View Single Post
07-19-2012, 11:09 PM
fun must be alwalys
MarleauApologist's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,512
vCash: 500
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.

MarleauApologist is offline   Reply With Quote