List your Team's Bad Contracts

[TomasHertlsRooster]

How much time in a day do you spend going through post histories looking for people to contradict themselves? I've seen you do it twice now in this thread alone. You're going back 2 years into a dude's history with almost 10,000 posts. That can't be quick.

HF doesn’t even let you search posts that are more than a few months old with its search feature. You have to remember something or have it bookmarked in which case it actually is very quick.

 

[Retire91]

Nielsen has probably already been mentioned that contract was horrible the day it was signed and turned out worse.

DeKeyser is a bad contract although not as in your face as Abby was and Nielsen is. DeKeyser is not bad but he is paid as a top D only because there was no one else legit to take the spot. Not a fan of over paying players for a position that is over their head which is Holland's legacy in his second half with the wings. DeKeyser could be good expansion draft fodder or trade with retention.

Staal for obvious reasons although we got a pick for taking on the contract.

Abby and Weiss buyouts keeping the Holland contract buyout penalties strong for fricking ever

Zetterberg contract still on the books LTIR. I was bummed when they signed a cap circumvention contract and at least this is the last year to be reminded of it.

 

[Retire91]

Doughty:
- He'll be 31 in Dec
- 7 years left
- $11m cap hit
- $76m in cash to come
- NMC until 2023
- 7 team trade list in 2023

Kopitar:
- He's 33
- 4 years left
- $10m cap hit
- $30m in cash to come
- 7 team trade list until 2024

Quick:
- He'll be 35 in Jan
- 3 years left
- $5.8m cap hit
- $9m in cash to come

The earliest any of this should be a problem is 22-23, if Petersen is good enough to get a decent raise. The Kings might have a lot of cap tied up in goaltending for a year. Until then, collect your checks boys. Collect your checks.

I know these are bad contracts but at least they are painful consequences from a window of excellent hockey. That Doubty contract thought, 7 more years at age 31, ouch.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

How much time in a day do you spend going through post histories looking for people to contradict themselves? I've seen you do it twice now in this thread alone. You're going back 2 years into a dude's history with almost 10,000 posts. That can't be quick.

1. Create bookmark
2.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

You literally just cap dumped Johnsson in a no value trade due to the cap. That return you received was essentially worthless. Had Johnsson been on a good contract you likely keep him or would have received something of worth.

So Schmidt was a bad contract?

Lol. Should have read further. Every person pointed out the same trade.

 

[DingDongCharlie]

So Schmidt was a bad contract?

Lol. Should have read further. Every person pointed out the same trade.

O thought Schmidt had a ntc and wasn’t able to be freely shopped and still think that lack of return was surprising. I wasn’t trying to slam Johnsson we Edmonton had 1/3 I’d consider in similar valueless situation based on cap/salary

 

[ricky0034]

there's a few on the Wings but honestly at this point Abdelkader buyout aside the Wings have nothing on the books for more than 2 more years(other than Larkin who is signed for 3 more and isn't a bad contract)

 

[Dekes For Days]

This is still my favorite deke of them all.

As usual, no actual response to what I said; just pictures of multiple year old posts cherry picked out of the context of their original discussions.

There is no "deke" from that statement made 2 years ago. It's not like Toronto's tax situation has changed all that much, so your suggestion doesn't really fit. There are two true statements here, that you are misrepresenting as a contradiction when they are not:

1. As said in the post 2 years ago, there is no "multi-million dollar per year discount" tax advantage. That does not exist, and the belief it does is usually the result of inaccurate contract valuation methodology.
2. Taxes do impact the contracts that are signed; just not primarily in the way people think. While teams may be able to occasionally leverage minor savings, things like signing bonuses are often used to help counter the higher taxes, so that the differences in resulting pay don't approach "multi-millions of dollars per year".

There are many things I was correct about in that post, and the main thing I was wrong about in that post was Point being willing to sign a bridge. Tampa needed that and did a good job there. All this said, the idea behind your attempt is quite concerning - the idea that if somebody's position has evolved over 2 years, there is something wrong. Quite the contrary; I hope everybody has attempted to improve their knowledge and understanding of things over 2 years, and that they would be open to improving their position with new information.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

As usual, no actual response to what I said; just pictures of multiple year old posts cherry picked out of the context of their original discussions.

There is no "deke" from that statement made 2 years ago. It's not like Toronto no longer has high taxes, so your suggestion doesn't really fit. There are two true statements here, that you are misrepresenting as a contradiction when they are not:

1. As said in the post 2 years ago, there is no "multi-million dollar per year discount" tax advantage. That does not exist, and the belief it does is usually the result of inaccurate contract valuation methodology.
2. Taxes do impact the contracts that are signed; just not primarily in the way people think. While teams may be able to occasionally leverage minor savings, things like signing bonuses are often used to help counter the higher taxes, so that the differences in resulting pay don't approach "multi-millions of dollars per year".

There are many things I was correct about in that post, and the main thing I was wrong about in that post was Point being willing to sign a bridge. Tampa needed that and did a good job there. All this said, the idea behind your attempt is quite concerning - the idea that if somebody's position has evolved over 2 years, there is something wrong. Quite the contrary; I hope everybody has attempted to improve their knowledge and understanding of things over 2 years, and that they would be open to improving their position with new information.

You said that Tampa had by far the worst cap crunch in the midst of a 62 win season. They went on to win the Cup the following season.

The bolded directly contradicts a lot of the things that you said about Stamkos and Matthews last summer. You were saying that it was unfair to even use Stamkos as a comparable due to taxes.

You haven't improved you knowledge and understanding of things over 2 years, or improved your position with new information. You've started saying different things to make the Leafs sound better and make everybody else sound worse. There's a big difference.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You said that Tampa had by far the worst cap crunch in the midst of a 62 win season. They went on to win the Cup the following season.

Uh.. Tampa did have a massive cap crunch after that season. They maneuvered it well, and many of their prospects and younger players have improved and stepped up to fill holes, but that doesn't change the fact that it existed. They lost depth, had to dump Callahan for a different dump, trade Miller, bridge Point, and eventually trade the equivalent of three 1st round picks to reacquire depth for the year. They had a 20 point drop from one season to the next. I never said that they'd stop being a good team; just that it was weird that their cap crunch wasn't getting much attention when everybody was claiming cap hell for Toronto in every thread.

The bolded directly contradicts a lot of the things that you said about Stamkos and Matthews last summer. You were saying that it was unfair to even use Stamkos as a comparable due to taxes.

That is incorrect. While yes, my understanding of the impacts of taxes have improved over the past year and a half, I have repeatedly said that signing bonuses help to counter some of the tax advantages we see. The primary issue at the time was your use of only Stamkos as a comparable and then only being willing to use raw points, while dismissing all other information, despite the clear and significant issues with doing so. I have compared Matthews and Stamkos countless times.

You haven't improved you knowledge and understanding of things over 2 years, or improved your position with new information. You've started saying different things to make the Leafs sound better and make everybody else sound worse.

I improve my knowledge and understanding of things, like everybody should, for reasons completely unrelated to fanbase squabbles, and your claim doesn't even logically fit. Neither of the claims make the Leafs sound best. If I wanted to just go with what made the Leafs sound the best, I'd argue that taxes make a huge difference with the AAV, because Toronto has one of the highest taxes...

 

[Machinehead]

Trouba for 6 more years at 8 per is really the only one. He's fine but it's such a position of strength for us.

Smith expires after this year; I wouldn't even count that anymore.

But it's the Rangers, half the team will have crippling contracts in about a year and a half.

 

[bluesXwinXtheXcup]

Blues bad contracts IMHO:

Steen - physically done
Bozak - $5M for a 3rd line center?
Faulk - looked less than stellar at $6.5M

 

[MuzzaFuzza]

I don't understand why people keep saying you have to have negative trade value to be considered a 'bad contract'? If you get traded for something that is MUCH beneath your value as a player then you most likely had a bad contract.

People acting like we didn't just see Gudbranson and Stastny traded without retention and i'd consider those bad contracts. Doesn't need to be a Lucic or Ladd type contract to be considered bad.

 

[NJ DevLolz]

I haven't argued endlessly against 5-on-5 P/60. I've argued endlessly against your baseless assertion that NHL contract market value is entirely based on it and I've disproven your lies countless times. There's also nothing incorrect about how I used it here and his power play scoring rates are quite mediocre as well.

You didn't specify a time period; you just said "not far removed." I looked at the last three years. If you have to go back further than that to support your narrative, then it is no longer "not far removed."

I also love how you are pretending that this "increased health" narrative means anything. It is said by every single team about every single player that is coming off a down year and it never means anything. But, anything to push the narrative and pretend it's okay to completely contradict what you said previously before your biases were introduced.

Simmonds literally said this same thing last year. It's meaningless when players say "I'm in the best shape of my life"

 

[BlueBaron]

I don't understand why people keep saying you have to have negative trade value to be considered a 'bad contract'? If you get traded for something that is MUCH beneath your value as a player then you most likely had a bad contract.

People acting like we didn't just see Gudbranson and Stastny traded without retention and i'd consider those bad contracts. Doesn't need to be a Lucic or Ladd type contract to be considered bad.

Fans always seem to hope for the worst for other teams in these things and then forget all about it when they are wrong. Every year there are "untradeable" and "negative value" contracts that aren't.

 

[mattihp]

Blues bad contracts IMHO:

Steen - physically done
Bozak - $5M for a 3rd line center?
Faulk - looked less than stellar at $6.5M

Alexander Steen is still a smart player. I wonder if he could still play center, get him out of the corners at least.