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

[BlackFrancis]

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 thing you're skipping on a couple of your examples is the fact insurance was paying a lot of the dollars.

Cap value is one thing, actual dollars paid for players who will not see the ice is entirely different. One is convenience while the other affects a company's bottom line.

 

[I am Canadian]

Some people take these trade boards waaaay to seriously and are prone to overreact. They tend to base their perceived value of players based on emotion rather than using statistical evidence etc.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Yes, or at least, frequently yes. GMs find a way to unload contracts.

But it's de rigueur to resort to hyperbole, hot takes and the sky is falling type posts in here. That's the HF way.

 

[Mrfenn92]

It’s a internet message board lots of overreacting and hyperbole.

 

[wintersej]

Most of the OPs examples are from before we had a flat cap for years and everyone tight for cap space. That TOTALLY changes the marketplace. In a few years when there is a rising cap it will be less of a big deal.

 

[puckinyourteeth]

Nice pitch but no one's trading for Nurse

But he’s not wrong though

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

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?

Every albatross is different

 

[First Line]

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.

Sure, fine . You get the benefit of the doubt as you may not have been aware of the demise of Gallagher. Palat and Anderson are useful players, Gally not so much.

 

[sansabri]

nah. Luongo said it best

 

[HugeInTheShire]

Sure, fine . You get the benefit of the doubt as you may not have been aware of the demise of Gallagher. Palat and Anderson are useful players, Gally not so much.

I'm aware of what Gallagher is now, all 3 of those players would have different values in a Nurse trade, but really they are there because no team is taking a "bad" contract like Nurse at full salary for fair value for the player.
Gallagher would be going, in the hopes that he'd be LTIR cap space not because he's useful, the other 2 would be going because they make too much money for too many years but aren't as bad of contracts a Nurse appears to be.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

There's a huge difference between an LTIR contract of someone that's never going to play again... And an albatross contract of someone still playing.


The LTIR contract is basically nothing, due to the way LTIR works against the cap. And even more so if that LTIR contract is insured.


Compared to your example of Darnell Nurse... A guy who's overpaid by ~$3M and still signed for 6(?) more years, who also isn't injured so not only does he count fully against the cap, but said contract also isn't having a portion of it paid by insurance.

 

[Coffee]

It’s an internet message board lots of overreacting and hyperbole.

Let’s change that

 

[GeeoffBrown]

Yes, or at least, frequently yes. GMs find a way to unload contracts.

But it's de rigueur to resort to hyperbole, hot takes and the sky is falling type posts in here. That's the HF way.

This is true but usually teams have to give up assets and/or swap problematic contracts.

I'm at peace with the fact that the Flames are pretty much stuck with Kadri, Huberdeau and Markstrom. (Damn, that looks ugly when you type it out like that. Should get rid of the GM who signed these)

 

[NOTENOUGHRYJOTHINGS]

The Oilers have some very good value contracts. McDavid, Draisatl, RNH, Hyman.

But they seem to be up against the cap with lots of holes in the roster. What's gone wrong?

The value contracts at forward should allow the Oilers to load up on depth and the blue line.

 

[Svechhammer]

Some contracts are genuinely terrible, but I do think HFB, and the hockey community in general, have a bad habit of overreacting to high dollar deals, thinking anything expensive is bad. Case in point, I remember when Jordan Staal signed his 10 year $6m AAV contract with the Canes after the Pittsburgh trade, and at the time people thought it was going to be prohibitively expensive to the team in the last couple years, and that just never really came to fruition.

 

[Maukkis]

Most of the OPs examples are from before we had a flat cap for years and everyone tight for cap space. That TOTALLY changes the marketplace. In a few years when there is a rising cap it will be less of a big deal.

This. Looking back at all the big contracts (5+ AAV) that have been moved in the last 12 months (excluding players that won't play again), you can roughly identify three groups (with some overlap):

Deadline guys:

- Orlov: pending UFA, retained twice to 25 %. Cap taken back in Smith.
- Klingberg: pending UFA, retained to 50 %.
- O'Reilly: pending UFA, retained twice to 25 %.
- Tarasenko: pending UFA, retained to 50 %.
- Horvat, pending UFA, retained down to 75 %. Cap taken back in Beauvillier.
- Vrana: 1 year left, retained to 50 %.
- Quick: pending UFA, retained to 50 %.
- Granlund, 2 years left, no retention.
- Kane, pending UFA, retained twice to 25 %.
- Ekholm, 3 years left, retained to 96 %. Cap taken back in Barrie.
- Meier, pending RFA, retained down to 50 %. Cap taken back in Johnsson and Zetterlund.
- Dadonov, pending UFA, retained down to 50 %. Cap taken back in Gurianov.

The Granlund trade was widely accepted as a total brainfart, so if we exclude him, the most amount of net cap space taken on by a new team was St. Louis taking on 2.625 million of Vrana's contract for one whole year.

Given away / cap dumped (=selling team either paid to get rid of the guy or took virtually nothing of value in return):

- Monahan, 1 year to UFA, no retention.
- Pacioretty, 1 year to UFA, no retention.
- Burns, 3 years to UFA, retained to 66 %.
- Murray, 2 years to UFA, retained to 75 %.
- McDonagh, 4 years to UFA, no retention.
- Bjorkstrand, 3 years to UFA, no retention.

Two cases of a team paying to get rid of a deal, and four cases of giving up a productive player for a price ranging from *nothing* to *two mid-round picks*. Not good, especially when you're giving up a top line player.

Hockey deals:

- Huberdeau, 1 year to UFA, no retention. Part of a larger deal.
- Petry, 3 years to UFA, no retention. Cap taken back in Matheson.
- DeBrincat, 1 year to RFA, no retention.

Three very different trades and sets of circumstances around them, but notably, no big deals longer than 3 years changed hands here.

In the last 24 months, there have been four (4) cases of a contract that is 5+ AAV and 4+ years long having been traded: Eichel, McDonagh (above), Atkinson, and Ekman-Larsson. Eichel is obviously completely separate from the rest of the group, and you'd think that a 25-year-old 1C returned a lot back even with a huge contract (for a young gun, contract length isn't a detriment as such). And so he did, even though some weren't fans of the deal at first.

But what if the contract isn't ideal? McDonagh got the Lightning nothing back after three consecutive trips to the SCF. Atkinson returned Voracek (tough to grade, given what happened afterwards), and the OEL trade involved three separate cap dumps going back to Arizona (there were picks involved too, but so was some firecracker called Conor Garland that makes evaluating "the OEL return" a nightmare). Doesn't sound so ideal, does it? If you look at the "given away" -tab, you'll see a handful of longer deals being donated to a new owner - even if the players themselves were of high quality!

Basically: if you're dumping a sizable long-term deal in this climate, you're incredibly likely to be gifting the player away at best. I don't know when the cap will start rising rapidly, but until then, it is probably safe to assume that your team's veteran player on a long-term deal carries no trade value at all.

 

[tsujimoto74]

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.

Yeah, OP is glossing over some important details. A lot of these trades involve shitty salary going back, just a bit less of it, or a player that's LTIRetired for a player that's still playing. It's very difficult to dump bad salary and actually be rid of it.

 

[OG Eberle]

Yeah, OP is glossing over some important details. A lot of these trades involve shitty salary going back, just a bit less of it, or a player that's LTIRetired for a player that's still playing. It's very difficult to dump bad salary and actually be rid of it.

I didn't gloss over any of that. I very clearly noted the deals in my OP such as Weber/Horton were LTIR which is massive context, also noted the cap dumps going back in the OEL trade, but were only for 1-2yrs more vs OELs 6.

I've read like 4 posts since I last visited this thread pointing out the difference between LTIR contracts and non-LTIR ones as if I never originally noted that context for the relevent deals in my OP. Not sure why lol

Hell, I even noted the relevance and value of the assets at the time/seasons leading up to the trades they were in. I definitely gave a ton of context on each deal. Just seems there was a lot of TL;DR in here

 

[Beerfish]

I agree with the op mostly. Guys who are overpaid but still decent players care called cap dumps all the time and that is not the case.

The biggest sins of GMs is not blowing it by over paying or terming a guy who has actually produced even if it does not work out. The big sins that get teams in trouble is over payng and terming guys who are not potential big contributors.

As an oiler fan this is Hollands big fault. Hands out multi year deals to middling players who a year later you are trying to dump or worse yet a contract for a guy like kassian who you have to pay a lot to get rid of.

Make a mistake on a guy like skinner who sctualy scored like 46 goals? Your not happy but he has a track record. Over paying and terming the middling players is what gets you in perpetual cap hell.

 

[KevinRedkey]

The Blackhawks could pay Alex Killorn league max for the next 3yrs and it wouldn't matter all that much.

But if the Leafs, Golden Knights, or Oilers did the same - it would be devastating to their team structure.

It's all about context. We can't just slap a label on something and pretend it applies everywhere anymore.

 

[EverTheCynic]

Big contracts aren't the problem so much as every player demanding strict movement clauses embedded into their contracts.

Seems like everyone these days gets a NMC of some variety. It's really stagnating the trade market and handcuffing teams.

I don't know the CBA at all, but this is a problem imo.

 

[McSuper]

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.

You haven't been following along on HF. See Shark fans with Karlsson. They want prime asset and a ++ to take a contract back. Heck Montreal fans wanted Assets added to take Puljujarvi back in an Anderson trade. In a cap world a part of doing business is taking back cap and most fans don't get it. Apparently Yamamoto is going cost Edmonton to move with 1 year left at 3 million and yet some of the fans that post this are the same ones that thought Price would return possible assets after missing a year of hockey.

 

[Frank Drebin]

HF a lot of the times feels like reading the same person posting under different accounts on certain subjects. See the Babcock thread as an example. Its annoying how so many posters mindlessly default to the tone of the board. We see the same thing with contracts. Like that guy farming for likes with the Nurse contract post.

 

[Baksfamous112]

Yes it’s getting quite crazy. I can understand some contracts are untradable (looking at you Gallagher) but most of the contracts in the league are fair. Looks to me that hfboards are only looking for absolutely steal/value contracts

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

Closest analogue to a Nurse trade I can think of was Brian Campbell who was traded with 5 years left on his deal at a 7.1 m cap hit (11% of cap). Nurse today has 7 more years at 9.25m cap hit (11% of cap).

Campbell was considered overpaid to the point of being unmovable but servicable. He was traded for Rostislav Olesz who had 3 years left with a 3.125 m cap hit in a pure cap dump move, Olesz was compliance bought out after the next CBA agreement. However that's not the whole story, as Dale Tallon signed Campbell to that contract then moved to Florida and traded for him. So for Nurse to be traded you'd basically need Ken Holland to move to another team, Nurse to waive his NMC, and then get traded for a 4m player with less term that's much worse than Nurse.

It's pretty much unmovable.