Value of: Bridge Deal RFAs

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Ah yes, the 40-year old valued at 3.2m and the cap-circumventing under-the-table contract.

So when you are going around with your multiple-month-long crusade against Dubas, are you ignoring that he got Johnsson, Kerfoot, Spezza, Agostino, Marincin, and Gravel below their projected?


So the model doesn't get individual contracts right, doesn't get term right, doesn't adjust value for term properly, is basically half outliers, and it's made by a guy who posts lazy graphs that don't adjust the projections for term when comparing to actual cap hits, who has also said it gets less accurate towards the top, but let's just all trust that it's perfectly representative of all contracts at the "macro level" because... you said so...


No, you've explained that you did more in-depth research to rationalize the reasons behind just those two contracts and their projections/valuation in the model when they didn't fit your pre-conceived ideas, so that you can claim that the two contracts that your GM gave out are just outliers, as you berate other team's fans and their GM for their contracts not matching the model, while you blatantly ignore the obvious reasons that they would be outliers.

I think it's pretty obvious who is cherry-picking here.

Buddy. I DID NOT SAY IT WAS PERFECTLY ACCURATE AT THE MACRO LEVEL. I said it was pretty accurate. You should stop misrepresenting every single argument that is put in front of you if you want people to take you seriously.

 

[Breakers]

I'm really surprised Kyle Connor isn't done.

You got the comparable in a long term deal and bridge deal in Koneckny and Boeser.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Buddy. I DID NOT SAY IT WAS PERFECTLY ACCURATE AT THE MACRO LEVEL. I said it was pretty accurate.

Ah, so now we've established that the model doesn't get individual contracts right, doesn't get term right, doesn't adjust value for term properly, is basically half outliers, and it's made by a guy who posts lazy graphs that don't adjust the projections for term when comparing to actual cap hits, who has also said it gets less accurate towards the top, and now you're even backtracking on how valuable it is at the "macro level". Yet you've made this the basis of your arguments, "research", graphs, charts, and your public crusade against Dubas for months. Interesting.

It's pretty simple. Either the model is garbage, or you admit that your own GM is worse than the guy you've been slandering for half of a year at least.

 

[Beyonder91]

Ah, so now we've established that the model doesn't get individual contracts right, doesn't get term right, doesn't adjust value for term properly, is basically half outliers, and it's made by a guy who posts lazy graphs that don't adjust the projections for term when comparing to actual cap hits, who has also said it gets less accurate towards the top, and now you're even backtracking on how valuable it is at the "macro level". Yet you've made this the basis of your arguments, "research", graphs, charts, and your public crusade against Dubas for months. Interesting.

It's pretty simple. Either the model is garbage, or you admit that your own GM is worse than the guy you've been slandering for half of a year at least.

Leave the poor guy alone!

 

[Beyonder91]

Just a quote from the league champion GM. Nothing has changed though... *eye roll* @JoeThorntonsRooster

"Doug Armstrong, GM of the champion St. Louis Blues, said his team’s Cup-winning cap situation was made tenable in part because two of his three highest-paid players, Vladimir Tarasenko and Alex Pietrangelo, signed long-term deals in 2015 and 2013, respectively, so their AAVs of $7.5 million and $6.5 million have come to look modest.
A lot has changed in the NHL since those deals were inked. In 2017, for instance, the Edmonton Oilers signed 20-year-old Connor McDavid to a $100-million contract with a league-topping AAV of $12.5 million. In a league that once generally reserved such paydays for older unrestricted free agents, let’s just say the McDavid deal unleashed a lucrative tide that’s raised the proverbial boats captained by an armada of young restricted free agents, among them Matthews, Marner and Nylander.
“It’s a huge shift,” said Armstrong. “Now — right, wrong or indifferent — the large piece of the pie is going to players much younger. And that’s more of an issue internally in the locker room that the players have to deal with. The players making the most money are no longer your senior players. And it’s something that as management, you really can’t control it. But you have to react to it.”

Why no recent Stanley Cup contender has paid its top four as much as the Maple Leafs will | The Star

 

[SniperOnTheWing]

I'm really surprised Kyle Connor isn't done.

You got the comparable in a long term deal and bridge deal in Koneckny and Boeser.

I am surprised too, but at the same time we need to consider the Laine factor. Jets had two big ticket RFAs to worry about and probably wanted to get the bigger one settled first so they'd know where they stand on Connor.

Now that Laine's number is in I'm betting Connor will sign soon.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Delete

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Ah, so now we've established that the model doesn't get individual contracts right, doesn't get term right, doesn't adjust value for term properly, is basically half outliers, and it's made by a guy who posts lazy graphs that don't adjust the projections for term when comparing to actual cap hits, who has also said it gets less accurate towards the top, and now you're even backtracking on how valuable it is at the "macro level". Yet you've made this the basis of your arguments, "research", graphs, charts, and your public crusade against Dubas for months. Interesting.

It's pretty simple. Either the model is garbage, or you admit that your own GM is worse than the guy you've been slandering for half of a year at least.

Do you not ever get tired of responding to arguments that have never been made?

For one, the guys who make the projections are not the same as the guy who posted the stupid Tableau graph. The guys who made the graph are the twins at Evolving Hockey. The guy who posted the graph on Tableau is Sean Tierney.

And the results of this contract projection model have never been the primary basis of my arguments that Dubas overpaid his RFAs. They have just been one piece of the puzzle. For those individual players, I have done much more in-depth research on each of them to make my conclusions on how they were paid. I also did the same in-depth research on a contract that my team previously signed (E. Kane) and found that even though the contract projection model suggested he was underpaid, I still decided that he was overpaid. However, the contract projection model still did lead me to at least challenge my pre-conceived notions.

You are presenting me with a false dichotomy at the end of your statement. The model can be not garbage without every single result being entirely accurate. By your own false dichotomous logic, you must agree that Nathan MacKinnon (0.81 ESP/GP, 6.9 PPP/60), have all been been superior to Auston Matthews (0.79 ESP/GP, 6.43 PPP/60) over the past two seasons, or you must agree that ESP/GP and PPP/60 are both garbage. "Either the stat is garbage, or you admit Matthews is worse than the guy you've been saying he is superior to." That is your logic. It is horrible logic.

Just a quote from the league champion GM. Nothing has changed though... *eye roll* @JoeThorntonsRooster

"Doug Armstrong, GM of the champion St. Louis Blues, said his team’s Cup-winning cap situation was made tenable in part because two of his three highest-paid players, Vladimir Tarasenko and Alex Pietrangelo, signed long-term deals in 2015 and 2013, respectively, so their AAVs of $7.5 million and $6.5 million have come to look modest.
A lot has changed in the NHL since those deals were inked. In 2017, for instance, the Edmonton Oilers signed 20-year-old Connor McDavid to a $100-million contract with a league-topping AAV of $12.5 million. In a league that once generally reserved such paydays for older unrestricted free agents, let’s just say the McDavid deal unleashed a lucrative tide that’s raised the proverbial boats captained by an armada of young restricted free agents, among them Matthews, Marner and Nylander.
“It’s a huge shift,” said Armstrong. “Now — right, wrong or indifferent — the large piece of the pie is going to players much younger. And that’s more of an issue internally in the locker room that the players have to deal with. The players making the most money are no longer your senior players. And it’s something that as management, you really can’t control it. But you have to react to it.”

Why no recent Stanley Cup contender has paid its top four as much as the Maple Leafs will | The Star

That article in particular mentions McDavid as the guy who "unleashed a lucrative tide", yet he gave away 3 more UFA years than Sidney Crosby did at a lesser cap hit percentage. Then it mentions Pietrangelo and Tarasenko, but Pietrangelo sold 1 fewer UFA year than Chabot just did at a higher percentage of the cap, and Tarasenko will probably end up with a pretty similar deal to Rantanen despite a much lesser track record.

I can't deny that Doug Armstrong said this. A lot of other reputable people have been saying it too. The narrative really caught on. I'm not sure why, but again, I don't see any evidence that it has actually happened.

This is probably not the best way to look at things, but a quick look at the top-50 players in cap hit in each season, according to CapFriendly, shows that his statement is not true at all.

2018-2019: 28.92

2017-2018: 29.4

2016-2017: 29.28

2015-2016: 28.82

2014-2015: 28.08

2013-2014: 28.66

2013: 28.96

2011-2012: 29.22

2010-2011: 29.16

2009-2010: 28.86

2008-2009: 29.58

2007-2008: 30.2

2006-2007: 28.82

2005-2006: 28.84

The average age of the top-50 players in every season before this one is 29.09. Compared to 28.92 this year, that doesn't seem like a significant change at all.

Again, I understand that this is a talking point among people in the hockey world. But I do not see any actual evidence of it happening.

 

[Beyonder91]

That article in particular mentions McDavid as the guy who "unleashed a lucrative tide", yet he gave away 3 more UFA years than Sidney Crosby did at a lesser cap hit percentage. Then it mentions Pietrangelo and Tarasenko, but Pietrangelo sold 1 fewer UFA year than Chabot just did at a higher percentage of the cap, and Tarasenko will probably end up with a pretty similar deal to Rantanen despite a much lesser track record.

I can't deny that Doug Armstrong said this. A lot of other reputable people have been saying it too. The narrative really caught on. I'm not sure why, but again, I don't see any evidence that it has actually happened.

This is probably not the best way to look at things, but a quick look at the top-50 players in cap hit in each season, according to CapFriendly, shows that his statement is not true at all.

I think your problem is that you are looking at it on too much of a macro level when we are just at the very start of the cycle as mentioned with the Mcdavid contract. As more UFA contracts expire more money will be going to younger players. As this continues to happen you will see the macro numbers start to change.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

I think your problem is that you are looking at it on too much of a macro level. We are just at the very start of the cycle as mentioned with the Mcdavid contract. As more UFA contracts expire more money will be going to younger players.

Why do you assume that teams are going to stop paying UFAs?

 

[CupsOverCash]

I think the cap is just going up and with that players ask for more money. Thats all that has happened since the cap came into the league. I dont think it has to do with the young RFA asking for more money. We only thought that could be the case if the RFAs followed Marner. It hasnt happened that way. I do think teams realize that having good young players is important but the reason they were important was to see if they could contribute like a vet would but for cheaper. When Dubas tried to be "progressive" he was just being dumb and should have kept his younger players cost controlled so that the Leafs could add players to their core. Now they will have to find cheap options in bottom six if the cap doesnt go up too much.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Pretty rarely a bridge contract blows up in a team's face. I guess Subban's in Montreal was an example, maybe there's a handful more. The more I think about it the more these bridge deals make a lot of sense.

As great as it sounds theoretically to have a young superstar RFA "locked up" for 7 or 8 prime years a lot can change in that time, and giving them that kind of money really restricts what you can do with the rest of your roster. GMs in most cases don't really have all that long to make their team competitive. They need to be making the playoffs by year two or three. Would much rather have some room to work with even if it means renegotiating extensions sooner than you would like. Lot easier to plug holes on your roster through trade or FA if you have some cap space to do so. Good drafting and cheap young ELCs can compensate but only so far, and competitive windows don't last forever.

Also giving a 22 year old a guaranteed contract for >60 million dollars doesn't give them a whole lot of incentive to get better. Bridging players at a solid price point gives them more motivation to make sure their next contract is an even bigger cash out.

 

[Beyonder91]

I think the cap is just going up and with that players ask for more money. Thats all that has happened since the cap came into the league. I dont think it has to do with the young RFA asking for more money. We only thought that could be the case if the RFAs followed Marner. It hasnt happened that way. I do think teams realize that having good young players is important but the reason they were important was to see if they could contribute like a vet would but for cheaper. When Dubas tried to be "progressive" he was just being dumb and should have kept his younger players cost controlled so that the Leafs could add players to their core. Now they will have to find cheap options in bottom six if the cap doesnt go up too much.

Because all the other RFA signed bridge deals! Just wait 3 years when they are all up for contract renewal and more old UFA money is off the books. You will see more of a macro shift.

 

[Dekes For Days]

And the results of this contract projection model have never been the primary basis of my arguments that Dubas overpaid his RFAs.

Now you say that. Funny how I've seen you post/talk about these contract projections multiple times and use it as the basis for multiple "analyses" and arguments.

For those individual players, I have done much more in-depth research on each of them to make my conclusions on how they were paid.

Yeah, we've all seen your so-called research riddled with problems, done to get a specific result while ignoring blatantly obvious important details.

I also did the same in-depth research on a contract that my team previously signed (E. Kane) and found that even though the contract projection model suggested he was underpaid, I still decided that he was overpaid.

You keep saying this as if it's some revelation that signing a career-high 57 point winger (who plays a style likely to deteriorate fast) 7 million last year for 7 years until he's 34 is bad. It's basically just admitting the obvious, and all it really does is further show the major flaws in the projection model.

You are presenting me with a false dichotomy at the end of your statement. The model can be not garbage without every single result being entirely accurate.

Problem is there isn't much evidence that any of them are all that accurate, and there are clear and obvious issues like the fact that it can't adjust for term at all, which makes it especially worthless in an offseason where everybody is signing for uncommon terms.

By your own false dichotomous logic, you must agree that Nathan MacKinnon (0.81 ESP/GP, 6.9 PPP/60), have all been been superior to Auston Matthews (0.79 ESP/GP, 6.43 PPP/60) over the past two seasons, or you must agree that ESP/GP and PPP/60 are both garbage.

Ah, but those aren't the only stats I've posted, and I've maintained all throughout that context is important. When we look at context, we see that Matthews has had far inferior linemates over that time period. We also see that in half of the sample you are looking at, Matthews had 2nd unit PP deployment with some pretty awful linemates. We also see that Matthews is superior in goal-scoring ability. We also see that this time-frame represents one player's pre-prime and one player's prime.

This makes Matthews' 0.79 ESP/GP, 6.43 PPP/60 more impressive than Mackinnon's 0.81 ESP/GP, 6.9 PPP/60, and indicates that he is the better player.

 

[Tripod]

But if all the money is going to the RFA's, are we really going to believe that there won't be money for 27 year old UFA Auston Matthews? 28 year old Marner?

And in 3 years, Rielly is a UFA so it's not like they are out of the woods either. They will have a big contract that needs signing too.

Personally, i wish GM's, mine included, would be doing their best to time contracts so they end around age 30. Guys becoming UFA's at age 26-28 makes it a real hard decision in re-signing them or not at that age.

 

[Dustin]

I think what gets lost a lot here on HF and in a lot of places is that teams are all in very different places both competitively and in some cases economically.

For a team that has some aging pieces a bridge contract can help keep all those parts together for a short while in hopes that the team can win during that time period. If after the time period it doesn't pan out you are most likely watching those older pieces leave so you can pay the RFA more now even higher than he's worth of you want to.

For teams that are younger, bridge contracts aren't going to help you unless you aren't sure of the player. For elite guys, it makes far more sense to try to lock them up long term.

 

[Dustin]

But if all the money is going to the RFA's, are we really going to believe that there won't be money for 27 year old UFA Auston Matthews? 28 year old Marner?

And in 3 years, Rielly is a UFA so it's not like they are out of the woods either. They will have a big contract that needs signing too.

Personally, i wish GM's, mine included, would be doing their best to time contracts so they end around age 30. Guys becoming UFA's at age 26-28 makes it a real hard decision in re-signing them or not at that age.

I mean there will always be money for elite players regardless if they are UFA or RFA. However when you look objectively at UFA signings over the years middling players that are signed through Free Agency are almost always bad contracts. If you are a GM and you have one choice to give your money to an elite player over long term or to sign him to a smaller contract over a shorter term and sign a UFA, you are almost always going to prefer to sign the younger player long term.

Again there is always exceptions and a teams context matters too, but going forward I can't see how any elite drafted players are going to be treated like they were 15 years ago. If you are elite, you are most likely going to get paid a lot more and a lot sooner than you would have in the past.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Because all the other RFA signed bridge deals! Just wait 3 years when they are all up for contract renewal and more old UFA money is off the books. You will see more of a macro shift.

I think its more because we've just had a generational draft (2015), with a high number of studs all due for RFA at roughly the same time and it looks like its shifted how GMs do business. But GMs have always valued their young star players and will pay them what is takes. The non-star (middle class) older UFAs will get pushed out when money is priortized to the stars. If we didn't have such an amazing 2015 draft class, we wouldn't really be discussing this.

I mean, we've just had guys like Hayes get 7 mill, Skinner with 9 mill; players who will be no where near Laine/Tkachuk over the next 3 years.

 

[Beyonder91]

I think its more because we've just had a generational draft (2015), with a high number of studs all due for RFA at roughly the same time and it looks like its shifted how GMs do business. But GMs have always valued their young star players and will pay them what is takes. The non-star (middle class) older UFAs will get pushed out when money is priortized to the stars. If we didn't have such an amazing 2015 draft class, we wouldn't really be discussing this.

I mean, we've just had guys like Hayes get 7 mill, Skinner with 9 mill; players who will be no where near Laine/Tkachuk over the next 3 years.

That's true... And it just may be that all these young studs will set a new standard for the league. It sure looks like it's lining up that way.
It's only good for the league IMO.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Now you say that. Funny how I've seen you post/talk about these contract projections multiple times and use it as the basis for multiple "analyses" and arguments.


Yeah, we've all seen your so-called research riddled with problems, done to get a specific result while ignoring blatantly obvious important details.


You keep saying this as if it's some revelation that signing a career-high 57 point winger (who plays a style likely to deteriorate fast) 7 million last year for 7 years until he's 34 is bad. It's basically just admitting the obvious, and all it really does is further show the major flaws in the projection model.


Problem is there isn't much evidence that any of them are all that accurate, and there are clear and obvious issues like the fact that it can't adjust for term at all, which makes it especially worthless in an offseason where everybody is signing for uncommon terms.


Ah, but those aren't the only stats I've posted, and I've maintained all throughout that context is important. When we look at context, we see that Matthews has had far inferior linemates over that time period. We also see that in half of the sample you are looking at, Matthews had 2nd unit PP deployment with some pretty awful linemates. We also see that Matthews is superior in goal-scoring ability. We also see that this time-frame represents one player's pre-prime and one player's prime.

This makes Matthews' 0.79 ESP/GP, 6.43 PPP/60 more impressive than Mackinnon's 0.81 ESP/GP, 6.9 PPP/60, and indicates that he is the better player.

It was your logic that states that if we can not deem one statistic to be 100% perfect at every single turn, then we must disregard it entirely. That was the false dichotomy that you presented me with.

 

[Tripod]

I mean there will always be money for elite players regardless if they are UFA or RFA. However when you look objectively at UFA signings over the years middling players that are signed through Free Agency are almost always bad contracts. If you are a GM and you have one choice to give your money to an elite player over long term or to sign him to a smaller contract over a shorter term and sign a UFA, you are almost always going to prefer to sign the younger player long term.

Again there is always exceptions and a teams context matters too, but going forward I can't see how any elite drafted players are going to be treated like they were 15 years ago. If you are elite, you are most likely going to get paid a lot more and a lot sooner than you would have in the past.

Is that true, because all summer I saw Matthews being compared to Crosby and Malkin contracts. The top players in the league will always get paid...I 100% agree.

With these bridge deals, teams are for sure hoping they sign that guy in a few years to a long term deal. The benefit, is that those long term deals end around that age of 30/31...instead of 27/28. So at that point, teams can cut bait with them knowing they got most or all of the prime years from that player. But when faced with signing a 28 year old, like on my team Konecny and Provy, that becomes a lot more questionable on what to do.

But using those 2 as examples, do we really think guys like that are going to be squeezed out and forced to take low contacts? I just don't see it especially when GM's can acquire them for free. The "free" is in the acquiring, the "cost" is often overpaying due to supply and demand.

 

[Dekes For Days]

It was your logic that states that if we can not deem one statistic to be 100% perfect at every single turn, then we must disregard it entirely. That was the false dichotomy that you presented me with.

You stated that the model you presented was accurate, despite major obvious flaws and the fact that the individual projections are constantly off. This model is supposed to account for the context of the situation. You suggest that the model is accurate for the contracts you want, but inaccurate for the contracts that your GM gave that you want to be seen as good.

You had no answer to that double standard, so you attempt to post numbers I have used to turn it around on me. The problem is, I have constantly spoken on the importance of context in these numbers, which you have ignored, and when context is applied, it supports my position.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Because all the other RFA signed bridge deals! Just wait 3 years when they are all up for contract renewal and more old UFA money is off the books. You will see more of a macro shift.

At that point, the likes of Point, Tkachuk, Werenski, Meier, etc. will be selling only one more RFA year. The vast majority of their next contracts will be UFA years.

Let's look at Brayden Point in particular. Let's say that by the time his next deal is up, the salary cap is $100M, and he takes league maximum ($20M). That would mean his cap hit for his RFA years is $10.06M. For a top-10 center who scores 40 goals and 90 points, that is still a major discount. And again, this is based on a crazy assumption that he will get league maximum on an extremely high cap. Realistically, those first 4 RFA years will go for less than $8M per. And this is a 40 goal, 90 point center we're talking about here.

And again, I think you are making a faulty assumption that old UFA money will just come off the books without new UFA money replacing it. As mentioned above, we've already seen middle to upper middle class UFAs in Hayes, Skinner, Stralman, Lee, Nelson, Myers, sign new big UFA contracts, and we've seen elite UFAs like Bobrovsky, Karlsson, and Panarin get huge contracts. Next year, Hall, Backstrom, Holtby, Pietrangelo, Barrie, Kreider, Josi, Hoffman, Krug, and Schenn are going to add another ten big UFA contracts to the league.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

You stated that the model you presented was accurate, despite major obvious flaws and the fact that the individual projections are constantly off. This model is supposed to account for the context of the situation. You suggest that the model is accurate for the contracts you want, but inaccurate for the contracts that your GM gave that you want to be seen as good.

You had no answer to that double standard, so you attempt to post numbers I have used to turn it around on me. The problem is, I have constantly spoken on the importance of context in these numbers, which you have ignored, and when context is applied, it supports my position.

The model doesn't account for the context of the situation. And the model is accurate. I've made it pretty clear. The R^2 between projected cap hit and actual cap hit at the term that these players signed for is 0.89. That is not perfect, but it is very accurate. Enough so that using its results to compare the projected cap hit of every single RFA forward, RFA defenseman, UFA forward, and UFA defenseman to the actual cap hit for those players can provide us a good idea of whether or not the market has actually undergone a significant shift for RFAs. The results of that comparison show that it has not.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The model doesn't account for the context of the situation.

Which means it really doesn't do anything and it's useless, especially in an off-season where players are signing for uncommon terms; something that is not properly adjusted for in the model. Anything you do based on these numbers is equally worthless.