[Signing] Lightning sign Point (3yrs, $6.75 mil AAV)

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

An inevitable result of this shift to larger RFA contracts will be a significant drop in the amount of money that UFAs get. The pool is finite and not all contracts can go up at the same time. Big money used to be reserved for UFAs, but now is being allocated to younger players. Inevitably, UFAs (including these younger players, in a few years' time), just aren't going to get the big deals that were there in the past.

Good. The vast majority of UFA deals have been terrible for last decade or so.

[puckedoff]

This contract puts a lot of pressure on Marner to perform (I know they are not comparable contracts due to term but a lot of people stop reading at AAV).

If he has a slow start he will be instant scapegoat. The dark side of big money deals.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

An inevitable result of this shift to larger RFA contracts will be a significant drop in the amount of money that UFAs get. The pool is finite and not all contracts can go up at the same time. Big money used to be reserved for UFAs, but now is being allocated to younger players. Inevitably, UFAs (including these younger players, in a few years' time), just aren't going to get the big deals that were there in the past.

I think that premium players who are still quite young when the reach UFA will continue to get huge deals. The team will be to be quite confident that the down years in those contracts aren't particularly bad deals.

The same thing is happening in baseball.

The players who are getting 12 year $300M mega deals are those that signed out of high school, made the majors very young, and are getting to UFA very young.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Coach

Good. The vast majority of UFA deals have been terrible for last decade or so.

Yes, because they were typically 30-somethings, in the twilight of their careers. And the best players typically never made it to free agency.

Going forward, we are going to have a bunch of 26 and 27 year olds in free agency. Great players with lots of good years remaining. And they will be looking for the 7-year, $70M (and up) type contracts.

But teams simply won't be able to pay them because their RFAs are eating up the whole cap.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I think that premium players who are still quite young when the reach UFA will continue to get huge deals. The team will be to be quite confident that the down years in those contracts aren't particularly bad deals.

The same thing is happening in baseball.

The players who are getting 12 year $300M mega deals are those that signed out of high school, made the majors very young, and are getting to UFA very young.

Baseball doesn't have a hard cap. There is a finite amount of cash to go around in hockey. If 22 year olds are getting $7, $9 and $11M instead of $2 to $4M, other contracts have to come down.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Baseball doesn't have a hard cap. There is a finite amount of cash to go around in hockey. If 22 year olds are getting $7, $9 and $11M instead of $2 to $4M, other contracts have to come down.

But teams are operating now as if there is a hard cap, as teams don't want to pay the luxury tax. Now I agree there is much more money available in baseball, but premium UFA's will continue to get big bucks.

The money will come, as usual, from the middle class.

[Macho0978]

Treliving has a full year to resign him next time around and Tkachuk still takes on risk signing 1 year contract too. Imo tre biggest mistake was being so cheap last summer. Rumor was tkachuk wanted 7 per on long term deal. That would have been better than this

[Flash Walken]

but if you pay good players lots of money, how will you be able to pay bad players lots of money?

Won't someone please think of the bad players?

[bax]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Treliving has a full year to resign him next time around and Tkachuk still takes on risk signing 1 year contract too. Imo tre biggest mistake was being so cheap last summer. Rumor was tkachuk wanted 7 per on long term deal. That would have been better than this

I don’t remember hearing about this? Are there sources on it?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I agree with this post 100% but only as a theory. In practice, this theory will be defeated by a) fans' pressure to keep any star-status players here forever...

Not just fan pressure. There is a delicate balance to be struck here between gauging precisely the competitive window, and targeting which players from which to recapture assets. A team is simply not going to recycle all of them—that is just unrealistic. From the group of Gaudreau, Monahan, Giordano, Hanifin, Andersson, Backlund, Tkachuk, Lindholm, Valimaki there will be players that the Flames will retain beyond the next three years—as they should. Moreover, the "competitive window" is an idea that is never fixed. Especially in today's NHL it is becoming increasingly difficult to project team makeup and performance beyond a year or two. There is just too much that will change across the NHL landscape over the next three years. The window may be three years, but it might also be five or six. This is something that needs to be re-evaluated every summer. Say, for example, the Flames sign 28-year-old UFA Taylor Hall this summer, and then trade Gaudreau for a valuable package of blue-chip prospects, picks, or another younger impact player. How does that affect the competitive window?

And, b) our drafting record sucks.

Since when? When gauging draft records as a predictor of future outcomes, it makes no sense to draw on results from the distant past. Over the past five years, the Flames have had pretty good success at injecting draft picks into their lineup. I would say that there should be no concerns about drafting into the future if the current group is getting good results.

[Icon]

sweet, now im not worried about drafting Point in my fantasy league

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Treliving has a full year to resign him next time around and Tkachuk still takes on risk signing 1 year contract too. Imo tre biggest mistake was being so cheap last summer. Rumor was tkachuk wanted 7 per on long term deal. That would have been better than this

What??

[Vinny01]

3 years ago this was the long term money handed out to this type of player (Monahan, Gaudreau, MacKinnon, Barkov, Scheifele) times have changed for sure.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

3 years ago this was the long term money handed out to this type of player (Monahan, Gaudreau, MacKinnon, Barkov, Scheifele) times have changed for sure.

The Dubas era.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

But teams are operating now as if there is a hard cap, as teams don't want to pay the luxury tax. Now I agree there is much more money available in baseball, but premium UFA's will continue to get big bucks.

The money will come, as usual, from the middle class.

Except the 'middle class' isn't taking much of the pie now, so there is little to save there. And you need to keep and sign the players you have.

Then faced with budget constraints, the first thing to go are the optional luxury items

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

3 year bridge would be an unmitigated disaster. That gives him arb rights and 1 year from ufa. A smart player would just go to arb sign the one year award regardless of dollars and become a UFA the next year. Flames would have zero leverage. 2 year bridge or 5-8 year deal is all I'd consider from the flames perspective

Getting a player like Tkachuk on a reasonable deal for three years is not a damned disaster, for many reasons.

First of all, we don't know what his real value is. Is he really a consistent 70-80 point player? Too soon to say. If he ends up being a 60 point winger and kind of eases off on the edginess, but gets paid 9M per year for 8 years, THAT'S a disaster.

If he ends up being an 80+ point player for us for less than 7M for three seasons, that's a fantastic situation for us while it lasts. Also, most potential UFA's end up signing for the team they've been playing for. Some even for quite reasonable contracts. They can also get traded for a good haul.

There are upsides and downsides in a three year contract vs a longer contract, and while a longer contract might be better for the team overall, the difference between them is NOT a disaster.

Worrying about potential "disasters" four years down the road is ridiculous anyway. We don't know how things will play out. We don't know where the team is at that point. Maybe we'll win a cup in that window.

If players want to make it to UFA sooner, it's not the end of the damned world. It's their right, and that's just a variable in building a team. Nothing more.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Treliving has a full year to resign him next time around and Tkachuk still takes on risk signing 1 year contract too. Imo tre biggest mistake was being so cheap last summer. Rumor was tkachuk wanted 7 per on long term deal. That would have been better than this

Definitely. For the Flames.

Which is why none of these top RFAs were going to negotiate an extension prior to the conclusion of their entry level contract. Of course every team would have liked to sign them before they put up career seasons.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

but if you pay good players lots of money, how will you be able to pay bad players lots of money?

Won't someone please think of the bad players?

No discussion is complete without a useless, adolescent musing from Flash.

No one was talking about bad players. My point was that I think that the Marners and Points and Tkachuks of the world are probably going to get less when they are UFAs than they currently expect. Because 1) they already got paid, and 2) they changed the landscape on where the money will flow.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No discussion is complete without a useless, adolescent musing from Flash.

No one was talking about bad players. My point was that I think that the Marners and Points and Tkachuks of the world are probably going to get less when they are UFAs than they currently expect. Because 1) they already got paid, and 2) they changed the landscape on where the money will flow.

Maybe, but while the new landscape will have a significant affect on older UFAs, I still think that any top player in his mid-twenties is going to get maximum value.

It's also difficult to imagine the future because of what an outlier this year has been. There has never been a RFA class this good, and I think that has strained the market as much as anything.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

But teams are operating now as if there is a hard cap, as teams don't want to pay the luxury tax. Now I agree there is much more money available in baseball, but premium UFA's will continue to get big bucks.

The money will come, as usual, from the middle class.

Yep that’s the whole point. Even without a hard cap, baseball GM’s have figured out that older free agent’s aren’t good investments.