Contracts for the Big-3

[Bates]

It's really the only direction to go, the League has already set up the plan that the bottom half of each team plays with almost exclusively players making around a million. The more high end talent you have the more low cost talent you have. The only real place to get some middle ground talent is to beg the top guys to subsidize it.

Yeah, again, I don't fault NHL teams for trying that out. I'm just absolutely not going to attach any moral or logical significance to it. Especially a team like the Leafs.

I don't think players owe anyone either but the bigger that divides gets I can easily see a little dissection in the Union ranks. Not that the money Isn't great for everyone but I'm guessing the NHL is a tough life for $600K as you get older. 

 

[Kin]

So the conversation can't change to just savings?? Someone tried to change the conversation.

Yes, you.

Using "savings" to just mean any sort of negotiation on the part of the team isn't particularly meaningful because nobody is suggesting that the team shouldn't negotiate with players to hopefully get their prices down somewhat, just that the specific schism between salary/cap hit involved in signing a player near the end of November probably doesn't outweigh the damage it does to the team, even if or maybe especially if, it's combined with similar "savings" from other players.

So, as a helpful guide :

Normal Negotiations - Ok, not a point of contention

Purposely negotiating until the end of November for a specific type of savings - Maybe bad, the point of contention

 

[Kin]

I don't think players owe anyone either but the bigger that divides gets I can easily see a little dissection in the Union ranks. Not that the money Isn't great for everyone but I'm guessing the NHL is a tough life for $600K as you get older.

My guess is that any player who thinks a star player should take less so that money can go directly into their pocket isn't likely all that much of a union guy to begin with.

 

[Bates]

So the conversation can't change to just savings?? Someone tried to change the conversation.

Yes, you.

Using "savings" to just mean any sort of negotiation on the part of the team isn't particularly meaningful because nobody is suggesting that the team shouldn't negotiate with players to hopefully get their prices down somewhat, just that the specific schism between salary/cap hit involved in signing a player near the end of November probably doesn't outweigh the damage it does to the team, even if or maybe especially if, it's combined with similar "savings" from other players.

So, as a helpful guide :

Normal Negotiations - Ok, not a point of contention

Purposely negotiating until the end of November for a specific type of savings - Maybe bad, the point of contention

No, not me. The poster merely suggested that if you get this savings for a number if players you really strengthen your team. You just incorrectly assumed how he was suggesting how you get there.

 

[Bates]

I don't think players owe anyone either but the bigger that divides gets I can easily see a little dissection in the Union ranks. Not that the money Isn't great for everyone but I'm guessing the NHL is a tough life for $600K as you get older.

My guess is that any player who thinks a star player should take less so that money can go directly into their pocket isn't likely all that much of a union guy to begin with.

I think it would depend on how you define star? Personally I don't put Nylander in that category right now.

 

[bustaheims]

No, not me. The poster merely suggested that if you get this savings for a number if players you really strengthen your team. You just incorrectly assumed how he was suggesting how you get there.

Nope. He was absolutely right in how he interpreted the poster suggested getting there. The conversation was literally about the cap savings that come from signing RFAs after the season starts. That is where the $400K figure comes from. The only way to get those savings is to weaken your roster and almost certainly alienate your better players.

 

[Bates]

You save that with 5 players contracts and it adds up quickly. You have to save where you can with each and every contract. There's a reason the Leafs haven't budged on their number. There's no such a thing as it's just 400K in a cap world.

So you hurt your team's performance in the regular season and risk alienating your top young players five times and maybe you save 2.5% of the cap.

Where did I say that? I didn't. Simply responding to the "Its only 400k" comment. If you read where I said there's a reason the Leafs haven't budged you would understand. Obviously not.

He explained in the next post.

 

[Kin]

The poster merely suggested that if you get this savings

Again, "this" savings is referring to this particular mean of cap manipulation. Not just any opportunity to get a lower cap hit on any player. If that was the intention it would render the previous context of the statement meaningless because nobody is suggesting the team not negotiate with other players. In which case the 400k here can still be looked at in isolation because absent achieving it then the other 1.6 million you have theoretically "saved" by means of friendly negotiations still exists. In which case, with Nylander, YOU ARE STILL ONLY "SAVING" 400K.

for a number if players you really strengthen your team.

Which, again, I also addressed. You aren't "really" strengthening your team by means of saving 2% or so of the cap. In real terms it's the difference between the Leafs as they currently are and replacing Brown with Grundstrom.

 

[Kin]

I think it would depend on how you define star? Personally I don't put Nylander in that category right now.

Oh gosh golly, a semantic argument with you about the definition of "star"? Where do I sign up?

 

[Bates]

I think it would depend on how you define star? Personally I don't put Nylander in that category right now.

Oh gosh golly, a semantic argument with you about the definition of "star"? Where do I sign up?

Funny guy to comment on semantic argument when right above you are telling posters how they are allowed to comment in regards to a topic. I find it really hard to consider a team's 5th or 6th best player a "star".

 

[Kin]

Funny guy to comment on semantic argument when right above you are telling posters how they are allowed to comment in regards to a topic.

I've never said you weren't allowed to derail conversations by needing even the simplest of concepts explained to you slowly, I've just criticized you for relentlessly doing it.

 

[Bates]

Funny guy to comment on semantic argument when right above you are telling posters how they are allowed to comment in regards to a topic.

I've never said you weren't allowed to derail conversations by needing even the simplest of concepts explained to you slowly, I've just criticized you for relentlessly doing it.

Relentlessly?? Yeah my 1100 posts support that? I guess you just not attacking the other guy's correct post would never be considered as a course of action. Even when he explained his post.

 

[Kin]

I guess you just not attacking the other guy's correct post would never be considered as a course of action.

It isn't "attacking" someone's post to point out that its two premises don't strike me as accurate, both in terms of the significance of the supposed "savings" and either the wisdom of achieving it in the context of this particular method or, if you're right, thinking that this "savings" can just be included in other entirely unrelated "savings" resulting from the standard negotiating of contracts.

That is part of a normal discussion on the matter.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Which, again, I also addressed. You aren't "really" strengthening your team by means of saving 2% or so of the cap. In real terms it's the difference between the Leafs as they currently are and replacing Brown with Grundstrom.

You've mentioned these savings as inconsequential on a similar basis before direct replacement of players lower in the lineup. But if we could save some of the ikes and mikes, and came close to 1M in cap room, it could be the difference to offering Gardiner, as a possible example, a contract that could keep him with the team, or an long term extension for Kapenen.

So I'm not sure how sweating the details aren't worthwhile in that regard. It might be a low amount of significance to a replacement contract, but the ability to offer 5M instead of 4M could come in awfully handy, no?

 

[Kin]

You've mentioned these savings as inconsequential on a similar basis before direct replacement of players lower in the lineup. But if we could save some of the ikes and mikes, and came close to 1M in cap room, it could be the difference to offering Gardiner, as a possible example, a contract that could keep him with the team, or an long term extension for Kapenen.

So I'm not sure how sweating the details aren't worthwhile in that regard. It might be a low amount of significance to a replacement contract, but the ability to offer 5M instead of 4M could come in awfully handy, no?

But I'm not saying a team shouldn't look to get the best deals for themselves when they can. I'm saying in this instance the downsides(making the team worse for months/maybe alienating Nylander) aren't worth the benefits(400k or so in cap savings). The argument that the money then becomes significant if you fold it into other mike and ikes only, to me, makes sense if I'm also dismissing those other ikes and mikes. But I'm not and I don't think anyone is. 400k is extremely unlikely to be the difference between Gardiner and not Gardiner(honestly, so is a million) or another similar sort of thing and the cumulative effect of good financial management doesn't change that when I'm still in favour of good financial management.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

You've mentioned these savings as inconsequential on a similar basis before direct replacement of players lower in the lineup. But if we could save some of the ikes and mikes, and came close to 1M in cap room, it could be the difference to offering Gardiner, as a possible example, a contract that could keep him with the team, or an long term extension for Kapenen.

So I'm not sure how sweating the details aren't worthwhile in that regard. It might be a low amount of significance to a replacement contract, but the ability to offer 5M instead of 4M could come in awfully handy, no?

But I'm not saying a team shouldn't look to get the best deals for themselves when they can. I'm saying in this instance the downsides(making the team worse for months/maybe alienating Nylander) aren't worth the benefits(400k or so in cap savings). The argument that the money then becomes significant if you fold it into other mike and ikes only, to me, makes sense if I'm also dismissing those other ikes and mikes. But I'm not and I don't think anyone is. 400k is extremely unlikely to be the difference between Gardiner and not Gardiner(honestly, so is a million) or another similar sort of thing and the cumulative effect of good financial management doesn't change that when I'm still in favour of good financial management.

I'm referring less to the late signing that will save the team a bit of cap room at the expense of not having the player (which I'll fully state, if this was part of the plan of management, I'd lose a fair bit of respect for Dubas), rather, the oft repeated idea that the money freed up either through negotiation or whatever isn't consequential because it only equates to an entry level contract or low end impact that can be papered over. 

 

[Kin]

I'm referring less to the late signing that will save the team a bit of cash at the expense of not having the player (which I'll fully state, if this was part of the plan of management, I'd lose a fair bit of respect for Dubas), rather, the oft repeated idea that the money freed up either through negotiation or whatever isn't consequential because it only equates to an entry level contract or low end impact that can be papered over.

Well, not to dwell on minor points but this isn't a case of saving "cash" but fudging with cap numbers but no matter.

Anyways, I think there's a problem in reading a position that a specific decision isn't worth the money as faulty because that money means something cumulatively when I don't think anyone has argued that the Leafs shouldn't, in most of their decisions, care about the financial impact. If someone says a million or whatever isn't worth it in the context of a specific argument, I don't think that's an argument that they should be similarly cavalier with all their decisions. If, for instance, I think this thing with Nylander isn't worth the gap in the offers and the Leafs are better off just giving Nylander what he wants there is no reason to think I'd be just as fine with the Leafs giving, say, Andreas Johnsson 2 million more as well.

We can examine each individual decision and the cost/benefit of it and come to separate conclusions. Beyond that, I'm not sure I've seen anyone really advocating what you're suggesting.

 

[Frank E]

Anyone think this will go right down to the wire?

I sure do.

 

[Zee]

Anyone think this will go right down to the wire?

I sure do.

Sure why not, it'll be like trade deadline day where you have a date and time and then hope to hear news before that.

 

[Guilt Trip]

You save that with 5 players contracts and it adds up quickly. You have to save where you can with each and every contract. There's a reason the Leafs haven't budged on their number. There's no such a thing as it's just 400K in a cap world.

So you hurt your team's performance in the regular season and risk alienating your top young players five times and maybe you save 2.5% of the cap.

Where did I say that? I didn't. Simply responding to the "Its only 400k" comment. If you read where I said there's a reason the Leafs haven't budged you would understand. Obviously not.

He explained in the next post.

Don't talk logically to him. He loves to argue and will never stop until he thinks he's won. What he wins is beyond me and that's why I never bothered to or will respond to him here. He can read into anything he wants. Again, obviously it's too simple for him to follow. Cheers Bates.