Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason14h
The saved cap space from the longer deal was already used for a new player though, and earlier.
So the Flames paid LESS total cap space over the life of the deal.
Since they spend to the cap every year, they actually got a better deal by buying out then frontloading the same amount of money.
|
You're not
saving cap space, you're
delaying it. Peter-to-pay-paul type of deal.
Pay your players what they're worth. If they're worth it, you'll win. If they're not, they leave and you retool.
Quote:
|
If they had paid Brouwer more money up front on a shorter deal (same total $$ over life) they would have had less cap in those first 2 years which was used on other talent.
|
If they had paid Brouwer more money up front on a shorter deal, they would have been rid of a bad contract, possibly without even buying it out. But in the specific case of Brouwer, you're talking about a guy who was a poor signing the day of, as his analytics were awful. I remember thinking Brouwer at ~3M x 3Y at the time was poor value for the level of player he was, and then we signed him to that albatross.
Quote:
|
On a team spending to the cap every year, you never want a shorter, higher cap hit contact. Teams literally do the exact opposite, and it's for a reason
|
that reason is because UFAs decide their destination.
True,
before the rules changed, teams gamed the system by signing their stars to Hossa / Ovechkin type deals, but that's a different story, you're talking about stars signed for their entire prime, and then some dead cap space during ostensible rebuild years. With a signing like Markstrom, you're talking about a few more prime years, and then a few years where you expect to still compete, but don't know if the player will still be able to deliver on his contract.
There's a reason that Tre, Burke, etc have constantly said "Term is the killer".
because Term is the killer.