Bonsai Tree
Turning a new leaf
- Feb 2, 2014
- 9,204
- 4,502
Confirmed with Link: Clayton Keller, Coyotes agree on 8-year, $7.15M AAV extension
- Thread starter The Feckless Puck
- Start date
OriginalJetsCoyotes
Registered User
If Cousins led our team in points 2 years in a row I'd give him what Keller got too. Love the contract right now, in the future? Who knows.
Demko as well. They are paying $10m to not have Luongo and Spooner play for them, as well as Loui Eriksson sleepwalking around.
If you ever think the Coyotes are poorly run in terms of cap, look around elsewhere.
Everyone, from the coaches, to management, to the player, knows and hopes that Boeser does even better. But they can't or are otherwise unwilling to sign him to 8 years now, so they are setting themselves up to pay out the ass for a star player in 3 years. That makes zero sense but yet there's no shortage of people that clap and bark like a dumbass seal whenever these bridge deals are signed.
A bridge is a failure to gain control, and control is value if the player is worth controlling. It doesn't make a lot of sense to give Michael Grabner an 8 year deal. It makes a ton of sense to give a 22 year old such a long deal. Avs gave MacKinnon 7 years and look at that contract now.
Jim Benning might be the perfect example of the Peter Principle. He's a terrific scout, but he's really bungled the other duties that come with being a solid GM. There's a handful of bad contracts on that team, plus poor moves like moving a first rounder for JT Miller.
Funny I mention last week that bridge deals were becoming rare and now they're flying off the shelf ... Werenski, McAvoy, and now Boeser.
Funny I mention last week that bridge deals were becoming rare and now they're flying off the shelf ... Werenski, McAvoy, and now Boeser.
Looking at Vancouver's Cap this is a fairly smart signing. It's as much as they have this season and in 3 seasons when it comes around again they lose Luongo, Eriksson, Sutter, Baertschi, and Elder in that timeframe. It's easy to just look at deals individually but different teams have different needs in regards to the Cap. In 3 years if Boeser shows himself to be another level they will pay him market rate with Cap space they actually have. They have some suspect contracts but I'm not sure this is one of them.
Werenski lost an offseason to shoulder surgery, he probably feels he's a 60-70 point guy in his prime with no issues. He didn't really take a bridge so much as he took near market rate for his production and minutes. McAvoy and Carlo can't fit under Boston's cap if they both take what they are worth, so it makes sense to punt on a contender. McAvoy is again another guy that didn't play a full year, and he still signed for just shy of $5m. The cap is only going to go up with Seattle joining the league.
The Boeser thing is inexcusable. Vancouver is rebuilding (they claim they aren't) and has pissed away the difference between a bridge and a 8 year deal on lesser players and cap snafus. Boeser hasn't even been healthy so he is exactly the right candidate to pick off on a long term bargain. A bridge at this point is essentially a bet against the player and/or lighting future money on fire because you're incapable of projecting more than a season out.
Why would most players not agree? As long as they like the location/management enough and see potential growth in the team, I don't see why the majority wouldn't sign a deal that gets them more money long term and avoids the risk of a major injury or decrease in production to wreck their contract in the short term. Look at Boeds, he could have signed here for what, 6m? But instead went to free agency only to make less on the Sharks before being traded to the worst team in the league. This is why you sign long term.
Max Domi is the better example of why you offer a bridge. Great rookie season, injured during his sophomore season, struggled until the last quarter of his third season. A 7yr x 7m deal would have been spectacular in hindsight but how many GMs would really have pulled that going into last season. He had many more question marks than Keller at the time.
Every player has a price they will sign early at, even Marner last year. It's just that most GMs do not have the balls and/or smarts to juice their deals up front so that yes, it is an overpay the first few years, but then you're reliably in the black on the contract and it's a major asset. There's also major opportunity cost involved with not having a guy under control. A player like Boeser can have a monster year and then ask for $12m+ if he thinks other teams will give him that on an offer sheet or in trade. That can pull the whole rug out from under your rebuild real quick, and for what? Because you didn't pay the guy an extra million or whatever per year in year one. Chayka's philosophy is to not let it get to that point and for good reason.
Boeser has 17.7m in hand right now. Benning should have put up to $65m on the table on an 8 year deal because Pettersson is going to get more than that regardless once he is off his ELC in two years. It literally doesn't matter how much you overpay Boeser right now because you've got nobody else worth paying in the next two years. You ask Boeser to bet $45m or more against himself and see if he doesn't blink. I bet he does, just like Keller did, especially if you can pull some signing bonus shenanigans and front load the deal. Boeser would have to make more than $10m AAV after his bridge deal to be in the money, but he assumes major injury risk for those 3 years, effectively neutralizing the predicted AAV gains. $65m in hand beats $17.7 every time.
The scenario where the team 'wins' on a bridge deal is very narrow in a world where the salary cap is always rising. It's effectively a bet against the player. To win, the player has to stagnate to a point where they can't demand a significant salary increase. Only then does the club come out ahead on the 2nd deal. The funny part is that, even if the player stagnates, they will eventually be worth their long term AAV due to market inflation regardless, so why wouldn't you sign a guy you like for as long as possible? Expect players that are ho-hum on the franchise to be dealt before it comes to that, like Perlini and Strome. As much as I love Strome, a controlled Schmaltz is worth more to the Coyotes than a disgruntled or difficult Strome. This is where the emotionless, robotic approach of Chayka has an edge IMO.
People are ultimately confusing idiotic deals like the Lucic signing with paying a premium to control the best young assets in the league. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of ponying up.
If Keller starts regularly putting up around 65 points or more, even next year, the Coyotes will already be in the black on his contract and it hasn't even kicked in.
While your theory makes sense many have not earned the money in the long term that they are asking for. And no you would not be a smart GM to long term offer every player that started off well in the NHL in their first season or two. Most people know there is a decent amount of risk by the team for doing this, you end up overpaying by quite a bit. And the other factor is salary Cap. Vancouver simply does not have 7 or 8 million now to sign Boeser but they do have 6 and will have much more available in 3 years when they get out from under Luongo and Eriksson for two examples. Tampa does not have 10 million for Point right now but they clear that up much easier in a few years once the player has proven his worth consistently. Going long early can certainly pay off but there is risk to that. Consider the Coyotes, we have 4 or 5 kids signed long term that have not earned those contracts but are essentially now our core. If they work out that's great but if they don't we won't be progressing as a team.
If Montreal signs Domi to 7X7 imo that would be a massive overpayment and mistake.
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
Have there been that many long term deals (5 years or more) signed before the player reaches the age of 23 that have been bad deals?
I feel as if though more of the "bad" deals with bad term and/or dollars happen right around ages 25-30. Clarkson. Lucic (past 30 I think when he signed the deal). I know I don't have extreme hockey knowledge of contracts and performance, but I feel like that is an extreme misstatement with little ability to back it up. Whereas a player like Dylan Larkin is actually out-performing the deal he signed. Same with Tuch.
Not a lot of these long-term deals have happened before. Very recently have we seen this tactic. I think you are trying to convince yourself that a long-term signing will actually be a bad thing that works against teams. But when I pull up a list of some of the long term signings, I like these signings a lot. Hell, Timo Meier actually took the Sharks for a ride. He got 4 yrs, $24 Mtotal. San Jose probably could have offered 7 for $49 M and it would still be considered very good value.
People have written here for years that Eberle and RNH had bad contracts?. But really they are a new thing so we will see in the next few years.
There's another point about these contracts the Coyotes have signed that I don't think has been highlighted yet. Because the team isn't quite to contender status yet, one may look at the salary cap and think the Coyotes are in a bad situation, however, I think it's actually quite genius. The young players are somewhat overpaid for the early parts of their contracts, all part of plan to get them to commit to more years, so look at it as something like paying 110% of what the proper market rate would be what you're getting. With each passing year, you're getting closer to that value being 100% and the player being in their prime. Then while in their primes, you're paying 90% of what you'd get on the market, and it just keeps getting better as the seasons pass because you have them locked up for so long.
You add up all those 10%s saved, the players are all in their primes, and you get a situation where you can attract and can afford that final piece to go for a Cup. Also, because you overpaid in the early years, you got extra years total, so your contending window is larger than most teams. If a player for some reason doesn't work out, unless its a gross miscalculation, you can make a trade as their contract isn't some albatross as well.
I really like this direction as it's essentially paying for your contending season cap hits in a season where you don't expect to contend, which gives the team a huge budgetary advantage in those contending seasons. It'll take a few seasons to see how well this works out, so I don't know that you'll see other teams try it anytime soon, and judging by the past week's signings, no one else is doing it. The other cool thing about it is that it takes so much time to set up, that when other teams do catch on, it'll take them a few seasons to get the strategy established.
You add up all those 10%s saved, the players are all in their primes, and you get a situation where you can attract and can afford that final piece to go for a Cup. Also, because you overpaid in the early years, you got extra years total, so your contending window is larger than most teams. If a player for some reason doesn't work out, unless its a gross miscalculation, you can make a trade as their contract isn't some albatross as well.
I really like this direction as it's essentially paying for your contending season cap hits in a season where you don't expect to contend, which gives the team a huge budgetary advantage in those contending seasons. It'll take a few seasons to see how well this works out, so I don't know that you'll see other teams try it anytime soon, and judging by the past week's signings, no one else is doing it. The other cool thing about it is that it takes so much time to set up, that when other teams do catch on, it'll take them a few seasons to get the strategy established.
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
I think that people disliked Eberle's deal because he happened to be a beneficiary of being placed on very good lines early and then seeing some decline in stats. However, he averaged 56 points over the course of a deal that averaged $6 M per year. If that was the first experiment into valuing a player long term, that's not top bad. For RNH, he basically posted similar numbers, and would average 57 points extrapolated to an 82 game. At $6 M per, it doesn't appear that the two are overpaid.
Spreading an opinion is fine until you look at the numbers and numbers don't lie. Hindsight will always be 20/20, and I am sure that just as many people panicked when these deals were announced. Yet, in the end, there is less proof that this jeopardizes teams to where the team significantly overpays. The few players that this has happened to all appear to be in line of their deals.
I would almost argue that the bridge deal concept actually communicates under-payment for about 2-4 seasons before striking an overpayment on the other end. The issue is that the overpayment tends to make up for lost ground from the prior bridge deals, and secondly, a player on an 8 year deal signed at age 21 vs signed at age 25 means that there is a good likelihood of overpayment past an age where a player may decline. I don't know if there is a stat out there like the NFL has with the decline of a RB happening at age 30. But, one may be paying more for less productive years at the end of a deal, which is one of the benefits of the long-term deal early - you are likely paying more for the player's true prime years.
My questioning of these deals is not about prime years but about what are you actually buying. Let's be real here, none of us know exactly what Keller is or will be. It is much easier to see what Point, Rantanen, Marner and so are will be as players. All we have for Keller is a good rookie season and then junk. Now was it just a setback or did the NHL figure Keller out and he isn't likely to be a good 1st line winger??? That's why another year might have been more advised with the risk unlikely to cost that much going forward. A trend is also being seen now by the really good young players that they will not accept a 7 or 8 year deal as it probably takes away their earning potential. Much better to be signing long term at 25 or 26 or even 27 for the rest of their playing career than 28 or 29. And no matter what XX says they will not accept the longer term.
Boeser's agent was on the Canucks intermission report the other night, said they had 7 year deal offers going back a year, just wasn't at a good AAV. Reiterated that his client wanted to sign long term but Benning wouldn't come up at all. 7x7 was on the table from the sounds of it at the draft, imagine missing out on 4 more years of control over maybe 500k. That's less than 10% of the total value of the contract. Given how much the league inflates every year regardless, you quickly claw back that 10% (if it's even an overpay in the first place, which is isn't).
The 'savings' from a bridge deal are an illusion. It's very likely Boeser and the market will combine to get 10 or 11m three years from now. Boeser will, at a minimum, earn $10m+ more on his contract totals over the same next seven year span, even factoring in the 'discount' years of the bridge. I know the Canucks are not cash strapped, but I'd be pretty annoyed at a GM setting money on fire and signing up for another leveraged song-and-dance with a key player over his inability to grit his teeth to get a longer deal done.
Keller is under control for 9 years total at a known price. What a great thing to have.
The 'savings' from a bridge deal are an illusion. It's very likely Boeser and the market will combine to get 10 or 11m three years from now. Boeser will, at a minimum, earn $10m+ more on his contract totals over the same next seven year span, even factoring in the 'discount' years of the bridge. I know the Canucks are not cash strapped, but I'd be pretty annoyed at a GM setting money on fire and signing up for another leveraged song-and-dance with a key player over his inability to grit his teeth to get a longer deal done.
Keller is under control for 9 years total at a known price. What a great thing to have.
At todays cap numbers, the Eberle/RNH deals don't look too bad on the surface. Keep in mind when they were signed and the percentage of cap at that time. Eberle was and still is a one dimensional player. RNH was injured which decreased his benefit to the team. Neither player has turned into what was expected of them after they signed those deals. The Oilers were obviously never good and they made their bed with forwards. I know TML is a good team but they are making the same bet in a way. I don't see TML having success with their D, and they have no way to improve it other than with young guys, given their cap.
Agreed on bridges being an under payment. The CBA structure is desinged to under pay RFA's and over pay UFA's unless your stupid (Dubas).
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Rantanen and Laine's agent was on Vancouver radio saying they are even close with the Avs and Jets.
Laine & Rantanen's agent on getting new deals: We're not close - Sportsnet.ca
Laine & Rantanen's agent on getting new deals: We're not close - Sportsnet.ca
And what if Boeser proves he is nothing more than an auxiliary piece that needs the high end center to have any success while never playing a complete season? Like he gas been so far? How much Cap do you want to give to that position? And where would the Cap space come from this season when the Canucks have none left. Can you not look at their Cap and easily make the case for being in a better position to deal with Boeser in 3 years even if it costs more? Not all teams are the same.
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
See Dylan Larkin. Larkin had a great first year, followed by a meh 2nd year.
He did sign the extension after his 3rd year, which gave him a little room to build up stats.
But, there are players whom you can tie a good or bad season to, and that can be used to predict the type of player that you are getting.
I think that you are over-complicating this. Players like Marner and Point have exceptional stats that will wind up raising the starting point of AAV. They will and should get more than Keller.
As far as what you are actually buying, I think that falls in line with prime years. How many people panned the Milan Lucic signing by the Oilers a few years ago? That team was actually buying a player who was likely to decrease point production because of how he played. Wayne Simmonds falls under the same umbrella.
Do you think that what we actually got with Keller is going to decline heavily in production and/or stagnate? If there was an inkling of that, we probably would not have signed him long-term. I think that it is hedging the bet to say that we are going to pay a number that may be above market slightly now, but follow that up by saying that we are hedging that on the years where the player is most likely to be operating at their peak. The older you get, the inverse of that is more likely (meaning signing someone at 28 vs 21 is actually far more likely to do harm). If a player has a major injury (ACL tear) and the player values are equivalent, you feel much better about the ACL tear of a 23 year old than a 33 year old with 4 years left on their deals.
Larkins signed a 5 year deal that reflected his production in the tear he signed it. He is not a comparison to the Keller deal. I'm not sure the League has a comparable to Keller that I can think of?? I'm not in favor of long term deal to older guys either and I certainly thought the Lucic deal had disaster written all over it from day 1.
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
You're missing the comparable. Larkin had 45 points in 80 games, followed by 32 in 80 games. He had the same good/bad season, and at a considerably lower pace than what Keller put up. The only thing that was established is that Detroit took one additional year to see where his value lays. He follows it up with 63 points. Don't you think it was reasonable for the Wings to expect him to go for at least 50-55 points? What if Larkin was willing to sign at 7 for $5.5 M AAV after his second season? Even if he goes for only 50 points, it hasn't really changed the offer, unless the team now thinks that it goes after a bridge deal because of unexpected uncertainty. But even then, he just put up more points than he did in either of the previous two seasons. I would be willing to state that a long-term deal was already being discussed the season prior, with the intent of signing somewhere between a $5 and $7 M AAV anyhow. The only way $6.5 - 7 M AAV happens is if he blows away his numbers with a PPG pace.
That is the change that we are seeing - before teams would follow the path of: entry deal, bridge deal, 2nd bridge deal, long term deal. Now, teams are looking at entry deal, and the preferred option would be to go long term deal, especially for players who are capable of taking that step. If you are a top 10 pick, there is a better than good chance that the team would prefer to wrap something up long-term.
I think the team is aware that there should be some level of improvement. If that wasn't to be expected, then many other teams overvalued him as a potential top 10 pick in his draft year. We just happen to sign him a year early. If he goes for another 60+ points, the market may get reset to where $7.5 M AAV is a starting point. I believe it is a calculated risk with less downside than people realize.
You can write it a thousand times if you want, it won't change the question. Who is Keller? If he gets back to 60 something points regularly we have a fair deal. If he occasionally goes over 70 points we have a good deal. However if he turns into a 2nd line winger in the 50's for points we have a bad deal. That is the gamble Chayka took and he will either be smart for doing it or a not so smart unemployed GM. Teams might want to sign players drafted top 10 to longer term but we are kinda seeing this year that players don't want that.
