhat of an average. Carolina could very easily afford him and especially on an 8 year term, yet he hasn’t put pen to paper. 

 

I believe that is because his projection is to sign anywhere between 9-10 depending on how it’s structured.

 

Like you, I also expect him to be seeking max term so that isn’t a point of contention. 

I’m not necessarily advocating for signing him at 9.5. I’d prefer 8.5-9 x 7 years which is more in line with a recent comparable deal (eg. Mark Schieffle), but I believe that won’t cut it and he will cash in.

As such, I would ideally like to see us structure a deal where the latter years are obviously heavy on the signing bonus side.

 

If I’m correct, because he’s 29 now (30 in Oct) any buyout would be 2/3 of the remaining salary owed on the contract and spread out over twice the remaining years of the contract. Players receive signing bonuses regardless of the buyout.  That means that when calculating the buyout amount and cap hit, signing bonuses are excluded.

 

I can envision offering a 7 year deal at 9.65 to secure him whereby the buyout provision is best situated to capitalize on starting in the 5th year (2029) when he hits 35. Again I’d load with signing bonuses throughout, much like the recent Hronek deal, and try to mitigate the expense at the tail end. The player would likely be accepting of that because it means he still gets paid a majority of the remainder of his contract, but the team exits at a fraction of it.

 

Currently I’m on the fence with regard to surrendering a mid round pick for his rights and extending him over 8 years just to keep the AAV down. I’d look at limiting any potential buyout to a shorter term after the fact and utilizing the signing bonus aspect to again mitigate the damage. 

 

Here’s a decent read on why ppl expect Guentzel to come in at 9.5 or more:

https://hockeycomparables.com/2024/06/13/projecting-jake-guentzels-next-contract/

 

[Billabong]

21 minutes ago, BPA said:

So a 20 man roster instead of 23??

Aman, Friedman and brisebois too 

[zduck14]

1 hour ago, bh90 said:

 

Ans that's how you end up like Jets, Hurricanes, Stars and Islanders

 

Lot of depth but no pop

 

You need high end skill to win in the playoffs not a bunch of solid players

I agree with this. Imagine how much better Petey would've been if he had legit top wingers on his line instead of Mikheyev....... Mik's playoff alone warranted a buyout. He was absolute trash! Give Petey a legit scoring winger in Guentzel (who also happens to play a very responsible 200' game) and these playoffs would've been very different. 

 

I saw earlier that someone would prefer Terravainen and Joshua at a combined 9.5m but in my opinion, I'd way rather have Guentzel and Podkolzin at a combined 10m. 

 

[Lemon Face]

1 hour ago, RWMc1 said:

 

Then why did you quote me?

i just used your post to put my opinion out, about numbers speculation.Nothing at you at all

[RWMc1]

23 minutes ago, RWJC said:

What you bolded was what I responded to. That’s what didn’t make sense to me.

 

And no, I’m not ignoring term at all.

 

I’m arguing that he will paid at the top end of the spectrum for his type of player, and also contingent on what suits him best.
Whether that’s just top rate, or a haircut on a long term deal with the right club, it all depends what he chooses to accept. 

 

The Pens apparently offered him 8.5mill over 6 years and he declined and as such was traded.

 

The 9.5mill being thrown around is somewhat of an average. Carolina could very easily afford him and especially on an 8 year term, yet he hasn’t put pen to paper. 

 

I believe that is because his projection is to sign anywhere between 9-10 depending on how it’s structured.

 

Like you, I also expect him to be seeking max term so that isn’t a point of contention. 

I’m not necessarily advocating for signing him at 9.5. I’d prefer 8.5-9 x 7 years which is more in line with a recent comparable deal (eg. Mark Schieffle), but I believe that won’t cut it and he will cash in.

As such, I would ideally like to see us structure a deal where the latter years are obviously heavy on the signing bonus side.

 

If I’m correct, because he’s 29 now (30 in Oct) any buyout would be 2/3 of the remaining salary owed on the contract and spread out over twice the remaining years of the contract. Players receive signing bonuses regardless of the buyout.  That means that when calculating the buyout amount and cap hit, signing bonuses are excluded.

 

I can envision offering a 7 year deal at 9.65 to secure him whereby the buyout provision is best situated to capitalize on starting in the 5th year (2029) when he hits 35. Again I’d load with signing bonuses throughout, much like the recent Hronek deal, and try to mitigate the expense at the tail end. The player would likely be accepting of that because it means he still gets paid a majority of the remainder of his contract, but the team exits at a fraction of it.

 

Currently I’m on the fence with regard to surrendering a mid round pick for his rights and extending him over 8 years just to keep the AAV down. I’d look at limiting any potential buyout to a shorter term after the fact and utilizing the signing bonus aspect to again mitigate the damage. 

 

Here’s a decent read on why ppl expect Guentzel to come in at 9.5 or more:

https://hockeycomparables.com/2024/06/13/projecting-jake-guentzels-next-contract/

 

 

Thanks. Most posters get their hackles up when asked to elaborate.

 

To me 8.5 should be our limit on a 7 year deal. We're asking our players to take discounts. Overpaying for Guentzel would be a slap in the face to the guys who've already taken a discount and the UFAs who have been asked to for the sake of being competitive. I'm not the GM though and am merely expressing my opinion.

[RWMc1]

7 minutes ago, Lemon Face said:

i just used your post to put my opinion out, about numbers speculation.Nothing at you at all

 

Fair enough. I found it odd as I've been saying the exact same thing about sock puppet estimates.

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

45 minutes ago, RWJC said:

What you bolded was what I responded to. That’s what didn’t make sense to me.

 

And no, I’m not ignoring term at all.

 

I’m arguing that he will paid at the top end of the spectrum for his type of player, and also contingent on what suits him best.
Whether that’s just top rate, or a haircut on a long term deal with the right club, it all depends what he chooses to accept. 

 

The Pens apparently offered him 8.5mill over 6 years and he declined and as such was traded.

 

The 9.5mill being thrown around is somewhat of an average. Carolina could very easily afford him and especially on an 8 year term, yet he hasn’t put pen to paper. 

 

I believe that is because his projection is to sign anywhere between 9-10 depending on how it’s structured.

 

Like you, I also expect him to be seeking max term so that isn’t a point of contention. 

I’m not necessarily advocating for signing him at 9.5. I’d prefer 8.5-9 x 7 years which is more in line with a recent comparable deal (eg. Mark Schieffle), but I believe that won’t cut it and he will cash in.

As such, I would ideally like to see us structure a deal where the latter years are obviously heavy on the signing bonus side.

 

If I’m correct, because he’s 29 now (30 in Oct) any buyout would be 2/3 of the remaining salary owed on the contract and spread out over twice the remaining years of the contract. Players receive signing bonuses regardless of the buyout.  That means that when calculating the buyout amount and cap hit, signing bonuses are excluded.

 

I can envision offering a 7 year deal at 9.65 to secure him whereby the buyout provision is best situated to capitalize on starting in the 5th year (2029) when he hits 35. Again I’d load with signing bonuses throughout, much like the recent Hronek deal, and try to mitigate the expense at the tail end. The player would likely be accepting of that because it means he still gets paid a majority of the remainder of his contract, but the team exits at a fraction of it.

 

Currently I’m on the fence with regard to surrendering a mid round pick for his rights and extending him over 8 years just to keep the AAV down. I’d look at limiting any potential buyout to a shorter term after the fact and utilizing the signing bonus aspect to again mitigate the damage. 

 

Here’s a decent read on why ppl expect Guentzel to come in at 9.5 or more:

https://hockeycomparables.com/2024/06/13/projecting-jake-guentzels-next-contract/

 

 

Apparently this is not allowed. Someone posted the rule recently. To get the 8 year term it would have to be a sign and trade, which maybe isn't that big of a deal. If 8 years is the intent, the team acquiring could make that a requirement to facilitate the deal.

Edited June 23 by Drive-By Body Pierce

[German Canuck]

11 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

 

Thanks. Most posters get their hackles up when asked to elaborate.

 

To me 8.5 should be our limit on a 7 year deal. We're asking our players to take discounts. Overpaying for Guentzel would be a slap in the face to the guys who've already taken a discount and the UFAs who have been asked to for the sake of being competitive. I'm not the GM though and am merely expressing my opinion.

9 or 9.5M isnt overpaying

[RWMc1]

5 minutes ago, German Canuck said:

9 or 9.5M isnt overpaying

 

And round round we go.

[German Canuck]

1 minute ago, RWMc1 said:

 

And round round we go.

Thats true but a lot of people complain about the cap more than its necessary

[stawns]

8 minutes ago, Drive-By Body Pierce said:

 

Apparently this is not allowed. Someone posted the rule recently. To get the 8 year term it would have to be a sign and trade, which maybe isn't that big of a deal. If 8 years is the intent, the team acquiring could make that a requirement to facilitate the deal.

 

Even if they trade for his rights, the Canucks can only offer 7 years.  The only way the Canucks can get him at 8 years is a sign and trade by Carolina 

[RWMc1]

1 minute ago, German Canuck said:

Thats true but a lot of people complain about the cap more than its necessary

The cap is what's causing us issues though. Every bit saved on one contract can help with another.

[RWMc1]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

 

Even if they trade for his rights, the Canucks can only offer 7 years.  The only way the Canucks can get him at 8 years is a sign and trade by Carolina 

You just restated what he posted.

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

Even if they trade for his rights, the Canucks can only offer 7 years.  The only way the Canucks can get him at 8 years is a sign and trade by Carolina 

 

That's what I just said.

[German Canuck]

3 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

The cap is what's causing us issues though. Every bit saved on one contract can help with another.

Issues if they spend to much cap for bad players or mediocore players but Guentzel is worth 9-9.5M

Edited June 23 by German Canuck

[RWMc1]

1 minute ago, German Canuck said:

Issues if they spend to much cap gor bad players but Guentzel is worth 9-9.5M

 

The cap issues were pre-existing. That's why we have trade Mikheyev or Garland to create space for Guentzel or plan b, c,  etc..

[GrammaInTheTub]

10 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

Even if they trade for his rights, the Canucks can only offer 7 years.  The only way the Canucks can get him at 8 years is a sign and trade by Carolina 

I mean sure, but even if they trade for his rights, the Canucks can only offer 7 years.  The only way the Canucks can get him at 8 years is a sign and trade by Carolina 

[RWJC]

20 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

 

Thanks. Most posters get their hackles up when asked to elaborate.

 

To me 8.5 should be our limit on a 7 year deal. We're asking our players to take discounts. Overpaying for Guentzel would be a slap in the face to the guys who've already taken a discount and the UFAs who have been asked to for the sake of being competitive. I'm not the GM though and am merely expressing my opinion.

 

I hear ya. I'm acutely concerned with bringing in anyone that disrupts the current salary structure, BUT given where this team is headed and the understanding of what its current limitations are amongst the players themselves, I can totally see most advocating for bringing in another high end top 6 to up their chances. If it was a Laine or someone of the sort, that would be a HUGE red flag to the room chemistry and possible disruption in structure. But this is why Guentzel is so attractive despite what his AAV will be...he's a great chemistry guy who apparently is an ideal fit for this club in almost every capacity and bring along with him a winning pedigree that has already helped alter this club's identity and culture from mgmt on down to the ice. It's almost a gift seeing Guentzel potentially available to us as a UFA. All we have to do is figure out how to best afford (ahem Mik ahem) and incentivize him. That practically solidifies our top 6 for years to come and already gives us a back up plan in the event BB6 prices himself out, while at the same time potentially lowers our dependency on BB6 in terms of negotiation extension should Guentzel outperform him. Our PP would be dominant thus affording us more wins in reg season and post. I'm not concerned about future cap space as I am that we have the next gen of personnel able to make the jump to the big club and stick. That is, imho, what truly dictates our future. Every team has turnover, and the way they work around it is by the talent pool eventually producing replacements from within. That's the key to our future success. Continuing to draft well and providing the pipeline with the best amenities for our players to succeed. If you're fleshing out a team each year with an ELC or a a couple early RFAs, it goes a long way to building success. That's our next step. We are in contender status. That's the focus in the now.

[Captain insano]

Guentzel > Boeser ….. sorry but if you don’t have the funds for the future and guentzel wants to sign you figure out how to sign him 

[German Canuck]

4 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

 

The cap issues were pre-existing. That's why we have trade Mikheyev or Garland to create space for Guentzel or plan b, c,  etc..

If they want to improve the team thats how it works.

Trade mediocore players to make room for better players.

Hold on mediocore plsyers and sign another 1,2 or three of them is not what i want and how you take the next step.

[RWMc1]

4 minutes ago, RWJC said:

 

I hear ya. I'm acutely concerned with bringing in anyone that disrupts the current salary structure, BUT given where this team is headed and the understanding of what its current limitations are amongst the players themselves, I can totally see most advocating for bringing in another high end top 6 to up their chances. If it was a Laine or someone of the sort, that would be a HUGE red flag to the room chemistry and possible disruption in structure. But this is why Guentzel is so attractive despite what his AAV will be...he's a great chemistry guy who apparently is an ideal fit for this club in almost every capacity and bring along with him a winning pedigree that has already helped alter this club's identity and culture from mgmt on down to the ice. It's almost a gift seeing Guentzel potentially available to us as a UFA. All we have to do is figure out how to best afford (ahem Mik ahem) and incentivize him. That practically solidifies our top 6 for years to come and already gives us a back up plan in the event BB6 prices himself out, while at the same time potentially lowers our dependency on BB6 in terms of negotiation extension should Guentzel outperform him. Our PP would be dominant thus affording us more wins in reg season and post. I'm not concerned about future cap space as I am that we have the next gen of personnel able to make the jump to the big club and stick. That is, imho, what truly dictates our future. Every team has turnover, and the way they work around it is by the talent pool eventually producing replacements from within. That's the key to our future success. Continuing to draft well and providing the pipeline with the best amenities for our players to succeed. If you're fleshing out a team each year with an ELC or a a couple early RFAs, it goes a long way to building success. That's our next step. We are in contender status. That's the focus in the now.

 

I was never against signing Guentzel. I think he will fit well with our system. Our cap situation is tight though and I wouldn't mind seeing a couple more of our UFAs  re-sign. Every bit of cap helps at this point.

[RWJC]

20 minutes ago, Drive-By Body Pierce said:

 

Apparently this is not allowed. Someone posted the rule recently. To get the 8 year term it would have to be a sign and trade, which maybe isn't that big of a deal. If 8 years is the intent, the team acquiring could make that a requirement to facilitate the deal.

Apologies, that's what Im referring to. 

I think surrendering a pick to add another year isn't worth it the way I would hope his contract is structured.

If he wanted that 8th year badly he would sign in CAR. I can envision him offsetting that 8th year instead for a bump in salary over 7.

To that end, I don't want us to to do a sign and trade. I'd rather see what happens on the open market because if some team offers him 10 or very close to, and he's already anticipating close to that, then I would hope we instead take our chances and restrict our deal to just 7 years regardless of how the AAV plays out. The buyout is a strategy that until the new CBA is worked out, is a great way to afford the players you need during your "window"...simialr to a buy now pay later scheme.

Hence, seeing as he's almost 30, keep him at 7, pay him a bit more in bonuses, and cash out at the right time. No need to draw the buyout out, just get it over with as fast as possible and suffer through those anticipated consequences.

 

[RWMc1]

3 minutes ago, German Canuck said:

If they want to improve the team thats how it works.

Trade mediocore players to make room for better players.

Hold on mediocore plsyers and sign another 1,2 or three of them is not what i want and how you take the next step.

The only problem with that is that Guentzel is not a guarantee. Labelling players mediocre does not make them so. We need pkers and match up guys as well.

[J-23]

2 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

The only problem with that is that Guentzel is not a guarantee. Labelling players mediocre does not make them so. We need pkers and match up guys as well.

You can matchup the Pettersson or Miller line. Have Blueger running the third line with Garland.

[German Canuck]

3 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

The only problem with that is that Guentzel is not a guarantee. Labelling players mediocre does not make them so. We need pkers and match up guys as well.

No player is a guarantee but as a GM you have to make decisions. If they pan out you will see it later