McKenzie: 2003 Unsigned Picks (Carter, Richards, et al.)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drunken_sailors

Registered User
Jun 27, 2005
5
0
Props to Jobu for all his work today. Especially from a Sharks fan living in Oregon.

Go Winterhawks.


Jobu said:
Were suppoed to re-enter draft due to not being signed by June 1st, but will be a specified period of time for these players to sign with 2003 picks.

Financially, will be entitled to terms of old CBA MINUS 24 % rollback (so old ELS maxes - 24%). But can only get 30% in signing bonus (previously 50%). With respect to performance bonuses, will not have access to Thornton-style bonuses; instead, limited to $850k (amount 2005 draftees will be permitted).
 

baldrick

Registered User
Jul 1, 2005
1,111
0
Thunderstruck said:
And since the financial terms are worse in the new CBA for entry level contracts, expect the vast majority to sign a deal with the team that holds their rights.

Unless they think the team that drafted them sucks ;)
 

timlap

Registered User
Jun 19, 2002
9,218
41
Pepper said:
Leafs fans.... :shakehead

Try to draft some decent players for a change so you don't have to steal prospects from other teams.
This is a great day. Why don't we forget about Leaf bashing for a bit?
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Jobu said:
Were suppoed to re-enter draft due to not being signed by June 1st, but will be a specified period of time for these players to sign with 2003 picks.

Financially, will be entitled to terms of old CBA MINUS 24 % rollback (so old ELS maxes - 24%). But can only get 30% in signing bonus (previously 50%). With respect to performance bonuses, will not have access to Thornton-style bonuses; instead, limited to $850k (amount 2005 draftees will be permitted).

The difference between the old ELS max ($1.240M for '03 draftees / $1.295M for '04 - 24% = $942K/$984K) and the new one ($850K) is only $92K/$130K, but there is one other major difference. The old ELS was only for 3 years. The new one is rumored to be for 4 years. So players who sign before the deadline and get the old ELS terms get to become an arbitration eligible RFA a year earlier - a VERY major advantage.
 

Toonces

They should have kept Shjon Podein...
Feb 23, 2003
3,902
281
New Jersey
joepeps said:
My guess is they will enter the draft.... If I were them I would...

I wouldn't wanna play for a team that wanted to save 200k and not sign mea few years ago.. why should I do them any favours????? :teach:

Well, why take a chance and end up somewhere you don't want to play? These boys probably have a better chance at a Cup by staying put.

Somehow I have a feeling we will be seeing them in Philadelphia :D
 

Hunter74

Registered User
Sep 21, 2004
1,045
15
Ok just a silly question.

Phaneuf signed his contract under the old rules right. So how much of the old cba still apply to his contract? After his 3rd year is he gonna have to sign a 1 year deal for 850K or will he now be like a vet and sign any amount a GM is willing to give him?

As for teams like Calgary signing there players for possibly more than a team like the Flyers. I dont think its a big deal financially unless your player hits all those bonuses and ends up making Kovo money which I belevie has only happened once or twice. Its just wether you and your team were willing to role the dice and possibly end up with nothing.

Its funny though that out of all the teams that spent on '03 players one of the richest (Flyers) went cheap on the kids. Out of all the areas Bobby over spends he decided to stick it to the kids or in other words make his budget stance there. Think he would of made that stance one multi million dollor guys instead of risking such big loses over 200k per player.

Anyone have a link were Carter and Richards say they will sign with the Flyers or is this just some Flyers fans hoping? They will most likely sign imho but I wouldn't call it a slam dunk.
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
kdb209 said:
The difference between the old ELS max ($1.240M for '03 draftees / $1.295M for '04 - 24% = $942K/$984K) and the new one ($850K) is only $92K/$130K, but there is one other major difference. The old ELS was only for 3 years. The new one is rumored to be for 4 years. So players who sign before the deadline and get the old ELS terms get to become an arbitration eligible RFA a year earlier - a VERY major advantage.
Arent the players already signed going into the second year of their contract now? This means they have just 2 more years on the entry level contract whereas Carter and Richards have 4 more years on the ELS.
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
Mr.Hunter74 said:
Anyone have a link were Carter and Richards say they will sign with the Flyers or is this just some Flyers fans hoping? They will most likely sign imho but I wouldn't call it a slam dunk.
It is, they have said so, so have their agents, its down in writing in an interview but I cant remember where I saw it.

If you want to believe they wont sign, fine, but Im not going to waste time trying to find an old interview.
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
In the end, the players that do NOT sign with the team that drafted him in 2003 will choose to leave because he REALLY doesn't want to be on that club, and NOT because of money.

And if you ask me, it's the way it should be.
 

blah

Registered User
Jun 24, 2003
4,269
0
Mr.Hunter74 said:
Its funny though that out of all the teams that spent on '03 players one of the richest (Flyers) went cheap on the kids. Out of all the areas Bobby over spends he decided to stick it to the kids or in other words make his budget stance there. Think he would of made that stance one multi million dollor guys instead of risking such big loses over 200k per player.
They signed Umberger for the max before the lockout. So I wouldn't say they went cheap. Carter and Richards will also get the max under the new CBA.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Steve L said:
Arent the players already signed going into the second year of their contract now? This means they have just 2 more years on the entry level contract whereas Carter and Richards have 4 more years on the ELS.
Nope. Under the old CBA, the clock didn't start on the ELS when you signed the contract - it started when you actually played in the NHL. If an 18 or 19 yo did not play at least 10 NHL games, his ELS contract was extended for another year. So all '03 and '04 draftees who signed before the lockout still have 3 years of ELS ahead of them. The speculation is that there will be a window under which Carter and Richards can sign under the old CBA ELS - in that case they would have 3 ELS years. If they go back into the draft, they will be subjected to the new 4-year ELS.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Mr.Hunter74 said:
Ok just a silly question.

Phaneuf signed his contract under the old rules right. So how much of the old cba still apply to his contract? After his 3rd year is he gonna have to sign a 1 year deal for 850K or will he now be like a vet and sign any amount a GM is willing to give him?

No one knows for sure until we actually see the CBA, but based on the last CBA, it is very likely that his current ELS contract will be honored (-24%) subject to the terms of the old CBA - after 3 years he will be an RFA and not subject to the ELS.

The old ELS only covered your first contract, whose length was determined by your age when you signed it - all 18-21 year olds were required to sign a 3 year deal, etc.

It is unlikely that a deal would force Phaneuf to play out a fourth year under the ELS, unless it also extended all other current ELS contracts as well, which I don't see happening.
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
kdb209 said:
Nope. Under the old CBA, the clock didn't start on the ELS when you signed the contract - it started when you actually played in the NHL. If an 18 or 19 yo did not play at least 10 NHL games, his ELS contract was extended for another year. So all '03 and '04 draftees who signed before the lockout still have 3 years of ELS ahead of them. The speculation is that there will be a window under which Carter and Richards can sign under the old CBA ELS - in that case they would have 3 ELS years. If they go back into the draft, they will be subjected to the new 4-year ELS.
So its not 2 vs 4 years but 3 vs 3 or 4 depending on how they decide to impliment signing 2003 draftees. Either way, Clarke and the Flyers cannot lose.
 

Dr Love

Registered User
Mar 22, 2002
20,360
0
Location, Location!
Mr.Hunter74 said:
Its funny though that out of all the teams that spent on '03 players one of the richest (Flyers) went cheap on the kids. Out of all the areas Bobby over spends he decided to stick it to the kids or in other words make his budget stance there. Think he would of made that stance one multi million dollor guys instead of risking such big loses over 200k per player.

Anyone have a link were Carter and Richards say they will sign with the Flyers or is this just some Flyers fans hoping? They will most likely sign imho but I wouldn't call it a slam dunk.
Or maybe, just maybe, Bob Clarke was shrewd enough to know that there was virtually no chance they wouldn't be his property, and so he waited until a new CBA to sign them so that he knew what he could and could not do with their contracts, rather than sign them to contracts that binded over a period of years and risk losing one or two of those years because they were voided due to seasons lost. Perhaps he was that smart.

But of course, that's not an option to Clarke/Flyers haters.
 

Hunter74

Registered User
Sep 21, 2004
1,045
15
Dr Love said:
Or maybe, just maybe, Bob Clarke was shrewd enough to know that there was virtually no chance they wouldn't be his property, and so he waited until a new CBA to sign them so that he knew what he could and could not do with their contracts, rather than sign them to contracts that binded over a period of years and risk losing one or two of those years because they were voided due to seasons lost. Perhaps he was that smart.

But of course, that's not an option to Clarke/Flyers haters.

Yes if they sign it will obviously prove that he was smart enough to let them sit on the side until things settled.

According to the TSN article GM's who have guys like Carter sitting on the sidelines will have a window to sign these guys to the old CBA contracts before they can re-enter the draft. This doesn't seem to completly add up. If its accorate then its great for the Flyers b/c there shouldn't be any bad feelings what so ever from there prospects. But it doesn't make the Flyers and better off then other teams who signed there key prospects before the lockout especially if Carter and Richards can still get the bonus structure of the old CBA. I am kinda confused to what teh bonus structure can be for guys like Carter, Richards etc. Is it $850k plus the bonus structure Kovochuk had (ended up with 10mil over 3 years) or is it the new CBA bonus structure?

I dont think anyone was questioning wether the Flyers would still own the rights of Richards and Carter or at least i wasn't. Most people were wondering if Richards and Carter would have bitter feelings towards the Flyers b/c it appeared as though Clark didn't sign them on purpose b/c he new he could get them cheaper in the new CBA. If you new someone could of signed you to more but just decided to wait until he could get you cheaper you might be alittle ticked off at him. But if they can get the same deal now that they could of before the CBA expired then theres no harm done and everyone is happy right. Oh except all the people who were hoping they woudl re-enter the draft, how could you blame them though? If they get stuck with a lesser deal b/c of Clarks decision to be "shrewd" well then they MIGHT be upset and decide to re-enter the draft to say F*** you to Clark.

I am not gonna beleive 100% its a done deal between the Flyers and Carter, Richards b/c its not yet. But I am not saying they are not gonna sign, I am just saying they CAN still choose not to sign with the Flyers.

Of course Richards and Carter choosing not sign is not an option for Clark/Flyers lovers. ;)
 

Dr Love

Registered User
Mar 22, 2002
20,360
0
Location, Location!
Mr.Hunter74 said:
But it doesn't make the Flyers and better off then other teams who signed there key prospects before the lockout especially if Carter and Richards can still get the bonus structure of the old CBA.
That doesn't matter. Sure, in hindsight it might not have made a difference, but that's not the point, and you can't operate in hindsight. At the time, Clarke deemed it was not worth the risk to sign them before the lockout, a wise move. If nothing has changed for signing them, it doesn't matter: Clarke took the low risk, high reward move, and didn't lose.

Most people were wondering if Richards and Carter would have bitter feelings towards the Flyers b/c it appeared as though Clark didn't sign them on purpose b/c he new he could get them cheaper in the new CBA. If you new someone could of signed you to more but just decided to wait until he could get you cheaper you might be alittle ticked off at him.
You might, and you'd have a right to be. But since they played for the Phantoms this year instead of sitting on their butts, clearly they were not miffed at the organization.

Of course Richards and Carter choosing not sign is not an option for Clark/Flyers lovers. ;)
Only because of what I just said, that they played for the Phantoms. If they didn't play after their junior seasons, then I would agree. The Flyers have Umberger in the system, so for me to say that a Flyer prospect wouldn't not sign because of a contract dispute over something like this would be hypocritical.
 

Hunter74

Registered User
Sep 21, 2004
1,045
15
I see your point about the Carter and Richards playing for the Phantoms. But on the other hand they could just be trying to prove tehy can play in the pros as to increase there bargaining power when its time to negotiate a contract. Not saying thats what happened but a 18-20 old kid is gonna be pretty anxious to get to any level of competition that will bring him one step closer to the big show. It would just make sense that they would sign a tryout with the Flyers organization even if they are miffed at them. Flyers would be more willing to make sure the coaches work to help there developement and make there AHL experiences as positive as possible.

But maybe b/c they are so young they dont really care about $200K as its very little in the grand scheme of things for pro athletes who project to be what they could be. I always got the sense that these young kids or next genreation in general are alittle less greedy than the guys who are currently between the ages of 27-32 years.


I dont agree with the statement about Clark taking the low risk high reward route. The difference in salary can be quite little depending on the bonuses. He risked losing 2 very good prospects in order to save roughly 400K combined on there salary. Maybe more depending on bonuses. To me thats high risk for low rewards. Prospects do enter the draft on a regular basis. Nick Boynton is a good example, so is Jarret Stoll so its not completely unheard of. Of course those 2 examples were different situations of course.
 

salzy

Registered User
Mar 3, 2005
1,048
0
Windsor
Mr.Hunter74 said:
I dont agree with the statement about Clark taking the low risk high reward route. The difference in salary can be quite little depending on the bonuses. He risked losing 2 very good prospects in order to save roughly 400K combined on there salary. Maybe more depending on bonuses. To me thats high risk for low rewards. Prospects do enter the draft on a regular basis. Nick Boynton is a good example, so is Jarret Stoll so its not completely unheard of. Of course those 2 examples were different situations of course.

On this topic, all literature I have read throughout the lockout has been crystal clear - there was vitually ZERO chance of the Flyers losing the rights to those players. If they had signed before the deadline, they could both potentially cost the Flyers a lot more money in bonuses. A big problem with the former entry level system is that too many of the bonuses were too easy to achieve and a lot of young players were maxing out on the bonuses. Under the salary cap, every dollar will be important. So the salary savings, and more importantly, the cap savings the Flyers have realized because of Clarke's patience are significant and potentially huge.

So let's add this up: Virtually zero risk vs. significant to potentially huge reward...

Nice work Bob. Nice work.
 

MojoJojo

Registered User
Jan 31, 2003
9,353
0
Philadelphia
Visit site
OK, here is how Clarke won by not signing them:

-Free agency will be based on 7 years service in the NHL, so by the time players from the 03 draft are 25 they could be free agents if they started at age 18.

-The compramise being reported regarding the 04/05 contracts is that they will not be honored, but will count as fulfilling the requirements for free agency.

This means that instead of Carter and Richards being UFA's in five years (like Staal, Michalek, Brown, Horton, etc), we keep them for an extra two years as RFA's.
 

IronMarshal

Registered User
Mar 7, 2002
3,770
1,702
Langhorne, PA
Visit site
The most interesting thing to me here is that there areso many people from other teams who have such high regard for these two Flyers prospects. It is not just Flyer fans touting their boys. Some, those who are clamboring for their free agency or draft re-entry, sound almost envious over the Flyers having these two prospects. To me, this is a good sign as it reinforces my feeling that these two are going to be very valuable NHLers, maybe more valuable than many players selected in front of them, especially in Richards' case.
Personally, I have been sweating the possibilty of losing them but have defered to Clarke's better judgementon these issues. Clarke wants to win and would not have made a high risk gamble here. He had to be pretty sure he would retain them. Actually, I think Clarke thought they would settle the CBA early enough to get a mini season in, and if that was the case, not signing was smart. When the lockout killed the season, I think the risk became greater. Clarke and Snyder both said there was no way they would lose these two guys, so I think they had information that they were safe from enough other owners and Bettman.
 

Hunter74

Registered User
Sep 21, 2004
1,045
15
MojoJojo said:
OK, here is how Clarke won by not signing them:

-Free agency will be based on 7 years service in the NHL, so by the time players from the 03 draft are 25 they could be free agents if they started at age 18.

-The compramise being reported regarding the 04/05 contracts is that they will not be honored, but will count as fulfilling the requirements for free agency.

This means that instead of Carter and Richards being UFA's in five years (like Staal, Michalek, Brown, Horton, etc), we keep them for an extra two years as RFA's.

Thats b/c Stall and co played a eyar in the NHL already were as teh two flyers guys havent. But in a guy like Phaneufs case will his 7 years start when he signed teh contract or when he first starts to play??

As for teh zero chance. All the reading I have done has pointed to it being quite a grey area in this matter. So lets add it up. potential risk of losing Carter Richards vs possibly saving some (200K-1mil roughly).

The only thing I have read that made me think Clark new what he was doing was just 3 days ago when he said he recieved and memo or something from the NHL saying they shoudl hold off on signing them. Thats it.

Either way this is a pointless thing to talk about b/c they can get the same deal now that they could of got in '04.
 

salzy

Registered User
Mar 3, 2005
1,048
0
Windsor
Mr.Hunter74 said:
Thats b/c Stall and co played a eyar in the NHL already were as teh two flyers guys havent. But in a guy like Phaneufs case will his 7 years start when he signed teh contract or when he first starts to play??

As for teh zero chance. All the reading I have done has pointed to it being quite a grey area in this matter. So lets add it up. potential risk of losing Carter Richards vs possibly saving some (200K-1mil roughly).

The only thing I have read that made me think Clark new what he was doing was just 3 days ago when he said he recieved and memo or something from the NHL saying they shoudl hold off on signing them. Thats it.

Either way this is a pointless thing to talk about b/c they can get the same deal now that they could of got in '04.

That's just not true. Under the old CBA, those 2 would have likely made upwards of 3 million per season with the easily earned bonuses. Clarke saved his team a lot of very valuable cap space. And if you believe the literature that has been written on the topic - agents, players, GMs, etc - there was never any risk. I think it's simply a case of those people knowing more about it than you do.
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
Mr.Hunter74 said:
The only thing I have read that made me think Clark new what he was doing was just 3 days ago when he said he recieved and memo or something from the NHL saying they shoudl hold off on signing them. Thats it.
Try looking around more because Bettman instructed every team not to sign their 2003 draftees until the new CBA. Now as he said that, theres virtually zero chance of losing them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->