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

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Can you be more clear about what you don’t understand?

Yeah.

Markstrom left the Flames. Their goaltending got better
If he made Devils better, then they got better

No other team was impacted

Who exactly got worse?

Being a GM isn’t a zero sum game

[FleeceGang]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ohtani’s 10 year contract, for 70 Million dollars, started at 29 and takes him to 39.

Ohtani's contract is actually really interesting and arguably amazing management ... Yes on paper it is a 10y/$70mil but he actually has $680mil of it differed. His salary for each of the 10 years he is on the team is $2mil so that the Dodgers spend money now to surround him with more talent and presumably win 9 more World Series. Then, once his contract expires, he gets paid out $35mil a year for the following 20 years until he is 58. It's technically a 30 year contract!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Yeah.

Markstrom left the Flames. Their goaltending got better
If he made Devils better, then they got better

No other team was impacted

Who exactly got worse?

Being a GM isn’t a zero sum game

Every other team was impacted. Better and worse is measured in wins and losses. If the Flames and the Devils both got better, that came at the expense of other teams getting worse. A team can make absolutely no moves and get worse just as a result of other teams improving. Because every win is another team’s loss.

But again, this is about signing free agents, so the trade thing muddles it a bit.

If the Devils have a star free agent that they refuse to pay up for, another team will sign that free agent. That team gets better, the Devils get worse.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FleeceGang

Ohtani's contract is actually really interesting and arguably amazing management ... Yes on paper it is a 10y/$70mil but he actually has $680mil of it differed. His salary for each of the 10 years he is on the team is $2mil so that the Dodgers spend money now to surround him with more talent and presumably win 9 more World Series. Then, once his contract expires, he gets paid out $35mil a year for the following 20 years until he is 58. It's technically a 30 year contract!

It’s a great contract (and as you pointed out, really interestingly structured) and it has immediately paid off for LA. Super smart management, despite some people looking down on them I guess for signing a 29 year old to a 10 year contract.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Every other team was impacted. Better and worse is measured in wins and losses. If the Flames and the Devils both got better, that came at the expense of other teams getting worse. A team can make absolutely no moves and get worse just as a result of other teams improving. Because every win is another team’s loss.

But again, this is about signing free agents, so the trade thing muddles it a bit.

If the Devils have a star free agent that they refuse to pay up for, another team will sign that free agent. That team gets better, the Devils get worse.

Well, if we are going that way, thanks to 3 point games, maybe not

There aren’t a fixed amount of points available anymore

[Coach]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Every other team was impacted. Better and worse is measured in wins and losses. If the Flames and the Devils both got better, that came at the expense of other teams getting worse. A team can make absolutely no moves and get worse just as a result of other teams improving. Because every win is another team’s loss.

But again, this is about signing free agents, so the trade thing muddles it a bit.

If the Devils have a star free agent that they refuse to pay up for, another team will sign that free agent. That team gets better, the Devils get worse.

Maybe, but those events don't happen in a vacuum. Lots of examples of UFAs tanking after signing big deals. There's nothing to say that tank happens if they sign with team X vs team Y. Lots factors at play there including line mates, personal city preference, current life, etc.. And, in a cap world, NOT signing a player to a long term, big money contract potentially opens room for players who wouldn't otherwise have seen ice time to thrive and maybe you didn't end up needing that player after all, and now you have 4-6M extra cap space to boot.

Huberdeau is a good example. Technically a free agent that the Flames had rights to. Given his past performance and market conditions, he probably earned the contract he got. If it wasn't the Flames, someone would have paid him that. Would it have been a regrettable deal for every team that would have potentially made that deal if not for the Flames? Who knows. But his performance was such that it didn't make the signing team better than the team he left. The team he left was free to use that potential cap space on other players which ultimately netted them a Cup.

[Strange Brew]

Signing Ohtani is “super smart management”? Yeah a bunch of geniuses there signing the best player in the game. Why aren’t we calling the Angels geniuses for signing him first?

The only genius is the tax guy that helped Ohtani save on CA state taxes, the Dodgers are setting aside the money the same as if Ohtani got the PV of his contract paid out annually.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Coach

Maybe, but those events don't happen in a vacuum. Lots of examples of UFAs tanking after signing big deals. There's nothing to say that tank happens if they sign with team X vs team Y. Lots factors at play there including line mates, personal city preference, current life, etc.. And, in a cap world, NOT signing a player to a long term, big money contract potentially opens room for players who wouldn't otherwise have seen ice time to thrive and maybe you didn't end up needing that player after all, and now you have 4-6M extra cap space to boot.

Huberdeau is a good example. Technically a free agent that the Flames had rights to. Given his past performance and market conditions, he probably earned the contract he got. If it wasn't the Flames, someone would have paid him that. Would it have been a regrettable deal for every team that would have potentially made that deal if not for the Flames? Who knows. But his performance was such that it didn't make the signing team better than the team he left. The team he left was free to use that potential cap space on other players which ultimately netted them a Cup.

For sure, there is always risk and nothing is guaranteed.

That said, a team that refuses to sign any star player beyond 5 years when everyone else is willing to go higher is going to lose out on more stars than duds they manage to avoid.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Signing Ohtani is “super smart management”? Yeah a bunch of geniuses there signing the best player in the game. Why aren’t we calling the Angels geniuses for signing him first?

The only genius is the tax guy that helped Ohtani save on CA state taxes, the Dodgers are setting aside the money the same as if Ohtani got the PV of his contract paid out annually.

No. The Dodgers have to set aside at least 46 million per year starting in 2026.

The structure of the deal also helps reduce how much counts against the CBT.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Well, if we are going that way, thanks to 3 point games, maybe not

There aren’t a fixed amount of points available anymore

It’s still a win or a loss. And once teams get to the playoffs, that’s all there is.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s still a win or a loss. And once teams get to the playoffs, that’s all there is.

No, some losses are worth one point and some are worth zero

You are trying to make a ridiculously improvable case that this is a zero sum game

It’s not that simple

[Jay Random]

More to the point, every GM goes into every trade thinking that particular deal is a positive-sum game for the teams involved. If you don't think it will improve your team in the time frame that you're most concerned about, you don't make the trade.

The Flames traded Markstrom because they didn't need him as much as they needed a big body on D and a first-round pick. The Devils traded Bahl and the first because they didn't need those assets as much as they needed a starting goalie. Wolf filled the hole on the Flames, and other players in the Devils' system filled their hole on D.


Every voluntary trade is made by people who believe it makes them better off, on both sides.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

No, some losses are worth one point and some are worth zero

You are trying to make a ridiculously improvable case that this is a zero sum game

It’s not that simple

No, you’re just missing a simple point so you’re pretending it’s ridiculous to save face.

Every year there are 32 teams that rank from 1st to 32nd. For any team to go up in ranking, a team has to go down.

Not everyone can be first. It doesn’t matter if first place gets 100 points or 150 points. 1st is still first and last is still last.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Every voluntary trade is made by people who believe it makes them better off, on both sides.

This is true, and has already been explained, if it does turn out that way it means at least two other teams got worse. But this point has nothing to with trades anyway.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, you’re just missing a simple point so you’re pretending it’s ridiculous to save face.

Every year there are 32 teams that rank from 1st to 32nd. For any team to go up in ranking, a team has to go down.

Not everyone can be first. It doesn’t matter if first place gets 100 points or 150 points. 1st is still first and last is still last.



This is true, and has already been explained, if it does turn out that way it means at least two other teams got worse. But this point has nothing to with trades anyway.

Nah. If you want to go so deep in the weeds to make your point you may as well stop

A team ranks in the standings by points, relative to other teams

So a team could improve by 1 point and therefore get better by one metric but be one place lower in the standings and worse by that metric

So a team can get better and worse at the same time, never mind this zero sum game nonsense

This is silly. I shall have no further remarks

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Nah. If you want to go so deep in the weeds to make your point you may as well stop

A team ranks in the standings by points, relative to other teams

So a team could improve by 1 point and therefore get better by one metric but be one place lower in the standings and worse by that metric

So a team can get better and worse at the same time, never mind this zero sum game nonsense

This is silly. I shall have no further remarks

That’s an absurd way to look at it. It’s good you’re stopping.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That’s an absurd way to look at it. It’s good you’re stopping.

Haha. Second worst

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Haha. Second worst

You just said a team that gains a point is automatically better than it was. So a team that has played 10 games with one OTL point is, in your mind, better than it was 10 games ago.

That’s absurd.

I don’t know why you’re pretending my point is “deep in the weeds” because standings are too complex for you.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You just said a team that gains a point is automatically better than it was. So a team that has played 10 games with one OTL point is, in your mind, better than it was 10 games ago.

That’s absurd.

I don’t know why you’re pretending my point is “deep in the weeds” because standings are too complex for you.

Haha. Sorry it is too complex for you to understand that a term like better can be used with different metrics.

Absurd?

You are funny

Dig up

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Haha. Sorry it is too complex for you to understand that a term like better can be used with different metrics.

Absurd?

You are funny

Dig up

Apparently, it can even mean worse!

lol

[PaperBagger'14]

[PepsiFree]

I’m the chimp with the bigger knife.