List your Team's Bad Contracts

The90

Registered User
Feb 27, 2017
6,020
4,789
$11M for another 5 years for a guy whos clearly on the decline

$11.6M over only 5 years for a guy who comparable players signed for less/longer

$10.89M for once again a player whos comparbles signed for less/longer and his own fans are turning on him

This is why the Leafs have some of the worst depth in the league.
Who’s clearly on the decline? This the guy 1 year removed from a career year? That guy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nizdizzle and qqaz

BonMorrison

Registered User
Jun 17, 2011
33,609
9,296
Toronto, ON
Duchene at 8M for 6 more years.
Johansen at 8M for 5 more years.

These aren't good but they are movable if the6 don't decline any more.

Josi at 9M for 7 more years,
Ellis at at 6.25M for 7 more years.

These are fine right now but I'm very skeptical about how they're gonna look as early as three years from now.

I'm expecting Poile to give Ekholm a fat raise that is going to be awful as well.

Oh also Sissons at 2.85M for 6 more years. If he doesn't start producing like a 3C (which up to this point hasn't been his fault as he's been stapled as our 4C), this is a bad one even if the dollar amount isn't extremely high. He's finally getting the 3C role this year so this should in theory end up being okay.
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
CRIPPLING. Untrade-able. While any team would love to have either Suter or Parise, none would take them anywhere remotely close to their contracts. Those other guys, whatever you think of them, at least have some semblance of value relative to their contracts.

They aren't crippling at all. They are only untradeable due to the NMC, and as I mentioned Parise was almost traded for Ladd last season (along with Koivu). Ladd has ZERO value relative to his contract.

Parise is still a top 6 forward and Suter is still a top 2 pairing guy. Most people thought that the contracts would be an anchor at this point, but none of them are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrisLetAngry

Luminiferous

Registered User
Oct 11, 2018
667
525
Both are soon to be $7.2 M salaried players while falling top 15 in the league for production the past 2 years.

I'm sure they'd be real tough to trade.

No doubt they are good players. Good players can still have bad contracts, also, did I mention they could not be traded ? Of course they could be dealt, probably relatively easily, but that doesnt change the fact I believe they have bad contracts, compared to their contemporaries. I also dont think this is a pure numbers game. Look to playoff production and overall play, it puts them in a negative light imo.
 

DuncanMacpherson

Registered User
Apr 6, 2010
7,489
3,824
Yes. Also, if it went into the season, because of the rules of in-season signings and how it affects cap hits, Leafs would have struggled to fit Marner more and more by the day, limiting the amount of overpayment an offer sheet would need to be to steal him.

I personally think Rantanen and Kane were probably the closest cap-era comparables he had. Even though Marner was better, they are the same position, similar style of play, similar ages, similar terms, etc.

Marner: 10.9m x 6 years
Rantanen: 9.25m x 6 years
Kane: 9.0m x 5 years (likely 9.6m-9.7m range on 6 year term)

Pre-signing period:

ES Points/60

Marner: 2.45
Kane: 2.03
Rantanen: 1.95

ES Primary points/60

Marner: 1.97
Kane: 1.50
Rantanen: 1.41

ES Goals/60

Marner: 0.80
Rantanen: 0.69
Kane: 0.68

PP Points/60

Marner: 7.19
Rantanen: 5.78
Kane: 5.67

PP Primary points/60

Marner: 4.69
Kane: 4.21
Rantanen: 4.15

PP Goals/60

Rantanen: 2.37
Kane: 1.70
Marner: 1.56

Marner also had the best single season of these players, and one of the best pre-signing seasons in the history of post-ELC contracts in the cap era.
Marner also PKed, while the other two did not.
Marner also didn't get to play with somebody like Mackinnon (or even Toews) for the majority of his sample, and in 2 of his 3 years, did not get to play with the team's best players on his PP unit.

Without even getting into the other positions, it's interesting how we have had high-end post-ELC winger contracts like Kovalchuk (13.4m x 5 years), Vanek (11.6m x 7 years), Nash (11.3m x 5 years), and Heatley (9.4m x 3 years), all of whom got worse contracts relative to the player they were, and yet Marner's contract specifically seems to get unprecedented criticism.

I get that some people will never change their minds, no matter how much overwhelming evidence there is, but even under the incorrect assumption that Marner was overpaid, that in no way makes him a "bad contract". He brings massive on-ice and market value, and there is little to no risk with his contract taking him through his prime.
Does anyone out there agree with this guy? There’s no way Marner deserved 1.9 million more than Kane and 1.6 million more than Rantanen. If those are the best comparables you can come up with it shows that Marner got paid more than he should have based on his comparables.
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
There’s no way Marner deserves 1.9 million more than Kane and 1.6 million more than Rantanen. If those are the best comparables you can come up with it shows that Marner got paid more than he should have based on his comparables.
Based on? The gap between them is right there for you to see. What would your comparables be? Because he fits quite well with most high-end post-ELC contracts when you go just the tiniest bit more in depth than solely looking up raw points.

We have one player who:
-is worse at ES
-is worse on the PP
-doesn't PK

And then we have another player who:
-is better at ES
-is better on the PP
-PKs

Why do you think the player who is worse at everything should be paid the same or more than the player who is better at everything? Why do you think a player's pay should be so massively influenced by something as arbitrary as a player's PP time?
 

DuncanMacpherson

Registered User
Apr 6, 2010
7,489
3,824
Based on? The gap between them is right there for you to see. What would your comparables be? Because he fits quite well with most high-end post-ELC contracts when you go just the tiniest bit more in depth than solely looking up raw points.

We have one player who:
-is worse at ES
-is worse on the PP
-doesn't PK

And then we have another player who:
-is better at ES
-is better on the PP
-PKs

Why do you think the player who is worse at everything should be paid the same or more than the player who is better at everything? Why do you think a player's pay should be so massively influenced by something as arbitrary as a player's PP time?
My comparables would be Rantanen, Point, Eichel, Tkachuk...I still don’t understand how Marner managed to get a contract that blows all of theirs out of the water. Rantanen is probably the closest comparable, I think Marner is slightly better and deserves maybe 0.5 million more than him.
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
My comparables would be Rantanen, Point, Eichel, Tkachuk...I still don’t understand how Marner managed to get a contract that blows all of theirs out of the water. Rantanen is probably the closest comparable, I think Marner is slightly better and deserves maybe 0.5 million more than him.
His contract is higher than theirs because he was a much better player at literally everything at time of signing their post-ELC contracts. I've shown you the gap between him and the player you agree is his closest comparable, and you haven't explained why he only "deserves maybe 0.5 million more". I've explained to you why it's important to look beyond solely raw points, and how arbitrary things like PP time can heavily impact the perceptions of players, which is especially important in this example. Why do you think a player's pay should be so massively influenced by something as arbitrary as how much time a team spends on special teams? Something that has nothing to do with the quality of the player...
 

DuncanMacpherson

Registered User
Apr 6, 2010
7,489
3,824
His contract is higher than theirs because he was a much better player at literally everything at time of signing their post-ELC contracts. I've shown you the gap between him and the player you agree is his closest comparable, and you haven't explained why he only "deserves maybe 0.5 million more". I've explained to you why it's important to look beyond solely raw points, and how arbitrary things like PP time can heavily impact the perceptions of players, which is especially important in this example. Why do you think a player's pay should be so massively influenced by something as arbitrary as how much time a team spends on special teams? Something that has nothing to do with the quality of the player...
How about you find me one example of a comparable who made as much money as Marner did on his post ELC deal. You’ve only been able to come up with conparables that made significantly less than him that you justified with selective stats. Give me an example of one who made as much or more than he did. Ovechkin is the only winger I can find who was paid more than Marner was off his post ELC deal, wow.
 
Last edited:

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
How about you find me one example of a comparable who made as much money as Marner did on his post ELC deal. You’ve only been able to come up with conparables that made significantly less than him that you justified with selective stats. Give me an example of one who made as much or more than he did. Ovechkin is the only winger I can find who was paid more than Marner was off his post ELC deal, wow.
It's not selective stats. It's literally just evaluating players based on their individual quality and production level, instead of based on the arbitrary amount of special teams time their team got. That's it, and I looked at both a comparable that is often cited (Kane) and what you agreed was his best comparable (Rantanen). Why don't you believe looking solely at raw points to be selective, especially when provided the obvious issues with doing so?

I've already given you examples of wingers other than Ovechkin who were paid more than Marner on their post-ELC deals. Kovalchuk (13.4m x 5 years), Vanek (11.6m x 7 years), and Nash (11.3m x 5 years) were all paid more, and Marner was actually better than them all. Marner deserved one of the biggest post-ELC contracts because he had one of the best pre-signing periods in the history of the cap era. Quite frankly, Ovechkin is the only winger in the cap era that rivals his, and that's largely off his goal-scoring/primary point production ability.

If all post-ELC contracts were adjusted to Marner's 6 year term, Marner would probably have the 10th biggest post-ELC contract in the cap era. He probably had the 6th best pre-signing period.
 
Last edited:

frisco

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame...
Sep 14, 2017
3,553
2,643
Northern Hemisphere
:sabres

Jeff Skinner: 7 years left, 9m AAV

- First off, Skinner is not nearly as bad as his points last year suggests. If not put into that shitty of a role again, I fully expect him to rebound and have a few more 30G years. That said, this was an overpay by about 2m the second it was signed. Not crippling if he can rebound like he should though.

Kyle Okposo - 3 years left, 6m AAV
- Again, a player not as bad as some on this site seem to think he is. He was a QUALITY bottom-6 guy last season in a defensive role and can still provide some offense. Still, this money should at least be cut in half to look more reasonable.

Carter Hutton - 1 year left, 2.75m
- Dude was apparently kinda blind last year...which isn't ideal for a goalie. Just one year thankfully but if he could get his confidence/sight back and perform like he used to, this might not be the worst thing. Hopefully they aren't banking on a rebound year with him playing 30+ games though.

Other not so great contracts

Cody Eakin - 2 x 2.25 (Probably the new 3C, but meh player who hopefully proves me wrong)

Zemgus Girgensons - 3 x 2.2 (Good 4th liner, but better ones signed for a lot less)

Rasmus Ristolainen - 2 x 5.4 (Just not nearly as good a D as his TOI stats suggest, still probably holds value league wide though)

Colin Miller - 2 x 3.875 (Had a baddd year last year, paid like a fringe top-4 guy so hopefully can rebound to that form)
We have a winner.

My Best-Carey
 

Rants Mulliniks

Registered User
Jun 22, 2008
22,957
6,028
No doubt they are good players. Good players can still have bad contracts, also, did I mention they could not be traded ? Of course they could be dealt, probably relatively easily, but that doesnt change the fact I believe they have bad contracts, compared to their contemporaries. I also dont think this is a pure numbers game. Look to playoff production and overall play, it puts them in a negative light imo.
If they are easily traded, it isn't a bad contract. Matthew's is 19 in 25 with 12 goals in 25 playoff games (which puts him very high up the all time greatest playoff goal scorers list). Marner is 21 in 25. Both those sets of numbers include one "down" playoff.
 

Throw More Waffles

Unprecedented Dramatic Overpayments
Oct 9, 2015
12,889
9,737
If they are easily traded, it isn't a bad contract. Matthew's is 19 in 25 with 12 goals in 25 playoff games (which puts him very high up the all time greatest playoff goal scorers list). Marner is 21 in 25. Both those sets of numbers include one "down" playoff.
The fact that their contracts render them "easily tradeable" actually outlines just how player friendly those contracts were... unless Dubas's goal for those contracts was to trade them later (which I highly highly doubt). All of the signing bonuses and front-loading should have been used to get aav's down. Players DESPERATELY want such contract perks, and few teams can afford to give them out in the same way. Especially since (at the time) there was a reasonable concern of another strike/lockdown/shortened season.

Was the goal to sign players like Matthews/Marner to "easy to trade in a few years" contracts? Or to have contracts that we desperately wouldn't want to trade? I understand giving players like Johnsson and Kapanen such front loaded/"easy to trade later" contracts. But your young superstars?

The tradeoff of giving our young superstars such perks was supposed to lower the aav. Not to make them easily tradeable in a few years. Dubas just gave them all those player friendly persk for free, with literally no intention of trading them.
 
Last edited:

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
All of the signing bonuses and front-loading should have been used to get aav's down.
That is used to counter the tax disadvantage Toronto has, and is mutually beneficial to the team and player.
Was the goal to sign players like Matthews/Marner to "easy to trade in a few years" contracts? Or to have contracts that we desperately wouldn't want to trade?
The goal was to sign Matthews and Marner. Nobody should want to trade those contracts right now, but having more options is never a bad thing.
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
Matthew's is 19 in 25 with 12 goals in 25 playoff games (which puts him very high up the all time greatest playoff goal scorers list). Marner is 21 in 25.
A lot of people also don't seem to realize how much especially playoff production is impacted by things like the matchups and quality of teams/defenses/goaltending you face.
 

SensFactor

Registered User
Oct 25, 2008
10,905
6,107
Ottawa
Zaitsev, Colin White*, Murray**

* Will wait and pass further judgement after this year. White can definitely bounce back.
** Can't argue about his championships, however I think we overpaid a bit here for a goalie that is coming off a pretty bad year in Pittsburgh. All depends on whether he can return to form. If he can't this is easily our worst contract.
 

Rants Mulliniks

Registered User
Jun 22, 2008
22,957
6,028
The fact that their contracts render them "easily tradeable" actually outlines just how player friendly those contracts were... unless Dubas's goal for those contracts was to trade them later (which I highly highly doubt). All of the signing bonuses and front-loading should have been used to get aav's down. Players DESPERATELY want such contract perks, and few teams can afford to give them out in the same way. Especially since (at the time) there was a reasonable concern of another strike/lockdown/shortened season.

Was the goal to sign players like Matthews/Marner to "easy to trade in a few years" contracts? Or to have contracts that we desperately wouldn't want to trade? I understand giving players like Johnsson and Kapanen such front loaded/"easy to trade later" contracts. But your young superstars?

The tradeoff of giving our young superstars such perks was supposed to lower the aav. Not to make them easily tradeable in a few years. Dubas just gave them all those player friendly persk for free, with literally no intention of trading them.

Lowering Cap would be nice. Not being forever hamstrung is also nice.
 

DingDongCharlie

Registered User
Sep 12, 2010
11,316
9,254
Oilers lost in the play in to Chicago. There coach and GM have no confidence in Koskinen and tried desperately to replace both goalies this off season. With Klefblom out and the addition only of Barrie I’m confident it’s going to be a step back this year.
Back on topic though, Neal and Kassian are both horrific contracts.

I believe it’s more Tippett wanted to believe in Smith. They have been down that road before and Smith while not great in Calgary had a good playoff with them. It was the wrong move to start Smith but while I didn’t agree with I understand why Tippett wanted to do it.

I do agree this is going to be another tough year. We have more scoring depth and good pk players but losing Klefbom hurts and the D core still needs time. Could be a rough year if Bouchard or Broberg aren’t ready. Personally think Bouchard is ready.
 

WetcoastOrca

Registered User
Jun 3, 2011
38,142
21,935
Vancouver, BC
I believe it’s more Tippett wanted to believe in Smith. They have been down that road before and Smith while not great in Calgary had a good playoff with them. It was the wrong move to start Smith but while I didn’t agree with I understand why Tippett wanted to do it.

I do agree this is going to be another tough year. We have more scoring depth and good pk players but losing Klefbom hurts and the D core still needs time. Could be a rough year if Bouchard or Broberg aren’t ready. Personally think Bouchard is ready.
Agreed. Well the good news is that if it’s a Canadian league all of the teams look like they have holes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DingDongCharlie

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->