News Article: The Athletic: How the Pacific Stacks Up

[KINGS17]

Stanley Cup blueprint: How the Pacific teams stack up to the...

1. Strong contract efficiency: “(Before the cap) you could pay a player for past performance, you could give a thank you and carry a guy. In a cap system, the thank you contracts are very difficult to maintain.”

Los Angeles Kings

Strong contract efficiency: Nope. The Kings are paying a premium for their stars, have a Dion Phaneuf buyout on the books and not enough entry-level contributors to make up for it.

...but we all knew this.

Please, someone quick go do the the percent of the cap for players from teams who won the Stanley Cup. No wait, don't bother because that wasn't the point at all.

Click to read more...

 

[kingsholygrail]

So...What is the point?

 

[Legionnaire]

So...What is the point?

We are going to win the Cup this year!

 

[KINGS17]

So...What is the point?

I will let you figure that out.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

Stanley Cup blueprint: How the Pacific teams stack up to the...

1. Strong contract efficiency: “(Before the cap) you could pay a player for past performance, you could give a thank you and carry a guy. In a cap system, the thank you contracts are very difficult to maintain.”

Los Angeles Kings

Strong contract efficiency: Nope. The Kings are paying a premium for their stars, have a Dion Phaneuf buyout on the books and not enough entry-level contributors to make up for it.

...but we all knew this.

Please, someone quick go do the the percent of the cap for players from teams who won the Stanley Cup. No wait, don't bother because that wasn't the point at all.

Didn't you go out of your way to make the point that no team has ever won a Cup with a $10 million/year contract? If the point wasn't that $10 million/year contracts take up too much of a team's cap space, what was the point? Is there something mysteriously preventative about having a $10 million/year contract on your roster, even if it doesn't take up as much cap as other contracts on winning teams in prior years? Not being an ass; I'm genuinely wondering what you're getting at.

Apropos of not much, but Kopitar's contract in 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 ($6.8 million cap hit for a $64.3 million cap limit = 10.6% of the Kings' cap space) took up only marginally less of the Kings' cap space than his current contract does ($10 million cap hit for an $81.5 million cap limit = 12.3% of the Kings' cap space).

 

[King'sPawn]

Didn't you go out of your way to make the point that no team has ever won a Cup with a $10 million/year contract? If the point wasn't that $10 million/year contracts take up too much of a team's cap space, what was the point? Is there something mysteriously preventative about having a $10 million/year contract on your roster, even if it doesn't take up as much cap as other contracts on winning teams in prior years? Not being an ass; I'm genuinely wondering what you're getting at.

Apropos of not much, but Kopitar's contract in 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 ($6.8 million cap hit for a $64.3 million cap limit = 10.6% of the Kings' cap space) took up only marginally less of the Kings' cap space than his current contract does ($10 million cap hit for an $81.5 million cap limit = 12.3% of the Kings' cap space).

On top of that, it was a point made in response about giving McDavid $10 million/year, which wouldn't be a contract based on past performances like the article states.

He just likes to remind everyone how Kopitar isn't worth his contract, and how he would have traded Kopitar for picks instead of re-signing him.

 

[johnjm22]

So their prediction for the pacific is:

Sharks
Flames
Golden Knights
Ducks
Canucks
Coyotes
Oilers
Kings

I really don't understand what they see in the Ducks. They're a bottom feeder.

I think a lot of people are going to be wrong about Edmonton. They're going to be like last year's Islanders. I expect them to solidly make the playoffs.

 

[KINGS17]

On top of that, it was a point made in response about giving McDavid $10 million/year, which wouldn't be a contract based on past performances like the article states.

He just likes to remind everyone how Kopitar isn't worth his contract, and how he would have traded Kopitar for picks instead of re-signing him.

I no longer have to remind any of you that Kopitar's contract is not a good one for the Kings. The article is pointing out that "strong contract efficiency" is one of the keys to winning a Stanley Cup. A GM can't afford to load up the top end of the roster and have enough depth to be a contender. A team needs to be fairly deep to win a cup. Depth is sacrificed when a team pays its top two or three players too much of the cap.

I think the term "contract efficiency" is a good one. Teams like St. Louis, Vegas, Colorado and Calgary in the West have contract efficiency.

One of the new paradigms seems to be every young star wants to get paid on their second deal without giving up a substantial number of UFA years. I don't think those type contracts, or multiple contracts of that type on the same team are going to work out. I look at what Lombardi did with Doughty's second contract as being in line with what a GM should be trying to do, but the GMs are too weak when it comes to negotiating with their RFAs.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I no longer have to remind any of you that Kopitar's contract is not a good one for the Kings. The article is pointing out that "strong contract efficiency" is one of the keys to winning a Stanley Cup. A GM can't afford to load up the top end of the roster and have enough depth to be a contender. A team needs to be fairly deep to win a cup. Depth is sacrificed when a team pays its top two or three players too much of the cap.

I think the term "contract efficiency" is a good one. Teams like St. Louis, Vegas, Colorado and Calgary in the West have contract efficiency.

One of the new paradigms seems to be every young star wants to get paid on their second deal without giving up a substantial number of UFA years. I don't think those type contracts, or multiple contracts of that type on the same team are going to work out. I look at what Lombardi did with Doughty's second contract as being in line with what a GM should be trying to do, but the GMs are too weak when it comes to negotiating with their RFAs.

Yet ironically, the only teams on that list with a Cup are the Kings and Ducks, the teams with the least "contract efficiency."

Imagine using a poorly-written article with no sourced numbers/formulas and a faulty conclusion to 'prove' a point that...wait, did you have a point anyway, or were you just looking to revenge post for the well-thought-out analysis that actually used cap percentages to discuss the market?

It's no secret you need depth to win a Cup. It's also no secret that high-cap percentage star/superstar players aren't the ones handicapping any of these rosters. If there's anything crippling, it's overpaid middle class guys AND/OR a lack of cheap, hungry youth, not "oh no there's a 10m contract, that team better relegate themselves and save themselves the embarrassment."

I DO agree that the lack of bridge contracts for RFAs is a problem but as you and I discussed before that's not a problem for the McDavid class, only the middle class.

 

[King'sPawn]

I no longer have to remind any of you that Kopitar's contract is not a good one for the Kings. The article is pointing out that "strong contract efficiency" is one of the keys to winning a Stanley Cup. A GM can't afford to load up the top end of the roster and have enough depth to be a contender. A team needs to be fairly deep to win a cup. Depth is sacrificed when a team pays its top two or three players too much of the cap.

I think the term "contract efficiency" is a good one. Teams like St. Louis, Vegas, Colorado and Calgary in the West have contract efficiency.

One of the new paradigms seems to be every young star wants to get paid on their second deal without giving up a substantial number of UFA years. I don't think those type contracts, or multiple contracts of that type on the same team are going to work out. I look at what Lombardi did with Doughty's second contract as being in line with what a GM should be trying to do, but the GMs are too weak when it comes to negotiating with their RFAs.

And yet you point out how % of cap space used by cup winning teams on their top players isn't the point in your OP. Now you spent three paragraphs talking about cap efficiency, which is retaining enough cap space for depth. How do you get that cap space again?

If your answer is % of cap space, instead of raw contract numbers, welcome to the point of the previous thread.

 

[KINGS17]

Yet ironically, the only teams on that list with a Cup are the Kings and Ducks, the teams with the least "contract efficiency."

Imagine using a poorly-written article with no sourced numbers/formulas and a faulty conclusion to 'prove' a point that...wait, did you have a point anyway, or were you just looking to revenge post for the well-thought-out analysis that actually used cap percentages to discuss the market?

It's no secret you need depth to win a Cup. It's also no secret that high-cap percentage star/superstar players aren't the ones handicapping any of these rosters. If there's anything crippling, it's overpaid middle class guys AND/OR a lack of cheap, hungry youth, not "oh no there's a 10m contract, that team better relegate themselves and save themselves the embarrassment."

I DO agree that the lack of bridge contracts for RFAs is a problem but as you and I discussed before that's not a problem for the McDavid class, only the middle class.

Yes, the Kings and Ducks during a time when they had contract efficiency. I don't think the cap percentage "analysis" was well thought out. It ignores the inflationary effect those deals are having on the rest of a roster.

 

[KINGS17]

And yet you point out how % of cap space used by cup winning teams on their top players isn't the point in your OP. Now you spent three paragraphs talking about cap efficiency, which is retaining enough cap space for depth. How do you get that cap space again?

If your answer is % of cap space, instead of raw contract numbers, welcome to the point of the previous thread.

Whatever, you guys think a team is going to win by overpaying for just about every player on the roster. I don't agree.

 

[johnjm22]

The cap isn't the issue for the Kings right now. Kopitar and Doughty's deals haven't cost the team depth. The Kings don't have depth right now because they traded away futures years ago.

The Kings are nearly 9m under the cap with only Kempe to sign.

 

[KINGS17]

The cap isn't the issue for the Kings right now. Kopitar and Doughty's deals haven't cost the team depth. The Kings don't have depth right now because they traded away futures years ago.

The Kings are nearly 9m under the cap with only Kempe to sign.

This is true, however there is a time and opportunity cost associated with keeping them for 8 years on their third contract.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Yes, the Kings and Ducks during a time when they had contract efficiency. I don't think the cap percentage "analysis" was well thought out. It ignores the inflationary effect those deals are having on the rest of a roster.

Kopitar getting 10m isn't why Kevin Hayes gets 7.5. Matthews getting 10+ isn't why Marner is getting paid.

And if it's a percentage rather than a raw number, it SHOULD ignore the inflationary effect, given those percentages have been consistent with the rising of the cap. Lidstrom getting paid didn't throw the wings out of whack. Ovechkin getting 9.5 didn't inflate anyone else. Etc.

 

[King'sPawn]

Whatever, you guys think a team is going to win by overpaying for just about every player on the roster. I don't agree.

And you think a team is only successful if they trade away every player over 22 and sign everyone to league minimum contracts.

See, I can put words in your mouth too.

 

[crassbonanza]

I'm assuming this is in reference to the post in the around the league thread that showed the relative CH% for past cup winners, so why did you not reply there?

Also, why are you so stuck on this arbitrary 10 million figure? You do understand that the cap is not stagnant right?