So a couple posters posted in the other thread advocating for signing players early. Stating that there were longer term efficiencies in later contracts. My gut reaction is that was there is no way it makes sense to sign top level players early and that the concept of a “bridge” contract doesn’t exist in our league, except for average players. So…I decided to run a couple scenarios to test my gut. Here is how it breaks down.
The premise:
When is the best time to sign a projected All-Star, Good Player, Average Player. What is the cost of getting this wrong?
Assumptions:
1. -Rating progression, we can argue how players progress in my scenarios but I needed to put a stake in the ground somewhere.
2. -After a player’s ELC is over, that player always received a 3 year RFA grid in my examples. This should allow for the best long-term savings. Aft3er this contract, all contracts are 1 year RFA deals.
***Spoiler tags for large image. sorry.
Scenario 1 findings:
- Signing a potential all-star early makes no sense. It costs you large dollars in their first RFA contract and those dollars are never reclaimed in later contracts. A bridge efficiency doesn’t exist.
Scenario 2 findings:
- Signing a potential good player still makes no sense. It costs you meaningful dollars in their first RFA contract and those dollars are never reclaimed in later contracts. A bridge efficiency doesn’t exist.
Scenario 3 findings:
- Signing a potential average player does make sense. The cost of accessing the ratings early is largely insignificant as you do reclaim most of those dollars over time. It would seem a “bridge contract” exists here.
Overall take away
Sign your scrubs and average players early but don’t touch anyone with good-great upside, that is a short sighted decision that only makes sense for ratings now – long-term you get no benefit from the player being a good to elite kid.