Should teams stop overpaying in UFA for defensemen?

[Khelandros]

Tavares, Niedermayer, Chara and Panarin are pretty much the only UFA's (who got massive deals) since 2005 to have lived up to them.

Panarin is 3/4 of the way through the 1st year of a 7 year contract. Maybe wait a couple years to say he's lived up to the deal.

 

[Merrrlin]

This thread has me very curious about what kind of deal Pie gets.

I believe that players are starting to get more money for their actual best years (see last years RFA crop), and this will result in fewer GMs being willing to pay a premium for past results.

The market is already starting to shift, I think, in terms of cap%/age.

The “bad years” of a UFA contract is basically the cost of acquiring a free player asset-wise. If a team is in a position to win now I say go for it. But those teams are usually already cap f***ed anyway.

Players are too old when they get to UFA. NHLPA should have been fighting over this much harder ever since they accepted a cap. The leverage RFAs have is a joke... last summer RFA contracts such as Werenski McAvoy etc were huge steals. If one day GMs pull a MLB move on UFAs these guys will end up leaving a lot of money on the table.

Agreed. I have no idea why McAvoy or Werenski took those deals. With COVID flattening the cap, they both likely left a ton of $$$ on the table long term.

It's bad for the players union. As fans we love team friendly contracts, but they hurt the game long term IMO.

 

[Fatass]

Tavares and Panarin aren't quite as old as the D equivalents, but they're inching toward that 30 mark. It's not a guarantee, but it's likely those two won't be worth their contracts sooner rather than later too. Tavares has already made the Leafs have to scramble to find depth, although that's because they're also paying two other guys 8 figures. Not Tavares's fault, but the wall gets closer as each day goes by.

All hedge-funded contracts are bad news in a world where the cap isn’t going up for an extended period.

 

[Fatass]

This thread has me very curious about what kind of deal Pie gets.

I believe that players are starting to get more money for their actual best years (see last years RFA crop), and this will result in fewer GMs being willing to pay a premium for past results.

The market is already starting to shift, I think, in terms of cap%/age.



Agreed. I have no idea why McAvoy or Werenski took those deals. With COVID flattening the cap, they both likely left a ton of $$$ on the table long term.

It's bad for the players union. As fans we love team friendly contracts, but they hurt the game long term IMO.

Teams that were smart at managing their cap now have a huge competitive advantage over those that signed multiple hedge-funded contracts.

 

[Merrrlin]

All hedge-funded contracts are bad news in a world where the cap isn’t going up for an extended period.

Yep. COVID has taken our cap expectations (the same expectations which made some of the overpayments seem somewhat reasonable) and flipped them.

It should be dangerous for teams to sign good players to bridge contracts, but the teams that signed bridge deals this past year will prosper massively from that gamble. McAvoy and Werenski are probably around 8 million in actual worth, based on the market when they signed their bridge deals (see other 7-9 million D), they will not recover that lost value now with a flat cap.

 

[Merrrlin]

Teams that were smart at managing their cap now have a huge competitive advantage over those that signed multiple hedge-funded contracts.

We will never know what would have happened without COVID flattening the cap. It's such an unnatural and unexpected change to the market, impossible to plan for.

We expected that teams would have to pony up for players they bridged (see Subban, Trouba, etc), now they will likely come out far, far ahead unless those players say "not my fault the cap is flat, pay what I am worth".

 

[Fatass]

Yep. COVID has taken our cap expectations (the same expectations which made some of the overpayments seem somewhat reasonable) and flipped them.

It should be dangerous for teams to sign good players to bridge contracts, but the teams that signed bridge deals this past year will prosper massively from that gamble. McAvoy and Werenski are probably around 8 million in actual worth, based on the market when they signed their bridge deals (see other 7-9 million D), they will not recover that lost value now with a flat cap.

The players who signed bridge deals are certainly losing in this new Covid cap era (coming UFAs are losing too) but, the teams who were smart enough to manage their cap in a wise way are going to benefit on the ice.

 

[Jeffrey Pedler]

teams should stop overpaying for UFA based on past accomplishments in general, as most of them are past their primes, and pay RFAs more as they're the one who bring more value*

*exceptions exist

So you're saying UFAs should be signed based on future potential? The problem is in order to determine future potential, you have to look at past accomplishments.

 

[Merrrlin]

The players who signed bridge deals are certainly losing in this new Covid cap era (coming UFAs are losing too) but, the teams who were smart enough to manage their cap in a wise way are going to benefit on the ice.

I think we need to consider whether or not these deals would have been smart pre-COVID. For example, would McAvoy now be asking for 11 million+ considering he left 2-3 on the table for his bridge? That is essentially what happened with Subban. We will never know now with the cap deflating future contracts.

I've defended those big RFA deals because I think it's the correct way top talent should be paid during their best years. They are much harder to defend with a flat cap, though.

 

[Fatass]

We will never know what would have happened without COVID flattening the cap. It's such an unnatural and unexpected change to the market, impossible to plan for.

We expected that teams would have to pony up for players they bridged (see Subban, Trouba, etc), now they will likely come out far, far ahead unless those players say "not my fault the cap is flat, pay what I am worth".

UFAs demanding contracts, like it is the pre Covid cap era, are going to be heading for very poor teams. Except for the really best guys (Pietrangelo for example) who will sign with the best on ice performing teams that were wise with their contracts, which even makes those teams better. Bruins and Avs come to mind as teams that could be the cream of the crop for the next 5 years. Teams with multiple hedge funded contracts will be mediocre.

 

[Merrrlin]

So you're saying UFAs should be signed based on future potential? The problem is in order to determine future potential, you have to look at past accomplishments.

That's true, but these organizations are worth millions/billions, and no doubt they have analytics that can say "this guy won't be as good as he was when he was 25".

However, stars still generate buzz and fill seats, and as much as we as fans want to win, that kind of revenue bump is important.

We don't really have a Bill Bellicheck mentality in the NHL. The NFL is much more savage with how the players are evaluated. Only the desperate markets tend to snag overvalued vets on bad deals.

 

[ThatGuy22]

Tavares, Niedermayer, Chara and Panarin are pretty much the only UFA's (who got massive deals) since 2005 to have lived up to them.

Suter as well.

 

[Fatass]

So you're saying UFAs should be signed based on future potential? The problem is in order to determine future potential, you have to look at past accomplishments.

Not any more they shouldn’t, because the cap isn’t going up to make those contracts of value.

 

[Merrrlin]

UFAs demanding contracts, like it is the pre Covid cap era, are going to be heading for very poor teams. Except for the really best guys (Pietrangelo for example) who will sign with the best on ice performing teams that were wise with their contracts, which even makes those teams better. Bruins and Avs come to mind as teams that could be the cream of the crop for the next 5 years. Teams with multiple hedge funded contracts will be mediocre.

Agreed. They key for those two particular teams will be can they avoid overpaying secondary guys. A JVR esque contract wipes away so much value earned through the Pasta/Mackinnon type contracts. I am really curious to see what both do this off season.

 

[tucker3434]

I think you’ve got to pay your guys rather than let them walk. The big money July 1 deals are usually pretty bad though.

 

[MikeyMike01]

Pretty much. Ideally the trend in RFA contracts getting their worth, we see a market shift away from the huge UFA deals that everyone knows are going to end badly.

Not possible with the current severe RFA penalties. UFAs have multiple suitors, RFAs don’t.

 

[StreetHawk]

Based on players like Karlsson, Vlasic, Doughty, and Subban have played after signing their extensions, will teams ever decide giving defensemen these contracts just isn't worth it?

Look at the rfa/ufa rules.

ufa rights after 7 accrued nhl seasons or turn 27 by July 1 with 4 accrued nhl seasons for the top end guys.

so if an rfa is signing away a couple of ufa years they don’t hit the ufa market until they are around 28.

if you are that age you are going to want the maximum term as this is the time that you have the greatest leverage in negotiations. You don’t take a 5 year deal and re-enter the market at age 33. Never know what kind of player you will be at that age. So you max out in term.

so teams either pay the term or the player goes elsewhere. But kind of all goes back to rfa and if you are buying ufa years then you’ll be paying for the declining years on the ufa contract.

Jossi signed earlier this season and will be 38 when his deal ends. AP is ufa this summer and expect him to get max term as well.

 

[Regal]

Not possible with the current severe RFA penalties. UFAs have multiple suitors, RFAs don’t.

Which used to be why RFAs would usually be on a discount, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. There's only so much cap to go around, so if RFAs are getting their share there's less for UFAs

 

[pt_mck]

teams should stop overpaying for any UFA, any position

Collusion!

 

[MikeyMike01]

Which used to be why RFAs would usually be on a discount, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. There's only so much cap to go around, so if RFAs are getting their share there's less for UFAs

The top end RFAs can get more without the top end UFAs getting less. There’s a lot of a mid and low tier players who will have to take less.

 

[57special]

It's a free market. GM's are free to do whatever they wish. Bottom line is that UFA's just cost money, not players. Some signings suck such as Seabrook's, Bobrovsky's(we think?), Backes, and Ladd, others are fine such as Panarin's, Tavares' and Radulov's, others are screaming bargains like Eric Staal's.

There is a lot of competition to sign a desirable FA. It just takes one GM to want to "win" so badly that he overpays. With a flat cap coming up for the foreseeable future, I don't see it becoming a big problem.

 

[Jeffrey Pedler]

Not possible with the current severe RFA penalties. UFAs have multiple suitors, RFAs don’t.

Exactly, draft picks are too high of a price to give up, for a RFA.

 

[Regal]

The top end RFAs can get more without the top end UFAs getting less. There’s a lot of a mid and low tier players who will have to take less.

I was speaking more in generalities for UFAs. But even mid tier RFAs seem to be getting more. Someone like Connor doesn't get his deal a couple years ago. That further eats into the pie. The top tier UFAs will always get paid, but they might not be getting market setting deals like Doughty and Karlsson. And hopefully the mid tier UFAs are getting considerably less.

 

[Hock98]

Buying years over 30+ is an extreme gamble that seldom pays off.

I predict Tavares will start to fall off a cliff in the next year or 2. (There's no way he's worth that money the entire duration of that contract).

Fall off a cliff? C'mon, the guy posted career high in goals and points last season and is only 29 years old.

 

[Kairi Zaide]

So you're saying UFAs should be signed based on future potential? The problem is in order to determine future potential, you have to look at past accomplishments.

What I meant is that a lot of signings assume the players will remain as good as they were in their prime. Because, that is true that the only way to "predict" is to use past performance. But, even with a decreasing salary, the cap rarely takes into account that a very vast majority of players (especially forwards) hit their primes around 26 years old and start declining from there. Some players do have longer peaks, or decline really slowly, and some rare players hit their prime close to 30, but they're a minority. I just think players should be paid for what they bring (will bring) rather than what they brought.