To Sign or Not to Sign

[TurdFerguson]

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.

Spoiler!

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.

Spoiler!

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.

Spoiler!

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.

[Swayze11]

I wish you would just respect the game.

[Knut]

This is why I deal my prospects for guys the help now. You can always flip them back the other way.

Waiting 3 years for a guy to come in and help is not worth it. However, I still think there is no really good way to change it. Other than 2 year ECHL instead of 3.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Hesla

However, I still think there is no really good way to change it.

I like the idea of not penalizing a rating if the player has only played one NHL year.

[Knut]

^ you could move to a 2yr rating system from 3. That would essentially put more emphasis on the current season.

Eg. 60-40 split new season to old.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Hesla

^ you could move to a 2yr rating system from 3. That would essentially put more emphasis on the current season.

Eg. 60-40 split new season to old.

A good idea I think. If the 3 year rating system was preferred though, you could simply go

100% for first year NHL
60-40 for 2nd year
normal split for 3rd year +

This still accounts for the sophomore slump, but lets teams that have a rookie that has an outstanding season take advantage of the rating by signing early. Risk vs Reward becomes an actual decision point.

Ratings would still float a year behind like they do now, but top prospects that play in the NHL could be effective in the CPHL as soon as the next season.

[JiriHrdina]

^I would argue top prospects are effective in the CPHL. But if people are expecting star ratings after 1 year - that's not realistic. You have very few players that based on their 1 year merit such a rating.

As for signing guys or not - what this analysis misses is a couple pieces
- Signing the guy earlier gives you one more year of service since our UFA ages are locked
- If you can add a good player, even 64ish, for a low cap hit - it makes your team better and therefore gives you a better chance to win - which is the point.

I signed Maatta because I needed a better dman and didn't want to give up assets to get one.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

^I would argue top prospects are effective in the CPHL. But if people are expecting star ratings after 1 year - that's not realistic. You have very few players that based on their 1 year merit such a rating.

As for signing guys or not - what this analysis misses is a couple pieces
- Signing the guy earlier gives you one more year of service since our UFA ages are locked
- If you can add a good player, even 64ish, for a low cap hit - it makes your team better and therefore gives you a better chance to win - which is the point.

I signed Maatta because I needed a better dman and didn't want to give up assets to get one.

But you can get UFAs that are in the same range as Maatta for zero cost without giving up those sweet ELC years at the incredible cost of 1.35M.

it's easier to find a replacement for your ECHLer early in their contract, so the claim that you get extra services from your player isn't really applicable for most ECHLers. Mackinnon might be an exception, but he'd be the only one.



I don't think it should be a stretch that we should encourage GMs to sign top prospects that play in the NHL before their 3 year ECHL deal is up.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

But you can get UFAs that are in the same range as Maatta for zero cost without giving up those sweet ELC years at the incredible cost of 1.35M

You can try to - but it is far from a guarantee. Plus at the time I didn't have the cap space to make those kind of offers.
If the decision was sign a UFA for that rating at 1.35 or sign my prospect - sure. That's not the decision point. I had a 59 OVR dman as my #6. So the decision was sign Maatta or give up another asset to fill that lineup hole.

[dsavillian]

Also, the difference between the UFA and RFA contracts for an elite player isn't even that much. So, burning those early ELC years doesn't make a ton of sense from that regard. Especially when the cost to do so is potentially a UFA Grid contract for 2 seasons.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

I don't think it should be a stretch that we should encourage GMs to sign top prospects that play in the NHL before their 3 year ECHL deal is up.

Nor do I - but I'm also not in favor of taking control away from GMs. That's the fun of the game. Again - if I was Goffie, who is trying to win a championship, Mackinnon would be in my lineup today.

Those teams that have quality ECHLers gave up assets to get them, or drafted well. They have the right to manage that asset as they see fit.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Also, the difference between the UFA and RFA contracts for an elite player isn't even that much. So, burning those early ELC years doesn't make a ton of sense from that regard. Especially when the cost to do so is potentially a UFA Grid contract for 2 seasons.

Sure but you are still getting another year of service at a good rating.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Nor do I - but I'm also not in favor of taking control away from GMs. That's the fun of the game. Again - if I was Goffie, who is trying to win a championship, Mackinnon would be in my lineup today.

Those teams that have quality ECHLers gave up assets to get them, or drafted well. They have the right to manage that asset as they see fit.

How would this concept be taking control away from the GMs?

It would be adding additional decision points which would be increasing their control.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Sure but you are still getting another year of service at a good rating.

Good, but replaceable at a cheaper cost than you'll realize when you have to resign that player.



Good debate so far, I've enjoyed this!

I think that if signing ECHLers early was the correct move, or at least a tangible decision point, you would see more ECHLers being signed early.

[Hanna Sniper]

Please don't take this the wrong way as I have a tremendous amount respect for the thought and effort put into your post... far mor then I'm putting into my post

But your numbers are bias and fixed to give you the result you want. You pretty much have a player hitting their max OV (within 2) in the 3rd year of the deal. So basically there is no difference from the 4th to the 10 year vet.

It more has to come down to overpaying a player when your team had an abundance of cap and trying to get the player on a cheaper deal when you assume you are going to be tight.... it has zero to do about how much a player makes in his career but rather how you manipulate how much you pay him and if you can guess his jumps. I was one year of on Varlamov as he had his best season on the last year of his deal.

It was my conclusion before that if you don't signing a ECHl then he will be about to begin his 7 season when you give him when you give him you first RFA contract.... I found that a player is more able to be close to their prime and that deal would be in the 7+'s. My goal was try and sign the player and predicted just before that elite jump and try and have X player on a 5M contract for the 5, 6 and 7th season...

It was more of roster management in relation on what cap you would have available at the time

[Hanna Sniper]

Let me see if I can find some old ratings, might be hard to do because the RFA compensation has also changed but I should be able to have a great example to use and those to decide what would be the better route for their team

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Good, but replaceable at a cheaper cost than you'll realize when you have to resign that player.



Good debate so far, I've enjoyed this!

I think that if signing ECHLers early was the correct move, or at least a tangible decision point, you would see more ECHLers being signed early.

I think a lot of the reasons you don't see ECHL player signed early is because a lot of the teams that have those high quality ECHLers also are pretty stacked at the CPHL level. So Goffie doesn't have as high a need to sign Mackinnon as other teams would.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Please don't take this the wrong way as I have a tremendous amount respect for the thought and effort put into your post... far mor then I'm putting into my post

But your numbers are bias and fixed to give you the result you want. You pretty much have a player hitting their max OV (within 2) in the 3rd year of the deal. So basically there is no difference from the 4th to the 10 year vet.

Yeah this is a good point. I don't know what the typical path is for a player to hit their max rating. A guy like Mackinnon will get their sooner. But a guy like Maata? Not sure.
I also have been looking at college guys (for instance) and signing them early because I know they will be in school 3 years - so I can re-up them at the lowest possible rate most likely for another 3 years.

[Hanna Sniper]

sorry I can't find last years ratings nor find a link to the ratings/standings for last season