What are they worth?
- Thread starter hobarth
- Start date
azzurri63
Well-known member
Joe said:
Everyone has their opinion Joe but where has it gotten us? Believe me I'd love to see the core stay together but they have got to be willing to bend a bit and I don't see it. You want big bucks then sign for 8 years like most others. These guys have been coddled and Dubas messed it up with the previous deals and now we are tooting the same horn.
Kin
Active member
azzurri63 said:
This doesn't make any sense to me. If you're dealing with players who are 26 or 27 why do you want them to sign 8 year deals? Why are you so eager to lock up guys where you're paying them prime rates for their 32-35 year seasons? I'd think our experience with Tavares would teach people that 5 year deals are probably optimal for guys on their third contracts.
Like are people looking at what Chicago got out of Toews the last three years and really eager to sign up for that?
Guilt Trip
Well-known member
Exactly. Well stated.Nik said:
azzurri63
Well-known member
Nik said:
Nobody knows what's going to happen to players as they age. Some can still play and contribute, some get hurt some have other issues not related to injuries etc but signing these guys to 8 year contracts at age 27,28 is not a gamble. So here's a list of 8 and I'll include 7 year contracts signed to stars, good players and their age.
Pietrangelo 7 years age 30
Karlsson 8-29
Huberdeau 8-29
Josi 8-29
Couture 8-29
JT Miller 7-29
Doughty 8-28
Kopitar 8-28
Goudreau 28-7
Zibanejad 28-8
Carlson 8-28
MacKinnon 27-8
Panarin 27-7
Pastrnak 26-8
Barkov 26-8
Aho 25-8
Kucherov 25-8
Dubois 25-8
So Matthews will be 27, Willy 28 and Mitch 28 when they become UFA's. So why can't they sign for 8 like some of the above and I've missed a ton of others I could have included. It's one thing to want a good chunk of the pie but then sign long term. These guys want it both ways it seems. I have to ask one thing Nik if Matthews and I'm not even going to go any further signs for say 3 years, what do you think his next contract will be. I'm going to bet money it will be for a much longer term and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if it's 7 or 8 years depending on if he leaves or not. You think that's a better solution?
azzurri63 said:
There's pros and cons to both types of deals, which is why it's probably okay not to get worked up over it.
Short deal pros
- No chance of it aging poorly
- Allows team to pivot in a shorter time frame
- Gives the player more money today
- Able to adjust better to changes in cap
- Easier to trade if need be
- Gives player more control
- Gives team more flexibility
- Player is more motivated because they are betting on themselves
Short deal cons
- More negotiations which have the chance to go sour
- Price for player could keep going up (is that really bad though?)
- Roster churn will be higher
Long deal pros
- Cost certainty for the team
- Roster churn is less
- Player knows what they are getting for the next 8 years without worrying about injury
- Team can attract other players because it looks like foundation is stable
- Focus can be on other areas of team once one part is locked in
- Less negotiations, so more certainty on the player staying
Long deal cons
- Loss of motivation for player potentially
- Player may under perform contract at end
- Team is locked to contract, may be hard to move
- Other players signing for more may cause unrest on team
- Can't respond as well to cap changes
There are more, I just can't think of them at the moment, but I just wanted to highlight that short deals aren't horrible, and there are some advantages to them for the team and the player, which to me is a win-win. I think long term deals can be bad for both the player and the team. For example the Tavares deal. If that deal had been 2 years shorter, and the Leafs could have signed him at a lower rate this year, then a lot of the teams problems could be solved a lot easier.
It can lead to more player movement, which is what you see in the NBA as they have a cap at 5 years in length, but that can be exciting too. Teams have the chance to rebuild in a shorter time frame, and the players get these huge contracts.
Kin
Active member
Significantly Insignificant said:
So I don't think the difference between a 7 year and 5 year deal can really be described as the difference between "short" and "long" but semantics aside I just want to highlight just how likely it is that players experience significant decline between the ages of 27 and, say, 32 or 33.
The guys who are in their mid 30's right now are guys who were taken in either the 2007, 2006 or 2005 drafts. While there are absolutely still some guys from those years who are still contributing to their teams and even playing at a high level almost everyone in those drafts have noticeably slowed over the last three years when compared to their peaks. We're not talking about scrubs here. We're talking about surefire HOFers like Toews or Nik Backstrom.
Even the guys from those classes who have still produced at a top tier rate over the last three years(and I think that list is pretty limited to just three guys, Pat Kane, Brad Marchand and Sid Crosby) I think we would all generally agree are not quite the same guys they were in their late 20's, early 30's. By comparison those lists are littered with guys who were elite tier performers in their 20's who are now basically out of the league.
Betting on some significant slowdown from the ages of 32-35 is betting on an overwhelmingly likely outcome and while that doesn't necessarily equate to bad performance over those years if you don't have to take that risk, why would you?
The list of top tier players, that is the players with the absolute most negotiating leverage in the league, who've signed 7 or 8 year 3rd deals is pretty proof positive that those long term deals are the ones that most benefit the players themselves. It's why someone like David Clarkson, when he was a sought after free agent, was able to negotiate one for himself.
Teams, on the other hand, are almost certainly better served by signing shorter deals which, again, is evidenced by the fact that those 7 or 8 year deals aren't given to anyone other than the players who are so good that the upside of getting them for their remaining peak years is judged to be worth the very likely risk of their inevitable decline on the back half.
If the Leafs have a bunch of stars who want to re-negotiate contracts as 32 or 33 year olds, they've lucked out.
Nik said:
I threw this post together in 15 minutes. Set expectations accordingly.
It's an interesting thought exercise. I think longer term deals can be advantageous to certain players at certain times. However, how much could certain superstars make if they were re-upping every two years? If Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin, MacKinnon were going to renegotiate every couple of years up until they hit their 30's. Subban's situation was the demise of the bridge deal being used with younger players because he went out and one a Norris.
I look at someone like Stutzle with Ottawa, and I think that is very team friendly deal for him. If his deal is shorter, and he has a couple of more 100 point seasons, he might have ended up in a better situation.
Overall I like shorter term deals, but I also like things to be fluid because you don't know what the future holds, so don't lock yourself into something that you may want to change.
Kin
Active member
Significantly Insignificant said:
I think hockey players in the cap era have sort of consistently established that they are, for the most part, pretty conservative and that the outright maximizing of their earning potential isn't as important to them as getting long-term guarantees. Even if the odds are against it, I bet they all know at least one guy from their careers who got a bad injury and was never the same after it so they want to insulate themselves against that within reason. There is also going to be some varying degree of not wanting to put their team in a bad cap situation.
But as I've said before NHL players deciding to that, even in large numbers, still doesn't really set the market. The Market, even an artificially constrained by the cap market, is still the market. And it's one where our own John Tavares was offered an AAV that, if he'd accepted, would have still made him the highest paid player in the NHL.
Nik said:
Actually, when I do the math, I am not sure why Matthews wants a short term deal. Lets say he does 3 years at 15 per. That's 45 million. Then he does 5 at 12, which is another 60 million, that's 105 million. However if he signs an 8 year deal at 13 million, then he gets 104. A million dollars over the lifetime of the deal isn't great.
The only way this makes sense is if he thinks his next deal will be longer than 5 years, and/or worth more than 12. I'm not sure what the market would be for Auston Matthews at 30 years old on an 8 year deal. Or maybe he is waiting for McDavid to sign his next deal to set the market cap.
Anyways, I'm sure he has his reasons for wanting to go shorter term. I'm okay with it either way, because short term does still do good things for the team.
Redleaf
Active member
Nik said:
True, but there is more certainty in some types of outcomes than others. There are calculated risks and absolute long shots. I?m pretty sure he?s referring to the calculated risks you?d be taking on for some of these longer term contracts. Players would also be showing the club some commitment/risk on the their behalf too if they agreed to sign up long term. Contracts on both sides of the ledger should share the rewards and risks as equally as possible.
Kin
Active member
RedLeaf said:
Uh huh. And I'm saying that the idea that players tend to decline in the backhalf of these deals are what a gambler would call a pretty safe bet. Betting they won't decline is far riskier.
RedLeaf said:
But, no, they wouldn't. Players signing long-term contracts is less risky for them than short term deals because they're guaranteeing as many years as possible at a top tier salary. They're then insulated from injuries or a decline in play affecting their earning potential. It's much riskier for a player to sign short term deals. This is why in CBA negotiations teams try to get shorter max length deals and players want longer ones.
Again, we're literally seeing in front of our eyes with Tavares why a 5 year contract would have been better for the team. Why you guys are so determined for the Leafs to repeat that mistake, when they might not have to, is baffling to me.
dappleganger
Active member
Nik said:
I think if we look back on large money-long term contracts that have been signed in the NHL and who benefitted the most from it, the teams or the players? It'd be the players in the majority.
It goes both ways, but generally long term contracts in the NHL don't age well for the team.
dappleganger
Active member
Significantly Insignificant said:
3 years x $13.5m followed by 8 years x $16m.
OldTimeHockey
Active member
Or, maybe Matthews(or sub in Nylander here) feels he has the right to explore free agency and if you want him to stay away from it, you have to pay for him to give up that right regardless of the length of the contract he's willing to negotiate.
IJustLurkHere
Member
Significantly Insignificant said:
I think the flaw in your estimates above may be the expectation that Matthews salary goes down on the 8 year deal. If he's looking at the Tavares deal, he could be expecting an offer more in the 15-16+ (depending on cap) even at 30 years... it just might mean moving teams (even if that means 7 years). Watching the way these deals seem to be playing out, I'd be suspecting that at some point around 30, Matthews is going to have to test the open market if he's trying to maximise earnings.
This is not an approach without risk for Matthews. He's already had injuries in his career which have impacted his play, so who is to say that he gets to the end of a 3 year extension without significant concerns. But to Nik's point, that equally says that a 3 year deal now may well be better value for the Leafs than 8.