GDT: Trades & Free Agency

[Sypher04]

I think this needs to be brought up more.

It wasn't until Toronto's big players needed a new contract that this became a thing, I swear to god.

That’s simply not true, people talked about this going back all the way to Crosby and Ovechkin’s contracts and not long after the cap was created.

His sentiment also should not be brought up more as it’s nonsense. The cap percentage at the time the deal was signed is highly relevent to comparing across salary cap years. If a player signed for x against the cap and a year later the cap has risen 5% it’s reasonable to think a comparable player should sign for x+5%

 

[WTFMAN99]

That’s simply not true, people talked about this going back all the way to Crosby and Ovechkin’s contracts and not long after the cap was created.

His sentiment also should not be brought up more as it’s nonsense. The cap percentage at the time the deal was signed is highly relevent to comparing across salary cap years. If a player signed for x against the cap and a year later the cap has risen 5% it’s reasonable to think a comparable player should sign for x+5%

Do the Crosby and Ovechkin contracts even make sense to talk about? They weren't bound to the 8 year max term, you could do those 10-15 year deals.

Those 2 along with Keith were the best outcomes.

A lot of the other backdiving long term deals didn't age nearly as well.

 

[Sypher04]

Do the Crosby and Ovechkin contracts even make sense to talk about? They weren't bound to the 8 year max term, you could do those 10-15 year deals.

Those 2 along with Keith were the best outcomes.

A lot of the other backdiving long term deals didn't age nearly as well.

I’m mostly saying it goes back to the early salary cap days, and in Crosby’s case I was referring to his previously deal more than his current one.

 

[WTFMAN99]

I’m mostly saying it goes back to the early salary cap days, and in Crosby’s case I was referring to his previously deal more than his current one.

The 12 year deal with his last 2 years paying him a paltry 3M each season?

 

[Sypher04]

The 12 year deal with his last 2 years paying him a paltry 3M each season?

Previous, not current. The 5 year deal

 

[WTFMAN99]

Previous, not current. The 5 year deal

That's a tough comparable

5 years versus 13 years, when they're that young and generational players.

I'll fully say my memory isn't perfect either but I don't really remember cap hit % being brought up specifically, maybe you question how Ovechkin's aav is higher than Crosby's but locking up Ovechkin for his entire career? Yeah, I could see a premium for that.

 

[Sypher04]

That's a tough comparable

5 years versus 13 years, when they're that young and generational players.

I'll fully say my memory isn't perfect either but I don't really remember cap hit % being brought up specifically, maybe you question how Ovechkin's aav is higher than Crosby's but locking up Ovechkin for his entire career? Yeah, I could see a premium for that.

I think the whole point has been confused here. Probably my fault. I used those examples purely to illustrate a time period, not that they were being compared head to head in this way.

I remember the Crosby deal in particular being compared in this manner against other star players in that time

 

[Americanadian]

His sentiment also should not be brought up more as it’s nonsense. The cap percentage at the time the deal was signed is highly relevent to comparing across salary cap years. If a player signed for x against the cap and a year later the cap has risen 5% it’s reasonable to think a comparable player should sign for x+5%

My argument is:

A) cap hit % is irrelevant when measuring a players pay in any given season

B) Cap hit % should not be used to compare contracts with different term.

 

[Sypher04]

My argument is:

A) cap hit % is irrelevant when measuring a players pay in any given season

B) Cap hit % should not be used to compare contracts with different term.

To be clear, I was responding solely to the post of yours that was quoted as saying when was the last time the annual cap was calculated based on all the players’ cap hits at time of signing. I think that fundamentally is not the reason why people use it, so a bit nonsensical imo.

Don’t really have a major issue with your 2 opinions cited here, although I don’t really agree on the second necessarily.

 

[WTFMAN99]

I think the whole point has been confused here. Probably my fault. I used those examples purely to illustrate a time period, not that they were being compared head to head in this way.

I remember the Crosby deal in particular being compared in this manner against other star players in that time

Well he was probably considered the ceiling as the best player and I think it took quite a while for players to make more than him, Ovechkin was kind of an outlier.

Marner is treated similarly to that Ovechkin deal, Friedman has said more than once a few times agents have tried to use Marner's contract as a comparable and teams shut it down, saying that it is it's own thing.

I figured since then McDavid got his money and MacKinnon barely eclipsed it by 100k...I love Matthews but it did still feel strange to see him make more than both of them despite not having the accomplishments.

All that is to say, up until that first wave of contracts of Nylander, Matthews and Marner extended at, I never heard about cap hit % brought up all that much.

 

[Sypher04]

Well he was probably considered the ceiling as the best player and I think it took quite a while for players to make more than him, Ovechkin was kind of an outlier.

Marner is treated similarly to that Ovechkin deal, Friedman has said more than once a few times agents have tried to use Marner's contract as a comparable and teams shut it down, saying that it is it's own thing.

I figured since then McDavid got his money and MacKinnon barely eclipsed it by 100k...I love Matthews but it did still feel strange to see him make more than both of them despite not having the accomplishments.

All that is to say, up until that first wave of contracts of Nylander, Matthews and Marner extended at, I never heard about cap hit % brought up all that much.

I would push back against the bolded.
Aside from the cup, which is a team award, what case did MacKinnon have to be paid more than McDavid without cap percentage at time of signing being used. If you listen to MacKinnon talk about it too that was a discount.

Matthews on the other hand had 2 rockets, a Hart and a Ted Lindsay. In addition to being runner up for a second Hart and Ted Lindsay. All inside the last 3 years. And is younger by 2 years.

And I still disagree with the last statement

 

[WTFMAN99]

I would push back against the bolded.
Aside from the cup, which is a team award, what case did MacKinnon have to be more than McDavid without cap percentage at time of signing being used. If you listen to MacKinnon talk about it too that was a discount.

Matthews on the other hand had, 2 rockets, a Hart and a Ted Lindsay. In addition to being runner up for a second Hart and Ted Lindsay. All inside the last 3 years. And is younger by 2 years.

I'd need to really go back and look at point production over X amount of years between the signings, I don't think MacKinnon was *that* far off McDavid's production but I could be wrong. Ultimately though, his individual trophy case is a little more barren than McDavid's so the cup is definitely something the Avalanche put some value on.

McDavid's had some longer post-season runs than Matthews and the individual trophy case is quite big...bigger than Matthews.

Matthews is a unicorn with his goal scoring ability as a centre and I guess you could also note we don't have those bad dead years at the end of his deal like if he signed for 8 years, I don't know how MacKinnon will be in years 7 and 8 of his current deal.

 

[acrobaticgoalie]

Who's the best goalie we can add in the offseason, either as a stop-gap to Woll/Hildeby or as the longterm answer in net?

Maybe Talbot or Brossoit.

That's basically it. Everyone else is pretty much garbage

 

[Sypher04]

I definitely appreciate it feels weird to have the best player in the game not making the most money, but this is just how it’s been in the cap world years after the best locks in. This is year 6 of McDavids 8 year extension after all

 

[Americanadian]

To be clear, I was responding solely to the post of yours that was quoted as saying when was the last time the annual cap was calculated based on all the players’ cap hits at time of signing. I think that fundamentally is not the reason why people use it, so a bit nonsensical imo.

What is the reason people use “cap
Hit %”?

 

[Americanadian]

Don’t really have a major issue with your 2 opinions cited here, although I don’t really agree on the second necessarily.

Let’s assume player X and Y have identical value (never true but we pretend in the NHL all the time).

Player X signs in year 1 for 10Mx8 years, with a cap of 100M, so 10% of year 1 cap.

Player Y signs in year 5 for 12Mx4 years, with a cap of 120M, so 10% of year 5 cap.

Both players contracts end in year 8. Would you say their pay is equal for the entirety of years 5-8 because the cap hit % at signing was the same? There is an inherent benefit, assuming the players both earn their contracts, for player X’s team. They are saving an additional 2M for all 4 years of player Y’s contract.

 

[Gabriel426]

I don't recall the major but when you break it down you're right it doesn't seem so bad.
Feels like it's more than every 4 games though.

Remember his Gordie Howe hat trick

 

[Dreakmur]

I definitely appreciate it feels weird to have the best player in the game not making the most money, but this is just how it’s been in the cap world years after the best locks in. This is year 6 of McDavids 8 year extension after all

That's the point of signing longer deals - they have more time to gain value as the cap goes up. That's exactly why the shorter terms in Toronto made those deals worse.

 

[Sypher04]

That's the point of signing longer deals - they have more time to gain value as the cap goes up. That's exactly why the shorter terms in Toronto made those deals worse.

Exactly. I don’t really have any issue with the Matthews deal at 4, but fundamentally I agree.

 

[ToneDog]

That's the point of signing longer deals - they have more time to gain value as the cap goes up. That's exactly why the shorter terms in Toronto made those deals worse.

34 did not take 4 years because it benefits the Leafs. Most take the guaranteed millions for 8 years. Not somebody who wants to squeeze the most money out of a career.

 

[Dreakmur]

34 did not take 4 years because it benefits the Leafs. Most take the guaranteed millions for 8 years. Not somebody who wants to squeeze the most money out of a career.

Matthews getting more money and less term than MacKinnon was painful....

 

[Americanadian]

Matthews getting more money and less term than MacKinnon was painful....

Don’t worry, the cap hit % is the same so it isn’t actually more money against the cap, and term doesn’t matter.

 

[LaPlante94]

Except there's really nothing to support that. While Samsonov did not have a great year overall, we had two other goalies perform well, and our record with Samsonov is still spectacular (in fact, better), which suggests that our team outcomes weren't significantly impacted by it.

Management didn't bring in more offense in our depth forwards. They just abandoned defense throughout the roster, which is a big part of our drop-off.

That's not true at all.

If the Leafs don't win the cup with Matthews on the roster, that will be disappointing, but I'd rather look back knowing we gave it our best shot instead of looking back wondering what could have been if we didn't sabotage the team out of impatience.

There's plenty to support that. He let in 24 more goals this year compared to last year in 2 less game. Despite our teams defence supposedly being garbage he faced like 100 shots less in those 2 fewer games and he faced less High Danger Chances. One site I saw even tracked quality starts and Sammy had 27 in 42 games last year compared to 19 in 40 games this year. One of those useless Treliving signings actually had our best numbers when it came to all those stats. So yeah, I'd say if Samsonov put up the numbers he did last season we most likely get an extra 5-6 wins which would put us up at the top of the league.

Did we? We let useless players walk who didn't help us out in the many years they were here, especially during the playoffs. Engvall was probably our best defensive forwards/PKer and Treliving wasn't the one to let him go. Kerfoot was more important I guess. Our entire bottom 6 was changed at the trade deadline last year and O'Rielly didn't want to stay and Acciari most likely didn't want to stay. Lafferty was the only guy under contract and a move I wish Tre didn't make, but after his hot start this year he's cooled off and been a healthy scratch quite a bit I believe. So no, I don't think Treliving is to blame for us abandoning defence throughout the roster since a majority of the guys replacing all those guys are guys who have played on the Marlies and have been given a legit chance to stay which is what a majority of people wanted on this board anyways, right?

 

[Sypher04]

Acciari most likely didn't want to stay

Nothing to suggest that. We likely just got outbid.

 

[nuck]

That’s simply not true, people talked about this going back all the way to Crosby and Ovechkin’s contracts and not long after the cap was created.

His sentiment also should not be brought up more as it’s nonsense. The cap percentage at the time the deal was signed is highly relevent to comparing across salary cap years. If a player signed for x against the cap and a year later the cap has risen 5% it’s reasonable to think a comparable player should sign for x+5%

Is it though? The cap is for the whole lineup. The total player's share vs a COLA increase that gets cannibalized by the stars at the top. I don't recall it ever being proposed as dedicated inflation protection for superstars until the agents started pushing that boat out and now its a fact of life.

It used to be that a player signed a deal for a number based on what he did and how much the owners did or didn't earn had nothing to do with it. And when the cap came , the revenue split was between every player in the union and every owner with the intention of giving the players as a whole a guaranteed share of the pie. Not individual star players getting a guaranteed percentage, that would come at the expense of improving the pay for the rest of the lineup.

I can't believe the rank and file union members aren't more resistant to that. Young stars get their bump, along with over the hill players who want massive paydays as though they will never decline and the middle class who are the guys between the ELCs and the stars get squeezed. The agent for the $3M vet is sucking up the cap growth for the stars in his stable at the expense of of his less important clients. Is Willie really worth 3.5 Domis? Why should a player benefit from the growth of the cap when there is no requirement that he continues to perform at the level that got him the deal? If you decline rather than grow, why should your pay check grow? So the owner has to spend more coin on players to absorb your failure to produce without the cap relief that can come only from LTIR .

It would be less of a thing if all clubs experienced the cap the same way and the Leafs would still likely not be better off because they apparently can't say no to a contract demand but in addition to clubs with stars being punished, half the league is signing deals for less than the other half and we are told the players might strike if ownership ever tried to make a tax rate based adjustment. And the Leafs are penalized for both stars and the Cdn tax burden.