Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Sure, but the issue isn't really guys being overpaid by a few million at the back end - its the risk of their play falling off so dramatically that they are overpaid by 70%.
Is there a huge difference for a 10M AAV on a player who's 'bad player' market value is 4M in an inflated cap vs. 3M in today's cap?
How much better would the last years of Kessel's 8M or Subban's 9M have looked if the cap go up to 90M?
|
Kessel had one real bad year from a points perspective (first year in Arizona) under that contract.
The other two years he was fine. Year before last he was on pace for 29 goals, 34 assists for 63 points in 82 games. Last year he had 52 points. In today’s NHL someone would still pay 5 million bucks for that production, so he was maybe overpaid by 30-40%.
Sub am just plain ended up sucking, that had little to do with age as he sucked for his 29 year old season.
What if he ends up like Pavelski or Crosby or Ovechkin or Zucharello or Burns or Bergeron?
There is no obvious reason to think Hubredeau will be terrible on the backend of his deal. If one accepts that in a 82 million dollar cap a 50 point guy is worth around 5 million, that is 6% of cap. If Hubredeau signs for 10.5 and the cap goes up to 105 million by the last two years, 6% value of cap is 6.3 million. If every additional 10 points is worth 1.2% of cap, if he scores 70 points a year in the final two years (on the high end of probable) he would be worth about 8.8 million a year. On the current cap, if 70 points is worth 8.4% of cap it would mean a 70 point guy is worth about 6.9 million, which is probably just on the slightly high end of what one would pay for a 70 point guy on the open market. I am not worried about the backend of a Hubredeau deal.