Relax About The Bad Contracts

[Standardly]

Here is why you can relax about having ugly contracts. G.M's are not in it for the long haul like us. A nine year contract is nine years for a fan. It may only be 2 years for a G.M.


Essentially, a G.M of another team doesn't necessarily look at the length of the whole term of the contract. The G.M is protecting himself for 4-5 years (except for the great teams).

Those that insist all these long term contracts are not moveable, are not thinking like a G.M. A G.M's outlook, unfortunately (for the fans), is a shorter time frame. Making a move for a Mike Richards or a Dion Phaneuf is sensible to a team at the very least in the bottom half of the standings. It may preserve the G.M's job.


It's kind of like electing a politician, they're in it for the length of their term or hopefully for them a 2nd term. They don't care about the long term implications of their decisions -even if they know it will be negative, as they know they won't be in power.

Click to read more...

 

[Teeder9]

Here is why you can relax about having ugly contracts. G.M's are not in it for the long haul like us. A nine year contract is nine years for a fan. It may only be 2 years for a G.M.


Essentially, a G.M of another team doesn't necessarily look at the length of the whole term of the contract. The G.M is protecting himself for 4-5 years (except for the great teams).

Those that insist all these long term contracts are not moveable, are not thinking like a G.M. A G.M's outlook, unfortunately (for the fans), is a shorter time frame. Making a move for a Mike Richards or a Dion Phaneuf is sensible to a team at the very least in the bottom half of the standings. It may preserve the G.M's job.


It's kind of like electing a politician, they're in it for the length of their term or hopefully for them a 2nd term. They don't care about the long term implications of their decisions -even if they know it will be negative, as they know they won't be in power.

Makes sense for a guy like Lupul. Clarkson, who absolutely controls every aspect of his contract, says otherwise

 

[ACC1224]

With some Contracts the Players control their fate, not Leagues GM's.

 

[SarcazemKadri]

The short-sighted GM positions have certainly been a problem in the past but it is exactly why teams have been hiring "Presidents of Hockey Operations" positions. (i.e Shanahan, Burke)

In business, this is known as the agency problem.

While managers are tempted to act in their own self interest, such as maximizing their personal gain at the expense of the long-term business, the board of directors for a company ensures the longterm health of the organization remains paramount by yay or naying ideas they put forward and keeping an eye on them.

Managers = GM's
President of Hockey Operations = Board of Directors

 

[Swayze*]

Here is why you can relax about having ugly contracts. G.M's are not in it for the long haul like us. A nine year contract is nine years for a fan. It may only be 2 years for a G.M.


Essentially, a G.M of another team doesn't necessarily look at the length of the whole term of the contract. The G.M is protecting himself for 4-5 years (except for the great teams).

Those that insist all these long term contracts are not moveable, are not thinking like a G.M. A G.M's outlook, unfortunately (for the fans), is a shorter time frame. Making a move for a Mike Richards or a Dion Phaneuf is sensible to a team at the very least in the bottom half of the standings. It may preserve the G.M's job.


It's kind of like electing a politician, they're in it for the length of their term or hopefully for them a 2nd term. They don't care about the long term implications of their decisions -even if they know it will be negative, as they know they won't be in power.

Its not just about being immovable, its about the value you can get in return should you need or want to trade one of them.

 

[Standardly]

as someone mentioned, this is the reason for the President position. It just dawned on me...haha...wow, I'm slow.


obviously you need to get value in return, but the G.M is looking at the player he is shipping out vs the player he's getting back. He's not looking at the player he's shipping out has a 4 year contract while the one he gets back has a 7 year contract.


With that being said, someone like Phaneuf would have more value than a guy like Mike Richards. As a fan, I'd rather have Richards (shorter term contract), as a G.M, Phaneuf might be the better option because he still can be a number 2 or 3 defenceman.

 

[Standardly]

Makes sense for a guy like Lupul. Clarkson, who absolutely controls every aspect of his contract, says otherwise

contracts like Clarkson give the player the final say, but how many guys with no trade clauses say no to being moved to any team? Maybe certain teams they opt not to go to

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Its not just about being immovable, its about the value you can get in return should you need or want to trade one of them.

Cap space is value.

 

[WilliamNylander]

The good GMs are all thinking long-term.

And then there's Nonis who doesn't even know what he wants to do at the deadline

 

[Swayze*]

Cap space is value.

good return + cap space has more value

jesus

 

[Peasy]

good return + cap space has more value

jesus

You can get a good return for Clarkson?

 

[diceman934]

contracts like Clarkson give the player the final say, but how many guys with no trade clauses say no to being moved to any team? Maybe certain teams they opt not to go to

I guess you have no idea of why Clarksons contract is so bad.....it is bad because you save almost nothing if you wanted to buy him out as most of his money is bonus money. He has a NMC as well.

Nonis was an idiot to sign that contract....the money and term he paid him was bad enough.

 

[Swayze*]

You can get a good return for Clarkson?

No

you can't get a return period at this point or cap space.

If he was signed to 2-3m sure but Nonis/burke went full Pejorative Slur on every contract they've signed pretty much.

 

[WilliamNylander]

Nonis should be fired solely on the clarkson contract especially when you consider he's in his prime now and only going to get worse

 

[Cor]

It's funny.

Everyone *****ed at how Burke wouldn't give out contracts past 5 seasons long, and it cost us the chance at getting Brad Richards (lol).

Brian Burke wouldn't have offered Clarkson that contract, purely because of the length of it, and Clarkson would have signed with Ottawa or Edmonton who were offering the length (and more money).

If only we didn't fire Brian Burke

 

[Swayze*]

It's funny.

Everyone *****ed at how Burke wouldn't give out contracts past 5 seasons long, and it cost us the chance at getting Brad Richards (lol).

Brian Burke wouldn't have offered Clarkson that contract, purely because of the length of it, and Clarkson would have signed with Ottawa or Edmonton who were offering the length (and more money).

If only we didn't fire Brian Burke

Good point

 

[Purity*]

It's funny.

Everyone *****ed at how Burke wouldn't give out contracts past 5 seasons long, and it cost us the chance at getting Brad Richards (lol).

Brian Burke wouldn't have offered Clarkson that contract, purely because of the length of it, and Clarkson would have signed with Ottawa or Edmonton who were offering the length (and more money).

If only we didn't fire Brian Burke

Touche!

It's a lot better than Nonis' approach..

"I'm not worried about years 6 and 7, it's year 1 and I know we're getting a very good player!" Then Clarkson puts up 5 goals and 11 points, yeah Nonis, that's a damn good player we're getting

 

[Joey Hoser]

Clarkson is the only really bad contract we have. You could argue Lupul, Phaneuf and Robidas contracts aren't ideal, but they aren't far enough off to be bad contracts. They have value even at their cap hits.

 

[Swayze*]

Clarkson is the only really bad contract we have. You could argue Lupul, Phaneuf and Robidas contracts aren't ideal, but they aren't far enough off to be bad contracts. They have value even at their cap hits.

Gardiner

Lupul's is very bad

Phaneuf's is horrible

Yes Robidas, Clarkson, the rest are one year pluggers we picked up or entry level contracts.

its bad man.

 

[KLM-Line]

It not only depends on the relative contract value (subpar, bad, horrible) but also numbers/years in absolutes. You can kinda sit out a 4-5 years mistake and trade it off/buy it out in the final two years. Same goes for medium cap hits in the 2-3 million range or below. But 7 year monsters or 5-7 million scare-crows don't fit in any GMs concept ... unless we are talking players like Kessel for whom a team "makes" room due to his talent/production. There is the odd opening and stupid GM decision but you are kidding yourself if you think that Clarkson & Co aren't handcuffing Nonis' flexibility to make deals.

Burke stayed away from longterm contracts and NTC as much as he could. Nonis went the JFJ route, dished them out like candy and even wasted his jail-free card with Grabo early on. He really trapped himseld and the Leafs without having a contending team at his hands. Zero patience.

 

[Swayze*]

It not only depends on the relative contract value (subpar, bad, horrible) but also numbers/years in absolutes. You can kinda sit out a 4-5 years mistake and trade it off/buy it out in the final two years. Same goes for medium cap hits in the 2-3 million range or below. But 7 year monsters or 5-7 million scare-crows don't fit in any GMs concept ... unless we are talking players like Kessel for whom a team "makes" room due to his talent/production. There is the odd opening and stupid GM decision but you are kidding yourself if you think that Clarkson & Co aren't handcuffing Nonis' flexibility to make deals.

Burke stayed away from longterm contracts and NTC as much as he could. Nonis went the JFJ route, dished them out like candy and even wasted his jail-free card with Grabo early on. He really trapped himseld and the Leafs without having a contending team at his hands. Zero patience.

 

[Sdrawkcab321]

All I can really hope for is the cap going up every year. Only way these bad contracts look less bad

 

[Joey Hoser]

Gardiner

Lupul's is very bad

Phaneuf's is horrible

Yes Robidas, Clarkson, the rest are one year pluggers we picked up or entry level contracts.

its bad man.

Nonsense. If you think Gardiner, Lupul and Phaneufs contracts are that baf then you need to stop living in the 90's. The days of paying everyone but your best players 1 million dollars were over a long time ago.

 

[Swayze*]

Nonsense. If you think Gardiner, Lupul and Phaneufs contracts are that baf then you need to stop living in the 90's. The days of paying everyone but your best players 1 million dollars were over a long time ago.

Dude

Lets just disagree on this and move on

Those contracts are horrible.

 

[Orfieus]

Dude

Lets just disagree on this and move on

Those contracts are horrible.

I have to disagree with you as well. I really like Phaneuf and his contract.