Capology: Is Feaster Doing it Wrong?

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by macrov

wow...so much hate. And this wasn't even a troll thread :P

Ill try and explain my idea a little differently:

I'm trying to see if theres a strategy that allows for the inversion of "add cheap years at the end" (aka Kipper). That strategy would be add "expensive years are the beginning." Which would allow the flames to essentially use cap space today to lower cap hits when they need it.

Example: Suppose we can see the future, and Mike's "true value" of services is

1m in year 1
2m in year 2
3m in year 3

The flames could sign him to three seperate 1y contracts. And the cap hits would be 1m in year 1, 2m in year 2 and 3m in year 3.

But suppose the flames know they will be contenders in year 3, and have cap space to spare in years 1 and 2. The optimal contract becomes: offer the player a 3y contract at 2m per year. The cap hit is higher in year 1 when the cap is not a binding constraint, but lower in year 3 when the cap is a binding constraint.

Perhaps this way is a better way to explain what I am trying to say...but we don't know what backlund's true value will be because of the uncertainty surrounding his development, so you would have to take a risk.

Valid point, they do this in baseball all the time.it works out most of the time. The team over pays for pre arb and arbitration years in which the player has little leverage, and get a discount for a couple years when the player would have been a free agent.

It makes a lot of sense, I would like it if our gm thought outside of the box like this.

[dying4acup]

I think this was the idea milbury and wang kicked up in Long Island 6yrs ago. Lets pay our "potential franchise goalie a low cap hit for 15yrs and hope he grows into it.
Now: we are almost finished paying yashin, time to start dipietro's payout for the next 16.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

It makes a lot of sense, I would like it if our gm thought outside of the box like this.

NHL GMs have been doing that for years. Players get signed to long-term 2nd contracts that take them all the way to UFA or even past it.

[Resolute 14]

People bitch when teams sign players to over-valued deals for excessive term.

People bitch when teams sign players to potentially under-valued deals for reasonable term.

[bubbsy]

this thread doesn't make much sense.

The backlund deal should be applauded. Paying a player for potential AND results is what good GMs do, not potential alone.

no player who believes in their ability would sign a 7 year @ 3 mill/year either....

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

this thread doesn't make much sense.

The backlund deal should be applauded. Paying a player for potential AND results is what good GMs do, not potential alone.

no player who believes in their ability would sign a 7 year @ 3 mill/year either....

So Phanuef ... who was clearly the best defenseman of his generation signed a 6.5 m / year contract on Feb 6, 2008 that would run through to 2013-14

He was taking 6.5 M/ yr when if he improved 5% (or even stayed at the same level) he would win 2-3 Norris trophies within that 6 year span.

He did not believe in his ability?


He took the 7M in the first year and only 5.5M in this last year when if he did as expected he would be would be worth $10M+ the last 2-3 years of the contract.

When he signed the contract there was a believable argument that he might be a better cornerstone franchise player than Crosby or Ovechkin.... no one else entered that sort of discussion.

Turns out Phanuef was correct in taking the money at the time. If the Flames would have done the RFA contracts for 3M each he never would have gotten above 5M. 2.5, 2.5, 3.0 as RFA contracts takes us to when he became a Leaf and a 5M UFA d-man. unless he became an Oiler on an Offer sheet and the Flames get 3 #1 picks.

[ricardodw]

David Moss, as a 25 yr old was well on his way to being the Flames 6-4 210 franchise centre.

He would be in year 6 of his 7 year deal.

[Heavy Jack]

The contract proposed in the original post would have this place up in arms for a long time. You don't pay unproven players money like that. You just don't. Look at the risks of overpaying for proven talent i.e. Richards/Drury/Lecavelier/Redden I could go on and on and on and on... mostly thanks to the Rangers, but still it would be brutal to see Backs locked up for 7 years at 3 mill per knowing nothing on how he's gonna pan out. Feaster signed the perfect contract here, he is doing it right, sign him until he is still a RFA, give him a 750 K raise per year and a 2 year deal to take some pressure off of Backs and now let him go fully develop his game. If all goes well he'll be signing that 5 to 7 year deal two years from now. If it doesn't go well and Backs busts than hey, we don't have to pay him 3 mill per for 5 more years.

[CliffFletcher]

So how do you trade the guys who under-perform their contracts? A lot of these guys won't even be with the Flames in four years. Daft idea.

[liamenator]

I've got it! a 15 year contract!

[madmike]

I'm fine with the current deal. Backlund has shown flashes of the player he could be, but hasn't been consistent enough to merit a long-term deal based on how he could develop (let's also not forget how well that theory worked out in the case of Phaneuf, who seemed a much better risk at the time he signed his RFA deal).

If Backlund can stay healthy and be consistent, then yeah the Flames may regret not making it a longer-term deal. But so far Backlund hasn't shown he can do that.

[return to the red]

Originally Posted by madmike

I'm fine with the current deal. Backlund has shown flashes of the player he could be, but hasn't been consistent enough to merit a long-term deal based on how he could develop (let's also not forget how well that theory worked out in the case of Phaneuf, who seemed a much better risk at the time he signed his RFA deal).

If Backlund can stay healthy and be consistent, then yeah the Flames may regret not making it a longer-term deal. But so far Backlund hasn't shown he can do that.

It's a risk I would be willing to take if I were the Flames. At best he blossoms with the motivation and becomes a 4 million dollar center. If that happens I'm sure the Flames have no problem paying him that money.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Thanks for the clarification, as the original post (and in particular, the title) seems like a troll attempt. Feaster isn't doing it wrong. Hard to find fault for the Backlund signing.
I think your idea is actually similar to what the Islanders were thinking with DiPietro. $4.5 mil a year for a crazy long term might meant that they have a steal of a deal later, when DiPietro is an all-star and the cap is at $90 mil. Didn't work out so well...

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Jake

1) Contracts are reached by bargaining. It is entirely possible that Backlund would not sign a 7 year contract at 3 million per year. Maybe he wanted a short term contract at his current market value in order to allow for the possibility of making far more in 3 years time.

Fair point, but I'd be surprised if Backlund turned it down. $21 million guaranteed is a lot more than the vast majority of NHLers make in their career. There's been quite of few of these types of contracts in the MLB and there's a much less risk of injury there so I don't see why NHL players would be opposed to considering it.

2) Your entire idea depends on the assumption that Backlund develops into a 2nd line centre. It is risky giving a young player like Backlund a 7 year contract, because there is a substantial risk he will not turn out.[/quote]

But as indicated, if he doesn't turn out to be a top 6 player you're only overpaying the guy by likely 0.5 million. Here's a sampling of guys making between 2.5m and 3.0m: Bergenheim, Nystrom, Gordon, Higgins, Brodziak, Kopecky, Ott, Ward, etc. The risk isn't as high as it really seems.

Like it or not, deals like this aren't revolutionary. The MLB uses them all the time and based the recent Hamonic and Josi deals they're creeping into the NHL. The Backlund case is interesting because he has had quite a few injury concerns in the past so it makes the bust potential higher than usual. It's probably not worth the risk for him, but TJ Brodie is definitely a guy that should be seriously considered for this type of contract.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

The contract proposed in the original post would have this place up in arms for a long time. You don't pay unproven players money like that. You just don't. Look at the risks of overpaying for proven talent i.e. Richards/Drury/Lecavelier/Redden I could go on and on and on and on... mostly thanks to the Rangers, but still it would be brutal to see Backs locked up for 7 years at 3 mill per knowing nothing on how he's gonna pan out. Feaster signed the perfect contract here, he is doing it right, sign him until he is still a RFA, give him a 750 K raise per year and a 2 year deal to take some pressure off of Backs and now let him go fully develop his game. If all goes well he'll be signing that 5 to 7 year deal two years from now. If it doesn't go well and Backs busts than hey, we don't have to pay him 3 mill per for 5 more years.

It's hard to compare this to other 7-year contracts because there's also no potential value in signing Richards to a 7-year, 7+ million deal. At best he performs to his salary. That's why those contracts never work out - there's no potential for the guy to outplay his contract, only underplay it. Even if Backlund doesn't pan out the way the Flames want him to, he's still likely worth $3.0m/year or slightly less and it's not going to break the organization.

[Wolven]

I really like the Backlund signing as is.

The only thing I would want to see Feaster do with his extra cap space during the rebuild is offer to take on bad contracts from other teams with them throwing in more prospects / draft picks as payment for hte bad contract.

The player with the bad contract can play, sit in the pressbox or get bought out, it doesn't really matter which one just so long as we get more building blocks to rebuild the team with.

Aside from that, I am happy with how Feaster has treated our RFAs. I am still a bit miffed that Irving didn't pan out but that is on Irving not Feaster.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Wolven

The only thing I would want to see Feaster do with his extra cap space during the rebuild is offer to take on bad contracts from other teams with them throwing in more prospects / draft picks as payment for hte bad contract.

I would like to see this as well but I suspect the number of teams willing to give up prospects or draft picks in order to get rid of high contracts is very few if any. The compliance buy-out kind of ruin that possibility.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

David Moss, as a 25 yr old was well on his way to being the Flames 6-4 210 franchise centre.

He would be in year 6 of his 7 year deal.

According to who? Forwards are well known to be pretty close to their peak at 25.

[cowtown75]

Paying for possible potential is always a bad idea. Handing out long term contracts is also usually a bad idea. You mix those two together and it's probably a bad idea. I like the contract, it's fair and a good term. I know your argument is to save a few bucks down the road, but sometimes paying for what you actually have right now and not hand-cuffing yourself to long term contacts leaving you flexibility to operate is probably a real smart way of going about things.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by SebC

According to who? Forwards are well known to be pretty close to their peak at 25.

I recall he was very good in 2008 before getting hurt. At the time, I think a lot of people saw a bright future for him.