James Tanner: The Problem with the Colton Sissons Contract

Did the rest of the hot stove quit? Or is this the new Garth's corner?

Probably only be 5 bloggers left on this site by the time next season starts.

A lot of Preds fans love this contract, but they're a bit biased since Sissons has been a reliable homegrown player. I don't mind the money, and I like the player, but I always question giving any kind of term to a depth player. I know this is going to sound weird but I think this contract is part David being a bit too old school, and part trying to compensate for some of the horrible trades and contracts he's given out recently. Poile's made his hay off of one-for-one trades and signing good young players to long term deals that are relatively cap friendly. He didn't have any difference makers like a younger Josi or Arvy to resign like he's had in the past, so he settled for Sissons, probably hoping he turns into something he's not, and then Poile looks like a genius for wrapping him up long term. I wouldn't be surprised to see Sissons playing with Granlund and Duchene at some point next year to try and get the most out of him. Poile's a good GM, but he's never been above using smoke and mirrors at times to help build his reputation.

Sucks when you can’t wait for your own team to fail, just to say....I told you so.

Sucks when you can’t wait for your own team to fail, just to say....I told you so.



- Garnie

I don't understand what this means

"But NHL players who don't score don't get paid.

And they usually don't get term."

See: Brandon Tanev

Sissons deal is actually really good by comparison. No M-NTC, either.

"But NHL players who don't score don't get paid.

And they usually don't get term."

See: Brandon Tanev

Sissons deal is actually really good by comparison. No M-NTC, either.
- Hockey66

Both contracts are garbage. These players - or their rough equivalents - are available for free every single summer at the league minimum.

They could have elected to replace Sissons with a replacement league minimum guy, retained an extra two million on the PK deal and got a better player in that trade.

Idiots who think all you need is 2 lines of star players and the 3rd and 4th line can just be revolving doors with guys at league minimum or ELC's

Rosters benefit from stability, whether that be at 1C, Top pairing D, In goal, or even in the bottom 6

2.8 million for an all around solid player, who's young enough to risk term and has the trust of the coaching staff to play in multiple situations isn't an overpay - That's the going rate for guys who know how to play at the NHL level

Old guys just hanging on or young ELC players are the exception, not the rule. You aren't going to find a new 6 of them every season to play in your bottom 6 that mesh together and that your coaching staff will trust

James Tanner: The Problem with the Colton Sissons Contract
- James_Tanner

Word on the street is that you're gonna blog for another team next season...?

A lot of Preds fans love this contract, but they're a bit biased since Sissons has been a reliable homegrown player. I don't mind the money, and I like the player, but I always question giving any kind of term to a depth player. I know this is going to sound weird but I think this contract is part David being a bit too old school, and part trying to compensate for some of the horrible trades and contracts he's given out recently. Poile's made his hay off of one-for-one trades and signing good young players to long term deals that are relatively cap friendly. He didn't have any difference makers like a younger Josi or Arvy to resign like he's had in the past, so he settled for Sissons, probably hoping he turns into something he's not, and then Poile looks like a genius for wrapping him up long term. I wouldn't be surprised to see Sissons playing with Granlund and Duchene at some point next year to try and get the most out of him. Poile's a good GM, but he's never been above using smoke and mirrors at times to help build his reputation.
- Squatchy

The thing about term is that it doesn't matter

Teams are always playing for NEXT season. NEXT season is all that you have to worry or think about. That contract could be 15 years and it would have zero effect on NEXT season

If this contract is a problem in 4 or 5 years, then deal with it then. The Preds could be in a massive rebuild and the contract won't matter. Or the cap could be 100 million and 2.8 is chump change, or maybe it gets dumped on a bottom feeder in a rebuild with a 3rd attached to it. Who cares?

For NEXT season, Scissons at 2.8 is decent value. He's a homegrown talent coming off a good year that the coach and the GM trust. Go with that

It's always tough when you have a good bottom six/character guy, that needs to be signed. $ are fine, but there are always players available every year who can out up same amt of points and who are younger and available cheaper. Contract would have been fine for a few years, but will be regretted towards 2nd half of term

Definitely agree that $$ should be spent on top line guys, and plug and fill the bottom 6 every couple years as contracts come to end. Always dangerous falling in love with replaceable players.

So when Chayka signs guys like Chychrun, Dvorak, and Schmaltz to long-term deals at inflated cap hits...Tanner's rebuttal is this is a genius move. He's betting on his own players. It's overpriced now, but if they keep developing, then these will all turn out to be a steal. Like Schmaltz could be a 90+ point player making $5.85M which is pure genius.

But now that another GM does the exact same thing, Tanner criticizes it because, well, Scissons isn't that good and won't improve to the point that this contract looks like a steal.

Hmm, so now its just some widely accepted truth that Scissons won't improve enough to justify this contract...but Chychrun, Dvorak, and Schmaltz will. How convenient! And if you don't agree with Tanner on this, well then prepare for a condescending reply...

So when Chayka signs guys like Chychrun, Dvorak, and Schmaltz to long-term deals at inflated cap hits...Tanner's rebuttal is this is a genius move. He's betting on his own players. It's overpriced now, but if they keep developing, then these will all turn out to be a steal. Like Schmaltz could be a 90+ point player making $5.85M which is pure genius.

But now that another GM does the exact same thing, Tanner criticizes it because, well, Scissons isn't that good and won't improve to the point that this contract looks like a steal.

Hmm, so now its just some widely accepted truth that Scissons won't improve enough to justify this contract...but Chychrun, Dvorak, and Schmaltz will. How convenient! And if you don't agree with Tanner on this, well then prepare for a condescending reply...
- uofcguy

Schmaltz > McKinnon

If Tanner says it's a bad deal then I assure you it's a good deal.

James Tanner doesnt ever know what he is talking about. If I noticed he wrote it I wouldn't have even given him the click bait

Hockey is not for you, take up blogging about figure skating or ringette it is more your speed. That is a great contract.

Hockey is not for you, take up blogging about figure skating or ringette it is more your speed. That is a great contract.
- oiler993111

I don't normally agree with Tanner, but he might be right....lol

$$ is reasonable enough that if it doesn't work out it won't be too prohibitive. At 2.8 mill it's totally worth taking the chance, especially taking cap increases over the years. If he continues to improve it's a steal..if not than it's still probably because worth it.

Ok, Ok, I guess I don't agree with Jimmy

Yep dumb contract

So when Chayka signs guys like Chychrun, Dvorak, and Schmaltz to long-term deals at inflated cap hits...Tanner's rebuttal is this is a genius move. He's betting on his own players. It's overpriced now, but if they keep developing, then these will all turn out to be a steal. Like Schmaltz could be a 90+ point player making $5.85M which is pure genius.

But now that another GM does the exact same thing, Tanner criticizes it because, well, Scissons isn't that good and won't improve to the point that this contract looks like a steal.

Hmm, so now its just some widely accepted truth that Scissons won't improve enough to justify this contract...but Chychrun, Dvorak, and Schmaltz will. How convenient! And if you don't agree with Tanner on this, well then prepare for a condescending reply...
- uofcguy

The difference seems to be in projecting odds of getting a star player? If, what he says is true, than the Arizona signings could be huge. And if, what he says about Sissons limitations are true, then this contract is merely ok...and a bit long.

The thing is...ok contracts are ok. I don’t see how this is a bad deal

Even if he stays basically the same player for the 7 years by year 4 this contract will be looked at as a bargain.

This is also the type of contract that you attach a 3rd to and use to sell as protections for another player on your roster come time for Seattle’s Expansion Draft to come a knocking...

I find it hard to believe that you wrote this blog.

Your blogs are normally worse than garbage.

This is another example where the blogger has to learn another hard lesson that the hockey world does not revolve around analytics. Although we all know that he won't. It revolves around winning, or trying to win. Those two don't always collide. In the salary cap game, you sometimes have to give a player something in return for helping you out. There is no doubt that giving a player like Sissons that much term is a risk but it's a risk that they want to take to keep the cap hit down. NHL GM's in the situation that Poile is in, know they need to win now or they won't be around in 3 years, let alone 7. A bottom 6 player who can chip in offense and play well away from the puck is a valuable player. Hockey is not just bout the elite players. It takes a team and a full complement of players along with some good fortune to win the Cup.

Both contracts are garbage. These players - or their rough equivalents - are available for free every single summer at the league minimum.

They could have elected to replace Sissons with a replacement league minimum guy, retained an extra two million on the PK deal and got a better player in that trade.
- James_Tanner

The question begs that if that is true, they why didn't they? What do they know that you don't? All you've done is look at flawed statistics and made a judgement from afar. I doubt you even watched the player play much. An NHL team made a judgement on a player that they watch and coach. They have their own internal stats which I assure you are a lot better than what you're using. I don't agree with the term of the deal but I disagree with your description of the player.

James Tanner: The Problem with the Colton Sissons Contract
- James_Tanner

But how do you feel about the US locking in Donald Trump for another four years?