×
Jump to content
Play Pick'em Daily Read more... ×

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL
sweetshot

Long term deal for Zucker the right thing to do?

Recommended Posts

Does anybody believe that Zucker's playoff numbers, 4 goals in 31 games, should have given the Wild cause not to sign him long term? He is one of the core members of this team and considering there doesn't seem to be any other core members who are willing to consistently do what it takes to be successful in the playoffs, do we need another one of those kinds of players? I like Zucker a lot, always have, but his signing doesn't do much toward the ultimate success of this team--and won't for the near future. Unless he(and others---I don't want to put it all on Zucker) somehow become better playoff performers we really haven't improved by signing him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sweetshot said:

Does anybody believe that Zucker's playoff numbers, 4 goals in 31 games, should have given the Wild cause not to sign him long term? He is one of the core members of this team and considering there doesn't seem to be any other core members who are willing to consistently do what it takes to be successful in the playoffs, do we need another one of those kinds of players? I like Zucker a lot, always have, but his signing doesn't do much toward the ultimate success of this team--and won't for the near future. Unless he(and others---I don't want to put it all on Zucker) somehow become better playoff performers we really haven't improved by signing him. 

A long time ago I said Haula on any other team (if used properly) he would flourish and he is. With Zucker it's even more so. Several times I've noted Zucker is worth a lot more than he's been getting and he's never really been treated fairly by the Wild in that regard.

 

So yes, his signing isn't going to impact the Wild all that much because what the Wild do on the ice isn't that important to the team as much as how important it is to sucking up to Mikko, Suter and Parise off the ice, like say in the locker room or on flights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sweetshot said:

Does anybody believe that Zucker's playoff numbers, 4 goals in 31 games, should have given the Wild cause not to sign him long term? He is one of the core members of this team and considering there doesn't seem to be any other core members who are willing to consistently do what it takes to be successful in the playoffs, do we need another one of those kinds of players? I like Zucker a lot, always have, but his signing doesn't do much toward the ultimate success of this team--and won't for the near future. Unless he(and others---I don't want to put it all on Zucker) somehow become better playoff performers we really haven't improved by signing him. 

 

You don't get to the Playoffs without winning in the regular season, something Zucker's 30 goals contributed to. Zucker's shown himself to be a good soldier and was rewarded for it.

 

The Wild are like the Twins. They're built for regular season success. But once they're in the Playoffs, they're toast. Burnt toast.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't lose assets for little or nothing (ex.Tavares)  No signing,  Zucker ends up a UFA in 2019 or worth considerably less than asset value in a trade. The fact they signed Zucker at bit better than fair market value (compared to E. Kane, Kovalchuk, Neal) was IMO worth the modified NTC (though I personally despise them)   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, IllaZilla said:

 

You don't get to the Playoffs without winning in the regular season, something Zucker's 30 goals contributed to. Zucker's shown himself to be a good soldier and was rewarded for it.

 

The Wild are like the Twins. They're built for regular season success. But once they're in the Playoffs, they're toast. Burnt toast.

Twins lost to the Yankees 3 or 4 playoff series, Wild lost to the Blackhawks I think 3 series.

I was trying to refer to the length of the Zucker's contract, rather than if we should re-sign him or not. Maybe a one year deal instead, and see what he(or any other player that has playoff issues) does this season in the playoffs(assuming the Wild qualifies). If he's successful in the postseason, sign him to a long term deal next year. I know it would cost more, but if a player were to have enough of an impact in the playoffs to win a series(team mvp for that series so to speak), that extra cost would be easily covered by the minimum of 2 extra home games the Wild would get if they won a series. 36,000 fans x $200.00 ave price per ticket=$7.2M. And that's just ticket revenue. Double that if its home ice and a 7 game series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, 4Check said:

You can't lose assets for little or nothing (ex.Tavares)  No signing,  Zucker ends up a UFA in 2019 or worth considerably less than asset value in a trade. The fact they signed Zucker at bit better than fair market value (compared to E. Kane, Kovalchuk, Neal) was IMO worth the modified NTC (though I personally despise them)   

I was thinking go to arbitration, sign him for a year, see what he does in the playoffs(assuming the Wild makes it) and deal with a new contract(or not) next season.

The only reason I started this topic was because of Zuckers lack of production in the playoffs so far in his career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, sweetshot said:

I was thinking go to arbitration, sign him for a year, see what he does in the playoffs(assuming the Wild makes it) and deal with a new contract(or not) next season.

The only reason I started this topic was because of Zuckers lack of production in the playoffs so far in his career.

Arbitration can be nasty.  The Wild would likely have spelled out all the reasons Zucker didn't deserve what he was asking for. Could create some pretty hard feelings.   IMO, if Zucker was allowed to get within months of UFA, he'd been foolish not to see what the 30 other teams were willing to spend (overspend).   If Fenton ends up with second thoughts or Zuck lays another egg in the playoffs (assumption they get in), he could always deal him up to July 1 2019.  Or settle for the 10 team NTC in following years.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, sweetshot said:

Twins lost to the Yankees 3 or 4 playoff series, Wild lost to the Blackhawks I think 3 series.

I was trying to refer to the length of the Zucker's contract, rather than if we should re-sign him or not. Maybe a one year deal instead, and see what he(or any other player that has playoff issues) does this season in the playoffs(assuming the Wild qualifies). If he's successful in the postseason, sign him to a long term deal next year. I know it would cost more, but if a player were to have enough of an impact in the playoffs to win a series(team mvp for that series so to speak), that extra cost would be easily covered by the minimum of 2 extra home games the Wild would get if they won a series. 36,000 fans x $200.00 ave price per ticket=$7.2M. And that's just ticket revenue. Double that if its home ice and a 7 game series.

 

But you're banking that the Wild will have the cap space in 2019 to sign him to a $6+M contract OR that Zucker will want to deal with the Wild at all. Especially after the Wild tripped all over themselves signing Dumba to a big fat contract after one good season. And then to turn around to Zucker and say "Do it again and we'll talk"? Boy, talk about a lack of respect from the team...

 

Zucker would complete his arbitration contract and then walk. And I guarantee you Vegas would be backing a dump truck full of money up to his front door, and there's nothing the Wild could do about it. Then the Wild would have to overpay some over-the-hill UFA to try and make up for the goals they lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zucker's deal IMO isn't terrible.  I don't mind the length of the term considering he's 26 years old.  We'll see if he not only lives up to the contract or if he cools off with the bigger contract in his back pocket.  I feel like the chance for the Wild to get a decent return on the investment is better than #24.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IllaZilla said:

 

But you're banking that the Wild will have the cap space in 2019 to sign him to a $6+M contract OR that Zucker will want to deal with the Wild at all. Especially after the Wild tripped all over themselves signing Dumba to a big fat contract after one good season. And then to turn around to Zucker and say "Do it again and we'll talk"? Boy, talk about a lack of respect from the team...

 

Zucker would complete his arbitration contract and then walk. And I guarantee you Vegas would be backing a dump truck full of money up to his front door, and there's nothing the Wild could do about it. Then the Wild would have to overpay some over-the-hill UFA to try and make up for the goals they lost.

I agree with what you're saying--I should've made this topic simpler and just posted the first sentence. I wanted to hear opinions on how to deal with players contracts who have a track record of lackluster play in the playoffs but have good regular seasons. Do the Wild(or any team) want to continue to sign these type players to  long term deals if, come playoff time, they disappear? As is the case,I think, with Granlund, Zucker, Coyle, Nino, Koivu. All players with decent to very good regular seasons but are mediocre at best in multiple playoff series. I know there is some dropoff in the majority of players ppg totals in the post season, but not as drastic as our guys. Do you just keep signing them long term and hope for the best or is there a different strategy needed come contract time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sweetshot said:

I agree with what you're saying--I should've made this topic simpler and just posted the first sentence. I wanted to hear opinions on how to deal with players contracts who have a track record of lackluster play in the playoffs but have good regular seasons. Do the Wild(or any team) want to continue to sign these type players to  long term deals if, come playoff time, they disappear? As is the case,I think, with Granlund, Zucker, Coyle, Nino, Koivu. All players with decent to very good regular seasons but are mediocre at best in multiple playoff series. I know there is some dropoff in the majority of players ppg totals in the post season, but not as drastic as our guys. Do you just keep signing them long term and hope for the best or is there a different strategy needed come contract time.

 

I think you're putting too much emphasis on Playoff performance. Players get rewarded for what they do in the regular season. Because they literally don't get paid during the Playoffs. They might get bonuses or something for Playoff performance, but their main compensation is for regular season performance.

 

And if you don't perform during the regular season, teams probably aren't going to want you around anyways...

 

I'd continue signing the younger guys unless something better comes down the pipe. UFA's are notoriously overpaid. And you're signing guys on the back end of their careers (Like Parise), instead of extending guys that are just coming into the prime of their careers (Coyle, Niederreitter, Granlund, Zucker).

 

Yes, it sucks that the Wild fold like a house of cards during the Playoffs. But that tells me there is a culture that causes that, not one single player. I think everyone agrees you need to be physical in the Playoffs. Look at these stats for the most recent Playoffs.

 

Team Games Hits
LA 4 234
NJ 5 152
Anaheim 4 136
Minnesota 5 106

 

Those are the first round losers that all played about the same number of games. LA played one less game than the Wild and had twice as many hits as the Wild. The Wild changing up the third and fourth lines every year for the next batch of "tough guys" isn't going to do it. The top lines need to start dishing it out too, but they refuse to, preferring to yap at the refs (which is always helpful) and then give the opposing team the stink eye...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CreaseAndAssist said:

Zucker's deal IMO isn't terrible.  I don't mind the length of the term considering he's 26 years old.  We'll see if he not only lives up to the contract or if he cools off with the bigger contract in his back pocket.  I feel like the chance for the Wild to get a decent return on the investment is better than #24.  

I like your point of view.

Hockey is a team’s play, but not just a one player's game. We all agreed we do not have a bad team, especially the last two regular seasons with a new coach. Entire mentality of the team should be changed, especially for the playoffs time. Like that happened for the Capitals last season. Or maybe Wild need to look for a more professional psychologists group to prepare them better for the playoffs?

 

So far regarding a Zucker's contract is a good deal, is a good contract, is a good term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 years is about max length for my comfort level unless they're a generational talent.  Otherwise it gives the team the chance to change if doesn't work out.  

 

I don't think psychologists would make a difference.  I think many of the vets are very comfortable (with long-term bulletproof contracts with NMC's) making the playoffs and being done before April is over.  Like Illa Zilla said...technically the players are not really paid for the playoffs; so as far as they're concerned they are off the clock so they'd rather start their off season than go on a long run.   

 

I am fine with Zucker's deal and Dumba's deal for the most part.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CreaseAndAssist said:

5 years is about max length for my comfort level unless they're a generational talent.  Otherwise it gives the team the chance to change if doesn't work out.  

 

I don't think psychologists would make a difference.  I think many of the vets are very comfortable (with long-term bulletproof contracts with NMC's) making the playoffs and being done before April is over.  Like Illa Zilla said...technically the players are not really paid for the playoffs; so as far as they're concerned they are off the clock so they'd rather start their off season than go on a long run.   

 

I am fine with Zucker's deal and Dumba's deal for the most part.  

 

Same here regarding comfort zone . Most of the 7+ year contracts make me shake my head and ask 'why?'. Especially when they're 27+ and pretty much passing their prime within a few years.

 

As you mentioned, generational talent is a different matter.

 

Little concerned how Granny is going to pan out. If he keeps up his production or keeps getting better, he's in for a payraise in a couple of years.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Lonkkis said:

 

Same here regarding comfort zone . Most of the 7+ year contracts make me shake my head and ask 'why?'. Especially when they're 27+ and pretty much passing their prime within a few years.

 

As you mentioned, generational talent is a different matter.

 

Little concerned how Granny is going to pan out. If he keeps up his production or keeps getting better, he's in for a payraise in a couple of years.

 

Koivu, Coyle and Spurgeon are all going to be UFA's at that time (2021). Hopefully Koivu will retire after this contract (pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease) so there's $5.5M to play with, and Coyle better get his act together and become that power forward everyone claimed he was going to be, or he's not going to get much of a raise if he isn't shipped out. And maybe Belpedio shows enough to make Spurgeon trade bait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, IllaZilla said:

 

Koivu, Coyle and Spurgeon are all going to be UFA's at that time (2021). Hopefully Koivu will retire after this contract (pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease) so there's $5.5M to play with, and Coyle better get his act together and become that power forward everyone claimed he was going to be, or he's not going to get much of a raise if he isn't shipped out. And maybe Belpedio shows enough to make Spurgeon trade bait.

 

I am tired of the nice guy Coyle schtick...if he doesn't start playing like an impact player I'd rather ship him out no matter how 'friendly' his contract may be.  Spurgeon...at this point I don't see how you replace him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted they play different games, but comparing contracts.... I'd rather have Zucker than Tom Wilson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No question.  Tom Wilson's deal is bad, but I wish we had a player like him in our lineup.  Instead we have the dim shadow of a player like that in Foligno.  Yet, I just read a Hockey News article talking about how at the last NHL labor empasse that they wanted to push for a 5-year max contract length.  Instead the players pushed it out to 7 years.  I hope the league pushes for a 5-year max deal again.  

 

Lockout 2020 folks...its on the way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CreaseAndAssist said:

No question.  Tom Wilson's deal is bad, but I wish we had a player like him in our lineup.  Instead we have the dim shadow of a player like that in Foligno.  Yet, I just read a Hockey News article talking about how at the last NHL labor empasse that they wanted to push for a 5-year max contract length.  Instead the players pushed it out to 7 years.  I hope the league pushes for a 5-year max deal again.  

 

Lockout 2020 folks...its on the way!

 

I find it hilarious that the owners want to keep ratcheting down the CBA to get "cost certainty", yet every time the CBA gets approved, there is always that one GM or owner immediately trying to figure out ways around the CBA. Look at Lou Lamoriello, biggest hypocrite out there. He played hardball on the owners negotiating team for the first CBA, only to immediately find any loophole he could to cook up the Ilya Kovalchuk deal to get around the CBA he helped negotiate.

 

As far as contract length, it should be whatever is negotiated.  If you're dumb enough to throw a 13 year contract at a 28 year old player, you get what you deserve. No one stuck a gun to Leipolds head and said "Either your signature or your brains are going to be on this contract" when he signed Parise and Suter.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2018 at 10:16 AM, IllaZilla said:

 

I find it hilarious that the owners want to keep ratcheting down the CBA to get "cost certainty", yet every time the CBA gets approved, there is always that one GM or owner immediately trying to figure out ways around the CBA. Look at Lou Lamoriello, biggest hypocrite out there. He played hardball on the owners negotiating team for the first CBA, only to immediately find any loophole he could to cook up the Ilya Kovalchuk deal to get around the CBA he helped negotiate.

 

As far as contract length, it should be whatever is negotiated.  If you're dumb enough to throw a 13 year contract at a 28 year old player, you get what you deserve. No one stuck a gun to Leipolds head and said "Either your signature or your brains are going to be on this contract" when he signed Parise and Suter.

 

Precisely...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2018 at 1:10 PM, sweetshot said:

Do the Wild(or any team) want to continue to sign these type players to  long term deals if, come playoff time, they disappear?

 

If that were the basis - there wouldn't be one person on this team with more than a 12 month contract...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Confrontational said:

 

If that were the basis - there wouldn't be one person on this team with more than a 12 month contract...

Except Parise--he's been pretty good. He should be for what he's making.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Except he missed half of the past two seasons - and is nonexistent in playoffs, when he's healthy enough to actually participate...

Edited by Confrontational

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Confrontational said:

Except he missed half of the past two seasons - and is nonexistent in playoffs, when he's healthy enough to actually participate...

 

With missing good chunks of regular season games, I'm with you.

 

But actually, Parise has been a pretty effective Wild player in the past three seasons Playoffs, even after missing one seasons Playoffs (2015-2016).

 

Name Games Goals Assists Shots Plus/Minus
Parise 8 5 1 24 -4
Koivu 16 4 7 33 -3
Coyle 16 3 1 37 -8
Granlund 16 2 6 38 -3
Niederreitter 16 1 6 35 -7
Zucker 16 1 2 31 -9
Staal 10 1 2 26 -4

 

If you extrapolate that out for three season, Parise potentially could have had 10 goals and 2 assists. And Yes I realize extrapolation is unrealistic. But even this last Playoffs against Winnipeg he had 3 goals in 3 games before he was knocked out. Besides Granlund, he's probably the only player that does show up for the Playoffs...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 2
      Post
      I think you're putting too much emphasis on Playoff performance. Players get rewarded for what they do in the regular season. Because they literally don't get paid during the Playoffs. They might get bonuses or something for Playoff performance, but their main compensation is for regular season performance.   And if you don't perform during the regular season, teams probably aren't going to want you around anyways...   I'd continue signing the younger guys unless something better comes down the pipe. UFA's are notoriously overpaid. And you're signing guys on the back end of their careers (Like Parise), instead of extending guys that are just coming into the prime of their careers (Coyle, Niederreitter, Granlund, Zucker).   Yes, it sucks that the Wild fold like a house of cards during the Playoffs. But that tells me there is a culture that causes that, not one single player. I think everyone agrees you need to be physical in the Playoffs. Look at these stats for the most recent Playoffs.   Team Games Hits LA 4 234 NJ 5 152 Anaheim 4 136 Minnesota 5 106   Those are the first round losers that all played about the same number of games. LA played one less game than the Wild and had twice as many hits as the Wild. The Wild changing up the third and fourth lines every year for the next batch of "tough guys" isn't going to do it. The top lines need to start dishing it out too, but they refuse to, preferring to yap at the refs (which is always helpful) and then give the opposing team the stink eye...
    • 2
      Post
      I find it hilarious that the owners want to keep ratcheting down the CBA to get "cost certainty", yet every time the CBA gets approved, there is always that one GM or owner immediately trying to figure out ways around the CBA. Look at Lou Lamoriello, biggest hypocrite out there. He played hardball on the owners negotiating team for the first CBA, only to immediately find any loophole he could to cook up the Ilya Kovalchuk deal to get around the CBA he helped negotiate.   As far as contract length, it should be whatever is negotiated.  If you're dumb enough to throw a 13 year contract at a 28 year old player, you get what you deserve. No one stuck a gun to Leipolds head and said "Either your signature or your brains are going to be on this contract" when he signed Parise and Suter.
    • 1
      Post
      Does anybody believe that Zucker's playoff numbers, 4 goals in 31 games, should have given the Wild cause not to sign him long term? He is one of the core members of this team and considering there doesn't seem to be any other core members who are willing to consistently do what it takes to be successful in the playoffs, do we need another one of those kinds of players? I like Zucker a lot, always have, but his signing doesn't do much toward the ultimate success of this team--and won't for the near future. Unless he(and others---I don't want to put it all on Zucker) somehow become better playoff performers we really haven't improved by signing him. 
    • 1
      Post
      You don't get to the Playoffs without winning in the regular season, something Zucker's 30 goals contributed to. Zucker's shown himself to be a good soldier and was rewarded for it.   The Wild are like the Twins. They're built for regular season success. But once they're in the Playoffs, they're toast. Burnt toast.
    • 1
      Post
      Arbitration can be nasty.  The Wild would likely have spelled out all the reasons Zucker didn't deserve what he was asking for. Could create some pretty hard feelings.   IMO, if Zucker was allowed to get within months of UFA, he'd been foolish not to see what the 30 other teams were willing to spend (overspend).   If Fenton ends up with second thoughts or Zuck lays another egg in the playoffs (assumption they get in), he could always deal him up to July 1 2019.  Or settle for the 10 team NTC in following years.  
    • 1
      Post
      Zucker's deal IMO isn't terrible.  I don't mind the length of the term considering he's 26 years old.  We'll see if he not only lives up to the contract or if he cools off with the bigger contract in his back pocket.  I feel like the chance for the Wild to get a decent return on the investment is better than #24.  

About HF.net

 We are an enthusiastic community of HockeyFans who enjoy discussing the NHL and more in our Forums.  Our members may also write their own blogs, converse in chat, post pics in our gallery, join our fantasy hockey leagues and more.  If you are looking for a friendly community to discuss hockey then register today and begin your conversation in our NET.

 

 

Contact Us

 

Recent Topics

Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!
Supporting Members help keep HockeyForums Advertisement Free
×