Betamax*
Guest
This is a side discussion extracted from the current thread ...
Confirmed with Link: [VAN/CAR] Zac Dalpe and Jeremy Welsh for Kellan Tochkin and 4th
I felt it would probably be better to create a separate thread, rather than derail that topic ...
From that thread:
Still, front loading doesn't really yield the AAV savings advantages you could structure under the previous CBA as witnessed by the Bobby Lu and Ehrhoff deals past since teams can't stretch the contracts to double digit years and add "throwaway" years when the player is "expected" to retire.
Not really, it peaks in the middle years: in year 3 and 4.
I understand the concept of the time value of money. But the way the Edler contract was structured at least to me does not really give a definitive conclusion that the primary motivation was to save money in the short run i.e. to penny pinch.
I think it was done to a large degree for the possibility of moving Edler not later in his contract as you suggest ... but earlier as it was widely speculated that Edler was on the possible trading block this off-season before his NTC kicked in and even after, with various rumors being floated around (including Carolina's 2013 1st round pick) and most recently, Botchford on TEAM Radio's Rintoul show, yesterday (Sept. 30/2013), mentioned that there was discussion with the Red Wings about a possible deal involving Brendan Smith and a 1st round pick for Edler.
So it seems to me that the Edler deal was constructed to make it more palatable and easier for the Canucks to move Edler if they decided to actually pull the trigger and make a more significant change when it came to "resetting" the team by changing pieces from their core rather than standing pat like they have chosen to do for now.
As for your final point about front loading deals to lower the overall AAV ... like I said, the new CBA limits total contract lengths to a max of eight years (if signing own players) and seven if UFA or RFA offer sheet, therefore, a Bobby Lu or Ehrhoff type deals under the old CBA, aren't possible with new CBA with salary variance on contracts from year to year can be no more than 35% and in no year can be less than 50% of the highest year.
Now given the limits of the agreed six year deal and the new rules of the CBA I don't think there would be much of a savings in AAV even if you front-loaded the deal to the max under those provisions and kept the overall value of the deal of 30M. Someone else is welcome to do the actual calculations if they have nothing else better do to ...
Therefore, I don't think the Edler contract signing is a good indicator on the Canucks shifting from being one of the upper echelon, "RICH" teams committed to spend to the max or near it as per the current rules permit for the goals of #WINNING!!!
I believe they are still using their current economic strengths of being one of profitable teams in the NHL and using this advantage over other franchises to re-invest it back onto their on-ice product and not just pocketing it.
However, I believe that this is an area that should be monitored as I get the sense that Canucks branding and interest has tapered from its peak in 2011 and it's not as easy a sell as it once was when it comes to attendance (note the relatively soft demand for Playoffs tickets in 2013 versus a few years earlier) and it will be interesting to see if we do see the Canucks being more "thrifty" when it comes to spending if they aren't as profitable as they have been, moving forward.
Recently, they have shown a willingness to spend and re-invest on their future on-ice product when they decided to purchase a minor league team so they have more direct control on the player personnel on the team.
Confirmed with Link: [VAN/CAR] Zac Dalpe and Jeremy Welsh for Kellan Tochkin and 4th
I felt it would probably be better to create a separate thread, rather than derail that topic ...
From that thread:
Probably what I like most about this trade was that the Canucks were willing to eat Welsh's contract in the minors.
They weren't willing to spend that kind of money earlier in the summer. Unlike in previous years, they weren't adding to their depth by handing one way contracts to players expected to play on the farm team. And were cheaping out in other ways. For instance, they back-loaded Edler's new contract. If they'd front-loaded it instead, they'd likely have gotten the cap hit down a bit.
Methinks that Francesco's divorce getting settled might have taken pressure off of the Canucks' finances. Hopefully we'll see a return to the team spending whatever necessary to gain an edge again.
Uh, actually with the new CBA and elimination of Bobby Lu/Ehrhoff length type contracts where there were "throwaway" retirement years that you can drop the salary down to a low level, you can't really take advantage of front load contracts to make the significant differences that you have in the past since the year to year drop has had limits place upon them and the max and min difference has been limited. As for the structure of Edler's deal:
http://capgeek.com/player/664
In the first four years, a portion of his salary is paid upfront in the form of signing bonuses.
Actually, you can still front load contracts, just not to the extent in the past. Look no further than the contract Kessel signed this morning.
Still, front loading doesn't really yield the AAV savings advantages you could structure under the previous CBA as witnessed by the Bobby Lu and Ehrhoff deals past since teams can't stretch the contracts to double digit years and add "throwaway" years when the player is "expected" to retire.
The signing bonuses on Edler's contract are besides the point. The dollar value of his contract peaks towards the end of the deal. That's why it's backloaded.
Not really, it peaks in the middle years: in year 3 and 4.
Generally speaking, it's more valuable for players to have their contracts front loaded. They can invest their earnings earlier. It also makes it easier to trade a player later in his contract if his salary is lower than his cap hit. The fact that the Canucks did not do this indicates they were trying to save money in the short term.
I understand the concept of the time value of money. But the way the Edler contract was structured at least to me does not really give a definitive conclusion that the primary motivation was to save money in the short run i.e. to penny pinch.
I think it was done to a large degree for the possibility of moving Edler not later in his contract as you suggest ... but earlier as it was widely speculated that Edler was on the possible trading block this off-season before his NTC kicked in and even after, with various rumors being floated around (including Carolina's 2013 1st round pick) and most recently, Botchford on TEAM Radio's Rintoul show, yesterday (Sept. 30/2013), mentioned that there was discussion with the Red Wings about a possible deal involving Brendan Smith and a 1st round pick for Edler.
So it seems to me that the Edler deal was constructed to make it more palatable and easier for the Canucks to move Edler if they decided to actually pull the trigger and make a more significant change when it came to "resetting" the team by changing pieces from their core rather than standing pat like they have chosen to do for now.
As for your final point about front loading deals to lower the overall AAV ... like I said, the new CBA limits total contract lengths to a max of eight years (if signing own players) and seven if UFA or RFA offer sheet, therefore, a Bobby Lu or Ehrhoff type deals under the old CBA, aren't possible with new CBA with salary variance on contracts from year to year can be no more than 35% and in no year can be less than 50% of the highest year.
Now given the limits of the agreed six year deal and the new rules of the CBA I don't think there would be much of a savings in AAV even if you front-loaded the deal to the max under those provisions and kept the overall value of the deal of 30M. Someone else is welcome to do the actual calculations if they have nothing else better do to ...
Therefore, I don't think the Edler contract signing is a good indicator on the Canucks shifting from being one of the upper echelon, "RICH" teams committed to spend to the max or near it as per the current rules permit for the goals of #WINNING!!!
I believe they are still using their current economic strengths of being one of profitable teams in the NHL and using this advantage over other franchises to re-invest it back onto their on-ice product and not just pocketing it.
However, I believe that this is an area that should be monitored as I get the sense that Canucks branding and interest has tapered from its peak in 2011 and it's not as easy a sell as it once was when it comes to attendance (note the relatively soft demand for Playoffs tickets in 2013 versus a few years earlier) and it will be interesting to see if we do see the Canucks being more "thrifty" when it comes to spending if they aren't as profitable as they have been, moving forward.
Recently, they have shown a willingness to spend and re-invest on their future on-ice product when they decided to purchase a minor league team so they have more direct control on the player personnel on the team.
