I mean you are the one arguing that top players getting shorter contracts won’t affect mid tier players. If a larger % of the pie is going to top players, let’s say typically 40% of a teams cap goes towards the top players, with shorter contract that could end up being like 50-60%. Somebody is going to get squeezed and those guys out number the top players.
Around the League Thread | New Year, New Me
- Thread starter Mr. Canucklehead
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
bandwagonesque
Practically a late 1st
- Mar 5, 2014
- 7,720
- 6,161
The entire reason for having shorter contracts for stars is to realize savings on longer contracts for stars signed with full knowledge that the back end of the contract will be poor value. Do you understand that no longer paying out the back end of these contracts represents a cost savings that can be applied elsewhere? You're assuming that those shorter contracts and AAV increases translate proportionately into a bigger share of the cap while apparently forgetting that it will also result in teams having fewer dead weight contracts.
the poor value at end of contracts is already offset by the fact the cap is going up. If the contract length is at 5, you are going to see way less value contracts because there will be more players hitting the market sooner and there won’t be enough term to pull the AAV down. Guys like Stutzle, Tage Thompson, Tkachuk will hit the market earlier and eat up the money and because the contract length is shorter, they will ask for more to make up for the loss in security.
bandwagonesque
Practically a late 1st
- Mar 5, 2014
- 7,720
- 6,161
We aren't talking about right now -- we're talking about an imagined future where those last years of contracts are eliminated and the money can be spent elsewhere. Do you understand this?
Those money will just go to the top players, what part of that do you not get. Yes there will be less anchors like Jamie Benn. But that money will end up going to a more expensive Heiskanen, Robertson and Johnston because they are all on much shorter contracts.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,866
- 7,707
Fabbro... VAN should have got him.
If they don't sign Desharnais, the money was there.
If they don't sign Desharnais, the money was there.
Are you sure it would just pile up like that. It would atleast make the market more up to date.
The things that go into new deals like cap %, 5on5 point production, comparables etc.. for fprwards would still be there. I dont know if it just means automatically cap% on new deals just skyrocket
Its interesting though
Brookbank
Registered User
- Nov 15, 2022
- 2,458
- 2,303
Oilers media taking a moment to reflect , for being first in the division for 24 hours.
The West Coast express era won 1 divisional , the Sedin era Canucks won 5 of them and the current Canucks won it last year.
It just shows how little team success Mcdavid has had. There's something to that.
The West Coast express era won 1 divisional , the Sedin era Canucks won 5 of them and the current Canucks won it last year.
It just shows how little team success Mcdavid has had. There's something to that.
I mean top players right now get like 7-8 year contracts and the AAV is kept down because of RFA years and the fact the players are getting security. If you are lowering the UFA age, you are removing at least 1 year of RFA and on top of that, you are removing security. To make up for that the UFA cost will sky rocket for top players because someone at the top bracket will ask for it and the rest will follow.
I dont know.. it would kind of change the game for the good players to have four contracts in their lifespan, essentially their entry level and then three five-year deals
Would changing unrestricted free agent age to 25 offset so that means once they reach unrestricted free agency they essentially have two 5-year contracts available to them?
Whatever tavares signs for will help illustrate my point of view on comparing the two scenarios.
Or if we're dropping Max term down to 5 years does that allow the conversation for eliminating buyouts? Is that enough to offset?
I mean top players CAN choose to have 4 contracts already if they want to, look at Matthews. Except for him, all of them don’t because security > maximizing the bag and getting Klingberg.
Yep matthews already doing it - so unless he sustains or produces more how much more can he skyrocket - its done to maintain his % onto his next deal which is more money
I dont see why the % will skyrocket in this scenario - i mean if this happened tomorrow how can the next big deal signed be expected to jump in % to absolutely reset the market?
Uhh look at Draisaitl’s contract as an example, his contract actually pays him 16.5M in the 1st 2 years and then it goes down to 12 for the remaining. Ditto with Mackinnon.
If you lower the UFA and a guy like Marner/Rantanen comes into UFA during his prime when the cap is actually way higher than when Drai and Mack signed, they are going to ask for like at least like 16M to account for cap inflation considering Mack and Dari are actually earning 16.5M during those prime years. Without the tail end of a 8 year contract to drag the AAV down, you are going to be looking at like 16x5 contract for both instead of like 13.5X8.
I would have to do some math when i have a moment but at first glance i dont think it would be this drastic
why wouldn’t it, like I said, the extra years help make the total money big enough for top players to feel good about having a lower AAV. You take away the years then total money will have to come down and top players at the end of the day care about total money more so than AAV.
I imagine majority of them know they won’t be worth as much once they are past 31 so if you take away their retirement contract then they will fight for a higher pay during their prime to make up for it.
I think im only looking at this from the superstars angle - and are you referencing a more broader scope including mid guys?...
I dont know.. with switching to 5 year term nothing is changing with it.. cap maxes and how they increase and cap %s of players. I dont think the cap is high enough yet to sustain these huge jumps.. although with a 20% max it will likely come soon enough
With that said you still factor in comparables and how the guy produces and the old question of justification of going higher than the top players
What is leon 16% now? So we arent that far off.. i still think i regulates.. say mcdavid goes 20% i cant see the security implications override the market %s.
It would sure as hell be interesting
Just A Bit Outside
Playoffs??!
- Mar 6, 2010
- 18,832
- 19,377
Need context.
What’s significant?
Did he communicate that to the team?
Did he let his agent know?
I don’t think Marner and Ratanen are mid tier guys, they are just the tier below Drai, Mack. McD is his own tier, he can ask for 20%, coaching and GM power and almost every team in the league will fight each other to get in line to get him to see the offer.
I think the thing is, the argument to lower UFA age in return for shorter contract from a player perspective is so they can hit the market earlier and make more money. Well if that’s the sell then it has to be actually true for them to vote for it. I just dont see how a trade off from 8/7 year contracts to 5 with only reduction of 1 year would do that. I think the only way it would work is if the UFA goes down to like 23 so players can start earning more money in their prime age between 23-30 with the elimination of the 2nd contract.
Maybe but we are seeing high 2nd contracts now and less bridges anyhow.
Yeah i dont know what the tradeoff would have to be. Might need to concede on multiple things or not much
VanillaCoke
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2013
- 27,049
- 13,940
He can do that July first if he's willing to back up his talk, but big yikes for Carolina and the western conference in that case..
yeah because there are 7-8 year length contracts. When you give a young guy the security of a 7-8 year contracts of like 8m+, they are going to take it because security.
Annnd they would take it the same with 5 year deals. It would become the new security
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,866
- 7,707
