View Single Post
Old
09-15-2011, 10:55 PM
  #55
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
It's not about what has been earned.
Salaries are almost completely based on what a player has earned in a philosophical sense.

Quote:
It's about how much a team is willing to bet on a player outperforming his contract.
No it isn't. Considering there are two sides to every contract, its about the reasonable compensation for both parties for a particular service.

Quote:
If the Habs believe that buying out two of Subban's UFA years at 26 and 27 years old is worth a long term deal, it should cost them roughly 5.5m/yr. If not, they will agree on a shorter deal. It's about deciding what's the best move for the team going forward, not merit.
Two things:

First of all, the Habs will not believe that buying out two years of Subban's UFA years is worth a long term deal will most definitely not occur. The precedent has been set, many times before, that the Habs management believes in short-term earned contracts during RFA years, to both keep salary figures down, and give the player incentive to earn his pay day. Ryder, Higgins, Komisarek, O'Byrne, Andrei Kostitsyn, Price, the list goes on and on. This particularly applies to the initial contract after entry-level.

Secondly, "it should roughly cost them 5.5 million per year" is exactly the mentality that is fallacious, in that X player got this, so, Y player should get the same.

Quote:
Well, clearly we are talking about Myers. By these numbers, they had similar seasons, PK playing in slighter tougher situations.
But they are not comparable. Buffalo lacks a true elite level defensemen, which enables Myers to push for longer term and higher value because there is no cut off point.

Quote:
All this thread is assuming, is that if the Habs want to sign Subban long term, Myers' contract will set the bar for negotiations. If the Habs don't like it, they can offer a shorter deal.
And I am clearly stating that it makes relatively no difference. The bar is set between the Habs and Subban, not another defensemen on another team.

I am clearly stating that this assumption is flawed, if you haven't noticed yet. You can't just repeat it over and over again, and it becomes fact.

Your argument is as follows:

1. X player got $5.5 million dollars on a longer term deal as an RFA.
2. Y player is about to become a RFA next year.
3. X and Y player are the same.
4. Therefore, if Y player wants a long term deal, it will be $5.5 million dollars.

The problem with that argument, while logical, is premise 3 is incorrect.

Quote:
If that were true, teams would force all their RFA's to sign the lowest possible QO. What would be the downside? In reality, there is the potential for holding out, offer sheets, or sometimes going to Europe. The market still has some (not as much as with UFA's, of course) impact.
Like I said above, there is two sides to a contract, the key is determining a figure that is fit for both sides that is due compensation for their level of play.

Quote:
In this specific case, the Myers comp, what we are talking about is a long term contract that buys out UFA years. In this case, the player and agent, and therefore the market, have considerable power.
Why would the market have any power if the player is restricted for upwards of the next 5 years?

Quote:
If 22 year old players signed long term deals based on what teams decided they had "earned," you'd see every potential top talent signed to below market value contracts that took them into their thirties.
You have continued with the disconnect of a one sided contract argument, I am not going to repeat what I have said again.

Basically this contract is not indicative of what the Habs will ever sign for two basic reasons:

1) Buffalo's new owner has a tonne of cash flow in the present and is using that to hedge his profits for a later date. What I mean is that he is giving out bonuses, and front loaded contracts now, in order to keep payrolls down in later years. Myers, Leino, Ehrhoff, Sekera are all evidence of this. Buffalo is a low revenue team, by flowing cash into these contracts now, while he has them, they can be very profitable down the line if they are a successful club. These are strictly business moves, not based on traditional merit contracts.

2) Montreal does not have this problem; they have consistent and heavy revenue flow on a yearly basis. They do not need to hedge money to keep costs down in the future. Another example of this is Toronto. These kind of clubs do not rely on this tactic, because it essentially has no bearing on cap hits(which are becoming more inconsequential by each passing season), so they keep contracts short in RFA years because of their upper hand in negotiations, to keep their contracts down in those years. When a player has earned, and proven himself as a strong asset to the club, he is awarded with a longer contract, with a good market term, an example of this is Markov and Plekanec, and Price will probably be the next one. Subban, probably will see a short term contract of 2 or 3 years, similar to what Kostitsyn or Price got on their first non-entry level contracts.

Until you see the different strategies of different revenue capable teams in the league, you cannot differentiate between how contracts are awarded on a player by player basis.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote