The Avs "salary structure"

[ABasin]

So, it seems that an awful lot of us have been buying into this "salary structure" that Sakic and Roy have been talking about. But it seems to me that - after a number of dreadful years of very bad losing hockey - the Avs are risking losing at least two really damn good players, so they can adhere to this 'structure'. A structure that the majority of us seem to believe is the same as 'don't pay anyone more than Duchene'. The pessimist in me is beginning to wonder the following:

Does "salary structure" = "not paying anyone more than Duchene"?

or

Does "salary structure" = "not spending anywhere near the salary cap limit"?

Because now the Avs have several players of true high-end talent, and they can now probably stay in the lower half of NHL teams in terms of payroll, but still compete for a playoff spot. But have no real chance on earth of competing for a Cup.

Click to read more...

 

[Avsboy]

Salary structure IMO means signing players for what they're worth. Stastny is not worth over $6 million.

 

[Avs_19]

I don't think you can say they're just being cheap unless they let Stastny walk and don't bring anyone else in to replace him.

 

[tigervixxxen]

I believe them when they say the structure leads to a plan. What that plan is I have no idea. But really, did Sakic and Roy come to take over the franchise to sit around and put out an inferior product? Roy in particular hates to lose. Hopefully in the next few weeks some of that plan will become clearer. But I don't think the plan begins with a great attachment to any one player.

 

[5280]

Salary structure IMO means signing players for what they're worth. Stastny is not worth over $6 million.

Yeah, he's going to get overpaid.

 

[The Mars Volchenkov]

Roy wouldn't be here just to compete for the playoffs. He's way too competitive.

Sakic and Roy are the same two who handed out the massive extensions to Duchene, Landy, and Varly. They'll spend, they just don't want to overpay.

 

[PAZ]

Salary structure IMO means signing players for what they're worth. Stastny is not worth over $6 million.

If you're looking at it in comparison to what other players are making the league, I agree.

IMO, he's worth 6.5 mil to the Avs.

 

[umdieecke*]

If they stay tethered to the Duchene cap then they're going to fall on their faces repeatedly until they realize Duchene's salary is a dated number. It was low then and with the way salaries have taken off (justifiably or not), it would be dumb to insist on 6.0 being a cap. Relative to the cap, the 6.0 as a % is also a lot less than what it was a couple of years ago.

I refuse to believe the Avs are stupid enough to be THAT rigid about a dated cap hit and one that was even team friendly when it was done a couple of years ago.

 

[tigervixxxen]

You realize Duchene's contract doesn't even begin until next year, right?

 

[umdieecke*]

You realize Duchene's contract doesn't even begin until next year, right?

What is your deal with all these oblique responses?

Edit--Was this also not addressing my post?

 

[22FUTON9]

I think sakic and roy are doing the right thing and saying that they are not going to over pay for FAs. dont think its necessarily being cheap to. however if they're only offering 5 for stastny then theyre being cheap

teams are not gonna be happy paying 8 million when their star players are playing around their late 30s or maybe even early 30s.

 

[Freudian]

It's not going to be a factor with EJ and MacKinnon in two years. Anyone seriously believes Avs is going to let EJ walk or mess things up over money with MacKinnon? Of course not. By then we'll have a completely new market set and $6M + % increase in cap will be meaningless.

So effectively it's only going to be a thing this year and it's only going to be a thing for Stastny and O'Reilly. Are Avs really willing to lose one or both of these players because they're drawing a line in the sand that will be completely meaningless in the future?

We'll see how this plays out and it's possible everything comes together and Avs keep their talent.

 

[shadow1]

I just think salary structure means not investing too highly in a player if the ends do not justify the means.

I don't want to be a homer, but if 10-15 teams are interested in Paul Stastny, chances are one of them are going to offer him a contract that he won't live up to but will gladly sign.

 

[Golden Foppa]

When I first heard of the Duchene cap, I thought it was one of the dumber things that I had heard. It didn't make sense to me. You can't handcuff yourself and say no one can make more than a guy who is still not in his prime and makes well below the top salaries in the game. You would never be able to assemble a roster full of talent that will go deep in the playoffs year after year by refusing to pay players above that.

After thinking about it for a while, it makes more sense. There are no big free agent d-men to sign and we already have our goalie under contract. That leaves forwards. Duchene, Landeskog, O'Reilly, Stastny, and MacKinnon are our best five forwards, but really none should make much more than another at this current time. The wild card is MacKinnon. If and when he turns out to be one of the best 5-10 players in the league, he will make well over $6 million per season.

What happens if you give into Stastny and overpay him something like $7 million per for 7 years? You have MacKinnon who needs a top league salary and three others who will be better players than Stastny in a couple years and you still need to assemble a cup caliber group on D. Stastny on an overpaid contract hurts the ability of the organization to assemble a championship caliber club and retain the young up and coming players who will all be more important pieces than Stastny once he hits his 30's.

It makes absolutely no sense to sign a current unsigned player or UFA to more than what Duchene is making right now. We don't have an unsigned player who should get more than that and there are no free agents who we should sign for more than that.

The structure as of now keeps the franchise out of trouble down the road.

The structure will need to change. I'm betting that Roy and Sakic understand that and know that at some point they need to pay MacKinnon well over 6 and will need a true #1 D who makes more than that as well.

 

[AvsRobin]

I think they are trying to do what Boston did with their forward group holding their entire top 6 around 4-6M for a long time. With the UFA negotiations they kind of had to step away from it though.

 

[Freudian]

I just think salary structure means not investing too highly in a player if the ends do not justify the means.

I don't want to be a homer, but if 10-15 teams are interested in Paul Stastny, chances are one of them are going to offer him a contract that he won't live up to but will gladly sign.

I don't think anyone is advocating matching an insane salary from a desperate team.

But a more reasonable scenario is that Stastny would rather go to a better team for a more reasonable salary. It's obviously going to be more than $6M/year because Stastny is clearly worth more that that. Would you rather Stastny sign with Blues/Ducks/Blackhawks/Wild/Stars for $6.6M/year than have Avs match that or pay him slightly less?

 

[Bonzai12]

The dividends of "salary structure" and "cap management" happen in trades, not UFA.

Folks need to be patient with this team. I believe the team is doing the right thing here for the long term.

 

[shadow1]

I don't think anyone is advocating matching an insane salary from a desperate team.

But a more reasonable scenario is that Stastny would rather go to a better team for a more reasonable salary. It's obviously going to be more than $6M/year because Stastny is clearly worth more that that. Would you rather Stastny sign with Blues/Ducks/Blackhawks/Wild/Stars for $6.6M/year than have Avs match that or pay him slightly less?

That's a hard question to answer.

The bottom line for me is: don't overpay anyone. Theoretically, unless we are talking about a team with a Nashville Predators-esque budget, if every player on the team is making a salary comparable to their value, the team will thrive.

I hope Colorado keeps Stastny, but if they don't, I will only be upset if they don't find a replacement for him. That is what will scream "cheap" to me.

 

[ColoradoSportsFan]

My worrie is that they lose Stastny to whomever for 6.5, then go out and give 6-6.5 per season to someone like Iginla or Vanek.

And I really don't think going up to 6.25 would be overpaying either Stastny or O'Reilly.

 

[agentblack]

Yeah the structure thing is odd. I mean if Mack pulls a 40/50 pt season over the next couple of years how does he not get paid like 7-7.5 annually?

 

[umdieecke*]

The dividends of "salary structure" and "cap management" happen in trades, not UFA.

Folks need to be patient with this team. I believe the team is doing the right thing here for the long term.

What does this mean? In what way are they doing the right thing?

 

[Freudian]

The dividends of "salary structure" and "cap management" happen in trades, not UFA.

Folks need to be patient with this team. I believe the team is doing the right thing here for the long term.

If it means losing Stastny and O'Reilly this summer in what way is it the right thing?

 

[avs1dacup]

Yeah the structure thing is odd. I mean if Mack pulls a 40/50 pt season over the next couple of years how does he not get paid like 7-7.5 annually?

Why is that odd? Of course he'd be paid handsomely if he put up a couple 90 point seasons. I don't think Roy and Sakic would have a single problem paying Mac 6.5-7 if he managed to do that. That being said, none of these other players are 90 point/year players so they're not going to pay them like one.

 

[avs1dacup]

If it means losing Stastny and O'Reilly this summer in what way is it the right thing?

They won't lose O'Reilly this summer. But if his salary demands are too much, why should the Avs just give in? The way people talk about him around here, it sounds like he's put up 3 90 point seasons and we'd only be lucky to get him for 7M/year. If he refuses to sign for less, then there's not much the Avs can do. He's not worth that kind of money. Let arbitration do it's thing and trade him at a later time.

 

[Freudian]

They won't lose O'Reilly this summer. But if his salary demands are too much, why should the Avs just give in? The way people talk about him around here, it sounds like he's put up 3 90 point seasons and we'd only be lucky to get him for 7M/year. If he refuses to sign for less, then there's not much the Avs can do. He's not worth that kind of money. Let arbitration do it's thing and trade him at a later time.

Ok. Then in two years time EJ have demands that exceed the structure. We're going to do the same as with Stastny and if he can't take a discount, he can walk?

As what point does the principle become less important than keeping players around?