[Signing] Oilers re-sign Kris Russell (4 yrs, $4 mil AAV)

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Phaneufenstein

Does this equate to 4.75mil/year cap hit?

4 mill AAV

[smalltownref]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

?.

I think he is referring to the 5MM salary and 2MM signing bonus to be paid in year 1. Total of $7MM paid to Russell, greater than any of our players cap hits.

NM... sureLoss corrected me... thanks!

[sureLoss]

The signing bonuses are included in the yearly salary values.

Russell isn't making $5+$2 million in salary next year. He is making $3+$2

[dino7c]

What a terrible contract...we were iffy on younger him at 2.5

[Vinny01]

Lucic and Russell chewing up $10M of the Oilers cap for at least 4 years. Chia gon Chia

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

That's what you come to post? Trollin about Giordano?



Suck on that bud.

LOL....Justin Schultz on that list wow.

[TheScorpion]

Yep I was wrong... still a bad deal

[Flash Walken]

I have to think this basically secures Stone as a 4+ million defender for term, which would push him out of the running to return to Calgary in my opinion.

It is becoming more and more likely the Flames walk out of draft weekend without their 1st rounder this year and with a defender making less than 4.5 with less than 4 years remaining on their contract.

[spetch]

Thought the variance was 35%? 4mil would take it to 2.6 wouldn't it?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by neo45

Is that not too big of a backdive in year 4? I thought it was only allowed to drop 25% from the previous year?

The limit is 50% of the lower of the first two years of the deal. So they could lower by $2 million per year.

[MRCboicgy]

Wait, so the NTC is only in the last two years? The Oilers might be able to move that or leave him exposed in a (Seattle) expansion. Way too much money and term but they can get out from it.

[Beninho]

Russell's agent deserves a big round of applause, one would've thought 4x4 would be good enough but then BAM! NTC! Hahahah

[Locke]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

The signing bonuses are included in the yearly salary values.

Russell isn't making $5+$2 million in salary next year. He is making $3+$2

Hmm....I'm having a bad brain day, how is it that they're skirting $750K of cap by paying it out in Bonuses instead?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Locke

Hmm....I'm having a bad brain day, how is it that they're skirting $750K of cap by paying it out in Bonuses instead?

i am not following your question:

Year 1: $3 million salary + $2 million signing bonus
Year 2: $4.5 million salary
Year 3: $4 million salary
Year 4: $1.5 million salary + $1 million signing bonus

Total compensation: $16 million over 4 years = $4 million AAV

[PugnaciousIntern]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

i am not following your question:

Year 1: $3 million salary + $2 million signing bonus
Year 2: $4.5 million salary
Year 3: $4 million salary
Year 4: $1.5 million salary + $1 million signing bonus

Total compensation: $16 million over 4 years = $4 million AAV

I think the questions is referring to the interpretation of Year 1 being a total of 5+2 million and Year 4 being 2.5 +1 million

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I have to think this basically secures Stone as a 4+ million defender for term, which would push him out of the running to return to Calgary in my opinion.

It is becoming more and more likely the Flames walk out of draft weekend without their 1st rounder this year and with a defender making less than 4.5 with less than 4 years remaining on their contract.

It does make it harder to sign Stone for less than $4 million, but I'm still hoping they get a deal done. 4 years x $4.0 is fair. Better than spending a ton of assets getting someone marginally better.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

a 30 year old d-man who has played 20+ minutes the last 4 seasons and has 9 playoff series in his 10 year career... 6 in his last 3 years as a top-4 d-man.

His contract will be over when he is 34. That is the age that Gio is this fall when he starts the last 5 years of his 6.75M NTC.

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I like Russell.
And If you are trying to point out what a bargain Gio is relative to Russell's salary, I agree.

Except Giordano is 2x the player Russell is.

Why are we comparing a top pairing recent Norris contending d-man that puts up 50 points to a #4-5 merely decent defenceman?

Apples and oranges. Some people here do a lot of gymnastics just to throw shade on the Flames' recent moves/contracts. It got old a while ago.

Sticking to the subject at hand, this is a bad deal for Russell and what he brings. 1.5-2 million too much, imho.

[TheKurgan]

Positives from this contract:
- Love that Russell gets a huge payday, think he is a quality guy, plays hard and sacrifices his body for the team. Good for him.
- Love that Edmonton is stuck paying him 4 x 4 which will limit them bringing in other pieces to help.

Negatives from this contract:
- Sets a pretty high price tag for 3/4 D-man in the UFA market.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by TheKurgan

Positives from this contract:
- Love that Russell gets a huge payday, think he is a quality guy, plays hard and sacrifices his body for the team. Good for him.
- Love that Edmonton is stuck paying him 4 x 4 which will limit them bringing in other pieces to help.

Negatives from this contract:
- Sets a pretty high price tag for 3/4 D-man in the UFA market.

The price for a UFA 2nd pairing Dman is always absurd in free agency. Niskanen, Goligoski, Orpik, Sekera, Yandle, Demers, Petry, the list of middling guys making 4.5-5.5M will make your brain hurt.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by spetch

Thought the variance was 35%? 4mil would take it to 2.6 wouldn't it?

There is some pretty wacky math required to figure out what's acceptable.


First, you have to determine if the contract is "front-loaded". You do that by calculating the average value of the first half of the contract and determining if it's higher than the overall annual average of the contract.

In this case: 5 + 4.5 = 9.5, for an average of 4.75 over the first half of the contract. Since the full contract has an average annual value of 4, the contract is considered front-loaded.


For front-loaded contracts, the lowest contract year cannot be less than 50% of the highest contract year. This contract passes because the highest year is 5 and the lowest is 2.5.

Also, the difference between two adjacent years in the contract cannot be greater than 35% of the value of the first year of the contract (not a 35% year-to-year difference). That means the largest drop allowed from one year to the next is 1.75 (35% of 5). This contract passes that as well because the drop from year 3 to year 4 is 1.5.


Here's the actual text from the CBA...

Spoiler!

50.7 Variability Rules for Multi-Year SPCs.

(a) For all "Front-Loaded SPCs" (as defined below), the difference between the stated Player Salary and Bonuses in any immediately adjacent League Years of that SPC cannot exceed thirty-five (35) percent of the stated Player Salary and Bonuses of the first League Year of such Front-Loaded SPC. Additionally, under no circumstances may the stated Player Salary and Bonuses in any League Year of a Front-Loaded SPC be less than fifty (50) percent of the highest stated Player Salary and Bonuses in a League Year of that same Front-Loaded SPC.

(i) To determine whether an SPC is a Front-Loaded SPC:

(A) Take the total number of League Years in the SPC and divide by two (2) ("First-Half Term");
(B) Add the amounts of all stated Player Salary and Bonuses in the First-Half Term. If the SPC has an odd number of League Years, allocate to the first half of the SPC one-half of the stated Player Salary and Bonuses paid to the Player in the middle League Year of such SPC (e.g., the fourth year of a seven-year SPC) ("First-Half Stated Player Salary and Bonuses");
(C) Divide the First-Half Stated Player Salary and Bonuses by the First-Half Term. The resulting amount shall be the "First-Half Averaged Amount";
(D) Calculate the Averaged Amount of the SPC in a manner consistent with Section 50.5(d)(ii);
(E) If the First-Half Averaged Amount is greater than the Averaged Amount for the entire term of the SPC, such SPC is a "Front-Loaded SPC" and must comply with Section 50.7(a). Any SPC other than a Front-Loaded SPC must comply with Section 50.7(b) rather than Section 50.7(a).

Contracts that aren't front-loaded have their own weird set of rules.