GM Meetings: Daly warns GMs about tampering. Considering shorter max term contracts

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

One bad contract has never stopped a team from competing.

I couldn't disagree more. (my entire response isn't directed at you GioForPM by the way - only partly).

I think there definitely are some teams that can have a bad deal on the books and it doesn't affect them as much, but it does effect every single team.

The NHL is basically a competition of who can build the best bang for your buck team, no? That's what it boils down to. Every contract that you sign for market value keeps your team average. Every deal you sign that is below market value helps push your team forward, and every deal that is negative pushes your team backwards. The more 'value' you get overall, the more likely it is that your team moves forward. This is a very simplistic view, and I know that it doesn't account for everything, but this is basically how a cap system works.


Now you look at Calgary's other handicaps besides Huberdeau's deal (will be 38 entering the last year of his deal) and Kadri's deal (will be 39 entering the last year of his deal). Both of these players will be regressing without question. I argue that it is 2 deals, with Kadri's deal POTENTIALLY with it being shorter not affecting the ability of the team to compete - but couple it with Huberdeau's, and it becomes difficult to operate with 17.5 million.

There is an opportunity cost here. Maybe it won't affect re-signing your own players (at least under Kadri's deal), but then again, maybe it will. If there are good UFAs out there that Conroy will want to sign, now he is handicapped. Doubly-hard, actually. There is no way that Calgary can compete by adding another bad deal on the books long-term, so now Conroy has to bat 100%. Conroy simply can't make a misstep now with any deals with term.

Also, Calgary is a team that has to pay the 'Canadian tax', or the 'small market tax', or the 'cold weather tax' - Calgary has to overpay for UFAs - and probably their own players to stay. Recently, even their own top-tier players don't want to stay in Calgary, and many beyond those two only wanted to stay if they got overpaid. Winning will help to change that, as will a new arena, but Calgary will be a 'has not' team in terms of attracting and retaining top-talent, and will have to overpay more than underpay.

I think these bad deals are going to be a bigger issue than most realize. I also think they are deals that will be difficult to make 'go away'. I don't see a reason that the NHL would once again create a compliance buyout either as many people are hoping - the compliance buyouts came amid cap and revenue restructuring. I guess if there is a big change in that area, we may see teams being given compliance buyouts again, but it doesn't look like it is trending that way.

A team like New York that has a long list of players wanting to play there and willing to take a bit less to do so won't be as impacted by a bad deal. Ditto for a team like Florida that operates in a much lower tax bracket, has warm weather, and is winning - they can absorb a couple of bad deals because they sign players for under market.

-----------------------------------

As for suggestions for the upcoming CBA:

1) Tax Adjustment: One of the rules I would like the NHL to adjust in terms of the cap is adjusting for tax. Players are more concerned with how much they pocket, so Florida has a substantial advantage as they give players lower money deals than other locations. I think the cap should adjust for this advantage from location to location, and set an overall average cap, but have an individual team cap, if that makes sense. I think it is more of a tweak than a major revision, but the intent of the cap was to make it as fair as possible, so why not take this step?

2) Compliance Buyouts: I would also like to see a team have compliance buyouts that they can use once every 5 years, or every 7 years. At least this way, a team isn't stuck forever. I would also like to see the ability of the buyout being traded as well - will give an advantage to small market teams that can't afford to buyout a player, so a richer team will have to spend assets to gain an extra buyout window. It really sucks when your team is 'stuck' because one bad GM or one bad decision, or simply one instance of bad luck derailing a player's career happened.

3) Playoff LTIR 'loophole': Perhaps instituting a cap during the playoffs would be of some benefit. I think it should exclude the 'black aces' from the cap, and I think teams should still get an unlimited number of recalls in the playoffs. Perhaps increase the cap by 10% for the playoffs and treat it like the off-season? If a player says he is hurt and can't play, no amount of doctors paid by the NHL can argue with that prognosis. Imagine if the NHL-appointed doctors say that a player is fine, and that player ends up having to play and suffers a severe health-issue related to the injury that the doctors weren't able to pinpoint? You can't make someone play if the player says he is hurt, so the NHL will have to go find a fix in a different direction. They do have to implement something even if you are a person that believes that this hasn't been taken advantage of yet. I think the perception that some teams are taking advantage of this is enough of a reason to fix it.

[lazypucker]

The easiet way to solve the playoff LTIR loophole is to have the AAV for the game day roster to be under the cap for every game. If you want to park a Kucherov or Mark Stone in LTIR during the regular season, go ahead. Once the playoff starts, you have to drop some big-salary player (a Stamkos or an Eichel) on the game day lineup if you want to fit your Kucherov or Mark Stone in under the cap...

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

The easiet way to solve the playoff LTIR loophole is to have the AAV for the game day roster to be under the cap for every game. If you want to park a Kucherov or Mark Stone in LTIR during the regular season, go ahead. Once the playoff starts, you have to drop some big-salary player (a Stamkos or an Eichel) on the game day lineup if you want to fit your Kucherov or Mark Stone in under the cap...

This is probably the best option.

another potential solution would be if a player is on LTIR for any of the final 10 games of the regular season, that player cannot be activated until after your team has played 7 playoff games, or upon season end if that players team is eliminated. (note this is just for LTIR not IR)

It would make it much riskier if you had to make it out of the first round to LTIR someone for cap savings.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I couldn't disagree more. (my entire response isn't directed at you GioForPM by the way - only partly).

I think there definitely are some teams that can have a bad deal on the books and it doesn't affect them as much, but it does effect every single team.

The NHL is basically a competition of who can build the best bang for your buck team, no? That's what it boils down to. Every contract that you sign for market value keeps your team average. Every deal you sign that is below market value helps push your team forward, and every deal that is negative pushes your team backwards. The more 'value' you get overall, the more likely it is that your team moves forward. This is a very simplistic view, and I know that it doesn't account for everything, but this is basically how a cap system works.


Now you look at Calgary's other handicaps besides Huberdeau's deal (will be 38 entering the last year of his deal) and Kadri's deal (will be 39 entering the last year of his deal). Both of these players will be regressing without question. I argue that it is 2 deals, with Kadri's deal POTENTIALLY with it being shorter not affecting the ability of the team to compete - but couple it with Huberdeau's, and it becomes difficult to operate with 17.5 million.

There is an opportunity cost here. Maybe it won't affect re-signing your own players (at least under Kadri's deal), but then again, maybe it will. If there are good UFAs out there that Conroy will want to sign, now he is handicapped. Doubly-hard, actually. There is no way that Calgary can compete by adding another bad deal on the books long-term, so now Conroy has to bat 100%. Conroy simply can't make a misstep now with any deals with term.

Also, Calgary is a team that has to pay the 'Canadian tax', or the 'small market tax', or the 'cold weather tax' - Calgary has to overpay for UFAs - and probably their own players to stay. Recently, even their own top-tier players don't want to stay in Calgary, and many beyond those two only wanted to stay if they got overpaid. Winning will help to change that, as will a new arena, but Calgary will be a 'has not' team in terms of attracting and retaining top-talent, and will have to overpay more than underpay.

I think these bad deals are going to be a bigger issue than most realize. I also think they are deals that will be difficult to make 'go away'. I don't see a reason that the NHL would once again create a compliance buyout either as many people are hoping - the compliance buyouts came amid cap and revenue restructuring. I guess if there is a big change in that area, we may see teams being given compliance buyouts again, but it doesn't look like it is trending that way.

A team like New York that has a long list of players wanting to play there and willing to take a bit less to do so won't be as impacted by a bad deal. Ditto for a team like Florida that operates in a much lower tax bracket, has warm weather, and is winning - they can absorb a couple of bad deals because they sign players for under market.

-----------------------------------

As for suggestions for the upcoming CBA:

1) Tax Adjustment: One of the rules I would like the NHL to adjust in terms of the cap is adjusting for tax. Players are more concerned with how much they pocket, so Florida has a substantial advantage as they give players lower money deals than other locations. I think the cap should adjust for this advantage from location to location, and set an overall average cap, but have an individual team cap, if that makes sense. I think it is more of a tweak than a major revision, but the intent of the cap was to make it as fair as possible, so why not take this step?

2) Compliance Buyouts: I would also like to see a team have compliance buyouts that they can use once every 5 years, or every 7 years. At least this way, a team isn't stuck forever. I would also like to see the ability of the buyout being traded as well - will give an advantage to small market teams that can't afford to buyout a player, so a richer team will have to spend assets to gain an extra buyout window. It really sucks when your team is 'stuck' because one bad GM or one bad decision, or simply one instance of bad luck derailing a player's career happened.

3) Playoff LTIR 'loophole': Perhaps instituting a cap during the playoffs would be of some benefit. I think it should exclude the 'black aces' from the cap, and I think teams should still get an unlimited number of recalls in the playoffs. Perhaps increase the cap by 10% for the playoffs and treat it like the off-season? If a player says he is hurt and can't play, no amount of doctors paid by the NHL can argue with that prognosis. Imagine if the NHL-appointed doctors say that a player is fine, and that player ends up having to play and suffers a severe health-issue related to the injury that the doctors weren't able to pinpoint? You can't make someone play if the player says he is hurt, so the NHL will have to go find a fix in a different direction. They do have to implement something even if you are a person that believes that this hasn't been taken advantage of yet. I think the perception that some teams are taking advantage of this is enough of a reason to fix it.

I agree with your suggestions. But your initial paragraph doesn't disprove my point at all. It actually supports it. It's Huberdeau's contract PLUS other factors which could hurt. And, as has been pointed out, many team compete with a bad contract or two on the books, if they do other things right.

[Jason14h]

NHL GM's have already figure out long contracts to old players is bad

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/contract...ength/dir/desc

Last year the only contracts over 5 years given out to 30 + year old players were

Hellebuyck (30 - 7 years)
Scheifele (30 - 7 Years)
Montour ( 30 - 7 Years)
Skjei (30 -7 years)
Stephenson (30 - 7 years)
Tanev (34 - 6 years)

And that's only 4 teams in the NHL giving out those 6 deals. Winnipeg needing to keep their two stars, Seattle trying to make an impact with loads of cap room, and Nashville.

Then there's the only one really sticks out and it's by the same dope who signed Huberdeau. Basically there is one super idiotic GM making the most horrible signings

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Is a GM who cares more about the next 5 years than about years 6-8 necessarily bad at their job?

The NHL is cyclical. Teams rarely win the big prize without pushing all their chips in at some point. Signing a player to a contract that you know will be ugly in 6 years might be the smart thing to do if it means icing the best roster possible at the top of the cycle.

I get going for it when a team has a Stanley Cup window but some of those teams have shown they don't want to pay the price after. The Kings had that weird thing with Mike Richards where they managed to void his deal. The Hawks used the skin condition thing to get out of Hossa's cap hit. The Oilers got rid of Smith's last year are trying to rid themselves of Kane's contract. A lot of these organizations that care more about the next 5 years have shown that they simply don't want to pay the price for it after. If the league fixed the LTIR nonsense then maybe teams would be less willing hand out these long term contracts to 30 year old players. Heck it's a running joke already that Chris Tanev will likely spend the last few years of his contract on LTIR and that's very likely going to happen.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I get going for it when a team has a Stanley Cup window but some of those teams have shown they don't want to pay the price after. The Kings had that weird thing with Mike Richards where they managed to void his deal. The Hawks used the skin condition thing to get out of Hossa's cap hit. The Oilers got rid of Smith's last year are trying to rid themselves of Kane's contract. A lot of these organizations that care more about the next 5 years have shown that they simply don't want to pay the price for it after. If the league fixed the LTIR nonsense then maybe teams would be less willing hand out these long term contracts to 30 year old players. Heck it's a running joke already that Chris Tanev will likely spend the last few years of his contract on LTIR and that's very likely going to happen.

Dont forget Duncan Keith.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

NHL GM's have already figure out long contracts to old players is bad

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/contract...ength/dir/desc

Last year the only contracts over 5 years given out to 30 + year old players were

Hellebuyck (30 - 7 years)
Scheifele (30 - 7 Years)
Montour ( 30 - 7 Years)
Skjei (30 -7 years)
Stephenson (30 - 7 years)
Tanev (34 - 6 years)

And that's only 4 teams in the NHL giving out those 6 deals. Winnipeg needing to keep their two stars, Seattle trying to make an impact with loads of cap room, and Nashville.

Then there's the only one really sticks out and it's by the same dope who signed Huberdeau. Basically there is one super idiotic GM making the most horrible signings

That list isn’t really accurate, or at very least doesn’t tell the whole story.

Carolina signed Slavin to an 8 year that starts at 30, for example, and Colorado signed Toews to a 7 year that starts at 29 (which fits into signing a 30 year old for >5 years).

Just to name a couple.

Guys like Lindholm, Verhaege, Reinhart, Mayfield, Guentzel, Miller, and Theodore should probably all be included, as they were all signed to longer term contracts (over 5 years) over the last year and a bit that take them past 35.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Long contracts only hurt the fans of GM's signing BAD 8 year deals.

You think the Oilers with Connor and Drais were thinking they were hurt locking them up longer at cheaper deals?

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/contracts

Here is the list of guys signed to 8 year deals (A few players that are on older/pre change rules still this year)

Lots of stinkers but also lots of great deals.

So it is only an issue when you sign the WRONG player(s) to these types of deals.

I am sure Flames fans would love us to get McKenna in 2026 and see him leave for LA or NY or Vegas at Age 26 in his prime after 8 years (5+3)

If anything they should just allow a buyout every 3 years with no cap charge if people are worried about anchor contracts. You could even allow these to be traded!

Star players will always be able to force GMs to give them the max contract length. The issue gets even worse for less desirable markets, so the 8 years contracts also hurt league parity.

Max length in the NBA is 5 years. The NHL should absolutely decrease max length to 6 years. Give teams the option to buyout the last 2 years of existing 8 year contracts or at least 1 immediate buyout.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

NHL GM's have already figure out long contracts to old players is bad

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/contract...ength/dir/desc

Last year the only contracts over 5 years given out to 30 + year old players were

Hellebuyck (30 - 7 years)
Scheifele (30 - 7 Years)
Montour ( 30 - 7 Years)
Skjei (30 -7 years)
Stephenson (30 - 7 years)
Tanev (34 - 6 years)

And that's only 4 teams in the NHL giving out those 6 deals. Winnipeg needing to keep their two stars, Seattle trying to make an impact with loads of cap room, and Nashville.

Then there's the only one really sticks out and it's by the same dope who signed Huberdeau. Basically there is one super idiotic GM making the most horrible signings

All GMs know that giving an 8 year contract to a 30 year old is bad. They are just forced to do it, or the guy walks.

And your list is way short. What about Draisaitl for example?

[Robbob]

What about a compliance buyout costing the team their first round pick. That way the other teams in league benefits with their pick going up. The player gets the pay day. In a way it would be similar punishment for cap circumvention that the league never uses. At least this way they aren't beating around the bush.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well, they could help themselves, and they do try to make deals that aren’t stupid, but in reality these deals offer a competitive advantage so they don’t really have a choice if they actually want to compete for good players.

Ok... so if signing those deals give them a competitive advantage on the whole then they're good deals and they shouldn't want to get rid of them. By the same token if they determine that signing those deals won't be a competitive advantage then they should just not sign them let one of their competitors make the mistake and let that mistake be their competitive advantage.

This is just a case of a bunch of grown men wanting their lollipop now, Now, NOW! The league and the union shouldn't have to get involved to save them from their own poor decision-making and lack of patience.

NHL CEO's and PoHO's... for the love of god just hire better/smarter people.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

One bad contract has never stopped a team from competing.

See Dallas

Also as the cap goes up the contract becomes less of an anchor

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Robbob

What about a compliance buyout costing the team their first round pick. That way the other teams in league benefits with their pick going up. The player gets the pay day. In a way it would be similar punishment for cap circumvention that the league never uses. At least this way they aren't beating around the bush.

Actually this is a good idea

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Robbob

What about a compliance buyout costing the team their first round pick. That way the other teams in league benefits with their pick going up. The player gets the pay day. In a way it would be similar punishment for cap circumvention that the league never uses. At least this way they aren't beating around the bush.

I scale probably would work for something like that, kind of like RFA offer sheets.

Has to be your own pick and in upcoming draft.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The problem is that there's 32 GM's and it only takes very small handful to ruin it for everyone. Given that a lot of GM's in this league aren't very good at their job it's one of those things where the league needs needs to protect itself from poorly run or desperate organizations.

I wouldn't even point to how good they are their jobs.

What's the average tenure? 5 years? 8?

The nature of the business makes them more short term in focus which leads to long term expensive deals that will expire when they have likely moved on.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I wouldn't even point to how good they are their jobs.

What's the average tenure? 5 years? 8?

The nature of the business makes them more short term in focus which leads to long term expensive deals that will expire when they have likely moved on.

Don't most owners have the bless long term or big money deals?

It goes back to what I said earlier. The league shouldn't have to protect these dopes from themselves. Salary floor is X, salary cap is Y.

Go nuts.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Robbob

What about a compliance buyout costing the team their first round pick. That way the other teams in league benefits with their pick going up. The player gets the pay day. In a way it would be similar punishment for cap circumvention that the league never uses. At least this way they aren't beating around the bush.

That kind of unfairly punishes teams that are doing bad. A lot of the teams doing poorly are also the teams that have been most pressured into signing these bad 8 year deals, as they don't have the ability to draw in star players without the big contracts.

If you're the NYR you give away a late first and use your new cap space to sign more star players from other teams. If you're a lesser team, this doesn't help you much, as you aren't giving up your top 10 pick to get out of a bad contract.

Even with the Flames, they shouldn't be giving up their pick now. Maybe you give teams the ability to keep the buyout in the bank, until you are good?

[saillias]

Calling every GM dumb because they hand out 8 year contracts is so reductive. Yeah you're right, there's no smart GM who just thought of telling the agent for his star player about to hit UFA "oh no we're the smart team we do 5 max." Should take seconds to think what happens next. It is absolutely a CBA issue, not a problem of individual competence or intelligence

[Eric Vail]

Why would players agree to giving up 8 year contracts? They'd have to be given something significant to give that up. 8 year contracts get players paid and they get the stability of living in the same city for their family for the second half of their careers.