HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

We need to start front loading contracts!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-16-2010, 12:04 PM
  #1
strutsboa
Registered User
 
strutsboa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: Sweden
Posts: 839
vCash: 500
We need to start front loading contracts!

I hope that Gauthier will start to sign front loaded contracts in the future, because I think it's a very good weapon in the cap-world we live in.

If Hamrlik's contract was front loaded and he would be making ex. $2M next year, he would be easy to move to a team who isn't up against the cap. The poor teams doesn't care about the cap, they only care about the salary.

Next year (or this year?), we might want to deal with Spacek, that would also be way easier if it was front loaded.

The same might be for Gionta if he starts to decline in a few years.

Why didn't Gainey front load contracts? Because of the owners?

Agree/disagree?

strutsboa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:05 PM
  #2
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,644
vCash: 500
easy to say, but the players need to agree to do it as well. Maybe not all players are open to having a chunk of their contract at the begining.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:10 PM
  #3
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by strutsboa View Post
I hope that Gauthier will start to sign front loaded contracts in the future, because I think it's a very good weapon in the cap-world we live in.

If Hamrlik's contract was front loaded and he would be making ex. $2M next year, he would be easy to move to a team who isn't up against the cap. The poor teams doesn't care about the cap, they only care about the salary.

Next year (or this year?), we might want to deal with Spacek, that would also be way easier if it was front loaded.

The same might be for Gionta if he starts to decline in a few years.

Why didn't Gainey front load contracts? Because of the owners?

Agree/disagree?
I agree 100%. I have said that about Gainey the last few years, all his contracts are 5 years at 5 mil =25 mil. He never seems to increase or decrease much from year to year. For a veteran player or big contract, it's always better to front load it, plus the player usually prefers it.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:10 PM
  #4
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,156
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koseegin View Post
easy to say, but the players need to agree to do it as well. Maybe not all players are open to having a chunk of their contract at the begining.
I imagine most would though. Let their money work for them.

Bill McNeal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:10 PM
  #5
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koseegin View Post
easy to say, but the players need to agree to do it as well. Maybe not all players are open to having a chunk of their contract at the begining.
Most people would prefer having more money now vs in 2 years...unless there are taxation issues.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:12 PM
  #6
scottyG
Registered User
 
scottyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Montreal,Qc
Posts: 4,970
vCash: 500
A front loaded contract has to be 7-15 years long. You can't front load a 4 year contract

scottyG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:20 PM
  #7
strutsboa
Registered User
 
strutsboa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: Sweden
Posts: 839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyG View Post
A front loaded contract has to be 7-15 years long. You can't front load a 4 year contract
Are you sure? Is it a new rule?

I only looked at 3 teams (wsh, tor and van) and found those contracts:

Chris Clark 2.75, 2.65, 2.50
Mike Green 6.0, 6.0, 6.0, 5.0
Bieksa 4.25, 3.5, 3.5
Komisarek 4.0, 6.0, 5.5, 3.5, 3.5

Can anyone confirm/decline?

strutsboa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:20 PM
  #8
WhiskeySeven
Give her the Defence
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,563
vCash: 500
I think front-loading is great, it gives them more incentive to retire before the end of the contract.

The only down point, if there is any, would be the extra strain on the team. The Canadiens wouldn't care about that though.

WhiskeySeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:20 PM
  #9
WhiskeySeven
Give her the Defence
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by strutsboa View Post
Are you sure? Is it a new rule?

I only looked at 3 teams (wsh, tor and van) and found those contracts:

Chris Clark 2.75, 2.65, 2.50
Mike Green 6.0, 6.0, 6.0, 5.0
Bieksa 4.25, 3.5, 3.5
Komisarek 4.0, 6.0, 5.5, 3.5, 3.5

Can anyone confirm/decline?
You can frontload any contract length, ScottyG is wrong.

WhiskeySeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:22 PM
  #10
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supertramp View Post
You can frontload any contract length, ScottyG is wrong.
Unless he meant that it's useless to front load a shorter contract, he is wrong.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:23 PM
  #11
E = CH²
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 13,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koseegin View Post
easy to say, but the players need to agree to do it as well. Maybe not all players are open to having a chunk of their contract at the begining.
This post has me scratching my head.

Find me one negative aspect of having your contract front loaded as a player. I honestly can't think of one.

All things equal, players would be dumb not to want their contract to be front loaded.

Money has a value in time. 7-5-3 is worth more than 5-5-5.

Also, it's protection against buyouts.

Honestly can't think of a single reason why someone would rather have 5-5-5 than say 7-5-3.

EDIT:
Also depending on how insurances work with career ending injuries, it might also be better for the contract to be front loaded because I doubt insurance gives you the full salary. I could be wrong though. Not to mention a player might just want to retire sooner and he can without leaving too much money on the table in certain cases.

E = CH² is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:23 PM
  #12
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,767
vCash: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koseegin View Post
easy to say, but the players need to agree to do it as well. Maybe not all players are open to having a chunk of their contract at the begining.
Why would they need agree to getting money sooner?

LyricalLyricist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:27 PM
  #13
Fozz
Registered User
 
Fozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,079
vCash: 500
I fully expect Markov's next contract to be front loaded, since his age fits perfectly with this type of deal. Something like:

11/12 (age 31): $6.5M
12/13 (32): $6.5M
13/14 (33): $6.5M
14/15 (34): $6.5M
15/16 (35): $5.0M
16/17 (36): $3.0M
17/18 (37): $2.0M
18/19 (38): $1.0M
19/20 (39): $1.0M

Total: 9 years, $38M, cap hit of $4.22M

Fozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:29 PM
  #14
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koseegin View Post
easy to say, but the players need to agree to do it as well. Maybe not all players are open to having a chunk of their contract at the begining.
It advantages the players as well.

Its better to have 10m now than 2m for 5 years. You can : a. invest the 10m right now and get returns, thus in 5 years get more than 10m and b. 10m is slighlty more valuable now than in 5 years.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:30 PM
  #15
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,156
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
This post has me scratching my head.

Find me one negative aspect of having your contract front loaded as a player. I honestly can't think of one.

All things equal, players would be dumb not to want their contract to be front loaded.

Money has a value in time. 7-5-3 is worth more than 5-5-5.

Also, it's protection against buyouts.

Honestly can't think of a single reason why someone would rather have 5-5-5 than say 7-5-3.

EDIT:
Also depending on how insurances work with career ending injuries, it might also be better for the contract to be front loaded because I doubt insurance gives you the full salary. I could be wrong though. Not to mention a player might just want to retire sooner and he can without leaving too much money on the table in certain cases.
Darren McCarty.

Bill McNeal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:31 PM
  #16
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingKostitsyn View Post
It advantages the players as well.

Its better to have 10m now than 2m for 5 years. You can : a. invest the 10m right now and get returns, thus in 5 years get more than 10m and b. 10m is slighlty more valuable now than in 5 years.
suppose you invest and you lose it somehow. And your only getting paid 500k for the next two years. What next, rare circumstances of course, but you never know.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 12:45 PM
  #17
WhiskeySeven
Give her the Defence
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,563
vCash: 500
What if the player chooses to keep playing after his value has decreased to below his cap hit? I'm talking about the long-term deals like Lecavalier and Hossa. If Hossa chooses to keep playing until he is 39, his ability, performance will certainly not match his cap hit.

WhiskeySeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 01:09 PM
  #18
Galchenyuk94
Registered User
 
Galchenyuk94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supertramp View Post
What if the player chooses to keep playing after his value has decreased to below his cap hit? I'm talking about the long-term deals like Lecavalier and Hossa. If Hossa chooses to keep playing until he is 39, his ability, performance will certainly not match his cap hit.
You buy him out I'm guessing.

When you buy someone out, you buy out his remaining salary, not his cap hit (I think).

Buying out the last two years of lecavaliers contract (1.5m and 1m) would cost 2/3 of 2.5m over 4 years, so something like 1.65m over 4 years, so only 400kish against the cap. That's why I want Vinny

Galchenyuk94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 01:30 PM
  #19
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koseegin View Post
suppose you invest and you lose it somehow. And your only getting paid 500k for the next two years. What next, rare circumstances of course, but you never know.
I'm sorry but its a silly argument. Kind of like saying a Porsche Carrera does not have the value of a Honda Civic if you crash it down a 300 foot cliff, so you're better off with a Honda Civic.

Obviously 10m ''invested'' by a compulsive gambler should end up being less after 5 years than 500k invested by a world class financier. However if managed by the same person the 10m will end up being more than the 500k 99.99% of the time. Since 10m now is worth more both due to inflation and time in the end its worth more than 10m later. What you do with it is up to you.


Last edited by FlyingKostitsyn: 06-16-2010 at 01:40 PM.
FlyingKostitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 04:38 PM
  #20
vesperal
Registered User
 
vesperal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sardo View Post
You buy him out I'm guessing.

When you buy someone out, you buy out his remaining salary, not his cap hit (I think).

Buying out the last two years of lecavaliers contract (1.5m and 1m) would cost 2/3 of 2.5m over 4 years, so something like 1.65m over 4 years, so only 400kish against the cap. That's why I want Vinny
Wrong. Buying out a player actually work out the other way around, a front loaded contract cost more to buy out.

vesperal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 04:52 PM
  #21
Destoker
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozz View Post
I fully expect Markov's next contract to be front loaded, since his age fits perfectly with this type of deal. Something like:

11/12 (age 31): $6.5M
12/13 (32): $6.5M
13/14 (33): $6.5M
14/15 (34): $6.5M
15/16 (35): $5.0M
16/17 (36): $3.0M
17/18 (37): $2.0M
18/19 (38): $1.0M
19/20 (39): $1.0M

Total: 9 years, $38M, cap hit of $4.22M
I like. I like it a lot. If Markov agrees to a little home discount that's exactly the kind of contract he'll get. At 4.22 million cap hit, even if it's until he's 40, it would be one of the best cap friendly contract in the league.

Destoker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 04:57 PM
  #22
Brisk-Illusion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,159
vCash: 500
The lack of front-loading has less to do with player preference and more with the team's operating budget.

Brisk-Illusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 10:14 PM
  #23
Galchenyuk94
Registered User
 
Galchenyuk94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vesperal View Post
Wrong. Buying out a player actually work out the other way around, a front loaded contract cost more to buy out.
How does it work?

Galchenyuk94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 10:24 PM
  #24
RE-HABS
Registered User
 
RE-HABS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: CANADA
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,885
vCash: 500
If anything the NHL has to look at getting non-guaranteed contracts, and contract re-negotiation rights with long term contract players added to the new collective agreement.

Imagine the flexiabilty the Lightning would have if Vinnie would allow Management to re-work his deal to fit the cap?

Or, if a team wasn't happy with a player they signed long term and wanted to release them from it 2 years into a 5 year deal?

The league needs some outs.

RE-HABS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 10:32 PM
  #25
Freaky Habs Fan
Registered User
 
Freaky Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New-Brunswick
Posts: 9,478
vCash: 500
It could be a problem for the owners though. Last year, imagine this...

Cammy : 8 millions
Gionta : 7 millions
Gomez : 10 millions
Spacek : 5 millions

Total : 30 millions for 4 players.

Actual cap hit/money given by the team : around 22 millions. I don't think the owners would like to have to pay 8 millions more to have more flexibility in the last year of their contract.

It would be wise to do it for players with a contract ending past 35 years old of age. But I guess it's not that easy since they are not doing it. If we think of it, I'm sure the Habs can do the same...

Freaky Habs Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.