I just dont see a bridge deal being beneficial to the club when he's a proven 20 goal scorer as a rookie, who realistically could have gotten 30. Goals get contract dollars, and kicking the can down the road with a bridge deal isnt going to make it more affordable later. Quite the opposite
- jcragcrumple

How irreplaceable is the production is more what im getting at. How many goals does an average player with an average shot get riding shot gun on L1 and PP1? He had the perfect set up, and he's not a rookie in the traditional sense. Played plenty of pro hockey and is 24 so the odds at a major jump in on ice results is pretty slim.

Goals do in fact get contract dollars, which is exactly why affordability isn't the biggest concern here. If shooting talent is the only thing he's bringing, you need to be sure. If he proves them (me) wrong, that's fine. Im more than happy to pay that price because then you know youve got the type of scoring that isn't easily replaceable, so its not the end of the world to overpay.

But if you're wrong, you've got a contract that's almost as bad as Okposo's, and they can't afford another one like that.

How irreplaceable is the production is more what im getting at. How many goals does an average player with an average shot get riding shot gun on L1 and PP1? He had the perfect set up, and he's not a rookie in the traditional sense. Played plenty of pro hockey and is 24 so the odds at a major jump in on ice results is pretty slim.

Goals do in fact get contract dollars, which is exactly why affordability isn't the biggest concern here. If shooting talent is the only thing he's bringing, you need to be sure. If he proves them (me) wrong, that's fine. Im more than happy to pay that price because then you know youve got the type of scoring that isn't easily replaceable, so its not the end of the world to overpay.

But if you're wrong, you've got a contract that's almost as bad as Okposo's, and they can't afford another one like that.
- Michael Ghofrani

His skillset is radically different from Okposo. Okposo's claim to fame was having elite bigness and playing with Tavares. Olofsson has a top-10% NHL shot.

If you don't value PP goal production, by all means, trade him as part of a package for a center, but bridging him is a huge mistake because any NHL coach on the flat plane of earth is going to play him on PP1 and set him up for 20-30 goals a year. That costs cash. Better to pay him some cash now than all the cash later

His skillset is radically different from Okposo. Okposo's claim to fame was having elite bigness and playing with Tavares. Olofsson has a top-10% NHL shot.

If you don't value PP goal production, by all means, trade him for a center, but bridging him is a huge mistake because any NHL coach on the flat plane of earth is going to play him on PP1 and set him up for 20-30 goals a year. That costs cash. Better to pay him some cash now than all the cash later
- jcragcrumple

Okposo also had a much more well rounded game, in all 3 zones. So you knew that even if his C went from JT to O'Reilly, he'd still be a net + most nights.

Olofsson shot 8.33% at 5v5. I know every coach would put him on PP1, but my question was if you swapped that player out with someone who was bang average in terms of shooting, how much difference do you seen in goals for, given who the set up guys are (dahlin, eichel, reinhart).

We can talk about the players all we want, however, the coaching is horrendous. The pairings, the strategies, the inabilty to change and compete. Even Lindy could do better than Ralph. There are so many good coaches with experience available and we will probably stick with this misfit until they are all gone. Another year will be wasted. This bs has gone on for far too long.

I like turtles.

Okposo also had a much more well rounded game, in all 3 zones. So you knew that even if his C went from JT to O'Reilly, he'd still be a net + most nights.

Olofsson shot 8.33% at 5v5. I know every coach would put him on PP1, but my question was if you swapped that player out with someone who was bang average in terms of shooting, how much difference do you seen in goals for, given who the set up guys are (dahlin, eichel, reinhart).
- Michael Ghofrani

He was a net -34 two years ago, a net -3 this year and a net -113 for his career.

My point is this: if you dont value Olofsson's skillset, that's fine, but if you're expecting his AAV to decrease at the end of the bridge contract, I think that's nuts. You'll only be paying more per year.

If you want to trade him, just say so

He was a net -34 two years ago, a net -3 this year and a net -113 for his career.

My point is this: if you dont value Olofsson's skillset, that's fine, but if you're expecting his AAV to decrease at the end of the bridge contract, I think that's nuts. You'll only be paying more per year.

If you want to trade him, just say so
- jcragcrumple

When i mean net + i mean in terms of impact, not +/-

I dont expect his AAV to decrease. I dont know what to expect, thats why i think bridging him makes sense. He looks like he has a terrific shot, but it hasn't actually turned into added wins for the team.

I dont know what kind of trade value he has. I mean if you're negotiating for Cirelli and he's the difference then yeah sure but I dont know how realistic that is.

I like turtles.
- feetontheair22

My best friend was a turtle. .....then my dad killed it

When i mean net + i mean in terms of impact, not +/-

I dont expect his AAV to decrease. I dont know what to expect, thats why i think bridging him makes sense. He looks like he has a terrific shot, but it hasn't actually turned into added wins for the team.

I dont know what kind of trade value he has. I mean if you're negotiating for Cirelli and he's the difference then yeah sure but I dont know how realistic that is.
- Michael Ghofrani

That's the logic that is going to get Reinhart an $8m + AAV coming off a bridge deal. A GM needs to make tough decisions, not the cheapest, easiest decision

That's the logic that is going to get Reinhart an $8m + AAV coming off a bridge deal
- jcragcrumple

Reinhart's body of work was significantly better at all game states. I wouldn't have bridged him 2 years ago.

When i mean net + i mean in terms of impact, not +/-

I dont expect his AAV to decrease. I dont know what to expect, thats why i think bridging him makes sense. He looks like he has a terrific shot, but it hasn't actually turned into added wins for the team.

I dont know what kind of trade value he has. I mean if you're negotiating for Cirelli and he's the difference then yeah sure but I dont know how realistic that is.
- Michael Ghofrani

Other than Eichel, which player, even counting Dahlin, has added wins to the team so clearly with their individual play?

Other than Eichel, which player, even counting Dahlin, has added wins to the team so clearly with their individual play?
- kingcong39

without looking (paywall and all) Reinhart, Jokiharju, Larsson are the next three that come to mind

I forgot Skinner, whoops lol

Reinhart's body of work was significantly better at all game states. I wouldn't have bridged him 2 years ago.
- Michael Ghofrani

I dont see an outcome where Olofsson's AAV will be lower coming off a bridge deal than it is now on a 5-6 year term. As I said, any coach is going to play him on PP1 and set him up for 30 or so goals. So what is the benefit of bridging him at 24 years old? If he puts up 2 more 20-30 goal seasons or even a 40 goal season, are you just going to walk away at the end? What's the benefit of the bridge?

It's not a be all end all, but there are enough question marks there that warrant a bridge deal.

Even if you think XG is nonsense and that teams should invest the same amount for PP scoring as anything else, we're still talking about a unit that overall wasn't very good.

Dahlin and Eichel set him up well, and his PP shooting percentage was top 30, which sounds impressive, until you see that Valteri Filppula's was higher.
- Michael Ghofrani

1 PPG is hardly a good sample size.

Ideally I'd give Olofsson a 1 year deal. If he can do well next year then I'd go long term.

How irreplaceable is the production is more what im getting at. How many goals does an average player with an average shot get riding shot gun on L1 and PP1? He had the perfect set up, and he's not a rookie in the traditional sense. Played plenty of pro hockey and is 24 so the odds at a major jump in on ice results is pretty slim.

Goals do in fact get contract dollars, which is exactly why affordability isn't the biggest concern here. If shooting talent is the only thing he's bringing, you need to be sure. If he proves them (me) wrong, that's fine. Im more than happy to pay that price because then you know youve got the type of scoring that isn't easily replaceable, so its not the end of the world to overpay.

But if you're wrong, you've got a contract that's almost as bad as Okposo's, and they can't afford another one like that.
- Michael Ghofrani

Why is the bolded to be true? Because that's the case for the majority of NHL players? How many players that are talented like Olofsson does that hold true for?

My best friend was a turtle. .....then my dad killed it
- gerbe75pts

poop man..

I dont see an outcome where Olofsson's AAV will be lower coming off a bridge deal than it is now on a 5-6 year term. As I said, any coach is going to play him on PP1 and set him up for 30 or so goals. So what is the benefit of bridging him at 24 years old? If he puts up 2 more 20-30 goal seasons or even a 40 goal season, are you just going to walk away at the end? What's the benefit of the bridge?
- jcragcrumple

If his results don't improve from where they are now, you deal him. Because now you have another hopefully full season worth of data showing that he's not worth that price tag.

If he take that step forward, you pay him because now he's elevated his game to a point where replacing that production would be significantly harder.

1 PPG is hardly a good sample size.

Ideally I'd give Olofsson a 1 year deal. If he can do well next year then I'd go long term.
- Wetbandit1

Referring to shooting percentage, not total goals.

If his results don't improve from where they are now, you deal him. Because now you have another hopefully full season worth of data showing that he's not worth that price tag.

If he take that step forward, you pay him because now he's elevated his game to a point where replacing that production would be significantly harder.
- Michael Ghofrani

To me, a good GM makes that decision now. Either you keep him in the fold for 5+ years at a reasonable AAV, or you deal him as part of a package for the much-needed 2C.

A bridge deal is the easy way out. On the good side at the end you're either paying the piper in terms of increased AAV, or on the bad side, his trade value has plummeted. Either way, you're going to pay the piper

Why is the bolded to be true? Because that's the case for the majority of NHL players? How many players that are talented like Olofsson does that hold true for?
- kingcong39

The work that's been done on this suggests shooting talent peaks earlier (around olofsson's age)

1 PPG is hardly a good sample size.

Ideally I'd give Olofsson a 1 year deal. If he can do well next year then I'd go long term.
- Wetbandit1

Or you believe in his abilities and that he will continue to improve and try and get him on a value deal now, such as 4 years for $14M for example.

To me, a good GM makes that decision now. Either you keep him in the fold for 5+ years at a reasonable AAV, or you deal him as part of a package for the much-needed 2C.

A bridge deal is the easy way out. On the good side at the end you're either paying the piper in terms of increased AAV, or on the bad side, his trade value has plummeted. Either way, you're going to pay the piper
- jcragcrumple

If bolded can be done, I'd do it. I dont think thats an option right now. I imagine plenty of GMS will have the same questions I do. If nothing else, they'll use that to drive price down.

If bolded can be done, I'd do it. I dont think thats an option right now. I imagine plenty of GMS will have the same questions I do. If nothing else, they'll use that to drive price down.
- Michael Ghofrani

At some point you have to take decisive action to create value contracts. Either move him or sign him, because waiting will only make this worse

At some point you have to take decisive action to create value contracts. Either move him or sign him, because waiting will only make this worse
- jcragcrumple

Agreed, but that means taking calculated risks, one where the numbers show legit upside. I don't think we're there yet with olofsson. We might be there with Jokiharju.

Agreed, but that means taking calculated risks, one where the numbers show legit upside. I don't think we're there yet with olofsson. We might be there with Jokiharju.
- Michael Ghofrani

I still dont see what the upside is in waiting and providing a bridge deal. Best case scenario, he outperforms the deal and then you pay him more at the end and you have 2 Skinner contracts