Capology: Is Feaster Doing it Wrong?

[Enoch Root]

no

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

You don't have to read it, and you especially don't have to post crap like that. Macrov can post whatever he likes as long as it isn't offensive or trolling.

I get really sick and tired of elitist posters on websites...find something better to do with your time.

This thread already has more action than at least half of TTC's threads..... and only 3 (well now 4) totally off topic.

I don't agree with the concept of paying for potential, but it is an idea that gave me a pause to think about it and reply as to why I thought it was wrong.

Totally valid thread.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

no

well i'm sorry your life is so sad, then.

[CSharp]

Long term deals suck because you can't tell if the player is going to pan out, especially younger guys who has only one or two years experience where they haven't really panned out eg: Backlund. Backlund has a potential since he's a first rounder, but he is a smallish player and plays a smallish game. But when Backlund tries to play a bigger game by going hard to the opposition areas, he gets hurt. The Flames don't have anyone to protect him right now and he has to learn to play the game a lot smarter. Paying him a long term contract is just bad managment IMO. Players who have a consistent performance history can be awarded higher rates and longer contracts, preferably 4 to 5 years max, not crazy 7 - 10 year deals. You'd do that for franchise players and you know the player is going to perform at the peak rate for that length of time. No one on the Flames team right now is a franchise player, not even Brodie. He may become one if he is unbelievably great, but Brodie is above average on a Flames team where all the d-men sucks crap for the last 3 years. Only Brodie looked good most of the year because everyone sucked so bad.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by macrov

Instead, the flames could have made a lengthy commitment to Backlund. Say offer him 7 years @ 3mln per year. So Backlund makes a little more than he would otherwise be making now based on his current numbers and play, but when the flames are a contender, if he develops as expected, he will have a discounted cap-hit.

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.

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.

Short contracts also give the team more flexibility. In my opinion, the only players you give 7 year contracts to are first line forwards or defensemen.

[Nsd1]

It works in NHL 13 guys.

[Macho0978]

I agree with almost everything. I just don't think Backlund should be a guy that we do this with. Brodie for sure though. If Brodie wants 2.5 million right now I would love him at 3.25 to 3.5 for 7 or 8 years. In the end I would like to keep Brodie long term

Backlund on the other hand is a RFA after this contract. Worst case scenario he plays his way into an 4 million RFA contract. If this happens he becomes a very valuable asset to trade over the next 2 years. With the cap being extra tight over the next 2 years this could be a way for the flames to add to their asset pool. It's not that I don't feel Backlund can be a valuable asset on a winning team but I feel Max Reinhart will be a guy that is more of a winner/playoff guy moving forward. With Monahan, our first rounder in 2014 and Jankowski I'm hoping we trade Backlund and get a much bigger return than we would expect right now because his cap hit is so low

[PlayfulGenius]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

It is offensive to me. Just like his Iggy/Alfie one was. Sorry for not clearing my reply with the hive mind for approval ahead of time.

What the hell are you talking about??? Hahaha

Anyway, I think this is a good question... I considered the exact same thing as soon as I saw the terms of the deal...though, like most in here, concluded the deal was optimal based on Backlund still being an RFA when it's done.

However, I do like the idea of considering cap implications in 3-4 years over current cap implications...of course, it's my money though either

[SebC]

I like the OP's idea. Chances are though it would be hard to come to an agreement with all but the most projectable players though.

[Nittmo]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Stop making threads.

MOD EDIT: lplease. treat all posters equally Kootenay, insults are insults, and you seem to think it's ok for turnedthecorner to slam away at posters, but you block my criticism of him. I'm trying to work out why, but my calculator caught fire

[Anduril]

This is a wonderful idea.

In my NHL console games. As pointed out, we run the risk of a Olesz where potential doesn't pan out and we've locked ourselves terrible deal which ends up costing the franchise more than if they were to do things normally and pay based on recent success and projected success over a short period of time.

[gunnner]

This is the worst thread since the "Iggy should have picked the bruins" thread

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

well i'm sorry your life is so sad, then.

what?

[Northendzone]

I thought contracts work on average annual value. If that is correct, then signing a player to a contract that declines in value, makes no difference to cap space.

[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.

[Northendzone]

Ok, now I understand your idea. Seems creative, but wow, what a gamble - pay a young inexperienced guy a lot of money today, in the hopes that he will develop. I also wonder if the new cba contemplates one yr contracts.......

[Badgers Nose]

After we have a couple more years of Weis/Feast maybe...

Frankly I think the timeframes mentioned here are pretty optimistic. Flames will suck this next year and at least for a couple more season after that. I think the Flames can contend when Monahan is 26/27. Most the young fellas will have 2-3 NHL years under their belts (even the college guys).

If I am right, that gives Feaster time to test Backs out and then put a ring on his finger (with tons of cap space to spare when the time comes). We'll be talking 75-80 million cap if not more in 2017.

[renny]

I don't think so at all. It's easy to spend money when it's not yours. The owners probably don't want to be throwing away money just because it "may" save them cap-space in 5 years. You have to practice fiscal responsibility. History has shown that outrageously long contracts are in general, not a very smart decision (DiPietro, Yashin, etc., come to mind).

If backlund lights it up int he next two years and emerges as a #1 or #2 center then he deserves whatever pay increase he has coming to him. Just because we have capspace now doesn't mean you should blow your wad on something that's unproven.

[JerryUnderscore]

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.

Ah... this seems to be the misunderstanding. The cap hit would stay the same over the length of the contract.

In your example, we'd actually pay Backlund $1M, $2M & $3M respectively, however the cap hit each each would stay at $2, which is the average annual value.

This isn't an entirely uncommon strategy with some young players. Wayne Simmonds is on a contract like this that pays him $2.8M this coming year and $5M in the final year with an AAV of $3.975. Which means, in the final year the Flyers are "savings" $1.025M in cap space over the actual salary.

To answer your original question, there are a few things to consider:

1. Let's assume you're right and Backlund can pan out to be a great player worth $4M a year. If that's the case, why would he want to sign the contract you suggested in your OP? Backs more than likely believes himself to be a #2C worth paying somewhere in the $4-5M range. Which means any contract that over time will mean he's making significantly less than that is a bad deal for him.

2. As others have mentioned, the fact that he's still an RFA after this deal is huge. While I'm not sure if MB wanted a two year deal, I'm willing to bet Feaster was more willing to negotiate on the dollar figure than he was on the term. By signing Back to a 2 year deal, even if he breaks out, we still have him as an RFA and can sign him to a long term deal next time.

3. As we've seen recently with Luongo and Lecavalier, it's nearly impossible to trade long term deals, even when the cap hit is somewhat reasonable. So, in the event that Backs doesn't pan out, you can't move him. And suddenly you're sitting with a $3M third line winger which is the opposite of great asset management.

All of this put together suggests that shorter deals are better for everyone involved, unless they are a guaranteed superstar player like Sid or Giroux.

[FAN]

Feaster's RFA signings have been pretty conservative, but there's nothing wrong with that. Paying players based solely on their projected potential may result in a lower cap but also carries a lot of risks. Paying players based on what they are worth now and also what they project to be worth in the future might result in a higher cap hit but at least it's a safer bet. There are merits to both philosophies and if Feaster feels more comfortable not rolling the dice that's fine.

Another thing is that there really aren't too many players that the Flames can "project". No Backlund isn't a guy you give a 7 year contract to right now. The only guys I can think of that the Flames might want to pay more now in return for a lower long-term cap hit is Brodie. After Brodie, maybe you can give 3-4 year contracts to new acquisitions such as Galiardi and Russell and hope they turn out to be great fits. Otherwise, you wait for guys like Sven's ELCs to be finished.