Jump to content
Hockey Wilderness
  • Will Brock Faber's Contract Have the Upside Of Matt Boldy's?


    Image courtesy of Nick Wosika-USA TODAY Sports
    Tony Abbott

    On Tuesday, The Athletic's Dom Luszczyszyn released his annual list of the 10 most valuable contracts in the NHL. The list included a solid mix of the best players in the NHL (Nathan MacKinnon, Quinn Hughes, Adam Fox, Matthew Tkachuk), underrated players signed to cheap long-term deals (Gustav Forsling, Josh Morrissey), and players who are somehow both (Jack Hughes).

    And at the tail end of the list, right at No. 10, sat the Minnesota Wild's Beautiful Boston Boy, Matt Boldy

    Boldy, a.k.a. "Mr. 49 Sheets," just completed the first year of his seven-year, $49 million contract, which bought out his first three seasons of free agency. During that season, Boldy scored 29 goals and a career-high 69 points and is poised to get even better. Luszczyszyn's model had Boldy's worth being $8.2 million last season and projects him to average $11 million of value for the next six years. All told, the Wild can expect to get $25 million of surplus value on a dirt-cheap $7 million AAV contract.

    That's a perfect deal, one that Bill Guerin no doubt hopes to repeat with Brock Faber, who is eligible for an extension this season. The Calder Trophy runner-up has a ton of negotiation power on his side, with a 47-point rookie season that was beyond anyone's wildest dreams. You wanna talk about surplus value? Even with a second-half rib injury that sapped his play-driving ability, Faber's season was worth $6.2 million on a $925K entry-level deal.

    Faber has one more year on his ELC, but after that, number go up. Evolving-Hockey's contract projections peg a Faber extension as seven years with a cap hit of around $7.1 million. A maximum eight-year extension is expected to land at a $7.7 AAV. The Athletic has speculated that he could receive as much as $9 million annually.

    The higher Faber's number comes in, the higher the bar for how well he has to play to get real surplus value out of the contract. Maybe there's nothing wrong with paying Faber sticker price in a vacuum. Still, with the Wild's tendency to overpay by a million here and there with depth players, the key to keeping Minnesota competitive will be getting some surplus value robberies at the top of their lineup.

    Boldy's contract is one such deal, but what would Faber need to do to make his next contract a similar steal? Is it possible?

    We'll use $9 million -- the high end of Faber's predicted extension -- as the baseline for our AAV. After spending the entire day crunching the numbers, Hockey Wilderness found that over eight years, Faber would need to produce $10 million of value to recoup even $1 million of surplus value per season. 

    Looking through Luszczyszyn's Player Cards from last year, we find that 21 defensemen could deliver $10 million of value to their teams last season. Back-of-the-napkin math suggests Faber must be a top-20-ish defenseman (around where Charlie McAvoy, Victor Hedman, or Aaron Ekblad were last year) to produce meaningful surplus. Another nine players occupied that $9 to $9.99 million value zone, meaning if Faber dips below the top-30 league-wide, he's probably overpaid.

    And remember, that top-20 threshold is just to deliver Minnesota $8 million of surplus value over the life of an eight-year deal. That's less than a third of the surplus value that Boldy is projected to generate over seven years. To get in Boldy's neighborhood of upside, Faber would have to be around a top-10 defenseman. Drew Doughty was 10th among NHL defensemen, giving his team $12 million of value. That consistent, top-10 play would earn Minnesota $24 million of surplus value over the life of Faber's hypothetical deal.

    So either the Wild will need Faber to be a top-10 defenseman to get major value, or they will have to push the AAV down. Something in line with Evolving-Hockey's eight-year projection would add $1.3 million of surplus per season. Over eight seasons with a $7.7 AAV, a top-20 version of Faber would instead generate $18.4 million in surplus value, which is much more in line with Boldy.

    Looking at Evolving-Hockey's Standings Points Above Replacement, Faber sat in a tie for 33rd among defensemen, adding 3.4 points in the standings to Minnesota. That's a pretty good indication that Faber is worth the long-term investment. Even a $9 million contract would be about right if Faber just hovers in that top-30 zone.

    But there's a big difference between investing properly in these young players and finding a major steal. The $4 million of extra value Minnesota is projected to get from Boldy annually is a cushion for injuries, decline, and overpaying elsewhere. In a salary-cap league, maximizing value becomes crucial for contending teams. With the Wild potentially giving themselves less margin for error going forward with recent extensions, it's crucial to give themselves plenty of room for upside on Faber's next deal.

    Think you could write a story like this? Hockey Wilderness wants you to develop your voice, find an audience, and we'll pay you to do it. Just fill out this form.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    It looks like the consensus is that should a longterm deal present itself for Rossi, 8 X $5m seems to be the number. I could be comfortable with that assuming that Rossi has put in another big summer physically. I have no problems with his height, but making him a little bowling ball, I think, would be a type of center that's valuable. 

    Interestingly, I started listening to NFL radio on a road trip. Pat and Jim's show, they were previewing the running back positions. There are a lot of short running backs in NFL rooms. But, I was consistently hearing numbers like 5'9" 215. I would say that these men are also professional athletes, and a running back is as close to a skater as the game gets. How is it that these running backs have bulked up to 215, and our hockey players are sitting on 190? Running backs need acceleration and flexibility. Their "edges" are cuts and cutbacks and they do this very violently. 

    It would seem to me that our shorter guys have some more room for growth. I'm not suggesting they get to 215, but I don't think it is unreasonable for them to be approaching 200. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, B1GKappa97 said:

    Next year, maybe, but this year I doubt Spurgy is going anywhere. 

    I thought we were talking at the TDL, not now. Right now, Spurgeon's got to prove he can still play and take a hit. If not, we're going to have to LTIR him. 

    From a perspective of "home," it is my belief that Spurgeon has completely moved into the Twin Cities area and now considers it home. Is this indeed the case? If so, it would seem to me that an LTIR deal here would make the most sense, though somewhere else he likely doesn't have to move.

    So, think about this: Faber is still on an ELC this season. But, if we have to LTIR Spurgeon, Faber's money on an extension could mirror what Spurgeon is making and we could go out and get another $7.5m player. This really only works if Spurgeon is completely broken. Perhaps he heals up for a Stanley Cup run only to be put on LTIR again the following year? 

    Here's what I don't like about how Shooter thinks: He is not creative in this type of thinking. He is a straight forward guy who only sees the front door. He'll make handshake deals in the living room, but he completely ignores the side and back doors which are in the gray areas of the rules. I know we got burned on this in the Parise and Suter deals, but it seems to me that we are leaving some potential benefits on the table because of a lack of creativity. Just for evidence, it has been very hard for Guerin to even use LTIR as a benefit, and he needs a sidekick who knows the ins and outs of this rule.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    15 minutes ago, mnfaninnc said:

    It looks like the consensus is that should a longterm deal present itself for Rossi, 8 X $5m seems to be the number. I could be comfortable with that assuming that Rossi has put in another big summer physically. I have no problems with his height, but making him a little bowling ball, I think, would be a type of center that's valuable. 

    Interestingly, I started listening to NFL radio on a road trip. Pat and Jim's show, they were previewing the running back positions. There are a lot of short running backs in NFL rooms. But, I was consistently hearing numbers like 5'9" 215. I would say that these men are also professional athletes, and a running back is as close to a skater as the game gets. How is it that these running backs have bulked up to 215, and our hockey players are sitting on 190? Running backs need acceleration and flexibility. Their "edges" are cuts and cutbacks and they do this very violently. 

    It would seem to me that our shorter guys have some more room for growth. I'm not suggesting they get to 215, but I don't think it is unreasonable for them to be approaching 200. 

    Skates vs cleats are not apples to apples.  Acceleration with cleats on turf vs skates on ice seems to be much harder proportionally with weight for hockey players.  Also, higher momentum could limit maneuverability to a point that it optimizes around a lower mass.

    My layman's guess is right around 200 lbs like you are thinking too, although shorter guys with a lower center of gravity might push it on the maneuverability side but lose it on the acceleration?

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, B1GKappa97 said:

    You're setting yourself up for disappointment if you're expecting Spurgy to get traded this season. There is absolutely no reason to rush that. 

    Once Zeev shows up and establishes that, yes, he is prepared to play at this level THEN you can comfortably trade off Spurgy. Until then, there's no reason to kick him out. 

    Can get 2 really good players for his 7.5mm salary.  His trade value will be zero but we need the money to use on other players that can help us more

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    As far as bonuses, it depends.  I know I've read about a couple situations where performance bonuses do go against the cap, but if it would put them over, the team was able to elect to defer it to next year's salary cap instead.

    Regarding Spurgeon, there is very, very little chance another team wants to take on the rest of his contract unless we really make it worth their while or we take on their boat anchor contract as part of the deal.  I recall talks of the Islanders being interested in Praise, but they always wanted us to take on Ladd's contract in return. 

    With our defensive prospects still at the point where they have a hard time even displacing Merrill in the lineup, it does not make sense to part ways with Spurgeon just yet.  I said in another post that they likely hold onto him for a couple more years and look to trade him when he is in his last year.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    My advice is don't sign and become a free agent. The same goes for Krill and Rossi. You guys can always sign back with the wild as a  free agent

     You can't trust Blunder Billy

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, mnhockeyfan03 said:

    Can get 2 really good players for his 7.5mm salary.  His trade value will be zero but we need the money to use on other players that can help us more

    More like 1 and a scrub if we're hitting UFA with it. 

    But yes, I agree, his cap space is enticing. I just don't think its prudent to trade him off this year, at all. The blue-line didn't look as good without him last year. At some point we'll have somebody that can help us still play well sans Spurgy (coughZEEVcough) but the roster isn't at that point yet. 

    And I can't imagine there are too many takers for a guy his size coming off an injury plagued year. We'd be selling low. Maybe even paying a team to take his cap. 

    I don't think that's in the cards this year at all is my main point. Short of Chisholm turning into a top-pair stud and one of the AHL guys looking ready to take his place on the roster, it doesn't make much sense to weaken the team for cap-space with where we are in the season. At this point, its essentially useless and we can accumulate a good amount of that back by the TDL if we stay healthy. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 7/19/2024 at 10:03 AM, B1GKappa97 said:

    I have and its just a top-heavy team with bad defense. Having Fifi means no Faber, which means only Middsy and Brodin as top-4 quality defensemen last year. 

    I'd have rather kept Nyquist over Johansson, hands down, but its not like either is a long-term solution for the top-6. 

    Good points.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...