GDT: NHL Free Agency Meeting period

[newfy]

That sums up my stance throughout.

Ok so he gets a guaranteed 30 million without having to play a single game while going into UFA where hes guaranteed closer to 80 million and the choice of any team he wants to play for.

 

[Bench]

Ok so he gets a guaranteed 30 million without having to play a single game while going into UFA where hes guaranteed closer to 80 million and the choice of any team he wants to play for.

GMs hate him, Trouba breaks free agency with this one simple trick!

 

[deca guard]

anybody think ferland or hutton would be a good signing being theyre both only 27/26 and would still be valuable players in a few years when were ready to compete ? im only going by stats / bios / age as i rarely watch nucks or canes .

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

anybody think ferland or hutton would be a good signing being theyre both only 27/26 and would still be valuable players in a few years when were ready to compete ? im only going by stats / bios / age as i rarely watch nucks or canes .

Hutton kinda looks like a waste of time. He kinda looks like he's ANOTHER middle pairing at best guy.

Ferland I'd be interested in based on price. If he's not too expensive, the Wings still do need good forwards.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

It seems like youre kindaburying your head in the sand. Obey has quoted a bunch of different articles stating you can in fact do it and there have been some examples of it working for guys who did it. Is he going to get a guaranteed 60 million? Maybe not but with insurance hes going to get multi generational wealth while being able to risk a season to get to UFA. Its a bit of a gamble obviously but insurance makes it likely worth the risk for him.

Teams would prefer a one year deal but are avoided by the players? I dont think thats remotely true when talking about RFAs. Trouba is the perfect example of a guy who absolutly should fight for a one year deal and let the bidding war happen next July

I don't think these policies are as easy to come by as either you or @obey86 are making them out to be and are very complex in nature. Remember Crosby during the last lockout couldn't get this actually done because his was so complex in terms of an example for what @Bench would be talking about. But there it is at that particular time a hands down top 10 player in the world couldn't secure the necessary insurance policies to make playing hockey worth his while during the stoppage.

Trouba will almost assuredly have some version of insurance, but I doubt he can get the kind of loaded proposals being listed. He doesn't have a tenth of the marketability of OBJ if he was to suffer a catastrophic injury. In terms of OBJ you still have the celebrity status and likely outpouring of support that the insurance company has to weigh in for their risk models. Hockey players are not going to drive those numbers up in their assessment. I would be stunned if McDavid and Matthews who are easily more marketable could get the kind of policies that are being thrown around as a given. OBJ is one of the biggest superstars in sports. I get arguing he shouldn't be for those that want to have it but that dude isn't a normal example. Several of the collegiate examples also don't make sense as they usually are leveraged against the university as well to help up the funds and stem the ability to go back after the university or insurance company so the player is actually getting leveraged in this day and age by two multi-billion dollar entities to sign away some right for those agreements.

I think these are handed out quite a bit in baseball and basketball. I am surprised they are as often as they are in football, they don't appear to be widespread in hockey from what I know of the industry. Yes some guys have them, but heck we even famously as eluded to in this thread have teams that still don't insure contracts which to me is absolute insanity, but there it is... I wouldn't present this as a universal thing in the NHL and NHLPA.

In any event it is quite complex.

 

[Bench]

In any event it is quite complex.

Thank you for typing out what I didn't have the stamina to do.

In essence, if it was as easy and affordable as I was being told, I feel like literally everyone would be doing it. The Crosby example is exactly why I think it's not quite that cut and dry.

 

[OutsideLookingIn]

Thank you for typing out what I didn't have the stamina to do.

In essence, if it was as easy and affordable as I was being told, I feel like literally everyone would be doing it. The Crosby example is exactly why I think it's not quite that cut and dry.

It is cut and dry for most guys on ELC, bridge deals, and other low value deals (see LeBlanc's million dollar deal).

All you need is some evidence that a large contract could be on the horizon. The policies don't pay out unless you have a substantial injury that impacts your earning potential.

Since the policies are paid for with after tax dollars, any payout is tax free. That why you don't insure the full value of the contact. Cost is around $4k for each $1M of coverage.

 

[newfy]

I don't think these policies are as easy to come by as either you or @obey86 are making them out to be and are very complex in nature. Remember Crosby during the last lockout couldn't get this actually done because his was so complex in terms of an example for what @Bench would be talking about. But there it is at that particular time a hands down top 10 player in the world couldn't secure the necessary insurance policies to make playing hockey worth his while during the stoppage.

Trouba will almost assuredly have some version of insurance, but I doubt he can get the kind of loaded proposals being listed. He doesn't have a tenth of the marketability of OBJ if he was to suffer a catastrophic injury. In terms of OBJ you still have the celebrity status and likely outpouring of support that the insurance company has to weigh in for their risk models. Hockey players are not going to drive those numbers up in their assessment. I would be stunned if McDavid and Matthews who are easily more marketable could get the kind of policies that are being thrown around as a given. OBJ is one of the biggest superstars in sports. I get arguing he shouldn't be for those that want to have it but that dude isn't a normal example. Several of the collegiate examples also don't make sense as they usually are leveraged against the university as well to help up the funds and stem the ability to go back after the university or insurance company so the player is actually getting leveraged in this day and age by two multi-billion dollar entities to sign away some right for those agreements.

I think these are handed out quite a bit in baseball and basketball. I am surprised they are as often as they are in football, they don't appear to be widespread in hockey from what I know of the industry. Yes some guys have them, but heck we even famously as eluded to in this thread have teams that still don't insure contracts which to me is absolute insanity, but there it is... I wouldn't present this as a universal thing in the NHL and NHLPA.

In any event it is quite complex.

I dont know if during the lock out is the best example though. Everyone and their dog was getting insurance and agencies probably saw it as a bigger risk than usual on top of the fact that during the lockout, Crosby hadnt had a healthy season in years really. Its like having a cancer diagnosis and being surprised when health insurance is insane. I would also wonder how much Crosby was trying to get insured for. Face of the NHL, was he insuring some endorsement money on top of his regular salary etc etc. I've heard about it plenty in a lot of sports. I dont think Crosby in that situation is a really good comparable

 

[obey86]

I don't think these policies are as easy to come by as either you or @obey86 are making them out to be and are very complex in nature. Remember Crosby during the last lockout couldn't get this actually done because his was so complex in terms of an example for what @Bench would be talking about. But there it is at that particular time a hands down top 10 player in the world couldn't secure the necessary insurance policies to make playing hockey worth his while during the stoppage.

Trouba will almost assuredly have some version of insurance, but I doubt he can get the kind of loaded proposals being listed. He doesn't have a tenth of the marketability of OBJ if he was to suffer a catastrophic injury. In terms of OBJ you still have the celebrity status and likely outpouring of support that the insurance company has to weigh in for their risk models. Hockey players are not going to drive those numbers up in their assessment. I would be stunned if McDavid and Matthews who are easily more marketable could get the kind of policies that are being thrown around as a given. OBJ is one of the biggest superstars in sports. I get arguing he shouldn't be for those that want to have it but that dude isn't a normal example. Several of the collegiate examples also don't make sense as they usually are leveraged against the university as well to help up the funds and stem the ability to go back after the university or insurance company so the player is actually getting leveraged in this day and age by two multi-billion dollar entities to sign away some right for those agreements.

I think these are handed out quite a bit in baseball and basketball. I am surprised they are as often as they are in football, they don't appear to be widespread in hockey from what I know of the industry. Yes some guys have them, but heck we even famously as eluded to in this thread have teams that still don't insure contracts which to me is absolute insanity, but there it is... I wouldn't present this as a universal thing in the NHL and NHLPA.

In any event it is quite complex.

There is also a lower risk of a catastrophic/career altering injury in the NHL than there is in the NFL. OBJ will have significantly less marketability when he's not playing/no longer a top tier player due to an injury.

Anyways, Sidney Crosby's insurance issue related to his previous concussion history was about team/league issued disability insurance, which is an entirely different thing from a loss of value policy rider taken out by the player. You're conflating two entirely different products. Disability insurance is not the same as a loss of value rider and the two products will have entirely different premium structures.........just like (for example) short term disability insurance is not the same as long term disability insurance and the two products will have entirely different premium structures.

The point of a loss of value rider is to mitigate your losses, not to recover the exact amount you would have been received on a new contract if not injured. You guys seem to continually be glossing over that point. If Trouba is injured and his next contract is less because of the injury, he's not going to get a $70M payout from the insurance company - he's going to get maybe 5-10M to mitigate his losses. Obviously there will be a large difference in premium cost between a potential $70M pay out and a potential $10M payout.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

You know it's the off season when we're debating player insurance.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

There is also a lower risk of a catastrophic/career altering injury in the NHL than there is in the NFL. OBJ will have significantly less marketability when he's not playing/no longer a top tier player due to an injury.

Anyways, Sidney Crosby's insurance issue related to his previous concussion history was about team/league issued disability insurance, which is an entirely different thing from a loss of value policy rider taken out by the player. You're conflating two entirely different products. Disability insurance is not the same as a loss of value rider and the two products will have entirely different premium structures.........just like (for example) short term disability insurance is not the same as long term disability insurance and the two products will have entirely different premium structures.

The point of a loss of value rider is to mitigate your losses, not to recover the exact amount you would have been received on a new contract if not injured. You guys seem to continually be glossing over that point. If Trouba is injured and his next contract is less because of the injury, he's not going to get a $70M payout from the insurance company - he's going to get maybe 5-10M to mitigate his losses. Obviously there will be a large difference in premium cost between a potential $70M pay out and a potential $10M payout.

Jake Butt had one of these for the draft. He got ~$10,000 tax free from each pick after the start of the 3rd round that he didn't get picked. He made back $543k when he was taken in the fifth round. He was initially slated as a first or second round pick.

In total, he lost about 3M in guaranteed first contract money.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Crosby's had a different context for sure, but A big part of the argument here was these are very complicated in nature. They aren't always easily obtained and coverage can be limited at certain thresholds. That Trouba couldn't hope to insure what OBJ did more than likely for a ton of reasons.

The arbitration process and monetary judgment are likely critical to this picture as well. I guess Trouba's team could look at that in a variety of ways, but I think I want that judgment first if I am him.