Article: Brock Faber Is About To Get Paid

[Justin Hein]

View full article

[Burnt Toast]

With all the statistics, analytics, not to mention intangibles the Wild could really use an AGM replacement pronto. Unfortunately they’re probably going to have to wait until the season is over. Whoever it is I hope he can bring a strong dynamic voice to the front office. 

[Protec]

Take a hometown deal. What's the Brock-bottom number? The Wild are between a Brock and a hard place if they wanna keep their roster intact. It's gotta be worth something to be in MN and being everyone's favorite, I mean Faberite defenseman to wash the sour taste of Suter our of our mouth.  Makes sense Brocktapus should get 8 years, but being able to win a Cup could be worth taking a little less. Let's hope the extension isn't Brocky mountain high.

Edited February 2 by Protec

[Imyourhuckleberry]

That chart showing top contracts for right vs. left handed defenseman appears to be quite old. Spurgeon isn't even in the top 20 of defensemen contracts at this point. It appears that right handed defensemen averaging more money still holds true, but the chart has Heiskanen as the 2nd highest paid lefty and he's currently 5th in AAV for lefties(Werenski, Nurse, Josi, and Sergachev ahead of him), and 13th overall for defensemen. There are 13 defensemen currently on a contract that pays more than $8M per season, followed by 4 at exactly $8M.

Victor Hedman, another lefty, is outside of the top 17 due to signing his $7.875M AAV contract back in 2017, or he likely would be near the top in salary. It looks like he was very close to the top for defenseman salaries in 2017.

Also, Faber is likely going to sign for equal or less than $9M AAV. $9M would currently be a top 10 salary for defensemen.

 

Edited February 2 by Imyourhuckleberry

[Willy the poor boy]

52 minutes ago, Burnt Toast said:

With all the statistics, analytics, not to mention intangibles the Wild could really use an AGM replacement pronto. Unfortunately they’re probably going to have to wait until the season is over. Whoever it is I hope he can bring a strong dynamic voice to the front office. 

That and a Cap guru... I'm not comfortable with the trade deadline coming up with BG managing the Cap with the league as his assistant. They're not looking out for the future of the team. They're only gonna look and see if things work for this season with the Cap, future be damned.

Edited February 2 by Willy the poor boy

[Protec]

8 years, 7.5M for 60M.

Just think how much other $$$ he can make in the Twin Cities? Kwik Trip needs a new hot-dog spokesman... 

[Justin Hein]

2 hours ago, Burnt Toast said:

With all the statistics, analytics, not to mention intangibles the Wild could really use an AGM replacement pronto. Unfortunately they’re probably going to have to wait until the season is over. Whoever it is I hope he can bring a strong dynamic voice to the front office. 

They do still have Mat Sells heading up the analytics department. I'd imagine he's being leaned on very heavily, though I don't have any sources in the front office.  

https://theathletic.com/5136414/2023/12/14/wild-front-office-chris-ohearn/

[Justin Hein]

2 hours ago, Protec said:

Take a hometown deal. What's the Brock-bottom number? The Wild are between a Brock and a hard place if they wanna keep their roster intact. It's gotta be worth something to be in MN and being everyone's favorite, I mean Faberite defenseman to wash the sour taste of Suter our of our mouth.  Makes sense Brocktapus should get 8 years, but being able to win a Cup could be worth taking a little less. Let's hope the extension isn't Brocky mountain high.

This is why players have agents. I'm sure Brock would agree with you a thousand percent on this, but his agent will (correctly) negotiate a fair market deal for Brock. 

[MrCheatachu]

1 hour ago, Burnt Toast said:

With all the statistics, analytics, not to mention intangibles the Wild could really use an AGM replacement pronto. Unfortunately they’re probably going to have to wait until the season is over. Whoever it is I hope he can bring a strong dynamic voice to the front office. 

What are you talking about?  We have a robust analytics department, for example, before we acquired Zach Bogosian, I'm sure we consulted with his brother Aaron Bogosian, who works in the Wild's analytic department.

Basically, I'm sure the AGM role will get filled whenever Billy gets a call from someone from the Penguin's organization whose kid needs a job, or one of his buddy's is looking for work. 

[Justin Hein]

1 hour ago, Imyourhuckleberry said:

That chart showing top contracts for right vs. left handed defenseman appears to be quite old. Spurgeon isn't even in the top 20 of defensemen contracts at this point. It appears that right handed defensemen averaging more money still holds true, but the chart has Heiskanen as the 2nd highest paid lefty and he's currently 5th in AAV for lefties(Werenski, Nurse, Josi, and Sergachev ahead of him), and 13th overall for defensemen. There are 13 defensemen currently on a contract that pays more than $8M per season, followed by 4 at exactly $8M.

Victor Hedman, another lefty, is outside of the top 17 due to signing his $7.875M AAV contract back in 2017, or he likely would be near the top in salary. It looks like he was very close to the top for defenseman salaries in 2017.

Also, Faber is likely going to sign for equal or less than $9M AAV. $9M would currently be a top 10 salary for defensemen.

 

Sorry, this was not a list of the top contracts, but the top defensemen per Dom's model at the Athletic. 

Also important to note the length and timing of the contract is important with regard to the AAV. COVID and escrow put cap growth in a vice grip the past few years, but projecting growth in the future is reasonable -- especially if the NHL adds gambling partnership revenue like the NFL, which is exploding their salary cap. 

[Imyourhuckleberry]

30 minutes ago, Justin Hein said:

Sorry, this was not a list of the top contracts, but the top defensemen per Dom's model at the Athletic. 

Also important to note the length and timing of the contract is important with regard to the AAV.

Oh, that makes more sense. I'm betting that Guerin will want to go $9M or less and that could make the contract less than 8 years in length, maybe 7 years at $63M or 6 years at $54M.

I selected $9M based upon Kaprizov leading the team at $9M in addition to that currently being a top 10 defenseman salary. I  believe most guys up at $9M+ are on their 3rd or 4th contract. I agree Faber could get more than Sanderson, but I don't think it will be anything like 30% more. $9M per season would be a very solid contract coming off an ELC.

I'm sure Faber's agent will want more than $9M, but I don't think the Wild will go above that, which could end up shortening the length of the contract somewhat like it did for Kaprizov. I think Faber will strongly want to say in Minnesota as well, so there is some hometown discount baked into that as well.

[Lovehockey]

I have one question. According CapFriendly for 2024-2025 Wild will have 11,743,079 Cap space. But with this they would need to sign 3 forwards, 3 defenders and 1 goalie. Unless we talking about Faber contract for 2025-2026 I am not clear on how we can sign him for even 8 mil contract starting next year. Maybe I am missing something 

[Justin Hein]

3 minutes ago, Lovehockey said:

I have one question. According CapFriendly for 2024-2025 Wild will have 11,743,079 Cap space. But with this they would need to sign 3 forwards, 3 defenders and 1 goalie. Unless we talking about Faber contract for 2025-2026 I am not clear on how we can sign him for even 8 mil contract starting next year. Maybe I am missing something 

Good question! I wanted to get into this but it just got too long to dive into the team's cap ramifications. 

First, Faber is under contract for 24-25 already. His extension would not "kick in" against the cap until 25-26. 

Beyond that, they likely intend to lean heavily on ELC's. At forward, the team can pull on Mara Khusnutdinov and Liam Ohgren to fill spots at forward, Jesper Wallstedt at goalie, and any of Carson Lambos, Ryan O'Rourke, and Daemon Hunt. Each of these players would cost less than $1MM against next year's cap. They likely plan on some of these players making the team, and using the remaining cap space to fill out the bottom of the roster. 

Depending upon how many young players make the team, there may actually be enough to bring in two middle-of-the-lineup players, or one high-salary free agent. 

[Citizen Strife]

Line 1: Kaprizov-Ek-Boldy (9m+5.25m+7m) = 21.25m

Line 2: Foligno-Rossi-Zuccarello (4m+863k+4.125m) = 9m (give or take)

Line 3: Johansson-Khusnutdinov-Ohgren (2m+8-9k*2) = 3.6-3-8m

Line 4: Hartman-Gaudreau-Depth Player (4m+2.1m+9k) = 7m

Total for Forwards = 40.85-41.25m, add a 13th forward, it makes $41.6m-42m give or take

*This is under the assumption Dewar, Duhaime, etc all leave and get more elsewhere.  Maroon is making $800k, so he's right in the same ballpark is a depth or ELC.  That's all without saying Yurov might be one of those depth options as well, for 900k or something.

 

D-Pair 1: Brodin-Faber (6m-925k) = 7m

D-Pair 2: Middleton-Spurgeon (2.45m-7.575 = 10.025m

D-Pair 3: Hunt-Lambos (8-9k*2) = 1.6-1.8m

Total For Defensemen = 18.625-18.825m, add a 7 and 8, you get roughly $20m, if you keep Merrill's contract, that's 1.2 instead of 8-9k.  He has that weird thing where he can be buried in Iowa to save money as well.

 

Gustavsson/Wallstedt ($3.5m+8-9k) = $4.3-4.4m

 

So, that's around $66-67m.  Add in the $14.6m buyouts, that's around the $81m or so it already sits at is now. I don't think they would be in any rush to sign Faber.  They still have an extra ELC year before doing Rossi and Wallstedt (who I think are also up the same year).  If you do some fine tuning with stuff like Merrill's contract or some other trades happen, you COULD sign Faber immediately, but I don't know if 8-9m is something they'd want to do, unless it is to go 12-6 and wait on extra forwards like they have been.

My best guess is they will make Rossi/Faber package signings the year's after next, because they have proven their spots in the lineup.  Yurov/Khus/Wallstedt haven't yet, so who knows what they'll get.  

Edited February 2 by Citizen Strife

[Justin Hein]

2 minutes ago, Citizen Strife said:

Line 1: Kaprizov-Ek-Boldy (9m+5.25m+7m) = 21.25m

Line 2: Foligno-Rossi-Zuccarello (4m+863k+4.125m) = 9m (give or take)

Line 3: Johansson-Khusnutdinov-Ohgren (2m+8-9k*2) = 3.6-3-8m

Line 4: Hartman-Gaudreau-Depth Player (4m+2.1m+9k) = 7m

Total for Forwards = 40.85-41.25m, add a 13th forward, it makes $41.6m-42m give or take

 

D-Pair 1: Brodin-Faber (6m-925k) = 7m

D-Pair 2: Middleton-Spurgeon (2.45m-7.575 = 10.025m

D-Pair 3: Hunt-Lambos (8-9k*2) = 1.6-1.8m

Total For Defensemen = 18.625-18.825m, add a 7 and 8, you get roughly $20m, if you keep Merrill's contract, that's 1.2 instead of 8-9k.

 

Gustavsson/Wallstedt ($3.5m+8-9k) = $4.3-4.4m

 

So, that's around $66-67m.  Add in the $14.6m buyouts, that's around the $81m or so it already sits at is now. I don't think they would be in any rush to sign Faber.  They still have an extra ELC year before doing Rossi and Wallstedt (who I think are also up the same year).  If you do some fine tuning with stuff like Merrill's contract or some other trades happen, you COULD sign Faber immediately, but I don't know if 8-9m is something they'd want to do, unless it is to go 12-6 and wait on extra forwards like they have been.

This is spot on except for a small detail -- Faber's extension would NOT wipe out his $925k in 2024-25. So, extending him this summer is just a way for Minnesota to avoid a higher cap hit if Faber goes off in his contract year, and it's injury insurance for Faber after a great rookie year. 

Minnesota could definitely wait, but they should only do so if they think this year was a fluke from Faber and predict he will regress. For 21-year old defensemen, that's very rare. On average, 21-year old players only get better next year. 

[Citizen Strife]

Exactly.  I think you posted that right as I made an addition about probably making Rossi and Faber sign their deals once the buyouts slough off.  They could even sign Faber and Rossi right now if they wanted to, just to say they will eat into 25-26s plans.  That's really what they should do.  If they sign Faber now, it'll be a Boldy/Ek situation, making sure they don't make more than they could later, as you stated.  Cost control and all that junk.

The Wild don't need new free agents, not with 3-5 ELCs coming this and next season anyway.

Edited February 2 by Citizen Strife

[Justin Hein]

9 minutes ago, Citizen Strife said:

Exactly.  I think you posted that right as I made an addition about probably making Rossi and Faber sign their deals once the buyouts slough off.  They could even sign Faber and Rossi right now if they wanted to, just to say they will eat into 25-26s plans.  That's really what they should do.  If they sign Faber now, it'll be a Boldy/Ek situation, making sure they don't make more than they could later, as you stated.  Cost control and all that junk.

The Wild don't need new free agents, not with 3-5 ELCs coming this and next season anyway.

Russo also mentioned in the mailbag that he thinks Rossi is on track to get a bridge deal this summer.

I would love for them to lock him in long term instead. Freddy's 5-year deal is already the first consequence of their doubt in Rossi, and I would hate for a future contract dispute to become the second time they get burned. 

[MNCountryLife]

Based on those charts it sure seems that players are at their all around best between the ages of 23 to 28.  I would have guessed 25 to 30.  Obviously there are exceptions, but if I was a GM I would consider that age thing pretty darn important.  I suppose you could consider the decline minimal to stretch that age thing to 32.   That means you have to be willing to let players go when they are 32+ as you expect them to decline to a level below that of a 23 to 25 year old.  This is something that BG has not been willing to do so far.

I do like that our Prospect group has grown dramatically and we are not just trading them away like we have historically.  In 2 years we will be in this realm of having age correction close to being where we need it.  But only if we get them on the ice at the X and are willing to let the older players ride off into the sunset.

[Justin Hein]

40 minutes ago, MNCountryLife said:

Based on those charts it sure seems that players are at their all around best between the ages of 23 to 28.  I would have guessed 25 to 30.  Obviously there are exceptions, but if I was a GM I would consider that age thing pretty darn important.  I suppose you could consider the decline minimal to stretch that age thing to 32.   That means you have to be willing to let players go when they are 32+ as you expect them to decline to a level below that of a 23 to 25 year old.  This is something that BG has not been willing to do so far.

I do like that our Prospect group has grown dramatically and we are not just trading them away like we have historically.  In 2 years we will be in this realm of having age correction close to being where we need it.  But only if we get them on the ice at the X and are willing to let the older players ride off into the sunset.

Age curves are a big sticking point between analytics and traditional player evaluation. There are lots of important skills not captured in the above aging curves related to stick handling, faceoffs, etc that don't come through well via xG models but hold strategic value. It also doesn't account for leadership and intangibles of course. 

Also, players age at different rates mainly due to injury. Athletes who stay healthy show very little signs of age until their mid-30's, but they fall off sooner when injured. Without injury data (the NHL is awful at disclosing injuries), these age curves are describing injury frequency as much as they are ability. They're still valuable to project into the future though! 

[Will D. Ness]

14 minutes ago, Justin Hein said:

Also, players age at different rates mainly due to injury. Athletes who stay healthy show very little signs of age until their mid-30's, but they fall off sooner when injured. Without injury data (the NHL is awful at disclosing injuries), these age curves are describing injury frequency as much as they are ability. They're still valuable to project into the future though! 

Yeah those age curves did look a little wonky.

[Pewterschmidt]

Do you smell what the Brock is cookin’?

[MacGyver]

We can analyze everything to death on numbers and age factor and yadda yadda yadda. There are other intangibles that are not measurable that are more important.  Human nature. The right chemistry from the top to the locker room. You have to have all the right players at the right time. The right coach and coaching staff and the right front office. One missing cog messes up the works. 

And you have to have that to a degree better than the other teams have it. You have to pick your head up from the graphs and charts once in awhile and look around at what is going on with the players and the organization as a whole. What's meshing and more importantly what's not. Sometimes we talk about these players as if they are droids or something. 

It's why the Stanley Cup is the most difficult trophy in all of professional sports to achieve.

Edited February 3 by MacGyver

[MNCountryLife]

16 hours ago, Justin Hein said:

Age curves are a big sticking point between analytics and traditional player evaluation. There are lots of important skills not captured in the above aging curves related to stick handling, faceoffs, etc that don't come through well via xG models but hold strategic value. It also doesn't account for leadership and intangibles of course. 

Also, players age at different rates mainly due to injury. Athletes who stay healthy show very little signs of age until their mid-30's, but they fall off sooner when injured. Without injury data (the NHL is awful at disclosing injuries), these age curves are describing injury frequency as much as they are ability. They're still valuable to project into the future though! 

Excellent points.  Wisdom for Energy... and Wisdom often wins more.  As you pointed out, injuries become more frequent with age as well which can be a major contributing factor to decline. 

It becomes a betting game.  Does the player take care of himself enough that you are willing to bet they stay healthy and productive... or is their style of play or lack of a healthy lifestyle going to contribute to a faster decrease in productivity.  Age always wins in the end.

[mnfaninnc]

I just can't see the huge numbers coming out of the ELC, but I guess that depends upon the contract specifics. The way the CBA is set up, a drafting team typically gets 6 years of cost controlled play from their player. It would seem to me that we would, essentially, be buying out 4 years of UFA status on the player. I could see those years being $9m, maybe even 10. But the cost controlled years would be less.

Let's say you signed him to an 8 year deal. What if the last 4 years were $10m, or $40m. I could see the 1st 4 being considerable lower, say $3m, 4m, 5m, 6m, or $18m. Could you see a contract around 8 years- $58m? I can't see that being signed, but I could see a bridge deal at 2 years $7m. 

What if that bumped up $1m each of the 1st 4 years? 8 @ $62m? I think that would be a tough deal to pass on for a 22 year old kid. It's got an element of home town discount, but also has some acknowledgement of room for growth. Personally, when it comes to these sort of deals, I always like to put some betting into the game. Incentives help players get more if they can, but also keeps them focused. I wouldn't mind seeing a contract where some incentives/bonus is also incorporated. I realize this is not the norm, but we are the State of Hockey, and should be proactive in changing the way things are done. 

What would incentives accomplish? Well, maybe a little skin in the game for the player not to take a year off. From what we've seen this season from the recently resigned players is a lack of urgency. That lack of urgency can come from a long contract that is fully guaranteed. Performance incentives which can include strength and weight specifications (you knew I'd figure out a way to get this in here) could help keep players sharp if they want the full value of the contract. A little carrot ahead of them can help the motivation!

[Justin Hein]

On 2/2/2024 at 5:15 PM, Pewterschmidt said:

Do you smell what the Brock is cookin’?

This is heat, I'm stealing this.