Confirmed with Link: Kreider extended 7 years, AAV approximately $6.5MM

[17futurecap]

I'm looking at it as a 5 year deal with the final 2 years that can be a relatively easy buy out. If he is still looking good for years 6 and 7, even better.

 

[True Blue]

The next time he hits 60 points will be the first time he hits it, so...

If he remains exactly who he has been and declines and in year 6 goes down to the 3rd line, it will still be an absolute home run.

Also, keep in mind one thing. The Panarin effect has a trickle down. The opposition's top defensive players are going to be on the ice against him at all times. That leaves Krieder & ZBad not facing the top defensemen. That will have an effect.

 

[ohbaby]

I love the details of CK's contract. How come more contracts are not made this way? It's totally based on performance. If I understand what signing bonuses are. Do I have that right? Generally a signing bonus is money given to a person who just joins a company. But here I think, but not sure, it's based on certain goals. Is that correct? Cause if it is, it lights a fire under his butt to produce, particularly the next 3 years. Plus after 4 years, he can be moved at a fairly enticing salary.

• Year 1: $2 million salary, $8 million signing bonus, NMC
• Year 2: $3.5 million salary, $6 million signing bonus, NMC
• Year 3: $1 million salary, $5 million signing bonus, NMC
• Year 4: $4 million salary, $2 million signing bonus, NMC
• Year 5: $5 million salary, NTC
• Year 6: $4 million salary, NTC
• Year 7: $4 million salary, $1 million signing bonus, NTC

And why is it, he only counts at 6.5 towards the Cap when he can make 10 mil next year?

 

[17futurecap]

I love the details of CK's contract. How come more contracts are not made this way? It's totally based on performance. If I understand what signing bonuses are. Do I have that right? Generally a signing bonus is money given to a person who just joins a company. But here I think, but not sure, it's based on certain goals. Is that correct? Cause if it is, it lights a fire under his butt to produce, particularly the next 3 years.

• Year 1: $2 million salary, $8 million signing bonus, NMC
• Year 2: $3.5 million salary, $6 million signing bonus, NMC
• Year 3: $1 million salary, $5 million signing bonus, NMC
• Year 4: $4 million salary, $2 million signing bonus, NMC
• Year 5: $5 million salary, NTC
• Year 6: $4 million salary, NTC
• Year 7: $4 million salary, $1 million signing bonus, NTC

And why is it, he only counts at 6.5 towards the Cap when he can make 10 mil next year?

He just gets the signing bonus money in one lump sum, usually July 1 every summer, instead of his pay being over a season. If you know how to manage your money, everyone should want to be paid like this.

It's nice to have not a cheap owner (Dolan) who can do this when it comes to trades. You can trade someone to save a cheap team money after you pay out a bonus, see the Rangers trading Brassard after we paid out his bonus that summer.

 

[ohbaby]

He just gets the signing bonus money in one lump sum, usually July 1 every summer, instead of his pay being over a season. If you know how to manage your money, everyone should want to be paid like this.

It's nice to have not a cheap owner (Dolan) who can do this when it comes to trades. You can trade someone to save a cheap team money after you pay out a bonus, see the Rangers trading Brassard after we paid out his bonus that summer.

Oh, so those bonuses have nothing to do with performance. Fudge.

Then this looks like nothing but a gift to CK to buy a mansion on the beach in Montauk.

 

[bobbop]

I told you over and over that the Rangers would improve the NPV of the contract by front loading and putting large amounts into signing bonuses. There are a lot of teams (like 20 or more) who cannot do that.

 

[17futurecap]

Oh, so those bonuses have nothing to do with performance. Fudge.

Then this looks like nothing but a gift to CK to buy a mansion on the beach in Montauk.

It's a nice incentive to have though in terms of free agents.

Panarin gets 74.5 of his 81.5 million in signing bonuses.

The Leafs do the same thing, Matthews has 54,520,000 of his 58,170,00 contract in signing bonuses. Tavares got 71 of his 77 in signing bonuses. The Habs gave an offer-sheet to Aho thinking Carolina wouldn't want to pay out the signing bonuses to Aho, can look how Montreal structured it here.

Sebastian Aho - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

All I know is he NEEDS to score 30+ this season. He must.

 

[ohbaby]

I told you over and over that the Rangers would improve the NPV of the contract by front loading and putting large amounts into signing bonuses. There are a lot of teams (like 20 or more) who cannot do that.

Told who? I am not savy at all with discussions on contracts/terms. I am hardly ever in these discussions. That aside, the only benefit I see of signing bonuses, is that the players are affordable in trade talks later in their contract. Is that correct? And if so, what is the difference of us just picking up half their salary when traded? If we didn't do signing bonuses.

 

[bobbop]

Told who? I am not savy at all with discussions on contracts/terms. I am hardly ever in these discussions. That aside, the only benefit I see of signing bonuses, is that the players are affordable in trade talks later in their contract. Is that correct?

I posted it here multiple times. Front loading and bonuses.

 

[NYRangers0723]

All I know is he NEEDS to score 30+ this season. He must.

21 games I think he should. Last year he would have gotten 30 but I believe he had an injury the last 25 games or so that he played through but in retrospect should have sat a few games to heal

 

[bobbop]

From a players perspective, signing bonuses are very valuable because they cannot be bought out.

 

[UnSandvich]

If he remains exactly who he has been and declines and in year 6 goes down to the 3rd line, it will still be an absolute home run.

Also, keep in mind one thing. The Panarin effect has a trickle down. The opposition's top defensive players are going to be on the ice against him at all times. That leaves Krieder & ZBad not facing the top defensemen. That will have an effect.

For sure. However, I'm just responding to the person who suggested Kreider hitting 60 points each year wouldn't satisfy some people. To which I responded that he'd need to hit it once before we can talk about doing it for 6-7 consecutive years

 

[ohbaby]

It's a nice incentive to have though in terms of free agents.

Panarin gets 74.5 of his 81.5 million in signing bonuses.

The Leafs do the same thing, Matthews has 54,520,000 of his 58,170,00 contract in signing bonuses. Tavares got 71 of his 77 in signing bonuses. The Habs gave an offer-sheet to Aho thinking Carolina wouldn't want to pay out the signing bonuses to Aho, can look how Montreal structured it here.

Sebastian Aho - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

I see. So this is a way to get these guys to sign. That 8 mil next year sure looked like a good incentive.

 

[broadwayblue]

I love the details of CK's contract. How come more contracts are not made this way? It's totally based on performance. If I understand what signing bonuses are. Do I have that right? Generally a signing bonus is money given to a person who just joins a company. But here I think, but not sure, it's based on certain goals. Is that correct? Cause if it is, it lights a fire under his butt to produce, particularly the next 3 years. Plus after 4 years, he can be moved at a fairly enticing salary.

• Year 1: $2 million salary, $8 million signing bonus, NMC
• Year 2: $3.5 million salary, $6 million signing bonus, NMC
• Year 3: $1 million salary, $5 million signing bonus, NMC
• Year 4: $4 million salary, $2 million signing bonus, NMC
• Year 5: $5 million salary, NTC
• Year 6: $4 million salary, NTC
• Year 7: $4 million salary, $1 million signing bonus, NTC

And why is it, he only counts at 6.5 towards the Cap when he can make 10 mil next year?

Is this correct? He can't be traded for the entire length of the contract?

 

[ohbaby]

Is this correct? He can't be traded for the entire length of the contract?

NMC means no move clause. Not sure what NTC means (no trade clause? But there must be a difference). But anyway, I heard he can be moved later in his contract. Maybe someone else can clarify.

 

[broadwayblue]

NMC means no move clause. Not sure what NTC means (no trade clause? But there must be a difference). But anyway, I heard he can be moved later in his contract. Maybe someone else can clarify.

I thought NMC meant you also can't send him down. Perhaps NTC should be Limited NTC?

 

[n8]

The next time he hits 60 points will be the first time he hits it, so...

fair enough. do you think the Ranger masses would be satisfied with CK hitting 50 points in all 7 years before they are happy with this contract then?

 

[Off Sides]

Back before the Rangers demoted Redden there was no need for a no movement clause, they were all called no trade clauses.

A NMC is a Full No Trade where the team can also not reassign the player to any other league (AHL or anywhere else)

Kreider has a NMC clause for 4 years, means he can not move anywhere without his approval.


Last 3 years it turns into a limited no trade, he can list 15 teams to not be traded to, yet still has the no movement part pertaining to not being able to be reassigned.


In my opinion it does not really matter the clauses, if he is still good the Rangers will keep him, if not no other team is going to really want to trade for him anyway. The only advantage is if the Rangers want to attach something good to him to move him, maybe some team not on his no trade list may take him. A losing position anyway.

The more important yet still a losing position is the ability to buy him out without a giant penalty for doing so. Likely still cost them ~3M for some amount of year(s) and a lesser amount beyond that. So at worst they just can weaken their team by not keeping or adding something else that would help them at that time.

 

[bobbop]

Here’s a thought...it is entirely possible that if Kreider earns his money on this contract, his number could be hanging in the ceiling someday.

 

[UnSandvich]

fair enough. do you think the Ranger masses would be satisfied with CK hitting 50 points in all 7 years before they are happy with this contract then?

Depends on his impact on the rest of the game. But he's unlikely to get Howden level bad, so he should be fine in that case

 

[GoAwayGiannone]

Here’s a thought...it is entirely possible that if Kreider earns his money on this contract, his number could be hanging in the ceiling someday.

15 years with a blueshirt on and potentially a cup or two god willing. Likely wont break any substantial records that I can think of off the top of my head, though. It'll be a tough one for sure.

 

[RangerBlues]

In seven years his contract will look cheap.

 

[mulli25]

Why not? People did / do like Kreider as a player. The TERM was the problem and the way it is structured is very important because it addresses this concern.

Because making it a selling point inherently acknowledges how risky of a move it is in the first place, and all these opportunities only become relevant if the situation is pretty dire.

Like many have said, if he maintains approximately this production for the next 6 years, i think everyone will be thrilled. A more realistic case, however, is that he won't, and that this contract will likely be a burden in the last 3 years. There is a sizable gap between burden and disaster, and nothing short of the latter would result in moving/buying him out.

The odds are that Kreider will play out the last few years of this deal parked squarely in that no man's land.

 

[kovazub94]

Because making it a selling point inherently acknowledges how risky of a move it is in the first place, and all these opportunities only become relevant if the situation is pretty dire.

Like many have said, if he maintains approximately this production for the next 6 years, i think everyone will be thrilled. A more realistic case, however, is that he won't, and that this contract will likely be a burden in the last 3 years. There is a sizable gap between burden and disaster, and nothing short of the latter would result in moving/buying him out.

The odds are that Kreider will play out the last few years of this deal parked squarely in that no man's land.

Again, you either missing or don’t want to acknowledge the point. Is the team better off with or without Kreider in the next 3-4 years at a reasonable cap hit? Did they structure the contract so that there’d be a way to get out of it (moving) in years 5-7? Because EVERYONE wanted Kreider on a 5 year deal and those who didn’t want him signed were concerned about years 5-7. These concerns were preemptively addressed via structure. What will ACTUALLY happens we will see in four - five years.