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

[Some Other Flame]

Does HF hyperbolize the negative effect​

Could have stopped right there

 

[EK392000]

The H in HF stands for hyperbole.

 

[abo9]

People on here tend to forget a few things when discussing bad contracts:
- Time remaining
- Injuries
- Actual player's talent (as in, a player with a bad contract isn't useless, just overpaid)
- Team needs

But I mean, a lot of these are tradeable because, well, there's a ton of bad contracts around the league.

Just in the OEL trade, Vancouver shedded 12M in dead cap back.
voracek vs atkinson was basically the choice between getting an overpaid player for short term at high aav, or overpaid longer at a smaller aav.
Weber was LTIR
Burns was still talented, but overpaid and got had for nothing. But, why weren't Vlasic, EK traded?? (I know EK just had a historical year lol)

Even Milan Lucic's infamous bad contract got traded... against another horrid contract.


Point being, bad contracts can be moved relatively easily, but you gotta help the other team in exchange, you're not getting away from it for free.

 

[Warh1ppy]

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?

To reply.

Yes.

Yes they do.

No fan base is worse at this than Vancouver's. The only animal worse than that is someone suggesting any player in a trade that is productive, around league average or better for their production with a year left on their contract.

A productive winger of 40-60 points at $4-$6 million with a single year left and no NTC/NMC protection does not have negative value no matter how people want to suggest otherwise

 

[34]

Nice pitch but no one's trading for Nurse

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.

No one wants Nurse. Worst contract in the league right now. Like actually! He has negative value. Edmonton would have to package 1st to convince another GM.

 

[Axel Sandy Pelikan]

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?

Short answer: Yes.

 

[BrindamoursNose]

Yes

 

[Roshi]

From GMs pov you have done a good job if you last long enough to care about the twilight years of an albatross contract that you gave.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

To answer the OP, I think there is something to it. You see HF posters throw around the term "negative value" way too often even when referring to someone who is still considered a good player who just happens to be a bit overpaid, especially if said player happened to have a down year one year.

 

[Peat]

While there's absolutely some mad valuations on cap space around here, there also some mad valuations on cap space in the NHL. Not as mad, but getting on there. The rumour was another team wanted a 1st from the Pens to move Zucker last summer and while I know he had a rough time before that, the fact he just got 48 points shows how absurd that was.

The hyperbole is real, but it is pointing to a real thing.

 

[OG Eberle]

To answer the OP, I think there is something to it. You see HF posters throw around the term "negative value" way too often even when referring to someone who is still considered a good player who just happens to be a bit overpaid, especially if said player happened to have a down year one year.

No one wants Nurse. Worst contract in the league right now. Like actually! He has negative value. Edmonton would have to package 1st to convince another GM.

You don't say eh @Sidney the Kidney

 

[Guy Larose]

I'm old enough to remember when salaries weren't divulged and we talked about the actual player instead of the salary....good times.