HFBoards

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

Short term deals better?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-30-2006, 11:58 AM
  #1
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Short term deals better?

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL...10353-sun.html

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2006, 12:09 PM
  #2
Vasculio
Booya !
 
Vasculio's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: La Tuque
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,221
vCash: 500
That's a good read, and it brings points that I believe in, like that

'Mark-to-market. Have you heard of it? It's an economic practice that allows payment based on prediction.

You sign a multi-year deal with the belief that output will continue to flourish -- the monetary amount will obviously reflect this assumption.'

And the author's right... that's just plain wrong.

I agree to some extent that paying the players BY their actual productions rather than by hope, assumption, would be tough to track... but damn those players would play all-out every night. They wouldn't have choice if the wanted their paycheck.

Cash numbers would come by the goals, assists, hits, icetime, saves, save %, etc

Utopia, I know... but all those damn babies would give a ******* for once !

Vasculio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2006, 12:31 PM
  #3
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiram View Post
That's a good read, and it brings points that I believe in, like that

'Mark-to-market. Have you heard of it? It's an economic practice that allows payment based on prediction.

You sign a multi-year deal with the belief that output will continue to flourish -- the monetary amount will obviously reflect this assumption.'

And the author's right... that's just plain wrong.

I agree to some extent that paying the players BY their actual productions rather than by hope, assumption, would be tough to track... but damn those players would play all-out every night. They wouldn't have choice if the wanted their paycheck.

Cash numbers would come by the goals, assists, hits, icetime, saves, save %, etc

Utopia, I know... but all those damn babies would give a ******* for once !
Serge Savard was a big believer in team encentives in contracts.

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2006, 01:09 PM
  #4
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 18,689
vCash: 500
I don't think it's possible to generalize. Getting Markov on a longterm contract would be good, IMO, especially if you think you can freeze his salary somewhere below what the future insane UFA market would dictate. Getting an older riskier player like an Arnott or Shanahan longterm would be nutzo, IMO. It all depends on the player and the price. Long or short terms can be equally good or bad.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2006, 01:28 PM
  #5
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
I don't think it's possible to generalize. Getting Markov on a longterm contract would be good, IMO, especially if you think you can freeze his salary somewhere below what the future insane UFA market would dictate. Getting an older riskier player like an Arnott or Shanahan longterm would be nutzo, IMO. It all depends on the player and the price. Long or short terms can be equally good or bad.
Very good point. The Elias deal was insane. Its like the guy is Mario. In the past it was even wackier with Roenicke getting 7.5. The Lou L situation surprises me. He displayed prudence all those years and signed two old soft unmotivated players. Mogilny was incredibly shy in his last time in Jersey yet Lou signed him again.

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2006, 06:43 PM
  #6
Souffle
A soupçon of nutmeg
 
Souffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Le Creuset
Country: France
Posts: 3,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
I don't think it's possible to generalize. Getting Markov on a longterm contract would be good, IMO, especially if you think you can freeze his salary somewhere below what the future insane UFA market would dictate. Getting an older riskier player like an Arnott or Shanahan longterm would be nutzo, IMO. It all depends on the player and the price. Long or short terms can be equally good or bad.
I think Markov on a long-term guaranteed contract is exactly the kind of situation that can go pear shaped. The one thing that holds him and his remarkable talent back is his (in)consistency. He still has this way of checking out for stretches at a time, whether it's being soft, making turnovers, or just playing uninspired.

I've always been high on Markov, but lately, IMO, he's been especially overrated on these boards. He's just not as good as Habs fans have been making him out to be. He's not elite. He's in a group of about 30-40 good defencemen who would be ranked 40 different ways by 40 different people.

Anyway, if Markov demands a multi-multi-year (4 or 5 or more) extension at ultra millions (5 or 6 or more), I'd look at dealing him.

Souffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2006, 07:05 PM
  #7
montreal
Time to Get Down
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Hungary
Posts: 23,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by davedave View Post
I think Markov on a long-term guaranteed contract is exactly the kind of situation that can go pear shaped. The one thing that holds him and his remarkable talent back is his (in)consistency. He still has this way of checking out for stretches at a time, whether it's being soft, making turnovers, or just playing uninspired.

I've always been high on Markov, but lately, IMO, he's been especially overrated on these boards. He's just not as good as Habs fans have been making him out to be. He's not elite. He's in a group of about 30-40 good defencemen who would be ranked 40 different ways by 40 different people.

Anyway, if Markov demands a multi-multi-year (4 or 5 or more) extension at ultra millions (5 or 6 or more), I'd look at dealing him.
I think he's an elite defensemen at times but he is prone to inconsistent play. I'm a huge fan of his skills and he can be frustrating to watch, since imo he can do more but we'll see what happens with him. I complain a lot about contracts but he's one that I would look the other way to whatever he's offered. Imo it's a must that he be resigned, the quicker the better. I would dread going into the following season without him on the blueline, imo he makes whoever is paired with him better.

I could easily be overrating him cause he's my favorite Hab but since we are so weak on defense in terms of depth and our top 4 D prospects are likely a good 2 years away from even seeing Hamilton, so Gainey is in a tough spot with 3 of our top 4 defensemen being UFA's and nothing really coming up the system unless we can get one or both of Emelin/O'Byrne under contract and in Hamilton this year and even then we still will be in a tough spot if we have to rely on a rookie or a possible UFA since we clearly have trouble attracting UFA's.

montreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2006, 08:48 AM
  #8
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 18,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by davedave View Post
I think Markov on a long-term guaranteed contract is exactly the kind of situation that can go pear shaped. The one thing that holds him and his remarkable talent back is his (in)consistency. He still has this way of checking out for stretches at a time, whether it's being soft, making turnovers, or just playing uninspired.

I've always been high on Markov, but lately, IMO, he's been especially overrated on these boards. He's just not as good as Habs fans have been making him out to be. He's not elite. He's in a group of about 30-40 good defencemen who would be ranked 40 different ways by 40 different people.

Anyway, if Markov demands a multi-multi-year (4 or 5 or more) extension at ultra millions (5 or 6 or more), I'd look at dealing him.
Hmmm. There is a limit to what I'd be willing to pay him (or anybody). But. On the otherhand, he seems to be sort of a low-key, amicable kind of guy who maybe won't play hardball. We always say that of course. As if his agent has nothing to do with it. But if he'd take 4 or 5 years at $4M or $5M per, I think that would turn out to be a bargain for us. A Kaberle-like deal for an as-of-now-Kaberle-like defenseman.

I'm not sure where the line on "elite" should be drawn, but I am sure that Markov is already our best defenseman, and best defensemen don't grow on trees. I don't think we could replace him in our lineup for anything less than the kind of contract it would take to sign him. Whether that's "elite" or not is almost immaterial in that sense. I don't think he's a "Norris-contender" defenseman, so if there are only a handful of such players who qualify as elite (Niedermayer, Pronger, Chara, Lidstrom, who else?) then he's definitely not elite. But if Kaberle, Norstrom, Johnsson, Kubina, Rafalski, McCabe, Jovanovski, Redden, Aucoin, Foote, Blake-today, McKee, Gonchar, etc are $4-6M+ defensemen, then there is certainly plenty of room to fit Markov into that group IMO.

And while it's true that Markov does still have inconsistencies and still doesn't really impose himself on a game the way you'd want a #1 D to, I also still think he is on a very noticeably upward development curve. You look at where he has come from (drafted as a small over-age rover forward/d who was only notable purely for offense) and see how much his game has progressed up to last season... well, I have to say wow. He took a completely uni-dimensional game, and now he's able to play a smart, extremely effective defensive game too. I'm thinking there's still very much a development stage left in him where he begins to blend back his pure offensive talents too (especially in the new NHL environment that the league is pushing). He was on pace for a 56-point season last year without injuries. I really think he can improve on that pace. And if that's true... what is a 60-70 point defenseman who plays smart, effective defense too? Is that elite?

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2006, 01:24 PM
  #9
saskhab
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 994
vCash: 500
Markov's prone to some bad stretches and minor injuries, but at his age, I'd sign him long term. He'll be 28... The Rivet 4 year contract comes to mind, that actually worked out well for us. Rivet was coming off some decent injuries when we signed him to that...

That being said, it depends on the player. I'm glad we didn't sign Arnott to a 4 year deal, let alone at $4.5m a year. I'd rather have Ribs for one year at $1.9m. Arnott is prone to laziness and inconsistency... sound familiar? The benefit may not be the same (having Ribs over Arnott), but I just couldn't imagine how that contract would look next year and the year after...

I liked the idea of Shanahan for 2 years at $4m to $4.5m... his injury history showed that it was very unlikely he'd be hurt and he still popped 40 last year. Sammy at 2 years at a little over $3m/year is better than Arnott at 4 years, $4m+/year as well.

saskhab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2006, 03:14 PM
  #10
Darz
Registered User
 
Darz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Where's the ANY key?
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,379
vCash: 500
In the new NHL world where teams ability to spend fluxuates on a yearly basis, they really need to adopt a system that allows teams to rid themselves of contracts similiar to the NFL. I assume this will be the biggest sticking point between owners and players when negotiating the next CBA.

__________________
Hey look, it's Duffman; the guy in a costume that creates awareness of Duff!
Darz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2006, 03:42 PM
  #11
onemorecup*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshiro View Post

great read, and bang on . What boggles the mind is this , you sign a player in a bidding war to a long term inflated deal . 90% of the time , it is never a win win situtaion , meaning the player earns his money , and the team actually improves , and or extra revenue is generated from the player. No disrespect to Chicago , but
was 13 mil last year on Lapointe, Khabi, and Aucoin going to get them anywhere?
This team is among the worst in the league , what are 3 aging veterans going to do for this crap team? What is McKee going to do for St.Louis? Yes he will stabilize the kids but what is his 16 mil going to get them for 4 years? There are only a handful of signings that have worked out in the last 10 years , period CUJO,BELFOUR ,PRONGER( albeit for one year) are among a a handful of signings that clearly made the difference . The Leafs went freom nowhere to extra playoffs rounds with the stellar performances from Cujo and Belfour. Dallas may not win a cup without Hull, Belfour, Niewendyk, when they were acquired or signed. But owners , Gm`s wake up, unless you are a contender, or need a possible instant revenue generator ,Most of these signings will amount to a hill of beans, and most players are available a year later for a bag of Doritos , to get thier salary of their hands. Lets see what Chara does without Redden , he will be exposed like a nudist .
At least Gainey fixed a mistake, he moved theo when he had a chance, plus his signings were all ok, shorter term deals . Hopefully he doesn`t screw it up by signing Rivet to McKee dumb money???

onemorecup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2006, 03:52 PM
  #12
onemorecup*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darz View Post
In the new NHL world where teams ability to spend fluxuates on a yearly basis, they really need to adopt a system that allows teams to rid themselves of contracts similiar to the NFL. I assume this will be the biggest sticking point between owners and players when negotiating the next CBA.
Good point , the bottoml ine is the players want no risk in any deals. If he signs for
$ 2 mil and plays like crap ,he gets paid , if he plays as expected , he gets his 2 mil
if he plays above, he squawks and gets an extension . The year later he goes back to mediocrity and now the extension you gave him is out of whack , because you expected more from him . But as long as the payer/agent get their scratch who cares if the owner gets the bad end of the deal . Until these retarded people in the hockey world wake up and collectivley be on the same page , this will never end .

onemorecup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2006, 04:17 PM
  #13
saskhab
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by geeman View Post
Good point , the bottoml ine is the players want no risk in any deals. If he signs for
$ 2 mil and plays like crap ,he gets paid , if he plays as expected , he gets his 2 mil
if he plays above, he squawks and gets an extension . The year later he goes back to mediocrity and now the extension you gave him is out of whack , because you expected more from him . But as long as the payer/agent get their scratch who cares if the owner gets the bad end of the deal . Until these retarded people in the hockey world wake up and collectivley be on the same page , this will never end .
Management/Ownership knows this.... Unless the contract states that a player needs to score this many points for the contract to be valid for the next year, plays this many minutes, etc... has conditions written into the contract, than I don't see why the player shouldn't be entitled to receiving the full value of the contract he signed.

The escrow system is supposed to alleviate the fiscal uncertainty of year-to-year operations. In time, there should be some kind of equilibrium in terms of where the cap will be, the volume of FA's/year... right now, everyone is getting a lot more because they're not used to this many players being available at once. It'll still be a silly season, but not as much of one. Especially if we have this many long-term contracts already in the league...

saskhab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2006, 05:54 PM
  #14
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darz View Post
In the new NHL world where teams ability to spend fluxuates on a yearly basis, they really need to adopt a system that allows teams to rid themselves of contracts similiar to the NFL. I assume this will be the biggest sticking point between owners and players when negotiating the next CBA.
Excellent point.

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 07:12 AM
  #15
onemorecup*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saskhab View Post
Management/Ownership knows this.... Unless the contract states that a player needs to score this many points for the contract to be valid for the next year, plays this many minutes, etc... has conditions written into the contract, than I don't see why the player shouldn't be entitled to receiving the full value of the contract he signed.

The escrow system is supposed to alleviate the fiscal uncertainty of year-to-year operations. In time, there should be some kind of equilibrium in terms of where the cap will be, the volume of FA's/year... right now, everyone is getting a lot more because they're not used to this many players being available at once. It'll still be a silly season, but not as much of one. Especially if we have this many long-term contracts already in the league...
agreed, its just the way dollars get shifted around that makes no sense, its not our money so who cares , but when you pay 3 mil for a 4th-5th Dman that won`t make the difference, why bother.

onemorecup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 07:30 AM
  #16
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by toshiro View Post
If, as some posters seem to claim, talent will be evenly distributed because of the cap it doesnt matter. However there are other motivations including taxes, language, press etc so the Habs are forced to take on more risk than would otherwise be the case.

toshiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 07:42 AM
  #17
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
I'm not a big believer in heavily incentive weighed contracts. Team sports require team play and playing a role. BG and Carbo quickly decided that Koivu would be most valuable with Higgins and Ryder. They became an effective line. Not a great line, but they produced down the stretch. This allowed Kovalev tp play with Ribeiro, balancing the lines and insulating Ribs in a situation where he could put up points but benefit from Kovalev who,love 'im or hate 'im, is a presence.
The team,imo, after making this decision and foreseeing K's role in the future took away any possible problems by signing him for what is probably more than necessary.

Would a player accept willingly a role that is best for the team but not for him if it would cost him $ ? I think Bullis saw himself in those terms last year and Gainey dismissed him as a building block.

Team incentives,individual bonuses linked to team play,ok, but I can't see production related as being a good idea.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 08:07 AM
  #18
GoHabsGO252006
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 953
vCash: 500
Long term contracts are like anything else in business a high risk high reward proposition.

If a player improves and begins to dominate then 5 years from now you have a bargain at 4M or whatever and if not then you have wasted cap space for long periods of time. It's that simple.

Short term contracts may seem better, but only in the circumstance where a players production drops. If a player improves they will ask for MORE money.

Long term: HIgh risk High reward
Short term: Low risk Low reward.

GoHabsGO252006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 08:27 AM
  #19
Darz
Registered User
 
Darz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Where's the ANY key?
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoHabsGO252006 View Post
Long term: HIgh risk High reward
Short term: Low risk Low reward.
Just another thought on this subject....

Not that I have given this alot of thought, but what is the last team that you would say got a 'high reward' signing a UFA to a long term deal??? Quickly off the top of my head I can't think of a UFA signing (a longer term signing....3+ years) when at any point during that particular contract the team was getting ANY kind of a discount..or under paying.

Darz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 08:29 AM
  #20
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,965
vCash: 500
The problem with incentive laden contracts is a player becomes more about stats then winning.

How long till you start to see guys cherry picking at centre ice in the last minute while the team is up a goal and trying to kill the end of the game as he needs one more goal for an extra 1,000,000 payday.

Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:05 AM
  #21
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 18,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania View Post
The problem with incentive laden contracts is a player becomes more about stats then winning.

How long till you start to see guys cherry picking at centre ice in the last minute while the team is up a goal and trying to kill the end of the game as he needs one more goal for an extra 1,000,000 payday.
I don't think that has ever been too much of a problem in a team sport like hockey. Not non-existent, but not particularly problematical either.

Anyway, good thing about the new CBA, there are no incentive-laden contracts anymore. Well, except for the old guys or those coming off longterm injuries, like the Hasek/Belfour deals.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:17 AM
  #22
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
I don't think that has ever been too much of a problem in a team sport like hockey. Not non-existent, but not particularly problematical either.

Anyway, good thing about the new CBA, there are no incentive-laden contracts anymore. Well, except for the old guys or those coming off longterm injuries, like the Hasek/Belfour deals.
True it is not a problem right now, but if we do as some have suggested and make everyone in the league's contract based on performance than i believe you would see it become more rampant.

Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:46 AM
  #23
onemorecup*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darz View Post
Just another thought on this subject....

Not that I have given this alot of thought, but what is the last team that you would say got a 'high reward' signing a UFA to a long term deal??? Quickly off the top of my head I can't think of a UFA signing (a longer term signing....3+ years) when at any point during that particular contract the team was getting ANY kind of a discount..or under paying.
I wouldn`t say under paying , but clearly Cujo/Belfour to the Leafs , by standing on their head for 10-20 points a year , and carrying them to those extra playoff rounds , more than paid off thier salaries , and more. It is strange how the owners get the shaft 95% of the time for thier stupidity , while 5% the player and owner
get a win win, team improves, player earns his keep. This league is moving to an NFL type scale , a few make a big chunk of the cap, the rest scramble for scraps .
It will create a problem in the dressing rooms in time.

onemorecup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 09:50 AM
  #24
GoHabsGO252006
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darz View Post
Just another thought on this subject....

Not that I have given this alot of thought, but what is the last team that you would say got a 'high reward' signing a UFA to a long term deal??? Quickly off the top of my head I can't think of a UFA signing (a longer term signing....3+ years) when at any point during that particular contract the team was getting ANY kind of a discount..or under paying.
Well given the contracts paid out this summer, there are already many players that will be playing this upcoming season at below Fair Market Value. And when you consider that some of these players like Heatley are locked up for another 3 years, by that time he may be a significant bargain.

Short term contracts means players who exceed expectations and play well will continuously be given raises. If a player is signed like Heatley or Alfredsson was, of for some reason I can't come up with anybody but Senators, a guy like Cheechoo or some people like that who continue to produce and improve are playing at much less than their Fair Market Value.

Short term contracts for players that remain in the realm of restricted free agency is absolutely worth the risk of inflating the deal because the team has the power but when UFA status comes with ability to leave, it's difficult.

GoHabsGO252006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 10:55 AM
  #25
toshiro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to toshiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania View Post
The problem with incentive laden contracts is a player becomes more about stats then winning.

How long till you start to see guys cherry picking at centre ice in the last minute while the team is up a goal and trying to kill the end of the game as he needs one more goal for an extra 1,000,000 payday.
Team incentive contracts make sense to me. 1st round playoffs vs 2nd round etc. Old Serge used to use these.

toshiro 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 09:53 AM.

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.