Is cap hit the new metric for player evaluation?

[Leafs87]

I was listening to TSN during free agency and they were talking about Shattenkirk.

Basically it went something like, he signed a big deal in his home town. He was considered by many a bad player. He was then bought out and came to Tampa making 1.75. All of a sudden everyone was talking about him being good again and now he signed for 3.9. Questions immediately started being raised again about how good of a player he was. Truth is he didn’t change much as a player and it’s only his cap that changed. I get debating value, but people are now talking how how good a player really is based on cap hits.

it’s interesting to note that nowadays players on team friendly deals are always viewed more generously. I don’t recall being a part of many threads where cap hit wasn’t brought up when discussing a player, not just value I mean the player himself.


Certain players like Briere, Luongo and Toews were viewed as lesser players because of a cap that didn’t match their play. Luongo went to Fla and thrived. Briere was largely the same player throughout most of his career and great in the playoffs consistently. Only thing that changed was his cap. Toews numbers were almost identical through his whole career minus some peaks(as most players). As soon as he got the 10.5 everyone’s tone changed from top 10 player to an overrated TWF. Tavares also basically the same player as before only getting double the pay. No one ever raised some of the questions they are now until he got 11 mil.

A lot of players careers ended because of bad caps prematurely too. Ladd could still be a bottom sixer I feel, Drury was buried when he was still an NHLer and same with Lupul

Do you guys feel nowadays you’re only as good as your cap is? Not talking player value, as that’s clearly the case, but rather how players are viewed.

Click to read more...

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Ladd is not NHL quality anymore . Even at 900k he’d be trash

 

[Henkka]

I think players real value vs caphit is a very good way to measure players.

Like somebody could be a 1M bargain playing at "2M level" at 4th line. That's a positive player.

Then you can compare superstars same way, some 7M guy could be playing at "10M level" and that's good for the team.

More you have "underpayments" or players playing better than their caphit is, the better team you are.

 

[filinski77]

I think it has something to do with it. It's obviously very easy to analyze how good a player is, regardless of the cap, but it definitely can be considered when viewing that player as a whole.

I mean look at Tavares/Doughty. They are excellent players, and no-one will doubt that at all. But Tavares/Doughty as the 5th highest paid paid players in the league? That definitely hurts their perception, since their value relative to their cap hit is not there.

 

[GermanSpitfire]

I was listening to TSN during free agency and they were talking about Shattenkirk.

Basically it went something like, he signed a big deal in his home town. He was considered by many a bad player. He was then bought out and came to Tampa making 1.75. All of a sudden everyone was talking about him being good again and now he signed for 3.9. Questions immediately started being raised again about how good of a player he was. Truth is he didn’t change much as a player and it’s only his cap that changed. I get debating value, but people are now talking how how good a player really is based on cap hits.

it’s interesting to note that nowadays players on team friendly deals are always viewed more generously. I don’t recall being a part of many threads where cap hit wasn’t brought up when discussing a player, not just value I mean the player himself.


Certain players like Briere, Luongo and Toews were viewed as lesser players because of a cap that didn’t match their play. Luongo went to Fla and thrived. Briere was largely the same player throughout most of his career and great in the playoffs consistently. Only thing that changed was his cap. Toews numbers were almost identical through his whole career minus some peaks(as most players). As soon as he got the 10.5 everyone’s tone changed from top 10 player to an overrated TWF. Tavares also basically the same player as before only getting double the pay. No one ever raised some of the questions they are now until he got 11 mil.

A lot of players careers ended because of bad caps prematurely too. Ladd could still be a bottom sixer I feel, Drury was buried when he was still an NHLer and same with Lupul

Do you guys feel nowadays you’re only as good as your cap is? Not talking player value, as that’s clearly the case, but rather how players are viewed.

100% True. Erik Karlsson is still a great player, 85 points in 109 games with San Jose, elite numbers; however the way he is perceived on here, you’d believe he has only scored 20 points since getting to San Jose.

There is a difference between a bad player, and a bad contract. SO MANY people on these very boards don’t understand that.

 

[Beville]

See: Bobrovsky.

 

[Mickey Marner]

I think people still evaluate players primarily on what jersey they're wearing, but cap hit might be up there. Shattenkirk is a good example of a player whose situation impacts him more than he impacts his situation. Looks good playing behind Pietrangelo in St. Louis, doesn't move the needle for Washington in the playoffs due to his limited ability to impact the game, gets reamed in New York when he loses shelter/support, looks good again in a compartmentalized role with Tampa.

If you're going to evaluate players by their cap hit, you also you to account for whether they have positive impact regardless of their salary and the rarity of replacing them. Overpaying a middle-six UFA winger is basically the worst thing you can do because they're an over-saturated commodity and their value is highly situation-dependant. If you pay them 5 million to give you neutral impact and could replace them with someone roughly equal for a fraction of the cost, then their contract is negative value.

Overpaying a #1C or #1D isn't nearly as poor of a decision because they're considerably harder to acquire and positively impact the game to some degree. If you're paying them 11, but they're only worth 8 and you have no available replacement, then their value is still net positive because that salary can't be reallocated to replace them.

 

[3074326]

If I get paid x amount of money to do a particular job and can't actually do that job, I would be bad at that job. If I got paid less and had a different job I COULD perform, I would not be bad at that job

Expectations are way different at different cap hits.

 

[Leafs87]

100% True. Erik Karlsson is still a great player, 85 points in 109 games with San Jose, elite numbers; however the way he is perceived on here, you’d believe he has only scored 20 points since getting to San Jose.

There is a difference between a bad player, and a bad contract. SO MANY people on these very boards don’t understand that.

Yes exactly

 

[TeddyBare]

I think it almost has to be considered.

Cap hit can speak to "windows" for an organization to win, whether that be through entry level deals, bridge deals etc etc

 

[Ducks in a row]

It affects how much someone wants that player on their team but not how good they are.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Cap hit alone with no real context? No. Production at a certain cap hit compared to other players' production at similar cap hit? Definitely.

If a player is making the same amount of money (or close to it) as players who are 100 point players, then the expectation is that player should also be in that ballpark. Otherwise, why is he making that much?

So yes, that's going to factor in to player evaluation.

 

[Iapyi]

Sure seems to be leaning that way.

I think guaranteed contracts as well as NMCs & NTCs aren't a good thing as they are now structured.

Paradoxically the same fans who want to see player movement and drama and a lot of FA frenzies are the same ones who want to, in effect, restrict player movement by liking these player movement constrictions {guaranteed contracts /NMCs / NTCs}.

Summary : seems like cap hit and points is the focus of many player evaluations. In fairness the current system lends itself to that and really there's nothing wrong with it.

Posters can say a player isn't matching his cap hit without talking about him like he's some bum loser though.

 

[jetsforever]

Seabrook has flirted the line between 'bad contract' and 'bad player'.

 

[txpd]

Players sign contracts that they cant live up to all the time and it generally damages their careers. Other players over perform their contracts and become famous for it. Other players get paid for more than what you see on the stat sheet. Jay Beagle being an example of that. His game doesnt support his paycheck but his influence on the team certainly does.

 

[txpd]

Paradoxically the same fans who want to see player movement and drama and a lot of FA frenzies are the same ones who want to, in effect, restrict player movement by liking these player movement constrictions {guaranteed contracts /NMCs / NTCs}..

Players are people too and generally speaking they happier with stability. Most players do their job better with that stability. At the same time its easier to sell tickets and create interest when fans know and relate to the players.

Take that stuff and add that cap hit value is a strong component to team success and you build in the need for longer contract terms. You can get growing players on an upward curve to overperform their contract but when their team control runs out the need swings the other way. The only way to continue that cap hit value is to lock in a good cap hit for the long term. Free agent players of quality are always going to be overpriced on the cap hit value market. Therefore even more roster stability

 

[kenfury]

Kyle Okposo is a great example. Very good 3rd/4th liner who if he was making 2M AAV would be loved. However he is making 6M so he gets lots of grief.