[Signing] Ottawa signs Jake Sanderson ( 8 x $8.05M )

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Weird examples. Nurse in 2018 would have been $5-5.5 million with 3 years left as of today, and Jones did sign a fairly big contract coming out of his entry level deal $5.4 over 6 years. If they went $6 million over 8 he'd be in the last year of his deal. Both would be looking good.

Tyler Myers is a good example of a guy that looked like he was going to be a perennial 40 point D-man who fell off after signing a big second contract. Even still the Sabres were able to get value for him in trade. His big contract to the Canucks in his late 20s is the most regrettable deal there.

The third contract or signing a guy long term at 27+ seems to be by far the more risky route when it comes to contracts.

They aren’t weird examples. The point is that neither Jones nor Nurse are worth the contracts they’re on right now, and having signed those same contracts 5+ years earlier would not have made a difference as at no point have they ever been worth these contracts.

So, signing a young guy to a big dollar, max term contract when he isn’t yet worth what you signed him isn’t any less risky. Like Nurse and Jones, he might never be.

[Jbo]

The NHL needs contracts like the NFL. Only give guaranteed money to the best of the best and keep guys fighting to perform…

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I remember not being a fan of the Gaudreau deal because Treliving didn’t secure the 8 years. Had it been for $8M or $8.5M that would have been worth it at the time and great value (we would still have him for another year).

Tree loved that 6 year term. Gaudreau, Hamilton, Lindholm, Hanifin, Andersson. (Also UFA’s Backlund, Giordano, Coleman)

Monahan was the longest term deal until the 8 year deals for Huberdeau and Weegar were signed.

I definitely think they should have tried to max out the term for a few of our young guys and while it is a risk for Ottawa I do think it will pay off for them

8.5 would have been seen as a big overpay. He was getting comped at tarasenko's contract which was 7.5 x 8. Maybe they had to give him 8 mil, but that would have been a steep price. The team had a mind numbingly stupid you can't make more than the captain policy and it cost them 2 years of Gaudreau.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

They aren’t weird examples. The point is that neither Jones nor Nurse are worth the contracts they’re on right now, and having signed those same contracts 5+ years earlier would not have made a difference as at no point have they ever been worth these contracts.

So, signing a young guy to a big dollar, max term contract when he isn’t yet worth what you signed him isn’t any less risky. Like Nurse and Jones, he might never be.

Yeah but Jones and Nurse wouldn't have been signed to $9+ million per year 5 years ago. Subban made $9 and Webber made $7.8 million. That was the top.

Jones signed for 6 years at the end of his entry level deal for $5.4. To get another 2 years might have made it $6 million. He would be going into the last year of that deal if it happened.

Nurse and Jones would have been two contracts that would have turned out well if they were signed to 8 year contracts coming out of their entry level deals.

Sanderson will be the 18th highest paid defenceman next year. In 16/17 when Jones' entry level deal was up the 18th highest paid defenceman was $5.75 million.

It is a lot easier to find 8 year contracts signed by guys in their late 20s that turned out badly than it is to find contracts signed by guys aged 21-22 that did the same. Seems like a no brainer that while both contracts carry risk, the ones to the older players carry more.

[jeffman]

He’s already better than nurse imo

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Major Major

8.5 would have been seen as a big overpay. He was getting comped at tarasenko's contract which was 7.5 x 8. Maybe they had to give him 8 mil, but that would have been a steep price. The team had a mind numbingly stupid you can't make more than the captain policy and it cost them 2 years of Gaudreau.

He finished 6th in league scoring and was one of the most dynamic players for team North America at the World Cup. I think it would have been an acceptable deal. Some may have said overpay but I don’t think it would have been a universal take.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jeffman

He’s already better than nurse imo

Nurse is a shockingly poor defenseman.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

He finished 6th in league scoring and was one of the most dynamic players for team North America at the World Cup. I think it would have been an acceptable deal. Some may have said overpay but I don’t think it would have been a universal take.

A certain segment of fans call every new deal an overpay. Due to inflation newer deals will always be relatively more than that deal signed 4 years ago.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Ottawa already signed a contract like this and bought the player out before he turned 25 - Colin White.

Awful take. That was a 6 year contract, so not sure what linkage you are trying to create.

You seem to be a genius after the fact as opposed to making good calls on players and contracts.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

It is a lot easier to find 8 year contracts signed by guys in their late 20s that turned out badly than it is to find contracts signed by guys aged 21-22 that did the same. Seems like a no brainer that while both contracts carry risk, the ones to the older players carry more.

As has already been explained, that’s just a product of guys in their late 20s being offered 8 year deals about 100x more often than guys who are 21-22, and usually when it’s guys that are 21-22, it’s because they’re already elite.

If Jones and Nurse signed contracts that ranked in the same place they rank today (5th and 7th highest) 5 years ago, they would both be making $7.5M-$8M and they would both still be overpaid today, just like they would’ve been 5 years ago. If their contracts kicked in a year later like Sanderson’s does, they’d be making even more and would look even more overpaid. Sanderson will also be the 14th highest paid defenceman next year, not the 18th. 4 years ago (5 years before Sanderson’s deal kicks in), the 14th highest paid defenceman was making $7M…

So, what are you even talking about?

[albertGQ]

Originally Posted by fotze2

Met Jake at Westside Rec many years ago when he was Bantam AA. My bud played with his dad. He was pretty much accepting he wasn't gonna be that good and was resigned to go to school. So insane how he has become so good. Genetics probably didn't hurt but he was not vectoring to be this.

Your bud played for the Whalers?

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

As has already been explained, that’s just a product of guys in their late 20s being offered 8 year deals about 100x more often than guys who are 21-22, and usually when it’s guys that are 21-22, it’s because they’re already elite.

If Jones and Nurse signed contracts that ranked in the same place they rank today (5th and 7th highest) 5 years ago, they would both be making $7.5M-$8M and they would both still be overpaid today,?

No one would have offered them those contracts coming out of entry level deals though.

In most cases the 8 year deal is to get a guy on a rising trajectory locked in. Like Brady Tkachuk who looked overpaid until last season.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Awful take. That was a 6 year contract, so not sure what linkage you are trying to create.

You seem to be a genius after the fact as opposed to making good calls on players and contracts.

So it should have been an 8 year contract and that’s a better comparable?

The risk here is that it’s a guy with only one year of NHL. They obviously liked what they saw, but it’s certainly not unheard of for rookies to look great and then plateau or get worse.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

So it should have been an 8 year contract and that’s a better comparable?

The risk here is that it’s a guy with only one year of NHL. They obviously liked what they saw, but it’s certainly not unheard of for rookies to look great and then plateau or get worse.

Contracts are always a risk. The far riskier proposition historically is to give longterm deals to guys who were really good in their 20’s who are either about to enter or already are in their 30’s. Those contracts disproportionately do not work out.

The Sens have signed Stutzle, Sanderson, Tkachuk, Norris, Chabot, Batherson to long term deals.

Stutzle has 8 years left at 8.35 million and is coming off a 90 point season as a 21 year old. That contract looks like it may work out.

Tkachuk has 5 years left at 8.2 million. He is coming off a 83 point season as a 23 year old. That one looks like it may work out.

Batherson has 4 years left at basically 5 million. 62 points last season as a 24 year old and a point a game pace the year before that until he got injured. That contract looks like it may work out.

Chabot has 5 years left at 8 million. Since he signed the contract he has been beset by injury problems. Despite that fact he has produced at a 51 point pace per 82 games in the first 3 years of that contract. Jury is out on that one but right now it is the only one that they are not getting great returns on.

jury still out on Norris and Sanderson.

If one did a similar analysis of any set of 4 contracts for guys over 30 longterm after the first 1-4 seasons after they were signed the productivity would not even be close. The younger guys always outperform their contracts at a higher rate than the older guys.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

No one would have offered them those contracts coming out of entry level deals though.

In most cases the 8 year deal is to get a guy on a rising trajectory locked in. Like Brady Tkachuk who looked overpaid until last season.

…Correct, you don’t even have to say “no one would have,” because no one did, and it would have been a mistake to do so because they would have underperformed the contract, which is the point.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Contracts are always a risk. The far riskier proposition historically is to give longterm deals to guys who were really good in their 20’s who are either about to enter or already are in their 30’s. Those contracts disproportionately do not work out.

The Sens have signed Stutzle, Sanderson, Tkachuk, Norris, Chabot, Batherson to long term deals.

Stutzle has 8 years left at 8.35 million and is coming off a 90 point season as a 21 year old. That contract looks like it may work out.

Tkachuk has 5 years left at 8.2 million. He is coming off a 83 point season as a 23 year old. That one looks like it may work out.

Batherson has 4 years left at basically 5 million. 62 points last season as a 24 year old and a point a game pace the year before that until he got injured. That contract looks like it may work out.

Chabot has 5 years left at 8 million. Since he signed the contract he has been beset by injury problems. Despite that fact he has produced at a 51 point pace per 82 games in the first 3 years of that contract. Jury is out on that one but right now it is the only one that they are not getting great returns on.

jury still out on Norris and Sanderson.

If one did a similar analysis of any set of 4 contracts for guys over 30 longterm after the first 1-4 seasons after they were signed the productivity would not even be close. The younger guys always outperform their contracts at a higher rate than the older guys.

Of course it’s always a risk. But all the other examples you gave had more than one NHL season under their belts, IIRC. Sanderson has one (a very good year).

But yes, this is probably the way small market teams have to operate, risky or not.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Of course it’s always a risk. But all the other examples you gave had more than one NHL season under their belts, IIRC. Sanderson has one (a very good year).

But yes, this is probably the way small market teams have to operate, risky or not.

It is far riskier to sign players entering their 30’s to longterm contracts. So while there is a risk if you sign young players to longterm contracts, it is the safer option vis-a-vis signing older players to longterm contracts.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

It is far riskier to sign players entering their 30’s to longterm contracts. So while there is a risk if you sign young players to longterm contracts, it is the safer option vis-a-vis signing older players to longterm contracts.

I'm not comparing the two. Why do think it's either/or?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I remember not being a fan of the Gaudreau deal because Treliving didn’t secure the 8 years. Had it been for $8M or $8.5M that would have been worth it at the time and great value (we would still have him for another year).

Originally Posted by Major Major

8.5 would have been seen as a big overpay. He was getting comped at tarasenko's contract which was 7.5 x 8. Maybe they had to give him 8 mil, but that would have been a steep price. The team had a mind numbingly stupid you can't make more than the captain policy and it cost them 2 years of Gaudreau.

Why would Johnny sign a contract that makes him UFA at age 31?

Maybe he'd do it after his rookie year like Sanderson is doing here, but I'd suggest there is a lot less risk for a defensemen to hit their UFA deal at age 30 than a winger to do it at 31...

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm not comparing the two. Why do think it's either/or?

Ya it's the wrong comparison here. The only relevant question is whether it's worth an extra million or 2 in AAV to buy an extra year or two of service.

For a team that hasn't even hit the first level-up milestone (playoffs) and isn't an obvious UFA destination it's probably a reasonable choice, but it certainly isn't an objectively better choice. And as it takes 2 parties to sign a contract, 8 years isn't always even really an available choice.