HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Calgary Flames
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Flames Sign Mikael Backlund to a 2-year, $1.5M AAV deal.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-11-2013, 11:10 AM
  #76
Ynnek
Playoff Bound.
 
Ynnek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,556
vCash: 50
So much garbage to read I gave up a few posts in.

Now on topic.

Backlund is signed for a very low amount and I sure hope he can earn a big raise for the next one.

Ynnek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 12:16 PM
  #77
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,413
vCash: 500
The Sutter vs. Feaster argument had me thinking. Sutter gave his resignation on Dec 28, 2011, with his last singing being Giordano’s extension. Everything after is Feater's jurisdictions

So Feaster has really only had the following big signings: Glencross, Tanguay, Hudler, Cervenka, Wideman, and now Backlund and Brodie. Rather than looking at the players they would eventually become, you should look at the player they were at the time of the signings. I’ll try to compare similar players regarding their ppg pace during the signings, while including the context of their signings.

Feaster
1) Wideman had 46 points in 82 games when signing an average 5.25 million dollar contract when the cap was at 70.2 million. Wideman was a foreign UFA.

2) Hudler had 50 points in 81 games when signing an average 4 million dollar contract when the cap was at 70.2 million. Hudler was a foreign UFA.

3) Tangauy had 49 points in 64 games when signing an average of 3.5 million dollar contract when the cap is at 64.3 million. Tangauy was a domestic UFA.

4) Glencross had 43 points in 79 games when signing an average of 2.555 dollar contract when the cap is at 64.3 million. Glencross was a domestic extension.

Sutter
A) Bouwmeester had 42 points in 82 games when signing an average 6.68 million dollar contract when the cap was at 56.8 million. Bouwmeester was a foreign UFA

B) Bertuzzi had 40 points in 68 games when signing an average 1.95 million dollar contract when the cap was at 56.7 million. Bertuzzi was a foreign UFA

C) Borque had 58 points in 73 games when signing an average 3.33 million dollar contract when the cap was at 59.4 million. Borque was a domestic extension.

D) Jokinen had 50 points in 82 games when signing an average 3 million dollar contract when the cap was at 59.4 million. Jokinen was a domestic-ish UFA.

MarkGio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 02:03 PM
  #78
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,413
vCash: 500
So if we extrapolate a point pace to 82 games in order to have an equal comparison for each signing, we see the following:

-- Feaster spent $114,130.00 per point when signing Wideman, whereas Sutter spend $159,047.00 per point for Bouwmeester

-- Feaster spent $78, 431.00 per point when signing Hudler, whereas Sutter spent $40, 625.00 for each of Bertuzzi's points.

-- Feaster spent $55, 555.00 per point when signing Tangauy, whereas Sutter spent $51, 230.00 for each of Borque's points.

-- Feaster spent $56, 777.00 per point when signing Glencross, whereas Sutter spent $60, 000 for each of Jokinen's points.

Feaster spend an average of $76,223.25 per point for this group, whereas Sutter spent an average of $77,725.50. That's a difference of $1502.00.

This doesn't take into account other intangibles of a player other than points. I believe both were going in the right direction in that they were both trying to make the playoffs during this group of signings, however, it doesn't take into account the differences in economics regarding the salary cap.

I would say that Feaster is slightly better than Sutter was at negotiating a contract.

MarkGio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 02:08 PM
  #79
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Stewie Hockey™
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Salt Mines
Country: Bermuda
Posts: 9,055
vCash: 1200
So what you're saying is... They're equally good (bad)?

__________________
OMG PLOFFS!
Stewie Griffin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 02:20 PM
  #80
InfinityIggy
No Longer Flammable
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,042
vCash: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
So if we extrapolate a point pace to 82 games in order to have an equal comparison for each signing, we see the following:

-- Feaster spent $114,130.00 per point when signing Wideman, whereas Sutter spend $159,047.00 per point for Bouwmeester

-- Feaster spent $78, 431.00 per point when signing Hudler, whereas Sutter spent $40, 625.00 for each of Bertuzzi's points.

-- Feaster spent $55, 555.00 per point when signing Tangauy, whereas Sutter spent $51, 230.00 for each of Borque's points.

-- Feaster spent $56, 777.00 per point when signing Glencross, whereas Sutter spent $60, 000 for each of Jokinen's points.

Feaster spend an average of $76,223.25 per point for this group, whereas Sutter spent an average of $77,725.50. That's a difference of $1502.00.

This doesn't take into account other intangibles of a player other than points. I believe both were going in the right direction in that they were both trying to make the playoffs during this group of signings, however, it doesn't take into account the differences in economics regarding the salary cap.

I would say that Feaster is slightly better than Sutter was at negotiating a contract.
Feaster has been better at contract negotiations by a wide margin.

InfinityIggy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 02:31 PM
  #81
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfinityIggy View Post
Feaster has been better at contract negotiations by a wide margin.
I disagree. Feaster spends $1,502.00 less per point than Sutter did.

Given that the average player salary in July 2011 was 2.4 million, while a player has an average of 112.21 points in their (average) career length of 5.62 seasons -- resulting in an average of 20 points per season -- NHL GMs spend appproximately $120,240.00 per point per season.

Relatively speaking, its a very, very small margin

MarkGio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 02:33 PM
  #82
Beats By CoRD
Irrelevant Ferkland
 
Beats By CoRD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: @HawnzDynasty
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,018
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
I disagree. Feaster spends $1,502.00 less per point than Sutter did.

Given that the average player salary in July 2011 was 2.4 million, while a player has an average of 112.21 points in their (average) career length of 5.62 seasons -- resulting in an average of 20 points per season -- NHL GMs spend appproximately $120,240.00 per point per season.

Relatively speaking, its a very, very small margin
Ok you guys... getting wayyyyyy too into it here.

Feaster wins just by the NMC's alone. $1500 per point? Yea it doesn't really work that way.

__________________

HawnzDynastyProductions.com
Beats By CoRD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 02:34 PM
  #83
InfinityIggy
No Longer Flammable
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,042
vCash: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
I disagree. Feaster spends $1,502.00 less per point than Sutter did.

Given that the average player salary in July 2011 was 2.4 million, while a player has an average of 112.21 points in their (average) career length of 5.62 seasons -- resulting in an average of 20 points per season -- NHL GMs spend appproximately $120,240.00 per point per season.

Relatively speaking, its a very, very small margin
Point production is a very narrow way of looking at it IMO. There other significant other factors especially when comparing D.

InfinityIggy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 02:41 PM
  #84
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfinityIggy View Post
Point production is a very narrow way of looking at it IMO. There other significant other factors especially when comparing D.
What better measure would you use? Hits? That means Jackman should make more than Crosby.

Faceoffs? That means Cullen should make more than Ovechkin.

I think points are the best measure without applying a weight system to every characteristic of a player.

MarkGio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 02:46 PM
  #85
Anglesmith
Moderator
Y'no like wadda guy
 
Anglesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,904
vCash: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
What better measure would you use? Hits? That means Jackman should make more than Crosby.

Faceoffs? That means Cullen should make more than Ovechkin.

I think points are the best measure without applying a weight system to every characteristic of a player.
If you're going to use points alone, I think it's fair that Matt Stajan's contract be considered as well.

$10.5M over 3 years with a NTC got us 72 pts. This means we paid him $145,833 per point over the past 3 seasons. That's the worst rate so far, so why was it omitted?

Anglesmith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 02:48 PM
  #86
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoRD View Post
Ok you guys... getting wayyyyyy too into it here.

Feaster wins just by the NMC's alone. $1500 per point? Yea it doesn't really work that way.
If NHL clubs were evaluating a person's performance, such as a GM's, you don't think they'll apply a standard and compare them to other GMs?

MarkGio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 02:48 PM
  #87
Sean Monahan
JIMMIES ARE RUSTLED
 
Sean Monahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Murrica
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 50
is this seriously going on right now? even a mod has ways to complain about something positive....

Sean Monahan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 02:51 PM
  #88
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wflames View Post
If you're going to use points alone, I think it's fair that Matt Stajan's contract be considered as well.

$10.5M over 3 years with a NTC got us 72 pts. This means we paid him $145,833 per point over the past 3 seasons. That's the worst rate so far, so why was it omitted?
Sutter had more contracts. I didn't include Stajan, Iginla, Kipper, ect. because I compared players with similar point paces the year prior to being signed. Therefore we're judging a signing based on the player who they were when signed, not who they became afterwards.

Stajan got signed after putting up a 57pt season. That's what got him his contract, not the 3 terrible seasons after the fact.

MarkGio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 02:53 PM
  #89
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarome Iginla View Post
is this seriously going on right now? even a mod has ways to complain about something positive....
What am I complaining about exactly? i'm just adding data....

I'm contributing to a debate previously discussed by others and wanted an quantifiable answer to the question: who's better at signing contracts?

MarkGio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 02:56 PM
  #90
Anglesmith
Moderator
Y'no like wadda guy
 
Anglesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,904
vCash: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Sutter had more contracts. I didn't include Stajan, Iginla, Kipper, ect. I compared players with similiar point pace the year prior to being signed. Therefore we're judging a signing based on the player who they were when signed, not who they became afterwards.

Stajan got signed after putting up a 57pt season. That's what got him his contract, not the 3 terrible seasons after the fact.
That's fair enough, though it does impose a little bit of survey bias. At the end of the day, it's a bit subjective because I would certainly refute the statement that point totals are the only necessary stat, especially when it comes to defencemen, though truth be told, Bouwmeester and Wideman were signed to fill the same role by the respective GMs.

For example, comparing Bourque and Tanguay seems a little off, as Bourque was signed as a second line winger just entering his prime, and Tanguay a veteran first-liner who would play a leadership role. Hudler was a very attractive UFA for a lot of teams, where Bertuzzi had a lot of question marks. There was likely more competition for the former.

Anglesmith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 02:56 PM
  #91
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfinityIggy View Post
Point production is a very narrow way of looking at it IMO. There other significant other factors especially when comparing D.
That's why I didn't compare Sarich and Wideman. The comparisons I used had a point difference (when factoring pace) of less than 5 points.

MarkGio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 03:05 PM
  #92
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wflames View Post
That's fair enough, though it does impose a little bit of survey bias. At the end of the day, it's a bit subjective because I would certainly refute the statement that point totals are the only necessary stat, especially when it comes to defencemen, though truth be told, Bouwmeester and Wideman were signed to fill the same role by the respective GMs.

For example, comparing Bourque and Tanguay seems a little off, as Bourque was signed as a second line winger just entering his prime, and Tanguay a veteran first-liner who would play a leadership role. Hudler was a very attractive UFA for a lot of teams, where Bertuzzi had a lot of question marks. There was likely more competition for the former.
Absolutely there was a survey bias. but I wanted it to include signings in the same CBA, exclude signings where both Feaster and Sutter worked for the organization, as well as ensure the point margins are similar. Tanguay and Borque had very similar point paces before receiving their contract.

I also informed the readers of my analysis the flaws and worded it to include things like average, point pace, etc. in order for skeptics to understand the full analysis.

MarkGio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 03:09 PM
  #93
Anglesmith
Moderator
Y'no like wadda guy
 
Anglesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,904
vCash: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Absolutely there was a survey bias. but I wanted it to include signings in the same CBA, exclude signings where both Feaster and Sutter worked for the organization, as well as ensure the point margins are similar. Tanguay and Borque had very similar point paces before receiving their contract.

I also informed the readers of my analysis the flaws and worded it to include things like average, point pace, etc. in order for skeptics to understand the full analysis.
I think it's a very logical way of looking at things, altogether. Comparing similar point totals and positions works. The flaws in the method are pretty small, all things considered.

Anglesmith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 03:15 PM
  #94
Sean Monahan
JIMMIES ARE RUSTLED
 
Sean Monahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Murrica
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
What am I complaining about exactly? i'm just adding data....

I'm contributing to a debate previously discussed by others and wanted an quantifiable answer to the question: who's better at signing contracts?
your whole argument is based on $ per point... it's more like math than useful data....


the thread is about the signing of mikael backlund, not comparing our current GM to someone that's no longer relevant or talking something done 5 years ago

all things considered; the timing of the signing, the market for players at the time, and the team itself all factor into the contracts. You can't really peg at few contracts and say who did better. Realistically Feaster paid market value for every player he brought in, same with Sutter.

Sean Monahan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 04:04 PM
  #95
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarome Iginla View Post
your whole argument is based on $ per point... it's more like math than useful data....


the thread is about the signing of mikael backlund, not comparing our current GM to someone that's no longer relevant or talking something done 5 years ago

all things considered; the timing of the signing, the market for players at the time, and the team itself all factor into the contracts. You can't really peg at few contracts and say who did better. Realistically Feaster paid market value for every player he brought in, same with Sutter.
I was arguing something? I thought I was just laying out the math?

Signing Michael Backs leading into a debate about the differences between GMs and their signings.... is kinda on topic. Both include Feaster and the concept of signings.

And yeah I know it doesn't include those things. Do you have a better formula? It would really help the discussion at hand

MarkGio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 04:06 PM
  #96
SmellOfVictory
Registered User
 
SmellOfVictory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,980
vCash: 50
@MarkGio: I disagree with your methodology. When a GM is signing a player, that contract should reflect expected performance rather than prior performance. Thus it should be weighed against how the player has performed since, rather than their pre-signing season.

SmellOfVictory is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 04:07 PM
  #97
Anglesmith
Moderator
Y'no like wadda guy
 
Anglesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,904
vCash: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
I was arguing something? I thought I was just laying out the math?

Signing Michael Backs leading into a debate about the differences between GMs and their signings.... is kinda on topic. Both include Feaster and the concept of signings.

And yeah I know it doesn't include those things. Do you have a better formula? It would really help the discussion at hand
There's always an audience satisfaction survey, or "clap-o-meter." Generally, people seemed ticked off at the contracts thrown in by Sutter, and rather appeased by those signed by Feaster, with perhaps the exception of the Wideman contract where I did witness some moaning. Not on here, though, because I wasn't a part of it yet.

Anglesmith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 04:10 PM
  #98
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmellOfVictory View Post
@MarkGio: I disagree with your methodology. When a GM is signing a player, that contract should reflect expected performance rather than prior performance. Thus it should be weighed against how the player has performed since, rather than their pre-signing season.
So Brodie should get a 10 million dollar contract because he might be expected to be the greatest defensemen ever?

MarkGio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 04:17 PM
  #99
Anglesmith
Moderator
Y'no like wadda guy
 
Anglesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,904
vCash: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
So Brodie should get a 10 million dollar contract because he might be expected to be the greatest defensemen ever?
On the other hand, should he be paid the same as other defencemen with his numbers who are older? Andrew Ference put up one fewer point than Brodie... so $4M/season?

That's a separate issue. I think the key is figuring out what we expect of him, and evaluating it after the fact. Kind if makes the discussion no longer applicable to evaluating Backlund's contract at this juncture.

Anglesmith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 05:03 PM
  #100
SmellOfVictory
Registered User
 
SmellOfVictory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,980
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
So Brodie should get a 10 million dollar contract because he might be expected to be the greatest defensemen ever?
Who's expecting that of him? And what are the indicators that it will happen? If you have a young guy, you're paying for potential upside, but you do have past scoring numbers as a way of saying "this is where you fit amongst your peers, therefore this is what we'd like to offer you". If you have an older guy, you're paying for either presumed maintenance of ability, or acceptance of downside. With a guy like Stajan, for example, he was given beautiful offensive minutes in Toronto, and it showed in his numbers. A GM doing the right thing should've looked at it and said "looks like he got some very choice minutes, and is not likely to repeat those numbers, therefore x contract" rather than "LOL HAVE SOME MONEY, NEW FIRST LINE CENTRE".

SmellOfVictory is online now   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 04:34 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.