Capology: Is Feaster Doing it Wrong?

[macrov]

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.

[Vinny01]

Backlund has done nothing to prove he is worth a long term deal. What about that horrible contract for Olez that Chi bought out. Paid him on potential and it turned awful. Feaster did the right thing with Backlund. Let's see if he stays hungry and healthy before committing 7 years to him.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Just a thought.

First of all, that is more than "just a thought", that's a thesis paper.

I don't think it's good to set a precedent that you're willing to pay too much for a player given their performance, or offer too long a contract. That's what got us in this mess in the first place. Besides, Backlund could be a bust to the point where he's replaceable on the NHL roster with another prospect (I don't see that happening, but it is possible). If you sign him for too long then all of a sudden you're "burying" his contract in the minors. No, IMO Feaster is doing just fine.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Stop making threads.

[dammage79]

Don't think Feaster is doing it wrong at all. Gives them ample room going forward to use assets to acquire top tier players when the time comes. also ample room to sign some of their prospects coming off of ELC's to better deal. I love the cap freedom they have.

[bluck]

Backlund on a 7 year deal? Yeah no thanks... if he doesn't pan out do you think he is a bottom 6 player because I don't. I would rather dump him after 2 years and put that 2.5 or whatever salary to a player who is better at a bottom 6 role. If Backs proves he is a top 6 forward then by all means I have no issue in paying him like a 4.5 million dollar player. The risk isn't worth the gamble to save the cap space IMO

[Lil Pedro]

How does it help the Flames? They sign their potential second line centre to a great deal cap wise and get to resign him while he is still an RFA.

Feaster couldn't have done this any better

[Cheese]

Maybe just maybe Backlund only wanted a 2 year deal to prove himself? Why in hell would he sign a long term cheap contract?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by macrov

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.

Money is good. A buck saved now makes it more likely that Murray will let Feaster spend extra sometime else. It's not like he has 65M in a room for the Flames to spend to the cap and when the season is over he burns whatever is remaining.

And as much as I like Backlund, offering 21M to a player with 61 points? Have fun negotiation with Monahan and Baertschi then.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Stop making threads.

You don't have to read it, and you especially don't have to post crap like that. Macrov can post whatever he likes as long as it isn't offensive or trolling.

I get really sick and tired of elitist posters on websites...find something better to do with your time.

[ah123]

A player on a short-term contract is usually more attractive if you need to trade the player. A short term contract also keeps the player motivated a bit more; think of Bourque and his 6 year deal.

[ricardodw]

Third line wingers are worth about 1M not 2.5M

On Chicago (SC Champs) the 7th highest paid winger Saad 894k.... LA #7 Toffolli 870K,

If Chicago gets a 3rd line player for 3.0 M then they couldn't afford Hossa.

On Edmonton #7 Boyd Gordon @3M and #8 Smyth @ 2.25

You should never pay more than what a guy is worth.... If Backlund scores 50 goals in 2 years and is locked in at 3M for another 5 years he will be unhappy.

[return to the red]

Must be nice to live in a fantasy world where you don't have financial responsibility.

It's not about having the cap room or being able to offer x player x amount of money. Teams have internal budgets and it could be that ownership doesn't want to spend the money in a publicly stated rebuild

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

You don't have to read it, and you especially don't have to post crap like that. Macrov can post whatever he likes as long as it isn't offensive or trolling.

I get really sick and tired of elitist posters on websites...find something better to do with your time.

It is offensive to me. Just like his Iggy/Alfie one was. Sorry for not clearing my reply with the hive mind for approval ahead of time.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Maybe just maybe Backlund only wanted a 2 year deal to prove himself? Why in hell would he sign a long term cheap contract?

21 M no matter what happens....... I'll take that?

Even if he plays so poorly that he gets bought out he still gets most of the 21M.


If things go bad (injuries or doesn't like his role/coach/teammates) he could do a Tanguay and stop trying..... he gets paid the same anyway.

[Robbob]

That is when you get into "cap jail" when you start over paying players on the 3rd and 4th lines. I see nothing wrong with the way he is going about things. If Backlund after this contract proves to be a 3-4 million dollar player then that means he is contributing and will be worth it.

Beyond that there is a pecking order. The last thing you want is a player using a bad contract as a comparable.

[Buff]

I wouldn't overpay, just because you can spend to the cap ceiling, doesn't mean it is a good idea to do so. At some point the owners are going to question why they are throwing so much money on a team that doesn't have a chance at the playoffs. Practice fiscal responsibility now so that you don't run into unforeseen fiscal problems in 3 or 4 years.

[gargamel]

It would have been foolish to sign Backlund to anything more than a 3 year deal due to his history of injuries, but a 3 year deal would have made him an unrestricted free agent at the end of his contract, so the 2 year deal that he's getting is ideal for the team. This is a great contract for the Flames.

[cannon7]

This contract makes perfect sense.

1) Backlund is looking to prove himself, so he'd be looking for a short-term deal at a reasonable rate so that if he has a breakout season he can cash in.

2) The Flames wantto see how Backlund progresses and when the two-year contract is up they still have him as an RFA. If they'd signed too long a contract they'd both be locked in and be looking at a UFA when it ends.

Just because we have the cap space doesn't mean we should be abusing it. We still have a number of other RFAs to sign, not to mention three sizeable ELCs that we just drafted.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

It is offensive to me. Just like his Iggy/Alfie one was. Sorry for not clearing my reply with the hive mind for approval ahead of time.

its just the internet. don't take things so personally.

The OP's suggestion was as big of a risk when Regehr signed that 5 year, $10M contract. Massive steal at the end. Worthy discussion if you want to participate. If you don't...... don't feel so insulted.