Player Discussion: Damon Severson

[koteka]

This feels like an old person yelling at 20 year olds "when I was your age I was married with 2 kids, owned 2 cars and owned a home"

If anything I am an old person yelling “I lived in a crappy apartment and drove a crappy car and wasn’t married and didn’t have kids when I was your age.”

If someone can show me an example of a well managed team that had a system of signing overly long contracts and then made smart buy out choices, I’d be open to learning about it. I can give examples of poorly managed teams buying bad contracts out and then replacing them with new bad contracts.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

If anything I am an old person yelling “I lived in a crappy apartment and drove a crappy car and wasn’t married and didn’t have kids when I was your age.”

If someone can show me an example of a well managed team that had a system of signing overly long contracts and then made smart buy out choices, I’d be open to learning about it. I can give examples of poorly managed teams buying bad contracts out and then replacing them with new bad contracts.

Good teams don't buy out crappy players, they trade them to crappy teams because those teams actually think they will help them get better because they played on a good team.

Crappy teams buy out crappy players because nobody wants them.

 

[majormajor]

Good teams don't buy out crappy players, they trade them to crappy teams because those teams actually think they will help them get better because they played on a good team.

Crappy teams buy out crappy players because nobody wants them.

Except when they buy them out. Tampa is still paying the Lecavalier buyout. Boston paid Mike Reilly $3m to sit in the minors last year, and the Kings did the same with Cal Petersen. The Pens are paying Jack Johnson a buyout. The Rangers are still paying Brad Richards. The Devils are paying Cory Schneider and Janne Kuokkanen.

 

[koteka]

Except when they buy them out. Tampa is still paying the Lecavalier buyout. Boston paid Mike Reilly $3m to sit in the minors last year, and the Kings did the same with Cal Petersen. The Pens are paying Jack Johnson a buyout. The Rangers are still paying Brad Richards. The Devils are paying Cory Schneider and Janne Kuokkanen.

I am 100% in favor of paying a guy to sit in the minors. I want to do it with Elvis if he doesn’t improve. Paying a guy to sit in the minors isn’t pushing cap issues further into the future like a buy out does. I am also in favor of retaining salary in a trade.

Lecavalier and Richards are from the old compliance buy outs and don’t count against the cap. So that is a different ball game from a buy out under the current rules. If we could buy out a contract and it didn’t impact the cap, I’d be fine with it. Then you are just spending some rich guy‘s money.

Pens haven’t done anything since buying Johnson out. The Pens have been poorly run lately. Johnson isn’t an example that gives me any confidence in buy outs helping a team out.

The Devils are an interesting case. Their buyouts end after this upcoming season and they might be timed faily well for their cap situation. $2.3 million will come off the books as Dawson Mercer needs his next contract. People thought the Devils were being poorly run a few years ago, but they seem to have made smart choices. @Viqsi should give you a cookie for bring up Schneider. But I wonder if they should have waited one more year on Schneider. Then they would have more cap space this year. But maybe buying out Schneider helped them suck enough to get Luke Hughes who looks like a key piece going forward.

 

[majormajor]

I am 100% in favor of paying a guy to sit in the minors. I want to do it with Elvis if he doesn’t improve. Paying a guy to sit in the minors isn’t pushing cap issues further into the future like a buy out does.

I am 100% in agreement. It's an underrated option and better than a buyout if you haven't entered your window yet. When a guy is hurting your team, you send him down. It doesn't matter whether he's paid $500k or $5m.

Folks here say "you'd never get ownership to go along with it", but business people understand this better than hockey people. I've never had trouble teaching loss aversion, sunk cost, or sunk cost fallacy to a class of business students. If anything the McConnell's will have to step in to explain it to our FO.

 

[db2011]

Stoopid is intentionally misspelled as stoopid sometimes to emphasize just how stupid something is.

I have never seen a buyout that made sense to me. Minnesota might be the closest scenario to making sense, but those were awful contracts that everyone always knew would age badly. (And those bad contracts never got Minnesota anywhere.)

The NFL contract rules make so much more sense - you cut a guy and you deal with the cap hit immediately, not push it way off into the future. The NHL lets bad GMs make bad signings and then punishes a future GM by pushing the consequences of the bad signing and the reaction of the bad signing into the future.

I still have no idea why we bought out Hartnell. We are still paying Wennberg’s contract and this team could use a guy like Wennberg right now.

If you have an example of a buyout that made good long term sense for a team, please let me know what it is.

(BTW, I pay cash for cars and think anyone who finances a car is making a financial mistake. I think going into massive debt for a college degree is stupid. I went to a state school, worked when I was in school, and drove crappy cars for years. But now I am very comfortable. Pushing the cost of something you are consuming now into the future is a bad way to live your life, run a company, or manage a sports franchise.)

The Minnesota example is not comparable. You're talking about buying out consensus terrible contracts. This is talking about buying out the 7th or 8th year of an 8 year contract that I don't think anyone thinks is terrible aside from perhaps those two years. And those two years' buyout prices are absolutely digestible.

NFL doesn't provide guaranteed contracts to its players. f*** that noise.

Buyouts making long-term sense, like they're a long-term strategy? That's not this scenario. Although CBJThrowaway provided examples of teams that have massive buyouts on their books (again, this would not be that) and have won President's Trophies and are playing in the final. Are those not worthy accomplishments?

(BTW, I have never driven a new car off the lot because paying cash for cars is a luxury I have never been able to afford. I'm well into college debt and am a better person for it. I went to a state school, worked when I was in school, and drove crappy cars for years- even this year. But now I'm comfortable, even though I just assumed a stupidly big mortgage- but it's still cheaper than my rent was! Thinking you can support a family (like I am) without pushing the cost of doing that into the future is to demonstrate that you grew up in a different time- and I turn 50 next year! The world has shifted. Pushing the cost of something you consume now into the future is the only way to consume anything because that's how they've set it up.)

 

[squashmaple]

The Minnesota example is not comparable. You're talking about buying out consensus terrible contracts. This is talking about buying out the 7th or 8th year of an 8 year contract that I don't think anyone thinks is terrible aside from perhaps those two years. And those two years' buyout prices are absolutely digestible.

NFL doesn't provide guaranteed contracts to its players. f*** that noise.

Buyouts making long-term sense, like they're a long-term strategy? That's not this scenario. Although CBJThrowaway provided examples of teams that have massive buyouts on their books (again, this would not be that) and have won President's Trophies and are playing in the final. Are those not worthy accomplishments?

(BTW, I have never driven a new car off the lot because paying cash for cars is a luxury I have never been able to afford. I'm well into college debt and am a better person for it. I went to a state school, worked when I was in school, and drove crappy cars for years- even this year. But now I'm comfortable, even though I just assumed a stupidly big mortgage- but it's still cheaper than my rent was! Thinking you can support a family (like I am) without pushing the cost of doing that into the future is to demonstrate that you grew up in a different time- and I turn 50 next year! The world has shifted. Pushing the cost of something you consume now into the future is the only way to consume anything because that's how they've set it up.)

That NHL contracts are guaranteed is a great point that's getting lost in this. Comparing the two leagues is apples and coconuts.

(Also thank you for this. I'm 35 and very aware I'll never own a home or have the luxury to pay thousands of dollars cash for something like a car. Literally unthinkable for me. Just putting all my bills on autopay is my ultimate dream. I worked 50+ hours a week in college just to survive and graduated during the recession and had no family support to speak of, not even a place to live rent-free. I have a good job now in my thirties but it's too late for me, and the game is too rigged. To speak like if kids these days just work harder they can get ahead is the most out of touch Boomer nonsense I've ever heard and hearing it makes me not want to take someone seriously in anything else, either).

 

[Viqsi]

Folks, while I empathize with the discussion of finances and how they are on folks nowadays, it's off topic. So this is probably a good time to go back to focusing on the Severson trade. Thanks.

 

[Monk]

The most interesting part of Severson's media avail imo was when he talks about how instrumental Nash was. I bet that's not unusual.

The fanboy in me wants the team to do well enough that Jarmo gets another contract that serves as a bridge to Nash taking over as GM.

 

[Sdrawkcab321]

playing him on the 1st line will be a mistake. He played on the 3rd in NJ a lot and ate up opposing 3rd line groups. I hope we use him there some. But that probably depends on if jiricek is ready and can handle 2nd line duty.

 

[koteka]

florida won the president's trophy last year and made the cup finals this year (and technically isn't dead yet!) with an enormous buyout of a bonus-heavy contract on their books.

Although CBJThrowaway provided examples of teams that have massive buyouts on their books (again, this would not be that) and have won President's Trophies and are playing in the final. Are those not worthy accomplishments?

Yandle is a really interesting case. He had a NMC. He had an iron man streak. Was he bought out because he cost too much or was he bought out because the streak was a distraction? Or some combination of the two?

If the goal was to play the best players every night and show guys that hard work gets rewarded, trying to let Yandle keep his streak would have been a big issue, especially with guys not getting playing time. Yandle’s friends on the team might have wanted him to keep the streak. So you have a potentially divisive locker room issue, and the guy causing it can’t be traded because of his NMC. Fans (as much as the Panthers have fans) could have been divided on the issue too. So the buyout takes away the distraction and Florida isn’t the team that ends his streak. The focus can be on winning games and Cups, and Florida wins a President’s trophy and makes a Stanley Cup final with his buyout on the books.

Buying out Yandle appears to have been a smart move, but I don’t believe it was due only to financial considerations.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

Buying out Yandle appears to have been a smart move, but I don’t believe it was due only to financial considerations.

it was purely financial – he was no longer playable. disaster in his own end, not effective 5v5, he'd pretty much shriveled up into a powerplay specialist only, and they had a ton of RFA deals to get done that summer:

• reinhart
• bennett
• forsling
• duclair
• montour

that all added up to $11.5m of new money on the books. they traded a prospect + 2nd rounder to get stralman's last year ($5.5m) off the books, and bought out yandle to cover most of the rest (~$5m of savings in 21-22).

they also had mason marchment on a really cheap deal at the time. yandle's buyout cap hit spiked this year thanks to bonuses in his contract, which is pretty much the sole reason why they ended up having to let marchment walk.

 

[koteka]

it was purely financial – he was no longer playable. disaster in his own end, not effective 5v5,

Yet he played 77 games the following season.

 

[squashmaple]

Yet he played 77 games the following season.

And that was 77 games he shoudln't have been playing. Ask any Flyers fan. Once he got the streak, they healthy scratched him a week later.

 

[BB88]

Yet he played 77 games the following season.

All for the streak

 

[VT]

 

[Monk]

For all the talk of term... it feels like it's never a problem. I'm sure I'm wrong. What are the examples of contracts where term became an impactful problem in years 7-8?

 

[koteka]

For all the talk of term... it feels like it's never a problem. I'm sure I'm wrong. What are the examples of contracts where term became an impactful problem in years 7-8?

Lately it seems like LTIR has been used to avoid that issue. But if the NHL gets stricter… Call me a paranoid CBJ fan, but the Blue Jackets seem like the team that the NHL would use as an example to frighten the other teams not to get too crazy with LTIR.

 

[tunnelvision]

For all the talk of term... it feels like it's never a problem. I'm sure I'm wrong. What are the examples of contracts where term became an impactful problem in years 7-8?

Seabrook and OEL for instance?

 

[Monk]

Seabrook and OEL for instance?

Interesting, did a little reading. Thanks. Seems like in both these cases, the team that signed them traded them. If these are the bad examples, it makes me feel better tbh. Also the LTIR thing in Seabrook's case like koteka mentioned.

Even saying 'cap hit good, term bad' is sort of ironic in a way. Do you often get one without the other? Can the term really be that 'bad' assuming the cap goes up like it's expected to over the next 8 years?

Just musing really. Keep seeing the "dat term tho" commentary that just feels sorta... silly.

 

[Marioesque]

For all the talk of term... it feels like it's never a problem. I'm sure I'm wrong. What are the examples of contracts where term became an impactful problem in years 7-8?

Blake Wheelers current contract immediately comes to mind

Alexei Yashin

"Yashin came to the Islanders in a trade after the 2000-01 season. New York signed him to a 10-year contract worth $87.5 million. The four years left on the deal are worth $26.45 million. The Islanders can buy Yashin out by paying two-thirds of the remaining amount ($17.63 million) over the next eight years for a salary-cap hit of about $2.2 million per season."

And while we're at Islanders, Rick DiPietro

"DiPietro, who signed his deal with the Islanders when he was 25 years old, will be almost 50 when he stops cashing checks from the Islanders."

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Just musing really. Keep seeing the "dat term tho" commentary that just feels sorta... silly.

As if the team and GM themselves don't have a bit of "dat term tho" in their mind. It's the cost of doing business. You'd think these organizations are just skipping merrily through the fields tossing out term like its Snoopy tossing out Easter eggs. You want to sign a guy, both sides have to agree.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

it's the same story with all of these analytics people. when a player their model likes signs a contract they have to find some issue with it so they can keep up this 'smartest person in the room' schtick.

with severson, the models universally agree that he's really good, so all of they zero in on the term as a big problem. the irony is that these analytics personalities don't take the five seconds to analyze the contract structure or look for examples of how much it costs to trade players near the end of similar contracts (i.e. voracek).

the obvious outcomes to giving severson an 8-year deal are:

1. he plays out the whole thing (best outcome)
2. they trade him
3. they buy out the last 1-2 years of his deal (arguably worst outcome)

for #2, if he's still a fairly effective player, the cost to move him could be minimal. if they're in a cap crunch and need to move him for cap space, they would likely incur a small additional cost. some comparables for that:

1. voracek's (1 year, $8.25m) to arizona cost a 6th round pick
2. pacioretty (1 year, $7m) to carolina cost a third pair defenseman (coghlan)
3. walker (1 year, $2.6m) + petersen (2 years, $5m) to PHI cost the kings a 2nd round pick + helge grans

or they could do something similar to the atkinson trade (taking on a bigger cap hit with less term left) if he's still a fairly effective player. there are plenty of options to get him off the books without a buyout – and the jackets would still get surplus value out of acquiring severson because it only cost a third rounder to get him.

even in a buyout situation, if they treat the contract like a six-year deal, the total acquisition cost becomes:

CBJ gets	CBJ gives up
Six years of Damon Severson (age 29-34 seasons)	2023 3rd round pick $2.85m cap hit in 29-30 $2.85m cap hit in 30-31 $1.70m cap hit in 31-32 $1.70m cap hit in 32-33

the cost of that cap space, in trade terms, would be something like an additional third rounder. so they'd be getting six years of severson for a 2023 3rd + the cost equivalent of a 2030 3rd, which is still massive surplus value for columbus.

in other words – even if they have to pay a small asset cost (or take on small buyout cap hits in the 2030s) to get him off the books, they're still getting massive surplus value when you add that to the initial acquisition cost. it's like they're paying for him in two installments: one now, one in 2030.

it's a move that analytics people would be universally lauding if they actually took a few minutes to analyze rather than simply reacting to the term number.

 

[majormajor]

I'm happy about the Severson deal all things considered but the extra years on his deal are not a non-factor. Give me a break.

Look at the Vancouver Canucks who have drafted superstars and they can't even build a good team because of the bad contracts they're stuck with.

 

[Youngguns1380]

Why did they switch numbers on Severson from 28 to 78??? Could that indicate a possible trade? I know I may be reaching but he has always been #28?