If contracts are based on both what you have achieved and what is expected from you in the near future, I can't see AK getting much more (per year) than what they gave Ryder coming off of a couple of 30 goal campaigns.
Of course, we all know that AK is a higher calibre player than Ryder, but you don't get a contract as an RFA based on the player you're expected to be at 30 years old/at your peak... atleast you shouldn't.
You shouldnt, but look what Doug MacLean gave Rick Nash? He got a bargain like that. Bob Gainey is looking to the future and the present.
You shouldnt, but look what Doug MacLean gave Rick Nash? He got a bargain like that. Bob Gainey is looking to the future and the present.
Yeah, umm... I'd like it better if no one started throwing comparisons to players like Nash/Malkin/etc around. AK is NOT on that level, nor worth throwing a contract like that at (anarmandaleb... was the grammar nazi right? I apologize for the sentence ending in a preposition... me ).
Don't forget, Jeff Carter is also very good defensively and can be a shutdown guy. Had Philly signed him longer at that amount, they would have gotten him as a steal.
BTW, the equation for Bg must also relate to: Which player I have will replace A Kost in 2, 3, 4, 5 years. For now the prospect are Wyman, and D'Agostini.
Do you see them replacing A Kost?
If yes, When?
Umm... no. Never. Both would be counting their lucky stars to become full-time NHLers, let alone replace someone like A Kost before he's Chris Chelios years old.
Only way I pay him $5M a year is if it's over 6 years.
3yrs/$15M is a terrible contract for the Flyers. They're giving him the money he wants without him giving anything back.
Not giving anything back? He's still a RFA after three years, meaning the Flyers can match any offer or receive compensation.
Basically, the Flyers paid a premium so he would accept a three-year deal, rather than test the waters for a 5-6 yr deal. If Carter becomes a real stud, they can match the offer or receive 1sts in compensation. If he turns out to be a dud, they are only on the hook for three years, and/or can buy him out for 1/3 of that.
The fact that Carter becomes a RFA when the contract expires also significantly increases his trade value, because whoever has his rights can be sure to retain him.
Philly is ****ing themselves over with all these big deals.
Briere and Timonen are making over 6 mill.
Gagne, Richards, Carter are all over 5 mill.
Hartnell over 4 mill.
Then Hatcher, Lupul, Knuble, Biron are all making around 2.5-3.5.
Also UMMMMMMMMMberger is an RFA and he'll obviously be getting a hefty raise..
Agree. I just don't see how Carter is worth $5M a season....as for this translating to AK, not yet.
You guys underestimate what Andrei will do next season. He knows it too.
Perhaps, but since when do you sign a player who is for all intents and purposes a sophomore, to a $5M/yr long term contract.
Gainey's got the right approach - short term contracts, earn as you go, steady salary risers built into contracts, give the big money when losing control of the player seems possible or likely.
I don't know what to think of the Carter contract, but the A-kost implications don't scare me .. but it no doubt puts thoughts into the head of the agent for Christopher Higgins as extension talks begin.
Philly is ****ing themselves over with all these big deals.
Briere and Timonen are making over 6 mill.
Gagne, Richards, Carter are all over 5 mill.
Hartnell over 4 mill.
Then Hatcher, Lupul, Knuble, Biron are all making around 2.5-3.5.
Also UMMMMMMMMMberger is an RFA and he'll obviously be getting a hefty raise..
Exactly what I'm thinking!!! This makes no sense at all. But then you look down the rest of their roster & it's filled in with player/goons who are barely AHL skilled players.
Carter got a Holik like contract. Unbelievable. Holmgrem is making his bed with a team that nearly missed the playoffs.
As to Kostsitsyn, we can give him a $5M/year contract if he's going to be afraid of contact like he did against Philly. At worst give him a one year deal so that he can show he will improve on that aspect of the game.
After is first full season in NHL A Kost shows more potential.
He is also less tourist in offensive zone (goes more to the net).
But Ryder in the corners was not so bad (not Higgins tough).
I would rate A Kost higher than Ryder. Still think Ryder was pretty good for us. Remember before this year all the hype.
May be we are doing the same about A Kost?
Any toughts?
Ryder was a Calder finalist and I would argue that his contract years gave us more impact than Kostitsyn has yet. But then, if you're going to argue potential, which is fair enough, then that's where the long-term risers come in. If it's a short-term deal, I think the understanding has to be that Kostitsyn is playing for $3Mish to prove that he deserves the bigger money. That ought to be fair enough too. If he's ready to sign one of the mega-deals that rises up towards $5M eventually, then that's predicated on our confidence in his potential. (And I do have that confidence in his potential too).
Funny you mention that, we were talking about that here at work yesterday...crazy some of these contracts. I am waiting for the day the cap goes down, will be funny to watch some gm's scramble.
The key factor to the lockout was, the players salaries could only be 54% of the revenue...so if the cap goes down, the escrow payments from the players go up, and more of that money goes back to the owners...the star players will still always get their money, and the owners are protected with the % of salaries tied to the amount of total revenue...that being said, there are still some insane contracts being signed, and there will always be a team that leads the way...
A lot of teams are already struggling to keep up. There might be a fixed salary cap for each team but a lot of them have their own personal cap they can't go over.
The key factor to the lockout was, the players salaries could only be 54% of the revenue...so if the cap goes down, the escrow payments from the players go up, and more of that money goes back to the owners...the star players will still always get their money, and the owners are protected with the % of salaries tied to the amount of total revenue...that being said, there are still some insane contracts being signed, and there will always be a team that leads the way...
I am thinking more along the lines that say the cap falls next season from $56M to $50M. You have a team that has $53M commited for salaries next season, they will end up being screwed having to trade someone to make room under the cap.
Were it would become more comical would be if it happened to multiple teams which would cause a panic of sorts. Will it happen? Probably not but would be funny.
I am thinking more along the lines that say the cap falls next season from $56M to $50M. You have a team that has $53M commited for salaries next season, they will end up being screwed having to trade someone to make room under the cap.
Were it would become more comical would be if it happened to multiple teams which would cause a panic of sorts. Will it happen? Probably not but would be funny.
Absolutely, and it would be interesting to see a GM try to get out of that...that could be 1 of the reasons why some GM's leave some cap room, along with several other reasons...ya gotta figure if something like this ever happens, some GM's would get held hostage, just to dump salary, could very well happen to a guy like Holmgren and Philly...
I am thinking more along the lines that say the cap falls next season from $56M to $50M. You have a team that has $53M commited for salaries next season, they will end up being screwed having to trade someone to make room under the cap.
One might like to think there won't be any sudden or sharp turn around like that, though. I mean, so far we've had significant and constant increases. Wouldn't it be more natural to think that perhaps the revenue growth will first slow down, then maybe stop, then maybe fall back. So by the time you extrapolate out a few seasons for that to happen, teams should have time to get ready. And a new CBA wouldn't be far off either.
If it does happen more suddenly, the NHL will probably have bigger concerns than a few teams having trouble with the cap. A sudden regression like that would probably have to be a result of a pretty serious economic crisis overall. Something that would probably have a few teams bankrupting, and the league really scrambling.
Or to offset any downswing they could always jump into expansion, put some $100Mish expansion fees into the pockets of owners, and while that won't affect the cap or declared revenues, it'll certainly make it easy on them to do buyouts or McGillisizations to cover the shortfalls.
).
