Confirmed with Link: Leafs sign F Auston Matthews to extension (4 years, $13.25M AAV)

[666]

A contract is based on the time of signing. Average cap increases over the term of a contract are inherently built into all contracts and signing cap hit percentages. In the rare circumstances where there is known information about future caps that is different from average cap increases, that could have some level of impact on the resulting cap hit percentage, but that's not what was being discussed.

No. The contact is based on the future projected cap and is only effective in the future. An NHL contract is sometimes negotiated a year in advance and the value of the players CH% relative to the current years cap is irrelevant.

 

[LaPlante94]

What I wrote is exactly how it works. In the rare cases where there is known future cap information that is outside of the average increase, that could have slight impacts on resulting cap hit percentage, but that's a very different discussion. The individual I responded to was confusing cap hit percentage with AAV to make incorrect statements about contracts signed under different caps.

He'll likely be applauded for having depth that's similar if it doesn't face a hot, Vezina-caliber goalie in the playoffs, which GMs don't control.

At some point we need to stop using that goalied excuse. Boston had no problems scoring on him and Vegas. Only us and Carolina who are also known to choke during the playoffs, at least they had the excuse their top scorer was injured and Patches was also out.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The contact is based on the future projected cap and is only effective in the future. An NHL contract is sometimes negotiated a year in advance and the value of the players CH% relative to the current years cap is irrelevant.

The valuation is applied against the cap at time of signing (which is often the only known cap), with considerations for term and for any known future cap abnormalities outside of the average inherently built into contracts.

At some point we need to stop using that goalied excuse.

At some point, we need to stop denying the obvious things that have happened to us.

 

[666]

The valuation is applied against the cap at time of signing (which is often the only known cap), with considerations for term and for any known future cap abnormalities outside of the average inherently built into contracts.

Show a primary source for this silliness.

The valuation is not applied against the cap at signing because the current cap has nothing to do with the future contract. If Nylander decides to wait a year, this years cap has nothing to do with his negotiation and won't change anything.

 

[LaPlante94]

The valuation is applied against the cap at time of signing (which is often the only known cap), with considerations for term and for any known future cap abnormalities outside of the average inherently built into contracts.

At some point, we need to stop denying the obvious things that have happened to us.

I would, but we pay a lot of money to players who shouldn't let these types of things happen so often.

 

[666]

Show a primary source for this silliness.

The valuation is not applied against the cap at signing because the current cap has nothing to do with the future contract. Players don't get paid by CH%. If Nylander decides to wait a year, this years cap has nothing to do with his negotiation and won't change anything.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The valuation is not applied against the cap at signing because the current cap has nothing to do with the future contract. If Nylander decides to wait a year, this years cap has nothing to do with his negotiation and won't change anything.

The valuation is applied against the cap at time of signing because that is often the only cap known, and the "current cap" has everything to do with the "current signing".
We're in a unique situation right now, where there is known information about the future cap, but that is unusual. Nylander could choose to wait and sign against a higher cap, given that he has this information that most players do not, but there are risks to that choice, and many players choose to lock in their guaranteed generational money and stability for themselves and the team. What many people like to do is take a contract that was signed without any known future cap information, and then apply that signing to a cap that never existed or was expected to exist when it was signed, which is obviously wrong.

I would, but we pay a lot of money to players who shouldn't let these types of things happen so often.

Every player has their production impacted by the play of opposing goaltenders.

 

[666]

The valuation is applied against the cap at time of signing because that is often the only cap known, and the "current cap" has everything to do with the "current signing".
We're in a unique situation right now, where there is known information about the future cap, but that is unusual. Nylander could choose to wait and sign against a higher cap, given that he has this information that most players do not, but there are risks to that choice, and many players choose to lock in their guaranteed generational money and stability for themselves and the team. What many people like to do is take a contract that was signed without any known future cap information, and then apply that signing to a cap that never existed or was expected to exist when it was signed, which is obviously wrong.

I already asked you to provide a primary source for this nonsense. Let's see it. What is the purpose of the valuation being applied against any cap at all? It's certainly not going to actually be in the contract so what's the purpose? Arguing on the internet?

 

[Dekes For Days]

I already asked you to provide a primary source for this nonsense.

Where's your primary source?

What is the purpose of the valuation being applied against any cap at all?

That's how you end up with an AAV.

 

[666]

That's how you end up with an AAV.

LOL!! Here's all you need to know since you really have no clue. The AVV is negotiated. The players are paid in AAV and it's the teams responsibility to stay below the cap this year and in the future. The contract does not mention CH% because they can't know the exact value of CH% for when the contract becomes effective and to mention the CH% relative to this years cap would be meaningless since it's the AAV that is negotiated.

I thought that maybe you had some real world source or something and could somehow prove this lunacy but you're just pulling things out of your ass. Damn that's funny.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The AVV is negotiated. The players are paid in AVV and it's the teams responsibility to stay below the cap this year and in the future.

The cap hit percentage is negotiated. Then that is translated into an AAV based on the cap. This is why contracts have risen in AAV throughout the cap era, as the cap rose.

 

[666]

The cap hit percentage is negotiated. Then that is translated into an AAV based on the cap.

I don't know why I bother. You're getting closer. The cap hit percentage can be negotiated but this years cap has nothing to do with it. Let's say for example to make the math easier that this year the cap is $100M and next year it will be projected to be $150M. You are suggesting that if Matthews wanted to be paid a max contract of 20% of the cap which would be $20M this year but $30M the actual year it starts that we should take that $30M and say that his AAV at signing is 30% (of this years cap) which is illegal you can't go above 20%. Now if instead Matthews waits a year and signs the exact same contract, you are suggesting he signed at 20% when nothing has changed except the date of signing. You even wrote it previously in post #1344 when discussing McDavid:

"Actually, 12.5m is McDavid's AAV, not signing CH%. His signing CH% was 16.67%, after he took a discount from the negotiated 17.67% valuation. Matthews got 14.64% on a 5 year term."

McDavid has never gotten 16.67% of the cap (he was 15.7 his first year) and Matthews has never gotten 14.64% of the cap (he was 14.28%) and it was never negotiated that way because you are using the AAV from next year and applying it to this years cap. How can you not see how absurd that is?

 

[Gallagbi]

I don't know why I bother. You're getting closer. The cap hit percentage can be negotiated but this years cap has nothing to do with it. Let's say for example to make the math easier that this year the cap is $100M and next year it will be projected to be $150M. You are suggesting that if Matthews wanted to be paid a max contract of 20% of the cap which would be $20M this year but $30M the actual year it starts that we should take that $30M and say that his AAV at signing is 30% (of this years cap) which is illegal you can't go above 20%. Now if instead Matthews waits a year and signs the exact same contract, you are suggesting he signed at 20% when nothing has changed except the date of signing. You even wrote it previously in post #1344 when discussing McDavid:

"Actually, 12.5m is McDavid's AAV, not signing CH%. His signing CH% was 16.67%, after he took a discount from the negotiated 17.67% valuation. Matthews got 14.64% on a 5 year term."

McDavid has never gotten 16.67% of the cap (he was 15.7 his first year) and Matthews has never gotten 14.64% of the cap (he was 14.28%) and it was never negotiated that way because you are using the AAV from next year and applying it to this years cap. How can you not see how absurd that is?

Capfriendly and most sites use caphit% at time of signing for their measure. Ive never loved it, but its the common and accepted way to calculate it.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The cap hit percentage is negotiated but this years cap has nothing to do with it. Let's say for example to make the math easier that this year the cap is $100M and next year it will be projected to be $150M. You are suggesting that if Matthews wanted to be paid a max contract of 20% of the cap which would be $20M this year but $30M the actual year it starts that we should take that $30M and say that his AAV at signing is 30% (of this years cap) which is illegal you can't go above 20%. Now if instead Matthews waits a year and signs the exact same contract, you are suggesting he signed at 20% when nothing has changed except the date of signing. You even wrote it previously in post #1344 when discussing McDavid:

"Actually, 12.5m is McDavid's AAV, not signing CH%. His signing CH% was 16.67%, after he took a discount from the negotiated 17.67% valuation. Matthews got 14.64% on a 5 year term."

McDavid has never gotten 16.67% of the cap (he was 15.7 his first year) and Matthews has never gotten 14.64% of the cap (he was 14.28%) and it was never negotiated that way because you are using the AAV from next year and applying it to this years cap. How can you not see how absurd that is?

There are benefits and risks to signing early. It's a choice.
You can't use the cap a year after McDavid signed as his valuation. That cap number wasn't known or expected when McDavid signed.

 

[666]

Capfriendly and most sites use caphit% at time of signing for their measure. Ive never loved it, but its the common and accepted way to calculate it.

They can do it anyway they like but it's not in the contracts and can lead to very misleading and even CBA illegal interpretations.

There are benefits and risks to signing early. It's a choice.
You can't use the cap a year after McDavid signed as his valuation. That cap number wasn't known or expected when McDavid signed.

Your perspective allows illegal contracts. Contracts have AAV and don't mention CH% that's all that matters. We are done.

 

[Gallagbi]

They can do it anyway they like but it's not in the contracts and can lead to very misleading and even CBA illegal interpretations.

I dont think we know or even care what goes into the contract. I wouldn't be surprised if its both cap% and aav, since there are requirements to each, but the league could always calculate cap% to ensure its legal.

I also dont think it can lead to illegal interpretations, which would be the defense of doing it the way Capfriendly does.

In your example, Matthews could only sign for $20M even with a higher projected cap the following year because the $150M is a projection still

 

[666]

I dont think we know or even care what goes into the contract. I wouldn't be surprised if its both cap% and aav, since there are requirements to each, but the league could always calculate cap% to ensure its legal.

I also dont think it can lead to illegal interpretations, which would be the defense of doing it the way Capfriendly does.

In your example, Matthews could only sign for $20M even with a higher projected cap the following year because the $150M is a projection still

Any player that wanted a max contract or one too close to it would wait until the next season to sign it to determine the exact number.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Your perspective allows illegal contracts. Contracts have AAV and don't mention CH% that's all that matters.

It does not allow illegal contracts. I'm pretty sure the scenario you laid out wouldn't be allowed, even aside from it also being wildly unrealistic.
Cap hit percentage is what matters when discussing signings.

 

[Gallagbi]

Any player that wanted a max contract or one too close to it would wait until the next season to sign it to determine the exact number.

Agreed, so how would that practice lead to illegal CBA interpretation?

 

[666]

Agreed, so how would that practice lead to illegal CBA interpretation?

The example I gave just shows why it's absurd to use next years AAV with this years cap and that way of interpreting things could show, and in fact does show, nonsense numbers. We all understand what's going on. No one should be reporting Matthews' or anybody else's next years contract as a percentage of this years cap because it's meaningless.

 

[Gallagbi]

The example I gave just shows why it's absurd to use next years AAV with this years cap and that way of interpreting things could show, and in fact does show, nonsense numbers. We all understand what's going on. Noone should be reporting Matthews' or anybody else's next years contract as a percentage of this years cap because it's meaningless.

You gave an example and stated something led to illegal CBA interpretation. It seems like that was the opposite and untrue - Am i correct in assuming you misspoke there?

Honestly I understand what caphit% is, how its calculated and i dont mind it being done that way, especially after covid halted projections so significantly. There is some requirements that it informs, which weve touched on. I just dont think its all that useful of a measure because of cap fluctuations.

 

[666]

You gave an example and stated something led to illegal CBA interpretation. It seems like that was the opposite and untrue - Am i correct in assuming you misspoke there?

No. What I mean by illegal CBA interpretation is that by using next years AAV and this years cap and reporting it like that, it's possible to report a number that is actually illegal with respect to the CBA. For example a contract that is greater than 20% of the cap. Or what if many guys on a team re-sign a year in advance and the totals add up to more than 100% of this years cap but is fine with next years cap. It's just misleading. What if Matthews wanted 19 or 19.5% of next years projected cap? How close is he allowed to get? I don't know. What if he wants 20% of this years cap and we get another Covid and next year cap drops and he's over 20% now? I'm sure that the league has contingencies for these things but reporting next years AAV with this years cap can and does lead to confusion and is misleading.

 

[Gallagbi]

No. What I mean by illegal CBA interpretation is that by using next years AAV and this years cap and reporting it like that, it's possible to report a number that is actually illegal with respect to the CBA. For example a contract that is greater than 20% of the cap. Or what if many guys on a team re-sign a year in advance and the totals add up to more than 100% of this years cap but is fine with next years cap. It's just misleading. What if Matthews wanted 19 or 19.5% of next years projected cap? How close is he allowed to get? I don't know. What if he wants 20% of this years cap and we get another Covid and next year cap drops and he's over 20% now? I'm sure that the league has contingencies for these things but reporting next years AAV with this years cap can and does lead to confusion and is misleading.

20%, we know that is the limit of a cap% for how close you can get.

And teams can exceed the cap, but eventually the NHL would just reject a contract- like they would in the summer under the same circumatance of cap overage by greater than 10%

So i still dont see how this leads to illegal cap interpretation. It would actually prevent it.

 

[WillyC]

How about this take… Auston returns to leading the league in scoring next year and stays with the leaders over the next 5 seasons… then signs another 5 year deal to pad his many Toronto Maple Leaf records and ultimately watches his bronze statue go up on Legends Row.

Throw in a couple of Cups… they should make his statue golden.

 

[666]

20%, we know that is the limit of a cap%

And teams can exceed the cap, but eventually the NHL would just reject a contract- like they would in the summer under the same circumatance of cap overage by greater than 10%

So i still dont see how this leads to illegal cap interpretation. It would actually prevent it.

I'm not saying that it's illegal, I'm just saying that it could be interpreted as illegal by someone who doesn't understand and looks back at Capfriendly 20 years from now and is confused by a misleading interpretation. And it's already happening. That's all.

This has been beaten to death. I'll give you one more example and can you do with it as you like.
Let's say Nylander signs the exact same contract as Matthews but he signs it next year. People who report it this way will say that Matthews signed for a higher cap hit than Nylander even though it's the exact same contract starting at the exact same time. It's wrong to talk about the exact same contract this way as it's misleading and in the case would make Matthews look bad for no reason.