O'Sullivan signs?

Cronenbergfan wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:That actually sounds like a pretty reasonable deal. Nice catch Space!

I don't get it. First, let me say that I don't at all doubt that O'Sullivan is going to be a great player.

But what has he done to date to earn a deal that big? 19 points in one half season, and 53 points in his first full season -- i.e., as many points as Vermette put up last year. That gets you 4+ X 4? Does this mean that, if we wanted to sign Vermette to a 4+ year deal, we would have had to pay $4+ mil, too?

For a comparable: Dustin Brown signed for less money ($3.175 mil) and a longer term (6 years), and he had similar numbers at that point in his career (28 points in his 1st season and 44 points in his second season; he put up 60 points in his third season, which is when he signed the deal).

I like O'Sullivan and I realise his upside is higher than Brown's or Vermette's, but I don't understand why you pay him this much money before he's really accomplished anything. I realise, too, that you have at pay a bit more for this potential, but wow... let me just say that I don't think we'd be saying "great deal" if we signed Vermette for that dollar/term amount, and yet when you look at their career numbers, Vermette has actually done more to this point.

Something is amiss there I think. While O'Sullivan will likely be a star, paying that much for him right now seems a little odd.

Is it because maybe he missing a RFA or UFA eligible year so he as to be compensated more to keep him that long. He is not the only player getting big $ at a young age.

Cronenbergfan wrote:

shabbs wrote:

Cronenbergfan wrote:Then again, this just shows Murray's brilliance at inking yet another beauty of a contract!

I wonder if Murray is thinking the cap will go down next year.

I was wondering the same thing, because if it keeps going up at the pace that it has been, smaller market teams (that are already having issues or difficulty hitting the floor) are going to struggle even MORE!

I wouldn't be surprised if the cap stays about the same next year, barring any catastrophic recession or something.
Perhaps something like either $57.2 or a firm $58M.

Thats what I expect, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it take another unexpected jump, like it did this year, and end up being 60+. I doubt it'll ever reach 65M, though.

$60M+ would be INSANE!! Wow!! I can't imagine that. but, as you mentioned, stranger things have happened...

504Heater wrote:Remember that this past year was just O'Sullivan's second NHL season. He got as many points as Vermette did in his fourth season. By the time he reaches Vermette's age he'll be an 80 point man. That's pretty much set in stone.

Unless Vermette gets 65-75 points this year, which is doable, the comparison is not valid IMO.

My point was more "I'm willing to bet that no one around here would be too excited at the prospect of the Sens signing a player to a $4+ mil / 4+ yr deal who has played less than 2 seasons, and only produced at an average rate in one of them."

I'm just surprised to hear people saying "good deal" when I feel pretty confident that those same people wouldn't be saying the same thing if O'Sullivan was a Senator and Murray the guy doing the signing of this big deal. People around here, including yourself, were in an uproar at the thought of paying Vermette or Mezsaros more than $2 or $3 mil over anything more than 2 years. How can those same people be happy with -- and evaluate as a fair deal -- a contract that pays a guy more money over a longer term for having accomplished LESS? There's no debate that his ceiling is higher than Vermette's. But why is it not just OK but understandable and a "great deal" to pay for O'Sullivan's potential, but not Vermette's or Meszaros's? The whole case people around here made against singing Vermette and Meszaros to big, long-term deals was that, yes they've got loads of potential, but they haven't done enough to show that they deserve the big money long term. So how is the case any different with O'Sullivan? Boat-load of potential? Yes. Done much to date in the NHL to earn the big money and long contract? Nope.

It just seems to me that the criteria for evaluating players and their deals are not being evenly applied around here. I would love to hear the reasons why it's a "great deal" to pay for potential on one hand, but unthinkable and a huge mistake to pay for potential on the other hand. Either it makes sense to pay for potential, or it doesn't. I don't see how it can be so in come cases, but not so in other cases. The whole crux of the matter is that potential is such an intangible thing, and player's don't always live up to it, and so paying for it is necessarily something of a gamble.