HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Speculation: People need to start changing the way they look at contracts. (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1233589)

MarleauApologist 07-19-2012 11:09 PM

People need to start changing the way they look at contracts.
 
Just to be clear, this thread applies to non-budget teams; it does not apply to teams like Nashville or Columbus (Not insulting these teams; just two off the top of my head. The sharks also kind of budget but lately the owners have been spending up), but people still consider 7 million dollar contracts to be more than they considered 5 million dollar contracts when the cap was 5 million. I think a much more accurate way would be the percentage of the current cap hit to judge the proper value and how "good" or "bad" the contract is. Giving Alexander Syomin $6 million per year over two years is not that bad as it may have been 3 years ago. Now, the main issue with this, is that we can't judge what the cap will be in 5 years, so, when we see Weber's contract, it's not something we can judge; sure, it takes him to age 41, but will he be worth $7.8 million, or whatever it was, at his age of 41? What will 7.8 million be worth in 14 years? I feel that people look at contracts as far too black and white; we will not know whether the contract was good or not until 14 years from now, as until then, Weber's play will be changing back and forth. Yeah, we can make guesses, and obviously when we see something like Wolski for $600K, we know that is a good deal.

TLDR, contracts are not that easy to judge as they are made out to be, and people should be looking at percentage of cap hit, rather than the actual number, since about 70% of teams spend of up to the cap; the actual number is meaningless.

weezy2736 07-19-2012 11:16 PM

The problem with large multi-year contracts is that you never know where the cap will fall year to year. It has always risen since the lockout but that could very well change moving forward.

I feel like you are starting to tread into unchartable territory guessing on contracts like Weber's.

Pyromaniac3 07-19-2012 11:17 PM

I agree with all the things you have mentioned. Compare the percent of cap hit with respect to salary cap would factor in the annual increase of salary cap.

You do make a point that the cap could be really high in the future. Not sure I really like that. Just a question to fellow fans. Can the cap be fixed to some number for a 3-4 years?

Todds Chiropractory 07-19-2012 11:19 PM

Definitely. In 14 years a 7.8 million dollar contract could easily be viewed as a middle of the pack contract similar to what we view a 3-4 million contract today. Its all relative and even if their are changes made to the new CBA, looking long term the cap is only going to go up.

Crede777 07-19-2012 11:21 PM

Last year Columbus was spending a bunch on player salaries.

They are definitely not a low-budget team...

leaflover 07-20-2012 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyromaniac3 (Post 52743501)
I agree with all the things you have mentioned. Compare the percent of cap hit with respect to salary cap would factor in the annual increase of salary cap.

You do make a point that the cap could be really high in the future. Not sure I really like that. Just a question to fellow fans. Can the cap be fixed to some number for a 3-4 years?

I don't think either side (Owners/PA) would be willing to take that gamble.

Machinehead 07-20-2012 12:06 AM

Well if you ask HF everyone who signed a contract this year is overpaid. When it's literally every single contract, maybe it's the fans that are wrong, and not the GM's.

Sharksfan83 07-20-2012 12:09 AM

Simple inflation at 2.5% over 14 years, would bring the contract down to $5m todays money

PaperRockChamp 07-20-2012 12:13 AM

I'm not worried about the money part. I just don't want to see every player over 25 sign a 10-15 year contract. If the "Kovalchuk" rule isn't fixed, we're going to see our first 22 year contract in the next few years.

Bubba88 07-20-2012 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machinehead (Post 52744823)
Well if you ask HF everyone who signed a contract this year is overpaid. When it's literally every single contract, maybe it's the fans that are wrong, and not the GM's.

Not really. It's more that GMs need to overpay to get the player signed. Jagr for example went to the team that offered him the most. They need to overpay to get him.

That's how free agency works

GerbeSonOfGloin 07-20-2012 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weezy2736 (Post 52743473)
The problem with large multi-year contracts is that you never know where the cap will fall year to year. It has always risen since the lockout but that could very well change moving forward.

I feel like you are starting to tread into unchartable territory guessing on contracts like Weber's.

I can see that, but I think that the default assumption should be inflation and the erosion of value of dollar figures, because that's the natural trend in any healthy economy. I agree with the OP that a lot of people have developed a reflexive sticker-shock at certain numbers (the $7 million mark, the $5 million mark, etc.) There are many who keep pointing out that the cap has risen, that you have to overpay in UFA, etc. but it still doesn't seem to be enough.

Any free agent with medium-high talent seems to get at least $5 million these days. If you're demanding your GM be active in the summer FA pool, try to get used to these figures, and especially don't be a dick in other fanbases' signing threads when they sign a 2nd liner/2nd pairing dman to what is actually just the current going rate.

Krishna 07-20-2012 06:06 AM

I made a similar post a few weeks back

tony d 07-20-2012 08:26 AM

The money amount doesn't bother me but the contract length does. I really hope that the new CBA limits contracts to a maximum of 5 years.

HockeyGuruPitka 07-20-2012 08:38 AM

The amount of money doesnt bother me.

1. its cap circumvention to purposely front load a contract knowing the player wont play out the last few years. This in my eyes is cheating.

In my eyes, if the players and owners want these contracts then there needs to be a cap penalty imposed for evey year a player doesnt play of their contract. Their also needs to be a pay penalty for the player.

2. It eliminates competition and raises complacency and entitlement. Players lose their will to win. If a player knows hes going to retire on a contract, where is the urgency to win and prove himself and earn his next contract? Its like going to war, if a man knows hes got a family at home to feed and protect he will fight valiantly for his cause. If hes got nothing to fight for why would he fight?

3. It stagnates the league. If the league wants small market teams to succeed, then they need to eliminate these contracts. These teams who need to draft, and develop a star just to loose them to a destination market is unacceptable. These players are then locked up and taken off the market for the remainder of their career. "Destination" teams are in a possition to lock up and take away all of the star talents.

4. We've only just begun handing out these contracts. Wait until we start feeling the backlash on the backend of these contracts.

Revenue sharing doesnt need to go down it needs to stand put, however the contracts and contract lengths need to be cut down to a maximum of 6 years.

Force951 07-20-2012 08:41 AM

I don't think anyone has an issue with the cap hit of Weber's deal. The issue is the length, 14 years is a hella long time and so much can go wrong. Just look at the Lecavalier and Dipietro contracts.

massivegoonery 07-20-2012 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyGuruPitka (Post 52750967)
Revenue sharing doesnt need to go down it needs to stand put ...

If by "stand put" you mean "be massively increased," sure.

SeriousHabs 07-20-2012 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony d (Post 52750635)
The money amount doesn't bother me but the contract length does. I really hope that the new CBA limits contracts to a maximum of 5 years.

Why? The owners should be allowed to offer 100 year contracts if they feel like it. What they need to change is the way the cap is measured, or how the dollar amount per year changes. You shouldn't be able to reduce the cap significantly by adding bogus years. Maybe add a clause that contracts up the 40th birthday of a player can only be signed as 35+? Or any contract that brings a player past 35 cannot be removed from the cap.

I think that signing bonuses should count immediately against the cap, so BS like the Weber offer sheet would carry a $13M cap hit in the first 4-5 years.

There are better solutions than just limiting the lenght for no real reason. Why should the Pens be forced to face losing Crosby every 5 years?

Carl Carlson 07-20-2012 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyGuruPitka (Post 52750967)
The amount of money doesnt bother me.

1. its cap circumvention to purposely front load a contract knowing the player wont play out the last few years. This in my eyes is cheating.

In my eyes, if the players and owners want these contracts then there needs to be a cap penalty imposed for evey year a player doesnt play of their contract. Their also needs to be a pay penalty for the player.

2. It eliminates competition and raises complacency and entitlement. Players lose their will to win. If a player knows hes going to retire on a contract, where is the urgency to win and prove himself and earn his next contract? Its like going to war, if a man knows hes got a family at home to feed and protect he will fight valiantly for his cause. If hes got nothing to fight for why would he fight?

3. It stagnates the league. If the league wants small market teams to succeed, then they need to eliminate these contracts. These teams who need to draft, and develop a star just to loose them to a destination market is unacceptable. These players are then locked up and taken off the market for the remainder of their career. "Destination" teams are in a possition to lock up and take away all of the star talents.

4. We've only just begun handing out these contracts. Wait until we start feeling the backlash on the backend of these contracts.

Revenue sharing doesnt need to go down it needs to stand put, however the contracts and contract lengths need to be cut down to a maximum of 6 years.

That's the most interesting thing to me. A few of the GM's probably know that in 10 years they may not even be with the franchise anymore so why not take the risk and if it doesn't work its someone else's problem down the road.

SeriousHabs 07-20-2012 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force951 (Post 52751047)
I don't think anyone has an issue with the cap hit of Weber's deal. The issue is the length, 14 years is a hella long time and so much can go wrong. Just look at the Lecavalier and Dipietro contracts.

We don't care if it goes wrong. That is the Flyers problem, and we couldn't care less. What sucks is that the deal is really 10 years, with 4 random BS years added for the sole purpose of cheating down the cap.

Lonewolfe2015 07-20-2012 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharks for Cup (Post 52743239)
TLDR, contracts are not that easy to judge as they are made out to be, and people should be looking at percentage of cap hit, rather than the actual number, since about 70% of teams spend of up to the cap; the actual number is meaningless.

Why should we look at percentage of cap to compare them to older contracts, when older contracts were signed immediately after a period of no salary cap?

In September of 2002, Jose Theodore just came off a Hart & Vezina winning season, re-signed with Montreal for 16.5mil over 3 years.

In November of 2011, Pekka Rinne was in the midst of a Vezina nominating season and extending with Nashville for 49mil over 7 years.

There was no cap and Theodore still made less than Rinne did by a significant margin.

Summer of 2006, Jason Arnott signs with the Nashville Predators a 22.5mil over 5 years contract, this was a guy that scored 76 points the season before and everyone recognized his skills. During a cap of 44mil (aka, 10% hit, which translates to nearly 7mil now).

Summer of 2011, Brad Richards signs with the Rangers for 60mil over 9 years. Signing for more than 10% of the cap.

Point being, just because things have changed over time does not mean you can't rationalize the dollar figures players make without during them into chunks of spending room. Theodore had a better season than Rinne and made less money on a lower term, today he might have been signed to a Quick-like contract. Richards had a better season than Arnott and was younger, but he was signed to around the same percentage of cap hit that Arnott was.

What we as fans need to hope is that the league will slow their roll with the salary cap and start treating the excess revenue as a league-safety net. You can't simply toss all that additional revenue into player salaries and expect the league to maintain a linear growth-rate, we'll begin to lose smaller market teams pretty quickly and inflate contracts again.

As of now, there are appropriate dollar ranges which players will get, not cap ranges. If you're going to overpay someone in free agency, the 4-5mil mark is about right. If you're a step below 1st line or 1st pairing, then the 5-6 is right. If you're a top line or 1st pairing guy, #1 goalie, then you're able to make 6+ per year for awhile.

That's how we should look at contracts, that's what will help prevent overinflation of contracts for now.

Greg Schuler 07-20-2012 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyGuruPitka (Post 52750967)
The amount of money doesnt bother me.

1. its cap circumvention to purposely front load a contract knowing the player wont play out the last few years. This in my eyes is cheating. Well, you actually don't know what a player will do at the end of their career. They may or may not play out the contract, but the worth to the player is the money available to them now, not when they are 40.

In my eyes, if the players and owners want these contracts then there needs to be a cap penalty imposed for evey year a player doesnt play of their contract. Their also needs to be a pay penalty for the player.Try convincing the NHLPA of that pay penalty idea. See how far that goes.

2. It eliminates competition and raises complacency and entitlement. Players lose their will to win. If a player knows hes going to retire on a contract, where is the urgency to win and prove himself and earn his next contract? Its like going to war, if a man knows hes got a family at home to feed and protect he will fight valiantly for his cause. If hes got nothing to fight for why would he fight? You entirely projecting here. You simply have no idea if that is true or not. Is Zetterberg complacent or entitled? For every example you can provide, I can provide a counter-example. How many players over-perform a one-year deal truly? This is what bothers me the most - people assume players get fat, dumb and happy the minute they sign for long-term big money, and that is not always the case. In some cases, Dustin Penner, it was - but that was on a shorter deal, so are you proposing to ban all contracts longer than one year?

3. It stagnates the league. If the league wants small market teams to succeed, then they need to eliminate these contracts. These teams who need to draft, and develop a star just to loose them to a destination market is unacceptable. These players are then locked up and taken off the market for the remainder of their career. "Destination" teams are in a possition to lock up and take away all of the star talents.No they aren't - trades can and do happens. Dan Boyle signed a long term deal and has been traded. Same for Brian Campbell. Players will always seek good teams and organizations. Detroit, in and of itself, is not a preferrable destination, but Mike Illitch made it one for players (until this year, it seems). In fact, it doesn't stagnate the league, since it does require teams look for that balancing contract, either an ELC or shorter veteran deal. Drafting and development are as important now than ever. Free agency is a right, by the way, collectively bargained and upheld, for the players.

4. We've only just begun handing out these contracts. Wait until we start feeling the backlash on the backend of these contracts. In what way? Most of the contracts are cheap by the cash wise and if a player retires, the cap hit goes away. More than likely, teams would stash a player on LITR or simply boot them to the minors or something. What impact, aside from cash outflow, would the backend of the contract have? Cap space is easily recovered if the team wants.

Revenue sharing doesnt need to go down it needs to stand put, however the contracts and contract lengths need to be cut down to a maximum of 6 years.The NHLPA would argue restraint of trade and see how long that would last in the next CBA negotiations. Fehr, in fact, is as opposed to any salary cap as any PA head out there, so he's probably looking for that kind of fight. The NBA has contract limits, and look what their free agency is like - players move every few years and only the true stars actually stay with the team with max contract after max contract.

I don't see anything wrong with contract term or value - it's a negotiation, nothing more. Players want to get paid and owners have to pay them.

Bill Ladd 07-20-2012 09:36 AM

I agree.

Every year it's the same silly song and dance. "Oh wow, what a terrible contract. Glad my team didn't sign him. I just can't believe the contracts being given out..."

The cap goes up. Contracts go up. It's called inflation.

And that contract you're so "glad" you didn't hand out, now affects every player on your team and will be used as a comparable by agents and arbiters. It's just a matter of time before it comes back around.

SoupNazi 07-20-2012 09:37 AM

I think if the new CBA raises UFA age, offer sheets are going to become much more common than they are today. Even middle of the pack players will probably have an OS or two thrown at them.

Mathradio 07-20-2012 11:39 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that the salary held in escrow during the regular season is gradually repaid in the playoffs (for the players on playoff teams) so I assume that players still has some financial incentive to go deep into the playoffs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyGuruPitka (Post 52750967)
The amount of money doesnt bother me.

1. its cap circumvention to purposely front load a contract knowing the player wont play out the last few years. This in my eyes is cheating.

In my eyes, if the players and owners want these contracts then there needs to be a cap penalty imposed for evey year a player doesnt play of their contract. Their also needs to be a pay penalty for the player.

2. It eliminates competition and raises complacency and entitlement. Players lose their will to win. If a player knows hes going to retire on a contract, where is the urgency to win and prove himself and earn his next contract? Its like going to war, if a man knows hes got a family at home to feed and protect he will fight valiantly for his cause. If hes got nothing to fight for why would he fight?

3. It stagnates the league. If the league wants small market teams to succeed, then they need to eliminate these contracts. These teams who need to draft, and develop a star just to loose them to a destination market is unacceptable. These players are then locked up and taken off the market for the remainder of their career. "Destination" teams are in a possition to lock up and take away all of the star talents.

4. We've only just begun handing out these contracts. Wait until we start feeling the backlash on the backend of these contracts.

Revenue sharing doesnt need to go down it needs to stand put, however the contracts and contract lengths need to be cut down to a maximum of 6 years.

There are those players who feel that they must play their best after going through the motions of getting a long-term, even retirement, contract done, rather than to play their best on a contract year. Those players usually are consistent from season to season.

If you've got an entire league-load of players who know they will retire on a contract, you're back to square one.

Doug19 07-20-2012 12:04 PM

When you open up your statement by stating this doesn't apply to budget teams and then list a team that spent 60 million last year, the rest of your post kind of just doesn't matter at that point. Also the numbers are still relevant. Owners didn't get rich by wasting money, I can bet that there isn't an owner out there that would be happy paying someone 5 million per year to not perform or even play in the minors.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.