timberz21
-
Posts
4,513 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by timberz21
-
-
Arizona signing PTOs with the only purpose of filling their 5,000 seats arena at least once during the year.
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:
lol a lot of nfl contracts are not fully guaranteed.. less than 10% of the players in nfl have a fully guaranteed nfl contracts.. and a lot of them do not have a fully guaranteed contract for injury... hamlin for example got a 45% paycut for IR pay when he had the cadiac arrest.. unless you are a star player with leverage it's hard to get a full injury guaranteed contract.. most have partial guaranteed where if they are cut or released while injured they will be paid the partial guaranteed amount.
basically you want a get out of jail card for free and allow the GMs to be even more ridiculous with the contracts because you are proposing ways to to limit or get out of bad contracts that were the teams/gm fault in the first place. no one forced the gms to sign players at the tail end of their prime to long term contracts. the GM decides to sign them to long term so they can spread out the cap.. you think a player will say no to say a 10mil x 6 vs a 8mil x 8? but GM obviously would prefer the 8x8 even if it means the last 4 years of the contract is negative value because it allows them to sign an extra 2mil player during that 4 years of peak performance
i dunno how you interpet team option/player option s a non guaranteed contract. it's an optional year for either side.. they either option for an extra year or they don't.. there's no buyout fee if the team decides to not exercise the option.. it's an OPTION.. and if the player opts in then they are stuck with the full cap hit/salary unless they negotiate a buyout. even if nhl have team option or player option.. doubt you can get any established players to sign a "team option" instead of giving them the extra year.. team options are usually for young players that you are overpaying for potential.. like the ones ottawa are throwing out there.
it doesn't matter how you tailor the non guaranteed contract to the nhl.. it'll never happen.. just like it'll never happen in the nba or mlb
Ffs you're arguing for the sake of arguing. To use your word "ITS AN OPTION", meaning there is a choice to be made. Guarantee = no choice. Team option meaning the team has all the leverage and Player option meaning the player has the leverage. But there is still a choice to be made.
Yes there are buyout fees:
"The release left the Blue Jays on the hook for the remaining $38-million on Tulowitzki’s contract: $20-million in 2019, $14-million in 2020, and a $4-million buyout on his 2021 team option."
"Kevin Kiermaier, OF, Rays
$13 million club option ($2.5 million buyout)
Kiermaier remains a stellar defender in center field, but the Rays are unlikely to pay this price for a 32-year-old who has played more than 129 games in a season only once in his career (2015) and owns an 88 OPS+ since the beginning of 2018. (UPDATE: OPTION DECLINED)Evan Longoria, 3B, Giants
$13 million club option ($5 million buyout)
Longoria still had five years left on his six-year, $100 million contract when the Rays traded him to the Giants after the 2017 season. He ended up recording a 103 OPS+ with 6.9 WAR in 477 games for San Francisco over the past five seasons. (UPDATE: OPTION DECLINED)Wil Myers, OF, Padres
$20 million club option ($1 million buyout)
San Diego signed Myers to a six-year, $83 million contract extension after he made the 2016 NL All-Star team and finished that season with 28 homers, 28 steals and 3.5 WAR. The right-handed slugger had a 112 OPS+ with 7.6 WAR during the lifespan of the deal. (UPDATE: OPTION DECLINED)"You're right about one thing though....it'll never happen in the NBA, because IT ALREADY EXIST!!!
https://www.spotrac.com/news/projecting-2022-nba-non-guaranteed-contracts-1508/ -
10 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:
The only sports that doesn’t have guaranteed contract is what? NFL? Where most players in majority of the position will make as much as a nhl star player? And players will sit out hold out on final years to avoid injuries until they get an pextension? Plenty of teams have bad contracts buy out penalty etc and still make the playoff Minnesota have 10+ in buyout penalty and they still make the playoffs loui wasnt the sole reason we miss the playoff nor was OEL. Bad management grabbing incompatible players building bad chemistry did. Non guaranteed contracts you might as well have no hitting hockey. Who’s going to lay their body to block a shot? Who’s going to make a hit? If they land on IR they don’t even get paid the full amount just like the nfl for the non guaranteed contracts. Imagine training in the off season and gets an injury. The only reason nfl have non guaranteed contract is because it’s the most injured sports out there.. and most injury will cost minimum 25% of the season.. it wasn’t there so you can cut players for your mistake. Look at how many season injury in preseason and week 1? The insurance just to cover those guaranteed contract would be massive
also cutting those players most still have signing bonus and even guaranteed money left.. those still counts against the cap. So essentially it’s kinda like a buyout. Let say if a players negotiated 50% signing bonus/salary spread over 5 years for 8mil the other part is non guaranteed.. if u cut the player say 3 years in.. there’s still 12 mil worth of dead cap spread over the remaining 3 years don’t see how that helps team get out of bad contract.. it’s even worse since it’s not spread out over double. Unless you are making league minimum most players will have some sort of signing bonus or partial guaranteed.. it only hurts the player and the only benefit the team gains is not having to pay
So your reasoning is :
- The only sports with non-guaranteed contract is the NFL, because it's a contact sports and lots of injury.
- But if hockey introduces it, then it will become a non-contact sports and players will stop playing hard.
That make sense...
https://www.the33rdteam.com/category/breakdowns/guaranteed-money-structure/
Most NFL player contracts are fully guaranteed, but if not fully guaranteed, then guaranteed for injury only, meaning if a player is cut for skill or cap reasons they will not receive this money; they would only receive the money if they suffered a football related injury and could not play and/or were cut.
There is a bunch a rules regarding non-guaranteed contract. Can't just cut a player any day and void the deal. Most are fully guaranteed if not a good chunk is, can't just cut a player after 1 year and not pay him. Some contract have deadlines when teams need to make a decision if they want to get out now or fully guarantee the contract until the end.
BTW, team options (and to an an extent, players options too) are type of non-guaranteed contracts and most league has them. While there are small buyout fees to not exercise team option, the amount are usually insignificant. Plus, if you introduce a significant change like non-guaranteed contract (whatever form) they will need to be tailored to the NHL reality and not just copy the NFL. Of course there are going to be special provisions (accounting and legal babble way above my paygrade) to deal with the salary cap accounting, you can't keep current model and introduce something like that. But I didn't think I needed to explain that, it was not the purpose of my proposal.
-
29 minutes ago, Pears said:
If these allegations do turn out to be false then that might be it for Spittin Chiclets. You cannot be making extremely slanderous accusations like that if you aren’t 100% certain they’re legit.
Agree in theory, but in practice someone became President of the USA with a similar strategy. They'll still be people to listen to these stories and they've probably gained a ton of visibility.
I don't condone it, but unfortunately the world we live in.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:
So discrimination based on age? So you rather pay the star players more money and let the mid players make less.. and want to be too heavy like toronto? Imagine paying each of your players say Demko Hughes pettersson miller all 1.5-2 mil more. Lol that’s already worse than overpaying 1 or 2 player by 2-3 mil each unless they straight up can’t play. Teams with no crazy top end players would probably just steam roll us since all the player just below the high ends would sign with those teams and have 4 lines and 3 pairings they can roll out vs a team with all the extra 1.5-2mil per top players and then roll out a 3rd 4th line all consisting of league minimum players. I take my chance with the balance teams. Your top 2 lines can only play so much lol. Their average players just need to not get streamrolled while their other players will completely steamroll the league minimums.
You rather spend 6-10mil or more extra on ur star players depending how many you have just to fix 1 or 2 player that’s maybe 2-3 mil overpaid that you can always try to dump with sweetener retention or buyout that would cost less than paying the stars extra. Don’t see how your proposal fixes anything other than star gets paid more the rest of the league gets paid less and team become less competitive because they have to utilize more of the cap on star players and less money for depth.
FYI, already discrimination based on age since contracts for 35+ are treated differently, but pointless to argue with a know-it-all anyways.
All I suggested what to change the terms limits, something that already exist in the current CBA and something the NHL actually proposed during the last lockout, or non-guaranteed contract something that exists in other sports, you know… facts. All You’ve brought to the discussion what a bunch a random, non-sense, hypothetical numbers and doomsday scenario, that is only related to the Canucks point of view. Guess what there are 31 others teams in the NHL. I wasn’t suggesting from a Canucks point of view but league wide.So You can keep spending on your “balanced” team, your buyouts and trade pick to get rid of bad contracts, worked wonders the last 10 years for us… huh wait.
-
Great choice!
Would have been a good choice with Petey as well, but I think it will be a blessing in disguise for him, not having that burden. Even if it might sting a little bit at first for him, I'm sure it won't last long and he can now focus on filling the net.
-
6 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:
sure you can have 4 year max deal.. your top players will be asking for 15%+ on the salary cap instead of their 9-12 now. you think the cap is bad now? wait till the top players asking for 12-15% of the salary cap every couple years instead of having their cap slowly deflates to 7-8% as the cap rise.. imagine EP signing a 2 year contract every 2 years for the next 8 years.. instead of having him for say 11.5x8.. you'll have him for 11.5x2 13x2 15x2 18x2 as the cap rise that'll fix teams cap problem.. players are always going to be asking for % of the salary cap when they are negotiating contracts.. even if they sign 4years deal x2.. u don't think their 2nd of the 4 year contract is going to be a massive jump in salary? it doesn't really fix anything other than create more cap problems.. each team maybe have 2-3 contracts that are bad.. so you fix 10% of a teams contract problem while creating problems for the other 90% where you'll see their cap increase every 4 years at a even bigger % of the cap than currently.. so basically the top players will make even more.. while more and more 3rd/4th liners will make league minimum.
Of course players will be asking for something as well in exchange: lower escrow, higher minimum or maximum wage, etc. But in the end there is 83.5M$ being divided by +/- 23 players X 32 teams. That's the total available money for players, whichever way you bend the rules. But I'd rather put 1-2M$ more in EP or QH's pocket than dragging out OEL or LE's for 2, 4, 6 years longer than it should.
Anyways,I never suggested 4 year deals. I said the NHL proposed that, knowing they wouldn't get it, but still put a max term number. My proposal was 8, 6 and 4 years depending on the player age.
-
12 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:
lol good luck with non guaranteed contract or ur 5-6 year term.. guaranteed we'll have a lockout if that's what they try to push.. hockey players are already one of the lowest paid players in all of major sports around the world.. the top players in baseball football soccer basketball makes more than the top hockey players entire career in like 3-4 years and you think they'll be ok with introducing things to limit their ability to make more money? sure football doesn't have fully guaranteed contract and a lot of players don't even make it to the end of the contract.. but usually the guranteed amount is still pretty big.. and the players have the option to "restructure" their contract to get paid even more if they are one of the top players.
Bettman wasted a season to introduce salary cap and then wasted 1/2 season to introduce 8 years max term (7 on new deals). He'll do it again if he thinks that's what best for the NHL and players will eventually cave. Franchise value also skyrocketed since, so can't say it hurt them much to sacrifice one season. In 2012/13 the NHL started negotiations with 4 years terms on new contracts. Introducing a max term was a major win for the NHL. Now that it's introduced, its not so far-fetch to think they'll start chipping away at these max term bit by bit.
Honestly with a salary cap, guaranteed money/contracts for undeserving players just means less available money for the one that actually deserve it. We are already seeing it through free agency where teams are much more prudent than they were 10 years ago.
-
1 minute ago, Ghostsof1915 said:
The NHL is going to have to cap second term deals. GM's can't help themselves overpaying for young players. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it looks real bad.
Except most players on this list wasn't their second deal.
I think next CBA, NHL will probably try to introduce non-guaranteed contracts or lower the term limit from 8 years to 5 or 6.
Personally, I'd go something like
<25 - max 8 years term
<30 - max 6 years term
>=30 - max 4 years term
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Drakrami said:
I wonder for how many years we will continue to see Hoglander and Rathbone in trade proposals.
Many...we still talk about Raymond, Ballard and 1st.
-
10 minutes ago, JeremyCuddles said:
I mean, it's weird you brought up Hughes as a comparable and say we can't use Matthews. Nobody thinks even 9mil is realistic for Petey unless he really, REALLY wants to leave money on the table. Petey will almost certainly settle closer to Matthews than J Hughes. Which is why Matthews is the comparable.
Again, originally I wasn't comparing contract, I was comparing players. As a player, EP is in a tier with Hughes, Barzal and Aho, whereas Matthews is with McDavid, Draitsail, MacK.
We all know Hughes signed a bargain deal when the cap was flat. That deal was signed in 2021, with a flat cap, 2 underwhelmed season and a lot of revenue uncertainties for the NHL. Fast forward two years and take away those uncertainties and a rising salary cap, that contract easily worth 10M$ nowadays. That's what I meant when I said you could use Hughes as a comparable when factoring these elements.
Personally EP'S range is 10.5-11.5M$. That's a good deal for both party. Under 10.5 is awesome for the Canucks and above 11.5M$ is awesome for EP imo.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, qwijibo said:
I don't think you can use Hughes as a comparable. His contract was signed coming off his ELC as a 20 year old and well before he broke out. Pettersson is older, more established, and has an eye towards a significant cap increase next season. They may be comparable players now, but Hughes was pretty much just draft pedigree and potential when he signed his deal
Whatever, I'm not suggesting we pay EP 8M$, i know that's ridiculous.
My original point what to say that EP cannot use Matthews as a comparable.
-
3 hours ago, qwijibo said:
Hughes signed his deal before he broke out and is one of the best discount deals in the league. I wouldn't bother using him as a comparable. Vancouver isn't going to get that lucky
I'm not comparing deals, I'm comparing players. EP is in a tier with those guys, not with McDavid, MacK, Matthews or Draitsail.
You can still use Hughes deal at 8M signed in 2021 and factor in inflation, flat cap, covid, etc to make a comparable deal for EP.
-
5 hours ago, cripplereh said:
Well if Mathews got over 13 at this point EP should be looking for 12.
Why? Matthews has been over PPG his whole career (except rookie season). He's a perennial 40G scorer and even posted a 60. Mackinnon is at 12 and proved a lot more as well.
I love EP, but would why should he be paid anything close to these guys? If you want to look at comparable, Barzal, Aho, J. Hughes are better comparable.
-
Had a breakout year, but seems high to me. I saw him more of a middle 6 than a top 6. But, should he build off that breakout year, should be a pretty good deal.
-
Maybe it was Vancouver that inquired about Jack and Luke
, ... you know it's Eklund could've easily mixed up his information.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, coryberg said:
The craziest thing was hextall gave up a 2nd for him last year!!!
MTL received a 2nd to get rid of him and is acquiring him back for a 2nd as well lol. I know there is other pieces involved but still.
-
3 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:
I would've been happy with Vancouver paying half of that money. Surprised he managed to still get $4M this late in the game.
Would you want to play in Arizona for anything less than that
What that tells me is he felt insulted by what potential contenders were offering and chose the money in a dump like Arizona instead of chasing a cup.
-
10 hours ago, HKSR said:
Yeah this one is not gonna age well at all. The type of game he plays means he'll likely be done in a few years...
Kinda weird too in the fact that you'd think the Caps are moving towards a rebuild soon given the ages of their stars.
Agree, but at the same time, I wouldn't be surprise if he ends up "retiring" due to medical reason and be the next Pronger/Seabrook/Hossa.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Way past his prime, but I think 5M and 1 year should be a good gamble for the Sens. Should fill the production left by Debrincat while being cheaper
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
3 minutes ago, aGENT said:
Good GM's don't sign long term contracts based on one career year. Consistency and history matter.
For good players maybe, but when it come to franchise cornerstone, it's usually not about the past, but the future.
-
1
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said:
To those who think Petey will sign for similar, EP just scored 20 points more than AHO’s best career year.
Petey pulled ahead this year.
Its going to be 10.5+Which, honestly is fine. Aho will be 35 when his deal expires, while EP will be 33. In theory, he should have more productive years than Aho.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:
Just when you thought this team would get dragged down by some bloated contracts, they've quickly become a highly competitive team again with good vets and young stars. Just look at their picks from the 2017 draft. They drafted three all-stars.
I've always been in the camp that Ken Holland may have been overrated and inherited (not build) those late 90s early 2000s Red Wings teams. Now seeing what Nill has done with Dallas, hard not to come to the conclusion that he might also have been behind Holland's best move too.
-
1
-
-
Honestly, that's how it should be 3-5 years deal but paid their true value. Those 7-8 years deal only makes the player complacent and always becomes an albatross by the end of it (except for the exceptional players). Nowadays, players are more interesting in securing their future than actually winning or living up to expectations.
It might seems like Matthews is showing no loyalty or commitment to Toronto, but I have to give him credit for taking controlling his future and having options while risking injury of declining performances. Unlike Dubois who forced himself out of Winnipeg, Matthews is still giving time to Toronto while not closing the doors to signing elsewhere in the future (or back in Toronto if he thinks that where he wants to be).
We often complains that we cannot get local boys to play for their hometown team. Draft has become so competitive that everything needs to fall into place to draft an elite local boy. After that they sign an 3 years ELC, something a bridge deal and then an 8 years deal. By then they are wait past their prime most of the time. Shorter term contract would means potentially losing players earlier, but also opening more possibilities. Free agent Frenzy would become more relevant instead of getting excited about above average players who gets overpaid most of the time.
-
1
-
That make sense...
, ... you know it's Eklund could've easily mixed up his information.
[discussion] forum closure
in Canucks Talk
Posted · Edited by timberz21
Will there be anything left after that?