Miscellaneous NHL Talk XXXI - 2019 Offseason

Status
Not open for further replies.

VladDrag

Registered User
Feb 6, 2018
5,831
14,739
giphy.gif


Appears to be

Hughes
Kakko
Zegras
Byram
Turcotte
Krebs
Boldy
Podkolzin
Dach
Caufield
Seider

Then maybe

Cozens
Broberg
Knight?
Kaliyev?

Edit - Reading thru reddit -it appears the top 11 are names they expected to be gone before 15. Then it was 'could be at 15'
 

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
127,492
164,342
Armored Train
If they want to try and force the league to create more stability by demanding revenue sharing among the owners, so be it. Better medical stuff? Yeah. Go for it.

Going for a bigger slice of money? You're wasting all our time. The split is 50-50 now I believe.
 

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
49,215
21,617
I just hope the owners can get the max contract length down to 5/6 years.

I'd expect that to go hand in hand with reducing the RFA from 4 years to 2-3 years.
So teams would go 3 years of ELC, 2 years bridge deals, then negotiate 5-6 year contracts in the last RFA season.
 

Starat327

Top .01% OnlyHands
Sponsor
May 8, 2011
37,544
74,542
Philadelphia, Pa
Imagine giving Hayes 5 years instead of 7. Who wouldn't like that? Oh I know players association, so strike it is.

The PA should actually be in favor of shorter deals. It allows players to gain more revenue (provided they dont fall off a cliff, or suffer career ending injuries) as league revenues go up.

Imagine all the players who are locked in to 8 year deals (Giroux, anyone?) Who are now getting paid less and less in comparison to what they signed for as it pertains to % of cap. Longer deals have a benefit for owners more than players.
 

Tripod

I hate this team
Aug 12, 2008
78,746
86,026
Nova Scotia
The PA should actually be in favor of shorter deals. It allows players to gain more revenue (provided they dont fall off a cliff, or suffer career ending injuries) as league revenues go up.

Imagine all the players who are locked in to 8 year deals (Giroux, anyone?) Who are now getting paid less and less in comparison to what they signed for as it pertains to % of cap. Longer deals have a benefit for owners more than players.
Disagree.

Players can always go less term....there is a reason why they wanted the 8 years...more security. Giroux could have signed for 4 years, but was smart to lock in the guaranteed money. Imagine him being a UFA 2 years ago coming off a 58 point season with a 67 one before that. A pay cut would have been in the cards.

The fact that GM's can't police themselves for UFA's is not a league issue. It's a dumb GM issue. Fletch included. Before ever signing most said Hayes teh player is fine....but we knew we would hate the contract. But when GM's know that they likely have 4-5 years to get things done, those last 2 years of a contract mean less to them because they could be long gone. And if they are still there, will deal with it then after having 5 years of "banked" time as GM.

From a fans perspective, ideally the RFA contracts can stay at 8 years....but the UFA contracts would be 5 max.
 

renberg

Registered User
Dec 31, 2003
6,772
6,818
Lewes Delaware
forums.hfboards.com
Hockey's Big Pay Day Is Coming

The players see the bigger tv contract(s) coming down and want a piece of that action along with less of their money being escrowed. They'll probably opt out on September 15 but that doesn't mean that there will have to be a work stoppage. Both sides will need to see how much revenue will be coming in off of the new tv deals before they work out how to split the revenue.
 

Starat327

Top .01% OnlyHands
Sponsor
May 8, 2011
37,544
74,542
Philadelphia, Pa
Disagree.

Players can always go less term....there is a reason why they wanted the 8 years...more security. Giroux could have signed for 4 years, but was smart to lock in the guaranteed money. Imagine him being a UFA 2 years ago coming off a 58 point season with a 67 one before that. A pay cut would have been in the cards.

The fact that GM's can't police themselves for UFA's is not a league issue. It's a dumb GM issue. Fletch included. Before ever signing most said Hayes teh player is fine....but we knew we would hate the contract. But when GM's know that they likely have 4-5 years to get things done, those last 2 years of a contract mean less to them because they could be long gone. And if they are still there, will deal with it then after having 5 years of "banked" time as GM.

I think that's kind of the view of the past though. More and more, we are seeing players opt for the shorter deals because they're banking on their own performance. That, and admittedly some other factors like "are we going to have a work stoppage again?", as well as the new TV deal (which directly ties to revenue), is why were seeing a lot of these young kids take the short contract and bet on themselves.

The longer contracts that we see are, to your point, mostly given to players who are looking for that retirement contract who want the security. But the new wave of younger players want the shorter term to maximize later. Aho, Matthews, etc.
 

Tripod

I hate this team
Aug 12, 2008
78,746
86,026
Nova Scotia
I think that's kind of the view of the past though. More and more, we are seeing players opt for the shorter deals because they're banking on their own performance. That, and admittedly some other factors like "are we going to have a work stoppage again?", as well as the new TV deal (which directly ties to revenue), is why were seeing a lot of these young kids take the short contract and bet on themselves.

The longer contracts that we see are, to your point, mostly given to players who are looking for that retirement contract who want the security. But the new wave of younger players want the shorter term to maximize later. Aho, Matthews, etc.
Yeah I said earlier this summer that the 2-3 bridge deal is becoming the new "good RFA deal".

But things can still change. A lot will depend on these RFA's still not signed. Giving in to big money AND short term is just a GM not doing his job. Player gets one or the other....ideally for fans/team, they get neither. In Matthews case, he got both of what he wanted, Leafs got neither.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starat327

Starat327

Top .01% OnlyHands
Sponsor
May 8, 2011
37,544
74,542
Philadelphia, Pa
Yeah I said earlier this summer that the 2-3 bridge deal is becoming the new "good RFA deal".

But things can still change. A lot will depend on these RFA's still not signed. Giving in to big money AND short term is just a GM not doing his job. Player gets one or the other....ideally for fans/team, they get neither. In Matthews case, he got both of what he wanted, Leafs got neither.

Oh, GMs are the bigger issue - don't get me wrong. They just cant help themselves, and they have such a short shelf life that, to your point, a lot of them just worry about the short window they are guaranteed, and whatever happens after isnt their problem. But it just seems to me that a lot of the young players are just taking the bet on themselves. How much of that is because of a pending work stoppage/tv deal, im not sure. Its possible that once they clear those hurdles, we see a shift back to the security model as well. But i think we're seeing players realize that the last generation of players left a lot of money on the table by tying themselves down way too soon to too long of a deal (like a Jeff Carter).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ruck Over

deadhead

Registered User
Feb 26, 2014
49,215
21,617
Long big money deals are good for a handful of players, but not the majority of players.
The more money tied up with stars or projected stars, the less available for the rest of the players.
However, the top agents want these big deals and lobby players to support them, even when it's not in their interest.
 

wasup

Registered User
Mar 21, 2018
2,443
2,283
The PA should actually be in favor of shorter deals. It allows players to gain more revenue (provided they dont fall off a cliff, or suffer career ending injuries) as league revenues go up.

Imagine all the players who are locked in to 8 year deals (Giroux, anyone?) Who are now getting paid less and less in comparison to what they signed for as it pertains to % of cap. Longer deals have a benefit for owners more than players.
You are only looking at one side of the coin . It might have worked against Giroux a bit but there are tons of players where it worked out quite well for them . 8 years is protection and job security if injuries play decline etc ...
 

Starat327

Top .01% OnlyHands
Sponsor
May 8, 2011
37,544
74,542
Philadelphia, Pa
You are only looking at one side of the coin . It might have worked against Giroux a bit but there are tons of players where it worked out quite well for them . 8 years is protection and job security if injuries play decline etc ...

There are definitely scenarios where it works out well - Clarkson, Horton, etc. There's arguments to be made for both sides. However, we are seeing fewer younger players take those guaranteed deals. The longer deals are becoming what we all call them - retirement deals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wasup
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->