Bad Contracts

[kyuss275]

I noticed that all the "bad contracts" listed so far seem to be the 8+ year contracts. There are a lot of "bad contracts" in the 4-5 year range. I think Doans new contract is "bad". If Iggy re-signs with Calgary it would probably be on my "bad contract" list. Can't see him signing for anything less than Doan and probably more like $6 million a year.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by JonDuke

Can't believe nobody has mentioned this cat yet:
http://capgeek.com/player/817

Probably because his contract isn't actually that bad. Especially with the way his offense has increased this year.

If his contract was as bad as some fans thought (or perhaps still think it is) then he wouldn't have the trade value that a lot of media think he has.

If he was overpaid it was by about the same amount that most UFA's are overpaid by.

[Mister Yamoto]

I don't understand the Sarich contract. Don't get me wrong, I like Sarich and I don't agree with him being a healthy scratch. But he was a 6/7 on the Flames last season and was extended 2 years 4 million. Scott Hannan was usually top 4, never a healthy scratch and signed with Nashville 1 year 1 million. Whats' up with that?

[Buster]

Can we game the buyout rule for this season?

Trade for a horrible contract, and some prospects/picks, then buyout the player?

Calgary doesn't have an obvious buyout candidate now that Stajan doesn't suck.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

I don't understand the Sarich contract. Don't get me wrong, I like Sarich and I don't agree with him being a healthy scratch. But he was a 6/7 on the Flames last season and was extended 2 years 4 million. Scott Hannan was usually top 4, never a healthy scratch and signed with Nashville 1 year 1 million. Whats' up with that?

I hear ya. I thought we were done with paying Sarich millions to be a 6/7 d-man after last season but alas, I was wrong.

[Jake]

Just to seal the deal the Flames gave Sarich a NTC too.... not that he is tradable anyway at that salary.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Jake

Just to seal the deal the Flames gave Sarich a NTC too.... not that he is tradable anyway at that salary.

Not that it's excusable, the Flames brass basically insured that any contract we sign would have to come with an NTC with their clear lack of direction. Anyone signing here knows that this thing could go south any minute and ownership might wake up in fires ale mode once they come to their sense. Any free agent would be kicking themselves if months after having some choice of destinations the Flames ended up shipping them out to a spot they don't want to play.

Flames lack of ability to recognize the situation they have been in has not only caused us to spin in circles for the past couple of years, its also prolonged the pain by having to dish out NTCs to rediculous players like Sarich and Babchuck. Even low end players know this place is looney tunes and demand NTCs just in case management wakes up one day and realizes they suck.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Does anyone seriously believe that Sarich or Babchuk would refuse to waive their NMC/NTC if we were going to trade them somewhere they'd play?

Hockey players don't like the press box. A player isn't going to refuse to be traded out of a city where they are scratching him almost every night. Babchuk's ability to sign future contracts in this league revolves around showing that he can play in this league. Which he cannot do from the press box.

So if their NMC/NTC are pretty much irrelevant to moving them then why then are people whining about them as if they are a huge detriment? Babchuk and Sarich's NMC/NTC are really inconsequential at this point. I think they'd LOVE to be moved, not refuse to be moved.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Does anyone seriously believe that Sarich or Babchuk would refuse to waive their NMC/NTC if we were going to trade them somewhere they'd play?

Hockey players don't like the press box. A player isn't going to refuse to be traded out of a city where they are scratching him almost every night. Babchuk's ability to sign future contracts in this league revolves around showing that he can play in this league. Which he cannot do from the press box.

So if their NMC/NTC are pretty much irrelevant to moving them then why then are people whining about them as if they are a huge detriment? Babchuk and Sarich's NMC/NTC are really inconsequential at this point. I think they'd LOVE to be moved, not refuse to be moved.

I do think they'd refuse some locations yes. Bottom line they both were well aware that Calgary could wake up at any moment and go on a complete fire sale, and they were both well aware that they are the types of players that could get traded to poorly managed teams willing to take on contracts to fill rosters, teams likely both of them chose to avoid as free agents, which is why the Flames stupid lack of acknowledging reality forces us to give 6/7/8 d men NTCs. Outside of it being embarrassing, it likely prevents us from dumping just anywhere that might take them. It's totally lame.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

So if their NMC/NTC are pretty much irrelevant to moving them then why then are people whining about them as if they are a huge detriment? Babchuk and Sarich's NMC/NTC are really inconsequential at this point. I think they'd LOVE to be moved, not refuse to be moved.

Because I just don't see why they needed to give players like Sarich NTC's in the first place. You could very well be right, it may not matter in the end, but that doesn't answer my question. When the contract was signed presumably Flames management thought Sarich was going to play, given the salary they offered him. At the time, there was no way to predict the current situation with Sarich... so given that, why did they give him the NTC?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Jake

Because I just don't see why they needed to give players like Sarich NTC's in the first place. You could very well be right, it may not matter in the end, but that doesn't answer my question. When the contract was signed presumably Flames management thought Sarich was going to play, given the salary they offered him. At the time, there was no way to predict the current situation with Sarich... so given that, why did they give him the NTC?

Well I'd argue you could easily predict it since Sutter scratched Sarich quite regularly at times as well.

I think they gave him the NMC because he likes the city and didn't want to be moved on a whim. He showed loyalty to the Flames so they showed some loyalty in response.

I'll ask you, why not give him the NMC? We've moved players with NTC/NMC's clauses in the past (Regehr for example), we'll move them again in the future. If a player can't crack our roster they'd probably like to move on.

I'll ask another question, which players have had NMC/NTC that have really bitten us in the butt? I'd say Jokinen because it would've been sweet to move him last trade deadline but I'm not convinced management would've moved him anyways.

I think fans make way too much of the NMC/NTC. I don't think it hinders Feaster as much as many fans make it out to be. I think the players who can't crack our roster would waive their NMC/NTC in an instant to go play somewhere else in the NHL.

If you wanna look on the bright side at least Babchuk's contract is expiring this summer. And Sarich now makes only 2 million instead of 3.6. Sarich at 3.6 million with a lower cap hit was a bad contract, now his contract is a minor annoyance. And Sarich's NMC does expire at the end of this calendar year.

Babchuk's crappiness hinders our ability to trade him more than the NTC does. I thought his expired before the trade deadline?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

I don't understand the Sarich contract. Don't get me wrong, I like Sarich and I don't agree with him being a healthy scratch. But he was a 6/7 on the Flames last season and was extended 2 years 4 million. Scott Hannan was usually top 4, never a healthy scratch and signed with Nashville 1 year 1 million. Whats' up with that?

Hannan was awful here last year. Sarich has been good year in and year out, given the job he has been asked to do, but Feaster lets coaches coach.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well I'd argue you could easily predict it since Sutter scratched Sarich quite regularly at times as well.

I think they gave him the NMC because he likes the city and didn't want to be moved on a whim. He showed loyalty to the Flames so they showed some loyalty in response.

I'll ask you, why not give him the NMC? We've moved players with NTC/NMC's clauses in the past (Regehr for example), we'll move them again in the future. If a player can't crack our roster they'd probably like to move on.

I'll ask another question, which players have had NMC/NTC that have really bitten us in the butt? I'd say Jokinen because it would've been sweet to move him last trade deadline but I'm not convinced management would've moved him anyways.

I think fans make way too much of the NMC/NTC. I don't think it hinders Feaster as much as many fans make it out to be. I think the players who can't crack our roster would waive their NMC/NTC in an instant to go play somewhere else in the NHL.

If you wanna look on the bright side at least Babchuk's contract is expiring this summer. And Sarich now makes only 2 million instead of 3.6. Sarich at 3.6 million with a lower cap hit was a bad contract, now his contract is a minor annoyance. And Sarich's NMC does expire at the end of this calendar year.

Babchuk's crappiness hinders our ability to trade him more than the NTC does. I thought his expired before the trade deadline?

I would think a $4 million dollar/2 year contract offer was enough to show loyalty. On the FA market it doesn't look like he would have gotten half that.

Why not give him a NTC? Well in case he uses it to limit the teams he could be traded to. It reduces roster flexibility and is designed to give the player a veto-power. What is the point of giving that to a #6-8 defenseman?

You are right, it doesn't seem like NTC's have hurt the team much in the past, but we really can't know for sure. Players probably do use it to at least limit the teams they can be traded to and that may reduce the potential return on the player and could even prevent a trade.

The NTC is a minor annoyance. At this point, it doesn't matter. Who would take Sarich anyway? I'm not making a big deal out of it, but I just don't see the reasoning behind it. I disagree about the $2 million cap hit. While it represents a small portion of the salary cap, it is money that would be better spent elsewhere. The Flames could easily have found a player for 1/4 the price to do what Sarich does (sit in the press box).

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I'll ask another question, which players have had NMC/NTC that have really bitten us in the butt? I'd say Jokinen because it would've been sweet to move him last trade deadline but I'm not convinced management would've moved him anyways.

To which team though? The last time Jokinen was traded, the return was brutal and cost Calgary a pick to unload Kotalik.

[calgarywinning]

Somehow I think the Sarich contract is so crazy too. I think they wanted to just put him in a dark office for 8 hours a day and then when he was done say thank you for your services today your time is done here. He even openly said "trade me" last year.

[mister__big]

Shawn Horcoff has to be right up there. $5.5m per year for a guy who's a glorified 3rd liner, I'll never understand why the Oilers felt obligated to pay him and not Ryan Smith.

Ovechkin has been bad as well, but I think that has to do with his impending marriage. His play might pick up once the knot's tied and he's less distracted. Tyler Myers has the potential to rebound strongly as well.

In 2 years when Shane Doan's 38, his contract will look absolutely awful. Maybe the Coyotes are counting on him retiring by then.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Hannan was awful here last year. Sarich has been good year in and year out, given the job he has been asked to do, but Feaster lets coaches coach.

Hannan wasn't awful. Gio was much worse.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Buster

Can we game the buyout rule for this season?

Trade for a horrible contract, and some prospects/picks, then buyout the player?

Calgary doesn't have an obvious buyout candidate now that Stajan doesn't suck.

In theory, sure. I don't believe there's an actual rule preventing something like that although the NHLPA might not be too thrilled with anything too blatant.

In actuality though, the Flames management isn't too keen on throwing away money. Even when the team was in a much better position then they are now they forced Feaster to move out Kotalik with a negative value instead of burying his contract in the AHL another year.

Recently the Sabres under Pegula have shown some tendency to trade "cash" for value like they were willing to do with Kotalik before he made his way back home. The Leafs had similar thinking a couple years back when they "bought" a pick from the Lightning by taking Kolzig off their hands. And the Rangers are the Rangers. But each of those teams have their own problems.

The Rangers already have bought out Redden, they're out of the playoffs as is and have only 10M cap space to sign several players next year. And not just minor players but guys like Stepan, Hagelin and McDonagh.

The Leafs have just put Komisarek in the AHL to let him play and he is the obvious buyout next year. But Grabovski is making 6M a year right now with a cap hit of 5.5M until 2017. With Kadri really breaking out if they decide to keep Bozak they're going to have to address Grabovski one way or another. And his play this year isn't doing them any favours.

The Sabres have several overpaid players because Pegula gave the a-okay to spend but they're a terrible team with not much cap left. They have to re-sign Hodgson as well as replace Leopold and Regehr. Leino's hurt now but 25 points last season in 71 games is unacceptable for a player making 6M. His cap is 4.5M and his pay falls to 4M next year, but even then if the Sabres want to make some noise he looks to be a buyout candidate if he doesn't turn around his game. And there's several other players not living up to their paycheck on that team. Keeping their 2 compliance buyout options would probably be a good idea.

We still might see some problem child for problem child trades and teams retaining some salary but I would be a little bit surprised to see a blatant big salary transaction in the next couple years.

As for the Flames, I feel like if they are willing to eat some dead salary it would be better off to use it on players like Cammalleri and Bouwmeester when trading them. Teams would kill to have a player like Bouwmeester making under 4M, and Cammalleri would probably fetch a nice return himself if he wasn't costing a team 7M next year.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Yeah Grabovski with a 5.5 cap hit for another 4 years. That has to be up there as one of the worst in the league right now

[nik-]

Originally Posted by moon

I think Crosby will live up to his and as much as I think he was overrated at the time with his status in Washington I could have seen Oveckhin living up to his.

But both these deals for me are about these guys brining in fans and merchandise sales as it does with on ice performance.

Yeah, Crosby is worth whatever they can pay him since he pretty much resurrected that franchise.