radoran Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 His role on this team will obviously be a factor in a new contract. Yeah, but is that the best idea? One of the justifications for signing VLC was that he really fit into Laviolette's system. Seven games later Lavy's gone and VLC is still signed for five years... And then there's MacDonald - who "looked really good" playing with Luke Schenn for 19 games. And now he's signed for six more years - and not paired with Schenn... MDZ may have a nice role to play now but as we look down the road to the bumper crop of young D talent, his role might change. The basic point being, regardless of his role, I don't find him completely irreplaceable. Just something to keep in mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Yeah, but is that the best idea? One of the justifications for signing VLC was that he really fit into Laviolette's system. Seven games later Lavy's gone and VLC is still signed for five years... And then there's MacDonald - who "looked really good" playing with Luke Schenn for 19 games. And now he's signed for six more years - and not paired with Schenn... MDZ may have a nice role to play now but as we look down the road to the bumper crop of young D talent, his role might change. The basic point being, regardless of his role, I don't find him completely irreplaceable. Just something to keep in mind... I'm not even sure what you're saying, rad. I said that his role this year will be a factor in contract negotiations. Sure, it could still be a bridge deal, but if DZ continues to get top pairing minutes, he has a strong case to be paid more than if he were getting 2/3 pairing minutes. The basic point being, regardless of his role, I don't find him completely irreplaceable. A young mobile defenseman who can and has put up points and can play solid defense too? To each his own, but I'm hanging on to that kind of player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 MDZ may have a nice role to play now but as we look down the road to the bumper crop of young D talent, his role might change. The basic point being, regardless of his role, I don't find him completely irreplaceable. Defensemen with Del Zotto's skillset are hard to find. And expensive to sign. He's a very different kind of player than MacDonald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I'm not even sure what you're saying, rad.I said that his role this year will be a factor in contract negotiations. Sure, it could still be a bridge deal, but if DZ continues to get top pairing minutes, he has a strong case to be paid more than if he were getting 2/3 pairing minutes.Defensemen with Del Zotto's skillset are hard to find. And expensive to sign. He's a very different kind of player than MacDonald. Agree with both of these statements. My point was that signing MDZ to a contract "because he's running second (or first) unit PP" this year or getting big minutes on an injury-depleted blue line needs to be taken in context of who might be in the same position in coming years: Ghost, Hagg, Morin, Sanheim, etc. MDZ is 24, so there is still the youth aspect (not to mention the RFA). But he's also a guy who - despite his valuable skillset - was still sitting on the sidelines when Timonen went down. There are reasons for that. I'm not comparing him apples-to-apples to MacD or VLC as a player (obviously) but rather comparing their situations. A bridge deal is the perfect opportunity, IMO, for both sides here. It allows the Flyers flexibility to replace him with up and coming defencemen if they warrant it and gives MDZ a leg up towards getting a serious megacontract in 2-3 years if he keeps playing as he is. Given the history of the player in question, I just wouldn't be committing big length and/or big money to him at this point. If someone wants to offer him $5.25M a year for the next six - bully for them. As it is, the Flyers have his rights locked up (and I would certainly issue a qualifying offer to retain them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 A bridge deal is the perfect opportunity, IMO, for both sides here. It allows the Flyers flexibility to replace him with up and coming defencemen if they warrant it and gives MDZ a leg up towards getting a serious megacontract in 2-3 years if he keeps playing as he is. Exactly. That's all I was trying to say. I really think Hextall sees things differently than Homer and plans things 3-4-5 years out, as @Podein25 reported from the STH thread. I would not be surprised to see MacDonald traded. Edmonton would be a perfect place. Our return probably won't be great though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 @radoran - I agree with the bridge deal. I'd still a wait a little further into the season but if he keeps playing the way he has been then give him 3 years at something respectable, but not crazy. Then, at 27, he can cash in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I really think Hextall sees things differently than Homer and plans things 3-4-5 years out, as @Podein25 reported from the STH thread. I don't think that was me, but thanks man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terp Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 MDZ is becoming hard to ignore. The minutes don't lie. Assuming he continues like this, I would expect a deal any time after Christmas. I tend to agree with the other posters who suggested he would be paid like a big boy (meaning it will not be a true bridge contract) and that it will be at least 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 I don't think that was me, but thanks man! Haha, you're right, it was @Poulin20. Got my numbers mixed up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.