Value of: Does HF hyperbolize the negative effect of "albatross" contracts on active players beyond what it really is?

[OG Eberle]

Seeing as this discussion on cap-hit and value comes up all the time when discussing trades, it seemed to make sense to have this thread in Trade Rumors and FA Talk vs NHL, despite the prefix. Move if you must mods.

It's common speak around here to have people dump all over players after they have a bad game/series/stretch. Whether it's the length of the contract or the cap hit, it seems no player is safe from this. Many have proven their contracts fair/a steal to this point (i.e. Hyman, RNH, Karlsson, Tavares, Draisaitl)

Some examples of "albatross" or "negative value contracts" traded recently would be:

- Clarkson (5yrs/$5.125milAVG) for Horton (5yrs/$5.25milAVG))

One guy was still playing and a season or two removed from 30goals; other was going on LTIR​

- Shea Weber (5yrs/$7.58milAVG) for Evgenni Dadonov (2yrs/$5milAVG)

Monster contract, not playing anymore for player still producing 35+pts​

- Shea Weber (4yrs/$7.58milAVG) for Dysin Mayo (AHL) and 5th

Monster contract, no playing for AHL tweener and nothing pick​

- Jacob Voracek (2yrs/$8.25milAVG) for Cam Atkinson (4yrs/$5.275milAVG)

Near .8PPG player for previous 40G scorer, younger and good for .5PPG​

- OEL (6yrs/$8.25milAVG), Garland, 2nd for Loui Eriksson, Jay Beagle, Antoine Roussel, 1st

Coming off 50% GP season at 0.5PPG on bad team for OEL with young promising player in Garland +2nd for some cap dumps that expire in 1-2yrs and a 1st.​

- Brent Burns (3yrs/$8milAVG) and Lane Pederson for Steven Lorentz, Eetu Makiniemi, and a 3rd

Older dman coming off 0.5PPG for last 3 seasons with poor defensive numbers for realitvely unknown/unheralded prospects/picks​

​

Granted the Weber contract and Horton were for LTIR at the time which changes some context, but we see people making threads for Nurse/Jones/Miller and these guys are still young, putting up 40+pts/season as dmen or PPG as forwards, heavy minutes, etc. but being deemed "negative value cap dumps" that would require trading some signifcant assets such as 1sts, top prospects, young players.

Jeff Skinner was an NHL whipping child for a few seasons after he signed his deal too, but he's more than returned to form as well and isn't seen like negative cap-dump asset HF made him to be then either. Same thing with Brent Burns heading from SJS to CAR. Guy was considered a massive albatross with negative value, but is more than worth his caphit ATM with his play so far. Hell, Karlsson was deemed unmovable the first bit of his time in SJ and now he's costing several firsts and prospects for the rest of his contract with like 25% retention to many fans here. Almost as if one or two bad seasons on bad teams doesn't/shouldn't define a whole contract.

So with Nurse still playing very strong hockey this season/post season. Jones being on an awful team and still producing/eating mins. Miller starting cold but ending very well and strong, why are we so quick to write them off here as negative assets when the NHL clearly doesn't feel that way and has shown it doesn't in the past? With people saying you need to attach future 1sts, top prospects just to make it worth it to trade these younger, but still top producing players on longer/higher AAV contracts, doesn't it seem way too far/hyperbolic on the negative side than what the NHL has traditionally shown?

Click to read more...

 

[Gecklund]

I think everyone hyperbolizes it. Zaitsev cost a 2nd to dump where around here everyone said it would take OTT 1st.

I think value on HF is to one extreme or the other. It’s always WAY too high for young guys and higher performing guys. It’s always WAY too low for older more expensive guys. It also doesn’t help that you get a ton of posters who have no interest in having a discussion (which I have been one of for sure at times) and shit post just to be an ass.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

Nice pitch but no one's trading for Nurse

 

[Royale With Cheese]

Hyperbole and HF - an iconic duo.

 

[Gecklund]

Hyperbole and internet - an iconic duo.

Fixed it for you

 

[HugeInTheShire]

I think it's more about the offers being thrown around here, you look at the trades you've listed and they all have a high salaried player going the other way. This place doesn't do that, they dump the contract without taking a "bad" contract in return.
So for a player like Nurse, sure he's tradeable but not for assets that free Edmonton of the cap hit, like if they're trading him to Montreal, they'd have to take either Anderson or Gallagher as a starting point of negotiations.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

I think everyone hyperbolizes it. Zaitsev cost a 2nd to dump where around here everyone said it would take OTT 1st.

I think value on HF is to one extreme or the other. It’s always WAY too high for young guys and higher performing guys. It’s always WAY too low for older more expensive guys. It also doesn’t help that you get a ton of posters who have no interest in having a discussion (which I have been one of for sure at times) and shit post just to be an ass.

To be accurate Zaitsev cost 2023 2nd (44th overall) + 2026 4th

Value on that is pretty close to a late 1st/high 2nd

And we have seen guys dumped for straight 1st's (Marleau + Monahan)

 

[ManofSteel55]

Absolutely. All fans do, not just HF. I swear, some fans feel like an overpaid contract is affecting their own personal finances, ha ha. Truthfully, most teams only really care about overpaying guys when they have to create cap space. They don't care about the actual money, just how it affects what they want to do to build the team.

 

[First Line]

Anderson or Gallagher

Nice subtle dig.

 

[Gecklund]

To be accurate Zaitsev cost 2023 2nd (44th overall) + 2026 4th

Value on that is pretty close to a late 1st/high 2nd

And we have seen guys dumped for straight 1st's (Marleau + Monahan)

But it isn’t a late first. Like I get your point about that but this is the classic quality vs quantity debate and I don’t know about you but I’d much rather a pick in 25-35 than 44+4th. I also don’t think a 4th would get you up to 40 so.

Marleau was a 35+ contract who had to be bought out which meant his whole cap hit was on the books.

Monahan is injury prone and was coming off a big injury and Flames were desperate. I very well could be misremembering but weren’t they over the cap?

But yes to your point, it could happen in extreme circumstances but every cap dump isn’t getting a first in return.

 

[Weltschmerz]

Weber wasn't an active player when he was traded.
For some of those contracts you can only hope for LTIR.

 

[HugeInTheShire]

Nice subtle dig.

Not my intention at all, it's just about money in and money out they just happen to have high salaries. I could change it to almost any team, if they traded Nurse to NJ they'd have to have Palat going the other way, to lessen the blow of the cap hit.

 

[Gecklund]

I think it's more about the offers being thrown around here, you look at the trades you've listed and they all have a high salaried player going the other way. This place doesn't do that, they dump the contract without taking a "bad" contract in return.
So for a player like Nurse, sure he's tradeable but not for assets that free Edmonton of the cap hit, like if they're trading him to Montreal, they'd have to take either Anderson or Gallagher as a starting point of negotiations.

Yep agreed with this. Like in the Timo trade, Sharks had to take back Johnsson for the trade. Very rarely do you see anyone traded for just picks and prospects. If they are it tends to be underpayment from what we expect on HF (Bjorkstrand) or a rental

 

[OG Eberle]

I think it's more about the offers being thrown around here, you look at the trades you've listed and they all have a high salaried player going the other way. This place doesn't do that, they dump the contract without taking a "bad" contract in return.
So for a player like Nurse, sure he's tradeable but not for assets that free Edmonton of the cap hit, like if they're trading him to Montreal, they'd have to take either Anderson or Gallagher as a starting point of negotiations.

The only ones that had high-salaried players of longer term going the other way was the Voracek/Attkinson trade. The Weber and Horton trades involved players on LTIR which is pretty different in terms of cap implications.

All the others were for lesser players, expiring deals, or picks/prospects.

Weber wasn't an active player when he was traded.
For some of those contracts you can only hope for LTIR.

But this right here is my point.

Why should anyone hope for Miller/Jones/Nurse to be on LTIR? They're all some combination of young, productive, and high end players. They just aren't on sweetheart deals. Why on earth are they negative assets? Especially in a rising cap era.

 

[StuckOutHere]

Collectively, we exaggerate how much something/anything will cost and under-sell just how incompetent most GMs in this league are. There isn't a GM in the league who hasn't done something that was/is universally panned as stupid. With that said, if we had a fleet of logical GMs the league would be pretty boring.

 

[Kaibur]

But it isn’t a late first. Like I get your point about that but this is the classic quality vs quantity debate and I don’t know about you but I’d much rather a pick in 25-35 than 44+4th. I also don’t think a 4th would get you up to 40 so.

Marleau was a 35+ contract who had to be bought out which meant his whole cap hit was on the books.

Monahan is injury prone and was coming off a big injury and Flames were desperate. I very well could be misremembering but weren’t they over the cap?

But yes to your point, it could happen in extreme circumstances but every cap dump isn’t getting a first in return.

I agree that it's not quite the same value as a late 1st (pick 27-32), but it is around the same value as an early 2nd (pick 33-38). Recent history of picks traded in that range:

2021:
DET acquire pick 36 for pick 38 + 128 (2nd for 2nd + 4th)
LAK acquire pick 42 for pick 49 + 136 (2nd for 2nd + 5th)

2020:
BUF acquire pick 34 for pick 38 + 100 (2nd for 2nd + 4th)

Of course, each draft is different and you have to find a dance partner.

 

[OG Eberle]

Yep agreed with this. Like in the Timo trade, Sharks had to take back Johnsson for the trade. Very rarely do you see anyone traded for just picks and prospects. If they are it tends to be underpayment from what we expect on HF (Bjorkstrand) or a rental

I think there is a big difference between matching salaries for the cap hit vs sending capdumps back as well. Important for people not to think they're both the same thing

 

[HugeInTheShire]

The only ones that had high-salaried players of longer term going the other way was the Voracek/Attkinson trade. The Weber and Horton trades involved players on LTIR which is pretty different in terms of cap implications.

All the others were for lesser players, expiring deals, or picks/prospects.

What's the point of putting trades that don't match your expectations in the OP as proof that Nurse is tradable?
Feel free to make a list of players on a contract like Nurse has, where he's traded for picks and prospects. It'll be a real short list, if you want to rid yourself of Nurse and his contract, they'd HAVE to take a high salaried player, likely with less term in the deal. This is not my opinion, this is the way it would be.

 

[herzausstein]

Moving LTIR contracts is different than moving a large contract that the player is going to play.

Burns has 34% retention (2,720,000) and got essentially nothing in return.

Arizona dumped a long term capsink 7.26M) for several shortterm capsinks (12M total) and got a 1st (9th overall), 2nd, and 7th for Garland and some retention on OEL.

Voracek and Atkinson was a swap of players with durability issues. CBJ gets the more expensive contract but higher potential payoff, PHI gets the lesser caphit, longer contract, but decent payoff potential.

Typcially players with "bad" big contracts get dumped for similary "bad" big contracts. Neal for Lucic. If the trade is for capspace, a LTIR contract might go the other way or pick compensation. Marleau was sent from Toronto with a 1st and a 7th for a 6th.

Any contract is movable and opinions will change obviously depending on how the individual is playing at the moment. I dont think Nurse or any of the other players are necessarily bad, they may just be overpaid by a bit based on their most recent play.

 

[OG Eberle]

What's the point of putting trades that don't match your expectations in the OP as proof that Nurse is tradable?
Feel free to make a list of players on a contract like Nurse has, where he's traded for picks and prospects. It'll be a real short list, if you want to rid yourself of Nurse and his contract, they'd HAVE to take a high salaried player, likely with less term in the deal. This is not my opinion, this is the way it would be.

I think you're missing my point

I don't want to move Nurse. I don't think he's a detriment to the team. I think we are much worse off without him in the lineup than with him, contrary to many people's beliefs.

I'm contradicting the statements and common thought that we'd have to attach a 1st/blue chip prospect with him to return a cap dump or negative asset in return. I don't think anyone would dispute having to take salary back in any deal with a AAV over $6mil, or think that it's an unreasonable ask.

 

[HugeInTheShire]

I think you're missing my point

I don't want to move Nurse. I don't think he's a detriment to the team. I think we are much worse off without him in the lineup than with him, contrary to many people's beliefs.

I'm contradicting the statements and common thought that we'd have to attach a 1st/blue chip prospect with him to return a cap dump or negative asset in return. I don't think anyone would dispute having to take salary back in any deal with a AAV over $6mil, or think that it's an unreasonable ask.

He is a negative asset if you're dumping his contract, but not if you're taking a high priced player back for him.
If you wanted Arizona to take him on at full salary without a large contract going to Edmonton he costs 1st round picks or prospects to do it, but that never happens, it's always a high salaried player coming as part of the return.

 

[Cup or Bust]

To me the contracts that hurt are the players getting 3,4,5 million that are playing really poorly and adding almost nothing to a team that cause cap issues. Overpaid guys who play well are still helping their teams win. But if you have 2 or 3 players making between 3-5 million and they are doing nothing, those are the contracts that are hurting the team. If a guy is overpaid but plays well and helps the team win, if you get rid of him you still need to replace him. If he is overpaid by 1 or 2 million, that is basically a 3rd or 4th liner. Very few teams have everyone signed to perfect market value contracts. Certainly you don't want to overpay guys but paying guys who do very little and cause almost dead cap space for a team are far worse.

 

[Kaibur]

Seeing as this discussion on cap-hit and value comes up all the time when discussing trades, it seemed to make sense to have this thread in Trade Rumors and FA Talk vs NHL, despite the prefix. Move if you must mods.

It's common speak around here to have people dump all over players after they have a bad game/series/stretch. Whether it's the length of the contract or the cap hit, it seems no player is safe from this. Many have proven their contracts fair/a steal to this point (i.e. Hyman, RNH, Karlsson, Tavares, Draisaitl)

Some examples of "albatross" or "negative value contracts" traded recently would be:

- Clarkson (5yrs/$5.125milAVG) for Horton (5yrs/$5.25milAVG))

One guy was still playing and a season or two removed from 30goals; other was going on LTIR​

- Shea Weber (5yrs/$7.58milAVG) for Evgenni Dadonov (2yrs/$5milAVG)

Monster contract, not playing anymore for player still producing 35+pts​

- Shea Weber (4yrs/$7.58milAVG) for Dysin Mayo (AHL) and 5th

Monster contract, no playing for AHL tweener and nothing pick​

- Jacob Voracek (2yrs/$8.25milAVG) for Cam Atkinson (4yrs/$5.275milAVG)

Near .8PPG player for previous 40G scorer, younger and good for .5PPG​

- OEL (6yrs/$8.25milAVG), Garland, 2nd for Loui Eriksson, Jay Beagle, Antoine Roussel, 1st

Coming off 50% GP season at 0.5PPG on bad team for OEL with young promising player in Garland +2nd for some cap dumps that expire in 1-2yrs and a 1st.​

- Brent Burns (3yrs/$8milAVG) and Lane Pederson for Steven Lorentz, Eetu Makiniemi, and a 3rd

Older dman coming off 0.5PPG for last 3 seasons with poor defensive numbers for realitvely unknown/unheralded prospects/picks​

​

Granted the Weber contract and Horton were for LTIR at the time which changes some context, but we see people making threads for Nurse/Jones/Miller and these guys are still young, putting up 40+pts/season as dmen or PPG as forwards, heavy minutes, etc. but being deemed "negative value cap dumps" that would require trading some signifcant assets such as 1sts, top prospects, young players.

Jeff Skinner was an NHL whipping child for a few seasons after he signed his deal too, but he's more than returned to form as well and isn't seen like negative cap-dump asset HF made him to be then either. Same thing with Brent Burns heading from SJS to CAR. Guy was considered a massive albatross with negative value, but is more than worth his caphit ATM with his play so far. Hell, Karlsson was deemed unmovable the first bit of his time in SJ and now he's costing several firsts and prospects for the rest of his contract with like 25% retention to many fans here. Almost as if one or two bad seasons on bad teams doesn't/shouldn't define a whole contract.

So with Nurse still playing very strong hockey this season/post season. Jones being on an awful team and still producing/eating mins. Miller starting cold but ending very well and strong, why are we so quick to write them off here as negative assets when the NHL clearly doesn't feel that way and has shown it doesn't in the past? With people saying you need to attach future 1sts, top prospects just to make it worth it to trade these younger, but still top producing players on longer/higher AAV contracts, doesn't it seem way too far/hyperbolic on the negative side than what the NHL has traditionally shown?

The Coyotes are probably the most obvious example of extracting value out of bloated cap contracts, including with players who are still able to contribute on a building team. The GM alluded to the fact that he has had discussions and plans on doing so again this summer, since there are some teams still dealing with a cap crunch. These are just AZ examples but show the cost to dump dead cap in recent history has been somewhat established. Teams have likely put those costs into their calculations.

July 2021: NYI traded Andrew Ladd ($5.5M Cap) + '21 2nd + '22 2nd + '23 3rd for future considerations.
-Ladd played 51 games for the Coyotes and was a leader in the locker room for a rebuilding team (as he got to 1000 games played).

July 2021: Flyers traded Shayne Gostisbehere ($4.5M cap) + '22 2nd + '22 7th for future considerations.
-Ghost played 134 games with 82 pts avg over 20 min TOI for the Yotes, was a leader in the locker room, and netted them a 3rd round pick at the trade deadline to boot.

July 2021: Panthers traded Anton Stralman ($5.5M cap) + '24 2nd + Vlad Kolychonok for '23 7th.
-Stralman played 72 games with 21 pts avg 21 min TOI for the Yotes.

July 2022: Edmonton traded Zack Kassian ($3.2M cap) + pick 29 + '24 3rd + '25 2nd for pick 32.
-Kassian played 51 games for the Yotes (but was admittedly worthless and will possibly be bought out).

July 2022: NY Rangers traded Patrik Nemeth ($3.5M cap) + '25 2nd + '26 2nd for Ty Emberson (AHLer).
-Nemeth played 75 games avg 18 min TOI for the Yotes and was surprisingly steady on a team with a weak D corps.

 

[Gecklund]

I agree that it's not quite the same value as a late 1st (pick 27-32), but it is around the same value as an early 2nd (pick 33-38). Recent history of picks traded in that range:

2021:
DET acquire pick 36 for pick 38 + 128 (2nd for 2nd + 4th)
LAK acquire pick 42 for pick 49 + 136 (2nd for 2nd + 5th)

2020:
BUF acquire pick 34 for pick 38 + 100 (2nd for 2nd + 4th)

Of course, each draft is different and you have to find a dance partner.

You’d think I would have remembered the 2020 one because that was SJ I think

I think you’re right in that every draft is different. The one thing about all of those is that it was a minimal number of spots. Moving up 2 and 4 spots yes but with that 2nd being 44th and maybe we just have different areas of where the early 2nd designation is and where it becomes mid but I’d think starting around 40-42 it becomes mid and I think that’s where you’d get up to with the 2nd and 4th.

Overall I do agree with your point though. I think it’s really just coming down to quantity vs quality and how people view the draft/picks.

I think there is a big difference between matching salaries for the cap hit vs sending capdumps back as well. Important for people not to think they're both the same thing

But they kind of are the same thing. Like Johnsson had no value. That was a cap dump. Most of these trades where you’re “matching salary” they aren’t adding value so therefore are dumps.

 

[Kaibur]

You’d think I would have remembered the 2020 one because that was SJ I think

I think you’re right in that every draft is different. The one thing about all of those is that it was a minimal number of spots. Moving up 2 and 4 spots yes but with that 2nd being 44th and maybe we just have different areas of where the early 2nd designation is and where it becomes mid but I’d think starting around 40-42 it becomes mid and I think that’s where you’d get up to with the 2nd and 4th.

Overall I do agree with your point though. I think it’s really just coming down to quantity vs quality and how people view the draft/picks.


But they kind of are the same thing. Like Johnsson had no value. That was a cap dump. Most of these trades where you’re “matching salary” they aren’t adding value so therefore are dumps.

It's an interesting topic to me. When the Coyotes acquired pick 11 from the Sharks last year, it was widely considered an overpayment of draft capital. But the Yotes badly wanted Geekie. Pick 11 is the highest any team has traded down from in the last 5+ years, so the Sharks wanted a lot. The Yotes have an abundance of draft capital, so they were willing to make the move. That's the top end of the draft where the high picks rarely move in a quality for quantity deal.

In this draft, I think there's going to be a drop off around pick 40 or so. This draft is so forward heavy that it'll be interesting to see if and when teams start jumping on the D-men. I think that will have an effect on the perceived value of the picks in that 27-45 range.

For the Coyotes, it's an interesting issue, because they still have a ton of draft capital and apparently intend to use it somehow.