Kyle Dubas Discussion (continued) the 2021 edition

[Dekes For Days]

How has Tavares done in the playoffs?

Quite well, actually.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Connor McDavid didn't leave a red cent on the table when he re-signed with Edmonton. Remember, he signed for $12.5 million for 8 years after scoring 100 points as a 20 year old in 2017. Compare and contrast that to Nikita Kucherov who signed for $9.5 million for 8 years one season later after scoring, you guessed it, 100 points in 2018. And guess which one of them actually won a cup?

Kucherov was not a comparable for any of these contracts. Contract valuation doesn't work how you seem to think it works.

 

[The CyNick]

Connor McDavid didn't leave a red cent on the table when he re-signed with Edmonton. Remember, he signed for $12.5 million for 8 years after scoring 100 points as a 20 year old in 2017. Compare and contrast that to Nikita Kucherov who signed for $9.5 million for 8 years one season later after scoring, you guessed it, 100 points in 2018. And guess which one of them actually won a cup?

At the end of the day, every athlete is well within their right to sign whatever they can. And yes, there are different taxation rates in different jurisdictions. And also yes, fans are free to feel however they want about whatever contract and whatever player. But let's also make sure the numbers generally line up with the media narratives.

Only thing old school about McDavid's AAV is he knee capped the Oilers.

Tampa hockey ops people are elite when it comes to contracts. Despite what people in this market think, you pay a premium to convince players to play here. Tampa has created a culture where people flock there to play for less. It started by taking a hard line with Stamkos and trickled down. Leafs did the opposite. They took a really soft line with Nylander and then everyone lined up at the buffet table.

As for McDavid he was offered I believe it was a million more, but said no, I want to leave money to help in other places. Also signing 8 years meant Edmonton would eventually see benefits of his cap hit lowering vs a rising cap. Matthews was more selfish and took McDavid comparable money but for five years. Meaning for years 6-8 (if he did sign back with Leafs) would reset him at the top of the league and back to the higher AAV. Thus Leafs would see less of those lower cap % years.

 

[ToneDog]

Connor McDavid didn't leave a red cent on the table when he re-signed with Edmonton. Remember, he signed for $12.5 million for 8 years after scoring 100 points as a 20 year old in 2017. Compare and contrast that to Nikita Kucherov who signed for $9.5 million for 8 years one season later after scoring, you guessed it, 100 points in 2018. And guess which one of them actually won a cup?

At the end of the day, every athlete is well within their right to sign whatever they can. And yes, there are different taxation rates in different jurisdictions. And also yes, fans are free to feel however they want about whatever contract and whatever player. But let's also make sure the numbers generally line up with the media narratives.

Only thing old school about McDavid's AAV is he knee capped the Oilers.

I have heard numerous times he lowered the AAV by $250K. That is enough to get you 1/3 of a Goat.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I have heard numerous times he lowered the AAV by $250K.

It was 750k per year off of the negotiated contract.

 

[Stephen]

Kucherov was not a comparable for any of these contracts. Contract valuation doesn't work how you seem to think it works.

One guy scores 100 points at age 20 and signs for $12.5 million for 8x years.

One guy scores 100 points at age 25 and signs for $9.5 million for 8x years.

It's not that complicated.

 

[Dekes For Days]

One guy scores 100 points at age 20 and signs for $12.5 million for 8x years.

One guy scores 100 points at age 25 and signs for $9.5 million for 8x years.

It's not that complicated.

It is a lot more complicated than that. All types of contracts do not work the same. Post-ELC contracts utilize post-ELC comparables. Kucherov is irrelevant. Cap hit percentages are what is important, not raw cap hits. One guy is projected to improve based on those results, and is signing through his prime. One guy is signing through decline years. These players had different impacting factors and opportunity to put up those raw points, and their production level and ability is considered, not just raw points. Signings also are not based on single-season results. Etc, etc, etc. The comparisons you are making are incorrect.

 

[Stephen]

Tampa hockey ops people are elite when it comes to contracts. Despite what people in this market think, you pay a premium to convince players to play here. Tampa has created a culture where people flock there to play for less. It started by taking a hard line with Stamkos and trickled down. Leafs did the opposite. They took a really soft line with Nylander and then everyone lined up at the buffet table.

As for McDavid he was offered I believe it was a million more, but said no, I want to leave money to help in other places. Also signing 8 years meant Edmonton would eventually see benefits of his cap hit lowering vs a rising cap. Matthews was more selfish and took McDavid comparable money but for five years. Meaning for years 6-8 (if he did sign back with Leafs) would reset him at the top of the league and back to the higher AAV. Thus Leafs would see less of those lower cap % years.

Bottom line is Tampa Bay Lightning players take discounts, whether it's because they benefit from favorable taxation rates in Florida, loyalty to the organization or whatever it is. Connor McDavid took no discount, I don't buy the imaginary extra million dollars he left on the table. He set an AAV record. The Oilers didn't benefit from his cap hit and have been largely trash for the majority of his contract.

 

[Stephen]

It is a lot more complicated than that. All types of contracts do not work the same. Post-ELC contracts utilize post-ELC comparables. Kucherov is irrelevant. Cap hit percentages are what is important, not raw cap hits. One guy is projected to improve based on those results, and is signing through his prime. One guy is signing through decline years. These players had different impacting factors and opportunity to put up those raw points, and their production level and ability is considered, not just raw points. Signings also are not based on single-season results. Etc, etc, etc. The comparisons you are making are incorrect.

What declining years? Kucherov signed his contract at the age of 25, which takes him to 33on an 8 year deal. If you want to make the argument that Tampa is buying declining seasons at a cheaper rate, then by extension Kyle Dubas would technically have a lot of 'splaining to do paying John Tavares $11 million for mostly declining years. For comparison, Tampa only paid Stamkos $8.5 million those late 20s and early 30s seasons, and he's a far more accomplished player than Tavares was at the time of signing.

Sometimes other people get a good deal. No reason to go and make up reasons why.

 

[Dekes For Days]

What declining years? Kucherov signed his contract at the age of 25, which takes him to 33on an 8 year deal.

Kucherov's production was put up in his early prime years, and Kucherov's contract takes him until he's 34. McDavid's production was put up in his teenager years, and his contract takes him through his prime. Contracts not only consider production beyond just raw points; they also consider the impact of age on the production level that is seen and expected moving forward. Post-ELC contracts use post-ELC comparables.

Kyle Dubas would technically have a lot of 'splaining to do paying John Tavares $11 million for mostly declining years. For comparison, Tampa only paid Stamkos $8.5 million those late 20s and early 30s seasons, and he's a far more accomplished player than Tavares was at the time of signing.

Neither are "mostly decline years", Stamkos signed under a different cap, and Stamkos was not as good as Tavares when he signed. Stamkos was actually coming off two of the worst seasons of his career when he signed. He's had a nice resurgence since. Stamkos likely could have gotten more if he wanted to, but Tampa also got quite lucky with the timing.

No reason to go and make up reasons why.

The only one doing that here is you.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Those numbers are a weighted combination of everything used to predict team defence in analytics. Shots against, corsi against, scoring chances against, etc. Those are all real things.

The top 3 teams on that list?

1. Columbus
2. Minnesota
3. Boston

Its not a stretch to say those would be on many folks list as the top 3 defensive teams in hockey.

If you are talking about Goals Against, thats not the same as team D. The numbers I gave you are the best approximation of team D we have.

Goals Against = xGA/60 + Team Save %

Since Keefe was hired:

xGA/60 Ranking:

8. Montreal
10. Toronto
16. Calgary
19. Edmontaon
25. Ottawa
28. Winnipeg
31. Vancouver

Team Save% Ranking:

7. Winnipeg
12. Vancouver
14. Calgary
20. Toronto
21. Edmonton
25. Montreal
26. Ottawa

Goals Against/60:

10. Winnipeg
17. Toronto
18. Calgary
21. Montreal
26. Vancouver
27. Edmonton
30. Ottawa

It's not an exact science but it certainly helps with explaining why a team is letting in goals over a season.

Even those who weight GA heavily on the D has to take notice the Leafs are still 2nd among Canadian teams even with all the injuries and goalie inconsistency.

Rankings under Babcock (2016-2019 for simplicity):
xGA/60: 27th
Save%: 5th
Goals Against: 16th

Terrible defensive team being propped up by stellar goaltending.

Rankings under Keefe:
xGA/60: 10th
Save%: 20th
Goals Against: 17th

Huge turnaround in defensive play amid goaltending issues.

Notice that goals against are virtually identical but the reasons for the ranking is completely different.

Anyways.....does that answer your question.

I didn’t know you were going to do all that work bro. Sorry i asked, I don’t even follow them numbers. Nice layout of the facts

 

[Throw More Waffles]

One guy scores 100 points at age 20 and signs for $12.5 million for 8x years.

One guy scores 100 points at age 25 and signs for $9.5 million for 8x years.

It's not that complicated.

Now do the same thing with career high 69 point players? Do they (lol) make 11.6x5?

Can't WAIT to see why "it's not so simple" when it comes to leaf player overpayments.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

It is a lot more complicated than that. All types of contracts do not work the same. Post-ELC contracts utilize post-ELC comparables. Kucherov is irrelevant. Cap hit percentages are what is important, not raw cap hits. One guy is projected to improve based on those results, and is signing through his prime. One guy is signing through decline years. These players had different impacting factors and opportunity to put up those raw points, and their production level and ability is considered, not just raw points. Signings also are not based on single-season results. Etc, etc, etc. The comparisons you are making are incorrect.

Oh come on... every one knows ufa years are FAR more valuable than rfa years. Look how many more ufa years are in that Kucherov contract.

The spin is infuriating.

 

[LeafsOHLRangers98]

Now do the same thing with career high 69 point players? Do they (lol) make 11.6x5?

Can't WAIT to see why "it's not so simple" when it comes to leaf player overpayments.

Who had a career high of 69 points and signed for $11.6 x 5 years? That's like saying Crosby isn't worth his contract because he only got 47 points last year. If you don't factor in injuries to account for PPG you look silly pretty quickly.

Matthews pace over his first 3 seasons over 82 GP:

40 goals, 69 points
45 goals, 83 points
45 goals, 85 points ( year he signed the deal)

Now would you assume this player would still get better as he enters his next contract? I would say yes.

Last year 82 game pace:

55 goals 94 points

Yea... I'm very fine with $11.6 x 5. You can't punish a player for games he was ineligible for as a way to justify an argument that a player is not worth his contract.

 

[Leaf Fans]

Now do the same thing with career high 69 point players? Do they (lol) make 11.6x5?

Can't WAIT to see why "it's not so simple" when it comes to leaf player overpayments.

I don't think so, but Matthews does and deserves it as one of the top players in the NHL.

 

[Legion34]

Tampa hockey ops people are elite when it comes to contracts. Despite what people in this market think, you pay a premium to convince players to play here. Tampa has created a culture where people flock there to play for less. It started by taking a hard line with Stamkos and trickled down. Leafs did the opposite. They took a really soft line with Nylander and then everyone lined up at the buffet table.

As for McDavid he was offered I believe it was a million more, but said no, I want to leave money to help in other places. Also signing 8 years meant Edmonton would eventually see benefits of his cap hit lowering vs a rising cap. Matthews was more selfish and took McDavid comparable money but for five years. Meaning for years 6-8 (if he did sign back with Leafs) would reset him at the top of the league and back to the higher AAV. Thus Leafs would see less of those lower cap % years.

yep. You pay a premium... it’s called a higher tax bracket. This is well documented.

 

[Legion34]

Who had a career high of 69 points and signed for $11.6 x 5 years? That's like saying Crosby isn't worth his contract because he only got 47 points last year. If you don't factor in injuries to account for PPG you look silly pretty quickly.

Matthews pace over his first 3 seasons over 82 GP:

40 goals, 69 points
45 goals, 83 points
45 goals, 85 points ( year he signed the deal)

Now would you assume this player would still get better as he enters his next contract? I would say yes.

Last year 82 game pace:

55 goals 94 points

Yea... I'm very fine with $11.6 x 5. You can't punish a player for games he was ineligible for as a way to justify an argument that a player is not worth his contract.

don’t bother. The same poster has been proven wrong over and over. Its a specific thing on the leafs board. Because this poster goes on the main board and argues the opposite.

it’s going to be 30 pages of trolling. Better to just let it go. The poster doesn’t believe what they type.

 

[Legion34]

Bottom line is Tampa Bay Lightning players take discounts, whether it's because they benefit from favorable taxation rates in Florida, loyalty to the organization or whatever it is. Connor McDavid took no discount, I don't buy the imaginary extra million dollars he left on the table. He set an AAV record. The Oilers didn't benefit from his cap hit and have been largely trash for the majority of his contract.

Tampa star players take 11%-12% of the cap. Standard star players take 14-15%.

It works out to the exact same pay. It’s clearly the taxes. The math works out to perfectly to be a coincidence

 

[Stephen]

Kucherov's production was put up in his early prime years, and Kucherov's contract takes him until he's 34. McDavid's production was put up in his teenager years, and his contract takes him through his prime. Contracts not only consider production beyond just raw points; they also consider the impact of age on the production level that is seen and expected moving forward. Post-ELC contracts use post-ELC comparables.

Neither are "mostly decline years", Stamkos signed under a different cap, and Stamkos was not as good as Tavares when he signed. Stamkos was actually coming off two of the worst seasons of his career when he signed. He's had a nice resurgence since. Stamkos likely could have gotten more if he wanted to, but Tampa also got quite lucky with the timing.

The only one doing that here is you.

Now do the same thing with career high 69 point players? Do they (lol) make 11.6x5?

Can't WAIT to see why "it's not so simple" when it comes to leaf player overpayments.

Matthews is a great player and I'm happy to have him as a Leaf. He's only going to get better and it's going to be fun to see where he leads the team. I think his cap hit is expensive but I'm okay with paying it.

That said, I don't find it productive to go out of my way to celebrate the Matthews contract as some great steal, or why someone like Dekes needs to go out of their way to post rationalize the hell out of everything. God forbid we admit that a Stanley Cup winning franchise might be doing something a little better than the Toronto Maple Leafs or some players might choose a lower cap hit because they pay less state taxes.

 

[Stephen]

Tampa star players take 11%-12% of the cap. Standard star players take 14-15%.

It works out to the exact same pay. It’s clearly the taxes. The math works out to perfectly to be a coincidence

It's completely rational and definitely something Tampa takes advantage. But they definitely have more efficient cap hits than a team like the Leafs at the top end, as well as many other Canadian teams.

 

[Legion34]

It's completely rational and definitely something Tampa takes advantage. But they definitely have more efficient cap hits than a team like the Leafs at the top end, as well as many other Canadian teams.

sure. Tampa is a first class organization. They have drafted incredibly well, made proper trades, went through their battles and came out on top. They absolutely are a model organization.

but their star cap hits are 3% lower due to tax breaks.

if I was a player I would totally want to play there.

 

[hotpaws]

Tampa star players take 11%-12% of the cap. Standard star players take 14-15%.

It works out to the exact same pay. It’s clearly the taxes. The math works out to perfectly to be a coincidence

why is it only Tampa players that give this discount and not any other players on teams without any state tax if it's only because of the tax ?

 

[Legion34]

why is it only Tampa players that give this discount and not any other players on teams without any state tax if it's only because of the tax ?

not true actually. Dallas/nash/LV etc have all got players to sign for less due to taxes. They players have openly said it. poile openly brags about “nashville dollars”.

generally In a stable market with no taxes you can clearly see the linear relationship. Tampa leans into 2 factors that maximize the net income to get lower AAV

1.) SB get taxed in Home state. Full SB like stammer gets max net income. No SB is less net because you pay taxes where you work

2.) NMC. There is no point in signing for less when you could get traded.

tampa leans into this with stars. Gets full benefits. nash didn’t give either.

tampa players who didn’t get SB or full NTC didn’t give as much of a discount.

it’s pretty linear dallas/nash/tampa have all got deals. The biggest deals come with full SB and NTC

 

[hotpaws]

not true actually. Dallas/nash/LV etc have all got players to sign for less due to taxes. They players have openly said it. poile openly brags about “nashville dollars”.

generally In a stable market with no taxes you can clearly see the linear relationship. Tampa leans into 2 factors that maximize the net income to get lower AAV

1.) SB get taxed in Home state. Full SB like stammer gets max net income. No SB is less net because you pay taxes where you work

2.) NMC. There is no point in signing for less when you could get traded.

tampa leans into this with stars. Gets full benefits. nash didn’t give either.

tampa players who didn’t get SB or full NTC didn’t give as much of a discount.

it’s pretty linear dallas/nash/tampa have all got deals. The biggest deals come with full SB and NTC

name some of these players that have taken discounts

 

[Menzinger]

It also goes beyond the tax issue.

Tampa has a wealthy owner who wants to win but there is also zero local media pressure; guys can golf and hang out at the beach all year long.

While Tampa does have good management, there's a lot of factors that push contracts down there that other teams can't replicate.