Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

macrov · 07-10-2013, 05:03 PM

Does anyone else think Feaster is going about signing our RFAs the wrong way? Let me explain.

Statement 1: Since Cap Space doesn't carry over from one period to the next, its really use it or lose it.

Statement 2: Players generally follow a projection of development where they improve, reach their apex, and then decline.

Statement 3: The flames are not a contender this year, and won't be so for at least 3 seasons. They are unlikely to be a "spend to the cap" team over this period.

Statement 4: The flames objective should be to build a team that is as strong as contender as possible in 3-4 years time.

So, here's my thought: Sign players in their development phase t to more than they are worth today, but less than they are expected to be worth tomorrow.

Example: Feaster signed Backlund to 2 years at 1.5mln/season.

Is that a good cap hit over the contract period? Yes.
But, are the flames cap constrained? No.
So, how does this help the flames? I have no idea...

Instead, the flames could have made a lengthy commitment to Backlund. Say offer him 7 years @ 3mln per year. So Backlund makes a little more than he would otherwise be making now based on his current numbers and play, but when the flames are a contender, if he develops as expected, he will have a discounted cap-hit.

For example, suppose comparables of Backlunds upside: Bozak at 4.25mln, Bickel @ 4mln, Stafford @ 4mln, Erat @ 4.5, Weiss @ 4.9

If Backlund doesn't pan out, and he transitions into a 3rd line winger, he's probably worth around 2.5mln.

So while the flames would be overpaying backlund for the next 2 years by 1.5mln a year, they don't need the cap space now. And, when the flames are a contender...one of two things will happen:

a) Backlund develops well and the flames get a 4.5mln player for 3mln, saving 1.5mln in cap space
b) Backlund develops poorly and the flames get a 2.5mln player for 3mln, losing 0.5mln in cap space

Basically, because you're overpaying him now, you end up in a situation where you end up paying less for his uncertain services later. Of course, its no sure thing you get option A. But, suppose the probability of A and B are each 50%. If you get A you save 1.5mln and if you get B you lose 0.5mln, so the expected value of this strategy in the sub-period where the flames are contenders is = (0.5)(1.5)+(0.5)(-0.5) = 0.5mln.

Now repeat for Brodie, Horak, Baertchi, and all other players once they're done entry level. If the flames do this with 7 or 8 players, they would end up saving 4mln per year in Cap Space when they're a contender.

That doesn't seem like much, but it could be the difference between having Hossa at 5.25mln or Michal Hanzus at 1mln. Which is often the difference is a playoffs series.

Just a thought.

07-10-2013, 05:03 PM	#1
macrov Lifetime Suspension Join Date: Oct 2010 Exp:	Capology: Is Feaster Doing it Wrong? Does anyone else think Feaster is going about signing our RFAs the wrong way? Let me explain. Statement 1: Since Cap Space doesn't carry over from one period to the next, its really use it or lose it. Statement 2: Players generally follow a projection of development where they improve, reach their apex, and then decline. Statement 3: The flames are not a contender this year, and won't be so for at least 3 seasons. They are unlikely to be a "spend to the cap" team over this period. Statement 4: The flames objective should be to build a team that is as strong as contender as possible in 3-4 years time. So, here's my thought: Sign players in their development phase t to more than they are worth today, but less than they are expected to be worth tomorrow. Example: Feaster signed Backlund to 2 years at 1.5mln/season. Is that a good cap hit over the contract period? Yes. But, are the flames cap constrained? No. So, how does this help the flames? I have no idea... Instead, the flames could have made a lengthy commitment to Backlund. Say offer him 7 years @ 3mln per year. So Backlund makes a little more than he would otherwise be making now based on his current numbers and play, but when the flames are a contender, if he develops as expected, he will have a discounted cap-hit. For example, suppose comparables of Backlunds upside: Bozak at 4.25mln, Bickel @ 4mln, Stafford @ 4mln, Erat @ 4.5, Weiss @ 4.9 If Backlund doesn't pan out, and he transitions into a 3rd line winger, he's probably worth around 2.5mln. So while the flames would be overpaying backlund for the next 2 years by 1.5mln a year, they don't need the cap space now. And, when the flames are a contender...one of two things will happen: a) Backlund develops well and the flames get a 4.5mln player for 3mln, saving 1.5mln in cap space b) Backlund develops poorly and the flames get a 2.5mln player for 3mln, losing 0.5mln in cap space Basically, because you're overpaying him now, you end up in a situation where you end up paying less for his uncertain services later. Of course, its no sure thing you get option A. But, suppose the probability of A and B are each 50%. If you get A you save 1.5mln and if you get B you lose 0.5mln, so the expected value of this strategy in the sub-period where the flames are contenders is = (0.5)(1.5)+(0.5)(-0.5) = 0.5mln. Now repeat for Brodie, Horak, Baertchi, and all other players once they're done entry level. If the flames do this with 7 or 8 players, they would end up saving 4mln per year in Cap Space when they're a contender. That doesn't seem like much, but it could be the difference between having Hossa at 5.25mln or Michal Hanzus at 1mln. Which is often the difference is a playoffs series. Just a thought.