If you really believe that the agents for both players hadn't discussed their worth with other teams, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Seriously, how many FA's did Tampa Bay attract coming off their last place finish? They added a ton of guys-the Flyers had the cap room to outspend just about everyone else in the league, to boot.
ok time to go into the time machine to July 2007.
Flyers sign
Danny Briere
Kimmo Timonen
Scott Hartnell
Right, but those moves didn't problematize signing Richards, Carter, etc. Those guys are signed. The deals that have caused problems are the Jones contracts...and for all that Matt Carle has shown improvements this year, his contract is a bit rich.
So, when they originally made those moves...they were fine within the context of when they happened--this is when hindsight analysis can get dangerous. The problems developed when they didn't react to the new situation they had created with those contracts in subsequent decisions.
I don't know, I think it is possible the contracts did problematize signing them because had he re-signed Richards and Carter that summer instead he likely would have locked them into favorable rates. Look at the absolute steal Parise was signed for and he was better than either of them at the time, IMO. It seemed like their deals followed by Richards forced Holmgren to wait to sign Carter when he become restricted and the Flyers ended up with a less than favorable deal for Carter. It's not terrible, but they were forced to pay market value without the benefit of getting to buy out free agent years at a favorable rate.
I also think Richards' deal was completely unnecessary. It's not bad, but it was unnecessary to sign him to a franchise contract when he hadn't even played to a franchise level for a full season. Had he signed him to a bit more modest deal they might not have been up against it as badly.
Contracts like Jones are problematic, but Holmgren hasn't been able to sign anyone to contracts that are favorable under the cap. Everyone is at market value or completely overpaid. There's no one really out performing their contracts that aren't entry level deals.
I don't know, I think it is possible the contracts did problematize signing them because had he re-signed Richards and Carter that summer instead he likely would have locked them into favorable rates. Look at the absolute steal Parise was signed for and he was better than either of them at the time, IMO. It seemed like their deals followed by Richards forced Holmgren to wait to sign Carter when he become restricted and the Flyers ended up with a less than favorable deal for Carter. It's not terrible, but they were forced to pay market value without the benefit of getting to buy out free agent years at a favorable rate.
I also think Richards' deal was completely unnecessary. It's not bad, but it was unnecessary to sign him to a franchise contract when he hadn't even played to a franchise level for a full season. Had he signed him to a bit more modest deal they might not have been up against it as badly.
Contracts like Jones are problematic, but Holmgren hasn't been able to sign anyone to contracts that are favorable under the cap. Everyone is at market value or completely overpaid. There's no one really out performing their contracts that aren't entry level deals.
When Parise signs his next contract, there's a very real chance you're going to absolutely love Richards' deal. And for all that, they got a 46 goal season out of Carter...making his deal per year well below market for that last season.
I think it's dumb to sign these 30+ guys to absurd contracts, but if you can lock in a good player in their early 20s through their early 30s for a good cap hit...it's a great deal.
The 4 day old argument was whether or not free agents could be attracted to a last place team-not that they would be great signings.
Ryan Malone is a bigger coup than Scott "Walter" Hartnell.
As a 29 y/o UFA? No he wasn't. Good signing, but he wasn't a bigger coup.
And the argument wasn't whether teams could attract UFAs, but whether they could land the marquee UFAs of that particular offseason. You're kidding yourself if Malone, Recchi, and Kolzig represented the marquee guys of that offseason.
I mean seriously:
Timonen, Briere, and Hartnell v. Malone, Recchi, and Kolzig?
As a 29 y/o UFA? No he wasn't. Good signing, but he wasn't a bigger coup.
And the argument wasn't whether teams could attract UFAs, but whether they could land the marquee UFAs of that particular offseason. You're kidding yourself if Malone, Recchi, and Kolzig represented the marquee guys of that offseason.
I mean seriously:
Timonen, Briere, and Hartnell v. Malone, Recchi, and Kolzig?
There's also the fact that Tampa Bay was and is a cash strapped team that can't afford to hand out 3 contracts on par with what the Flyers did.
Hell the only reason Vinny got paid there was because if they lost him, they'd lose a ton fo their fanbase.
If you can throw enough cash around, which the Flyers could you can attract good FAs to a bad team. In the cases of Hartnell and Timonen, I guarantee their agents had talked to teams and knew the ballpark of the offers they get as UFAs. I'll also go out on a limb and say that the Flyers were told of that ballpark and knew they had to be in it to sign them.
There's also the fact that Tampa Bay was and is a cash strapped team that can't afford to hand out 3 contracts on par with what the Flyers did.
Hell the only reason Vinny got paid there was because if they lost him, they'd lose a ton fo their fanbase.
If you can throw enough cash around, which the Flyers could you can attract good FAs to a bad team.
...so the story is changing. Fact of the matter is that we're seeing what happens when you're a good team with the Phils as we speak: players want to sign with you. It remains a massive leap to assume that the Flyers would have had the success they did in signing both Timonen and Hartnell (not to mention Briere) without cutting that deal, for what was an OK-value draft pick.
Look, I understand the logic of saying, "I would rather not have given up the pick and taken my chances." That's fine...but at the same time you have to accept that you're taking on a significant dose of risk by allowing them to be negotiating on the open market. It is ALWAYS easier to close the deal when you're the only person on the phone.
Quote:
In the cases of Hartnell and Timonen, I guarantee their agents had talked to teams and knew the ballpark of the offers they get as UFAs. I'll also go out on a limb and say that the Flyers were told of that ballpark and knew they had to be in it to sign them.
I'm sure they had backdoor conversations...but don't fall into the Eklund trap of assuming that those conversations aren't loaded with five garbage trucks of BS. Teams have every reason to BS agents before the clock strikes July 1st, just as agents have every reason to BS teams. What you think you know is just that, what you "think" you know. After that deal what did the agents/players know? The Flyers were offering $X over Y years...that work for you?
Sure...they can say no and go to the open market, but we've seen just as many players have their value diminish on the open market as increase, which they need to factor in.
...so the story is changing. Fact of the matter is that we're seeing what happens when you're a good team with the Phils as we speak: players want to sign with you. It remains a massive leap to assume that the Flyers would have had the success they did in signing both Timonen and Hartnell (not to mention Briere) without cutting that deal, for what was an OK-value draft pick.
Look, I understand the logic of saying, "I would rather not have given up the pick and taken my chances." That's fine...but at the same time you have to accept that you're taking on a significant dose of risk by allowing them to be negotiating on the open market. It is ALWAYS easier to close the deal when you're the only person on the phone.
I'm sure they had backdoor conversations...but don't fall into the Eklund trap of assuming that those conversations aren't loaded with five garbage trucks of BS. Teams have every reason to BS agents before the clock strikes July 1st, just as agents have every reason to BS teams. What you think you know is just that, what you "think" you know. After that deal what did the agents/players know? The Flyers were offering $X over Y years...that work for you?
Sure...they can say no and go to the open market, but we've seen just as many players have their value diminish on the open market as increase, which they need to factor in.
I'm not saying that good teams don't have an easier time of signing guys than bad teams. There's no doubt about that.
I also don't necesarrily have a big issue in dealing the pick, since somebody else posted about another team being willing to discuss trading for the negotiating rights-Think it was Edmonton-so in that case, yeah, you send the pick over.
As for the "Eklund" stuff, I think a good deal of talking goes on prior to the start of free agency. It takes weeks for guys to hammer out deals when they're restricted or if they're coming up on UFA...and on July 1st guys are signing 19 minutes into the frenzy.
As for the "Eklund" stuff, I think a good deal of talking goes on prior to the start of free agency. It takes weeks for guys to hammer out deals when they're restricted or if they're coming up on UFA...and on July 1st guys are signing 19 minutes into the frenzy.
I'm sure it does, but that's ignoring the point that I'm making...until you have an actual contract offer from someone...it's talk, and talk is cheap. So, you're an agent and Team A is telling you that, yeah, they'd be willing to give your guys some contract. But then July 1st rolls around and that team snags some other player and tells you that they don't have the money for your client anymore.
Now what?
Those conversations amount to HS gossip. Some truth to it all? Yeah. Much substance to it? No. And an agent with a clue knows that, which is why getting negotiating rights prior to July 1st has legitimate value. Because you can put a contract in front of someone and make them make a decision between a known thing, and an unknown thing...and when you're messing around with millions of dollars, the thing you can sign today looks pretty damn good.
When Parise signs his next contract, there's a very real chance you're going to absolutely love Richards' deal. And for all that, they got a 46 goal season out of Carter...making his deal per year well below market for that last season.
I think it's dumb to sign these 30+ guys to absurd contracts, but if you can lock in a good player in their early 20s through their early 30s for a good cap hit...it's a great deal.
I absolutely agree about Parise's next deal, but his current deal has helped their current cap situation tremendously so it's not like it isn't worth it.
Richards' deal with be an absolute bargain over the course of it assuming he stays healthy and productive, but that is a big if since health is never guaranteed. His deal is not without risk.
Personally I'd rather see more Parise type deals. Yes, there will come a day where he will see a big increase in pay, but I think it's worth it to have wiggle room under the cap and to avoid being locked into so many long term contracts at once.
I absolutely agree about Parise's next deal, but his current deal has helped their current cap situation tremendously so it's not like it isn't worth it.
Richards' deal with be an absolute bargain over the course of it assuming he stays healthy and productive, but that is a big if since health is never guaranteed. His deal is not without risk.
Personally I'd rather see more Parise type deals. Yes, there will come a day where he will see a big increase in pay, but I think it's worth it to have wiggle room under the cap and to avoid being locked into so many long term contracts at once.
I agree concerning the prevalence...but when you're talking about a player like Richards, I don't have a problem with it. I like that it is going to create organizational stability on a host of grounds, not the least of which being team identity in the form of their captain (there are issues here, but for the sake of simplicity).
There are other examples where teams have gone that route just for the cap adjustment and not so much all those other intangibles, which I think justify those types of deals.
it wouldnt surprise me to learn that somewhere in those "kaberle for carter and a first" discussions there wasnt mention of a qualifying offer to carter. after richards' deal it seemed like carter and umburger would be making less and both would fit nicely under the cap. then when carter started turning things around his price became so high they couldnt afford umberger. after losing umberger after a breakout playoff they signed lupul to a deal in advance and overpaid for fear of him acually fulfilling his potential and costing them more. i just dont think homer appreciated the culture shift that followed the change in rfa compensation. unrestricted guys were known to cash in but most rfas were never in danger of leaving and i think the allocation of cap money was still based around that mindest. the big money was set to go to the veterans and big free agent acquisitions pyramid style and the new market dictated something different.
instead of
cheap
moderate
expensive
it now goes
cheap
expensive
moderate
im not saying carter is overpaid or that he isnt worth every dime he gets simply that i dont think holmgren was prepared for what he was going to cost. keep in mind that hartnell was unrestricted and richards deal was kind of significant also in the fact that his number right around 5 million was sort of the flyers guy salary post leclair. gagne, primeau forsberg all at or near that number.
