Rumor: Trade Rumors/Proposals 2018-2019 (Part 17)

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

I mean Karlsson was what 6? 8 years? Hoffman was? 6? Stone was...? We actually have a history of long term contracts with players from ELC. Just saying, stop worrying. So what if we trade them in their prime (jaded bitter laugh).

Karlsson was ages ago at this point. Hoffman was a short term deal that I will give credit for being the one solid medium term signing in the last 5 or so years. Stone was a bridge deal that ended up burning us.

It's not a foregone conclusion, we may very well sign some long term deals this summer, but I think it's safe to say the doubt is warranted by now because they seem to either trade them away or only sign them short term and kick the can down the road.

If we bridge Chabot, it will be imo a huge failure that will lead to him being dealt in the next few years.

 

[BigRig4]

There's been no noise about Pageau either. There was an Instragram post weeks back where Chabot referred to him as "captain". Because he is in the final year of his contract, Pageau should be in the same boat as Ceci where he's expected to sign an extension or get dealt.

In french calling someone captain is just colloquial, like referring to someone as "boss" in english.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Should be interesting to see if they really go for it or keep kicking the can down the road with bridge deals that burn them later.

My prediction would be a 5 year deal.

It's the shortest deal they can sign that is "long term", and it will keep the money+AAV way down.

7-8 years will cost 8-9 million.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

In french calling someone captain is just colloquial, like referring to someone as "boss" in english.

Thanks for that clarification. Makes a lot of sense.

 

[Mark Stones Spleen]

We're taking a run at signing sought-after RFA Thomas Chabot, don't you worry.

I miss your avatar. It went so well with your sarcastic posts.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

I mean Karlsson was what 6? 8 years? Hoffman was? 6? Stone was...? We actually have a history of long term contracts with players from ELC. Just saying, stop worrying. So what if we trade them in their prime (jaded bitter laugh).

We haven't gone long term with any RFAs off of their ELCs since Karlsson and Turris 7 years ago.

Since 2013, we have grinded out RFA contracts and bought up very few UFA years. We generally seem to have moved on from most players once RFA years are up.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

My prediction would be a 5 year deal.

It's the shortest deal they can sign that is "long term", and it will keep the money+AAV way down.

7-8 years will cost 8-9 million.

Sounds about right. Does that send him straight to UFA?

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Sounds about right. Does that send him straight to UFA?

Unless I am mistaken, he'll have 4 RFA years left when his ELC concludes. Meaning, a 5 year contract buys up 1 UFA year. He'd be a 28 year old UFA. For him, that would be a nice spot to be in.

The best move for the Senators would be to lock him down as long as possible, but I would be surprised if they'd do it.

 

[Duncstar]

Unless I am mistaken, he'll have 4 RFA years left when his ELC concludes. Meaning, a 5 year contract buys up 1 UFA year. He'd be a 28 year old UFA. For him, that would be a nice spot to be in.

The best move for the Senators would be to lock him down as long as possible, but I would be surprised if they'd do it.

Damn you guys and your knowledge. Facts depress me. Like garbage in the ocean.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think the Senators are going to try to sign Chabot to a max-term extension. I don't have any evidence for this, but it sort of makes sense. It's a bit out of the ordinary for the Senators to be publicly talking about extending an RFA player prior to their contract actually expiring. They didn't do this with Mark Stone - which proved to be a massive blunder - and they didn't do it for Hoffman, Pageau, Ceci, etc. So I think this suggests a level of urgency and/or commitment that we haven't seen in recent years.

I can think of three main drivers for wanting to deal with Chabot's contract in this manner. The first reason - and the Senators would never admit this publicly - is that they are vulnerable to an offer sheet. In fact, I think you can argue that there is no team more vulnerable to losing a key player in this fashion. The second reason is that they need a good PR piece - the organization has to do something to show what remains of the fan base that they really are trying to build something and that the few remaining quality players we have left are willing to be a part of it.

The third reason is a little more nebulous, and it has to do with impending changes to contract term limits when the CBA is re-negotiated in the near future. There's been a lot of noise in the media about how the league and the PA are likely to further reduce max contract lengths to 5 or even 4 years. If this happens it is exceptionally bad news for Ottawa, and all budget teams in general. The success of a budget team relies disproportionately on locking up young core players to contracts that they eventually 'outperform'. We can't pay all our players market value and still put a competitive team on the ice - teams like the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers, Bruins, etc. probably can. So there would be value in locking in our next wave of key players before that option is taken away.

The success or failure of the Senators to extend Chabot is likely going to be the most compelling Senators-related story of the summer.

 

[thinkwild]

I wonder what the effect of max 4 or 5 year contracts would be.

Would there be more NTC’s? I guess there may not be as much angst over giving them out?

Would that lead to more frequent trading at the deadline since more players have contracts coming due each year?

Who benefits more from 5 yr contract limits, small or big spending markets? I’d think big markets as they can now churn through bad contracts faster. What would be the main advantage of 4 yr term limits say for Sens fans? The ability to have Ryan's contract end sooner at the trade-off of having to negotiate with Chabot more frequently? Isn't it big markets more likely to be hamstrung by lots of bad spending? Who is it that wants shorter term contracts exactly I wonder. I cant decide if i like the idea or not.

 

[GrantLemons]

I wonder what the effect of max 4 or 5 year contracts would be.

Would there be more NTC’s? I guess there may not be as much angst over giving them out?

Would that lead to more frequent trading at the deadline since more players have contracts coming due each year?

Who benefits more from 5 yr contract limits, small or big spending markets? I’d think big markets as they can now churn through bad contracts faster. What would be the main advantage of 4 yr term limits say for Sens fans? The ability to have Ryan's contract end sooner at the trade-off of having to negotiate with Chabot more frequently? Isn't it big markets more likely to be hamstrung by lots of bad spending? Who is it that wants shorter term contracts exactly I wonder. I cant decide if i like the idea or not.

Small market teams may be more willing to engage in FA contracts that are only 4 years vs 7-8 due to the total value of the contract being essentially halved.

I'm sure you'd see more player movement. Lucic, for example, if he was signed to a 4 year contract would be entering the final year of his brutal contract for the Oilers this coming season, making him much easier to move. Instead, he's got another three years at his awful price point. He'd almost certainly be moved this offseason if he was expiring.

I'd love to see the NHL adopt versions of the NBA's rules around being able to retain your own players (Bird rights, supermax etc.). The one main issue with the NBA is that while you can offer your own players more $$ with the supermax, you don't get any salary cap relief from it, so teams can retain their superstars, but they're handcuffed with that player taking up 35% of their cap.

Would be cool to see the NHL shorten contract length and get creative with rules like the NBA has.

 

[Sen sational]

Small market teams may be more willing to engage in FA contracts that are only 4 years vs 7-8 due to the total value of the contract being essentially halved.

I'm sure you'd see more player movement. Lucic, for example, if he was signed to a 4 year contract would be entering the final year of his brutal contract for the Oilers this coming season, making him much easier to move. Instead, he's got another three years at his awful price point. He'd almost certainly be moved this offseason if he was expiring.

I'd love to see the NHL adopt versions of the NBA's rules around being able to retain your own players (Bird rights, supermax etc.). The one main issue with the NBA is that while you can offer your own players more $$ with the supermax, you don't get any salary cap relief from it, so teams can retain their superstars, but they're handcuffed with that player taking up 35% of their cap.

Would be cool to see the NHL shorten contract length and get creative with rules like the NBA has.

If the owners were planning to shorten the max lengths of contracts in the next CBA, it might be an incentive for Chabot to sign a longer term deal with Ottawa this year. Personally would like 5 & 6, instead of the current 7& 8.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Where did this 4 or 5 year max contract rumor come from?

Not denying it. I just have never seen it referenced.

I wouldn't mind if they dropped the limit from 7 to 6 for UFAs signing with a new team.

Allow teams to sign players they've owned the rights to for more than 2 seasons to 8 year contracts.

That rewards teams for drafting+developing.

Grandfather in the signing bonuses but otherwise only allow 2 "franchise" players per team at any one time. Franchise players get the buyout proof contracts. Allow teams to be able to trade their franchise designations if they don't use them. At least that way, it minimizes the amount of these contracts able to be handed out at any time and it also gives teams like us an extra asset to peddle in order to hedge against our inability to offer those contracts.

 

[GrantLemons]

Where did this 4 or 5 year max contract rumor come from?

Not denying it. I just have never seen it referenced.

I wouldn't mind if they dropped the limit from 7 to 6 for UFAs signing with a new team.

Allow teams to sign players they've owned the rights to for more than 2 seasons to 8 year contracts.

That rewards teams for drafting+developing.

Grandfather in the signing bonuses but otherwise only allow 2 "franchise" players per team at any one time. Franchise players get the buyout proof contracts. Allow teams to be able to trade their franchise designations if they don't use them. At least that way, it minimizes the amount of these contracts able to be handed out at any time and it also gives teams like us an extra asset to peddle in order to hedge against our inability to offer those contracts.

A few insiders have cited contract length as one of the main points of contention in the next CBA negotiation.

I think the idea would be finding ways to incentivize players to stay with their team, without giving them extra term on their contract. The league doesn't want 8 year deals. They're simply too long with the cap hit persisting throughout.

I'm not sure this is possible though because no one is signing players to the maximum salary, so being able to technically offer more AAV than other teams doesn't apply to the NHL.

I would be a fan of 4 year deals max with the 5th year option available for players signing with their current team.

I also think they should look at capping the max salary for RFA's. This will likely never fly with the PA, but it would help tremendously with teams like the Leafs (and us really soon), in being able to retain their young stars for a few more years before they're eligible for their big payday.

More structure for contracts until players are UFA's would help tremendously. I don't think there should be questions about how many years/AAV Chabot is going to get. It should be "He's x years old, and has x years of service time, therefore he's eligible for x dollars/year and x years on his next contract.

Once players hit UFA, go nuts with offers. The highest bidder wins.

Slightly off topic now, I digress.

 

[thinkwild]

Im not sure we'd really need to cap rfa structure, or try and put it on some sort of fixed scale. They are already constrained by the overall and individual caps so there is a natural, market set structure imposed.

But us getting Karlsson on that long $6mil contract was in effect one of those hometown discounts for a while. If we could only sign Chabot to two 4 yr contracts as opposed to an 8 yr contract, would Chabot end up making more over the 8 years?

I like the ideas of franchise tags for buyout proof contracts and a 2 year disparity in contract lengths if re-signing your own player i think. Hadnt really thought about it exactly.

 

[GrantLemons]

Im not sure we'd really need to cap rfa structure, or try and put it on some sort of fixed scale. They are already constrained by the overall and individual caps so there is a natural, market set structure imposed.

But us getting Karlsson on that long $6mil contract was in effect one of those hometown discounts for a while. If we could only sign Chabot to two 4 yr contracts as opposed to an 8 yr contract, would Chabot end up making more over the 8 years?

I like the ideas of franchise tags for buyout proof contracts and a 2 year disparity in contract lengths if re-signing your own player i think. Hadnt really thought about it exactly.

Except that market is being turned upside down by guys like Matthews and Marner demanding massive bucks right off of their ELC. If that trend continues, it's going to set a precedent, and then all hot shot RFA's will be citing those contracts as comparables and teams won't be able to afford their RFA's.

It's nuts. Imagine we nail our draft picks and get 3 stars this draft, and they all come up for a contract the same year, and are all commanding $10m per season. We'd be f***ed, much like Toronto is.

We should be able to afford to retain those 3 guys for at least one more contract before they hit UFA to extend our contention window and keep the team we drafted together.

 

[Liver King]

Likely won't waive but if we could get that late first or a good prospect to take Perry I'd be all for that

 

[Masked]

Except that market is being turned upside down by guys like Matthews and Marner demanding massive bucks right off of their ELC. If that trend continues, it's going to set a precedent, and then all hot shot RFA's will be citing those contracts as comparables and teams won't be able to afford their RFA's.

It's nuts. Imagine we nail our draft picks and get 3 stars this draft, and they all come up for a contract the same year, and are all commanding $10m per season. We'd be ****ed, much like Toronto is.

We should be able to afford to retain those 3 guys for at least one more contract before they hit UFA to extend our contention window and keep the team we drafted together.

That's what the NHL wanted when they introduced the salary cap and earlier UFA. No team gets too good and players could go where they wanted much earlier in their careers - for the NHL hopefully to the big markets.

 

[JD1]

A few insiders have cited contract length as one of the main points of contention in the next CBA negotiation.

I think the idea would be finding ways to incentivize players to stay with their team, without giving them extra term on their contract. The league doesn't want 8 year deals. They're simply too long with the cap hit persisting throughout.

I'm not sure this is possible though because no one is signing players to the maximum salary, so being able to technically offer more AAV than other teams doesn't apply to the NHL.

I would be a fan of 4 year deals max with the 5th year option available for players signing with their current team.

I also think they should look at capping the max salary for RFA's. This will likely never fly with the PA, but it would help tremendously with teams like the Leafs (and us really soon), in being able to retain their young stars for a few more years before they're eligible for their big payday.

More structure for contracts until players are UFA's would help tremendously. I don't think there should be questions about how many years/AAV Chabot is going to get. It should be "He's x years old, and has x years of service time, therefore he's eligible for x dollars/year and x years on his next contract.

Once players hit UFA, go nuts with offers. The highest bidder wins.

Slightly off topic now, I digress.

I disagree with your point on max values for RFAs. The contract issues in the league relate to over paid / too much term for UFAs.

The GMs are already moving to lock up RFAs long term and trying to move away from big UFA deals. That trend has been going on for a few years.

I'd like to see a cap on UFA term length. 8 years for an RFA. I'm cool with that. But I'm thinking 4 years max for a UFA.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

I disagree with your point on max values for RFAs. The contract issues in the league relate to over paid / too much term for UFAs.

The GMs are already moving to lock up RFAs long term and trying to move away from big UFA deals. That trend has been going on for a few years.

I'd like to see a cap on UFA term length. 8 years for an RFA. I'm cool with that. But I'm thinking 4 years max for a UFA.

A solution might be to impose a cap on the number of "UFA years" allowed in a deal rather than a cap on the number of total years.

For example, maybe there would be a 5 UFA years max in any deal, unlimited term otherwise.

Meaning, if an RFA has 5 RFA years left, they can sign a 10 year deal, 4 RFA years left 9 year deal, 3 RFA years left 8 year deal, 2 RFA years left 7 year deal, 1 RFA year left 6 year deal, 0 RFA years left 5 year max deal.

Remove or severely limit the "signing bonuses", and a 10 year deal for a good young RFA shouldn't be a big issue because teams buying out players under 26 only have to pay them 1/3rd of their remaining money, not the usual 2/3rds. It's the signing bonuses that cause issues because they prevent buyouts.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

A solution might be to impose a cap on the number of "UFA years" allowed in a deal rather than a cap on the number of total years.

For example, maybe there would be a 5 UFA years max in any deal, unlimited term otherwise.

Meaning, if an RFA has 5 RFA years left, they can sign a 10 year deal, 4 RFA years left 9 year deal, 3 RFA years left 8 year deal, 2 RFA years left 7 year deal, 1 RFA year left 6 year deal, 0 RFA years left 5 year max deal.

Remove or severely limit the "signing bonuses", and a 10 year deal for a good young RFA shouldn't be a big issue because teams buying out players under 26 only have to pay them 1/3rd of their remaining money, not the usual 2/3rds. It's the signing bonuses that cause issues because they prevent buyouts.

I doubt the NHLPA gives up years on UFA deals

Agree Signing bonuses. .. should be paid in one year only (first year).. not throughout a contract... that's a loophole imo

 

[JD1]

I doubt the NHLPA gives up years on UFA deals

Agree Signing bonuses. .. should be paid in one year only (first year).. not throughout a contract... that's a loophole imo

idk. ... at that point your negotiating allocation of money, not revenue split. imo limiting the UFA deals is good for the game. be interesting to see how the NHLPA would deal with that kind of request. I think it serves more players in a better way than today and it is better for fans with less dead money taking up cap hit

 

[Crosside]

The Sens re-sign Klimchuk for a 2 way contract for one year

 

[thinkwild]

8 yrs if re-signing, 6 otherwise. Or 8 yrs if RFA and 4 yrs if UFA. Those are both interesting ideas. I wonder what the unintended consequences of each might be. They do seem to help re-signing our own young players up to first ufa contract.

Max 4 year ufa contracts would seem to be appropriate in such a capped league that requires such constant churn to stay under the cap and redistribute players evenly.

For the cap to work as intended, every player needs to be valued properly and then the players are distributed around the league to make all teams equal. Getting a hometown discount is really a cap circumvention. Imagine if Karlsson and Duchene said they are both willing to sign 1 yr $1mil contracts with the leafs. Cap circumvention? I think there should be a CBA rule that allows half the teams to register a joint complaint.

Im not sure if the NHLPA would really put up too much of a fight or not to prevent the max years going from 8 to 4. I guess 8 yrs helps players get more guaranteed and insured earnings. But 4 yrs also allows more frequent UFA contracts for the best players. I don’t think the PA’s decision on which way to lean here is as clear as I thought. The PA also want to ensure the best players get the chance to be paid market value as often as possible. They are an association not a union.

Im just not as convinced yet that 8 yr ufa contracts are a disadvantage for small market fans that we need to find a solution for. It doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to say we can afford 4 years 13mil for Karlsson but not 8 yrs $11 mil. And im thinking in cases like this, players like karlsson negotiating a 4 yr contract are likely to get a higher aav than with an 8 yr one so it could even be worse for us. I