Long Contracts and Cap Space

[EdgarM]

With the growing amount of 6-7 year contracts being given out on a regular basis, I wonder if a team such as Vancouver can take advantage of this or will the Cap limit grow enough so that these teams with a lot of long contracts can still sign their young prospects?

I am thinking there is going to be a tipping point and I believe we have seen Chicago already going through this when they basically gave away Panarin.

I think there are others nearing the tipping point such as Toronto and Edmonton I am wondering what others think on this subject.

[Kootenay Gold]

I do not have as much of a problem with the length of the contracts as much as long contracts with no movement clauses as part of them. One only has to look at Anaheim and the conundrum they have with aging players (Perry,33; Getzlaf,33; and Kesler,34) on long term contracts that also have full NMC's and how that can affect managements ability to manage the cap space or move them if their play declines to the point that they not bringing value to the team anymore.

[EmilyM]

24 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I wonder if a team such as Vancouver can take advantage of this

We definitely can...

 

 

...until Luongo retires early.

[IBatch]

The caps downsides have been showing for a couple years, Panarin is a good example, as well as Saad (who’s back and had an off year) and Byfuglien before that.   It looks like every team can sign their core ok but past that they have to juggle and throw things away at times to keep under the cap.   A few things have started to become very obvious, going from a potential problem to an actual problem within the NHLPA, where the middle class players are getting squeezed out early and forced to accept contracts that comparatively used to be quite a bit more lucrative.  

 

GMs are doing a good job of promoting a “youth movement”, but it’s really just a disguise used to justify paying someone 1/4 of the money to do the same job as a proven veteran.    Scorings going to trend up as a result, just like when we had significant expansion and the quality of players was diluted, which makes it ok or even more entertaining for the fans, but as far as it goes for a team actually putting the best team on the ice as they can...well it’s really not.

 

Every year journeyman pros are passed over for ELCs, some of them are gold nuggets, others not nearly as good (they have their cup of coffee and get replaced for the next in line), yes the league is getting younger but the design that’s doing that is money money money based, not attempts to ice the best team.  Guys that used to play one more contract but get bumped often go on to play a lot more hockey in Europe.

 

 

When 20% of the NHLPA makes North of 80% of the money there is too much disparity in the work force and a class system is in place.  My concern is that 80% is convinced by Ferh or by a leadership group within the NHLPA to go to war with the NHL in a couple years,  Ferh has been clear that the NHLPA doesn’t want a cap, hinting it’s not off the table yet and that they might fight it again.   Who knows what will happen, bottom line is the cap is far from perfect, GMs will never stop overpaying certain athletes which bumps salaries every time, and the NHL won’t ever see a true dynasty in the modern era...from a fans perspective it’s really, truly sad...the golden era of NHL hockey has come and gone.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wai_lai416]

11 hours ago, EmilyM said:

We definitely can...

 

 

...until Luongo retires early.

with 3 years left on Luongo and the amount of games he missed the past couple of seasons.. i really don't see luongo plays out his final 3 years.. unless the panthers places luongo on LTIR if he's eligible which i don't really see the panthers doing as it would require them to get under the salary cap before the season by 4.5mil before they can place him on LTIR while if he retires early would only cost them very little in terms of cap space.. i mean with the amount of injuries Luongo have been suffering lately it's not out of the realm of possibility he ends up on LTIR.. but i really don't see the panthers putting him there as they are pretty much up against the cap every year nowadays

[canuck_in_england]

6 hours ago, IBatch said:

  It looks like every team can sign their core ok but past that they have to juggle and throw things away at times to keep under the cap.  

Exactly. Any half decent GM can sign the stars and core of a team, the best GMs have the ability to add the parts around the stars. Knowing when to dump, retain or sign certain prospects or ageing stars.

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

with 3 years left on Luongo and the amount of games he missed the past couple of seasons.. i really don't see luongo plays out his final 3 years.. unless the panthers places luongo on LTIR if he's eligible which i don't really see the panthers doing as it would require them to get under the salary cap before the season by 4.5mil before they can place him on LTIR while if he retires early would only cost them very little in terms of cap space.. i mean with the amount of injuries Luongo have been suffering lately it's not out of the realm of possibility he ends up on LTIR.. but i really don't see the panthers putting him there as they are pretty much up against the cap every year nowadays

Luongo had one of his statiscally best seasons last year but he’s not ever playing more than 40 games again, that’s what the Panthers are saying, Reimer and Luo will will share the duties with Reimer getting the bulk of the workload so Luo is fresh in the playoffs (he’s still the better option).  He’s playing this year for sure, and unless he’s badly injured the following one too.  Which leaves maybe the last year a question mark.  Personally not worried and re-capture penalties for a contract that was legal at the time, or even if it happens a lockout and new CBA is coming and it will “retire” a fair number of guys either by buyout or literally by lock-out, the same way it did last time.

[IBatch]

18 hours ago, Kootenay Gold said:

I do not have as much of a problem with the length of the contracts as much as long contracts with no movement clauses as part of them. One only has to look at Anaheim and the conundrum they have with aging players (Perry,33; Getzlaf,33; and Kesler,34) on long term contracts that also have full NMC's and how that can affect managements ability to manage the cap space or move them if their play declines to the point that they not bringing value to the team anymore.

Doesn’t look much different as 33 year old Sedins, plus Kesler, Beiksa, Burrows, Edler though does it?  Not a fan of them either, I know MG might have saved a few million in those deals but it sure made things difficult for Benning to get maximum value for Kesler (and his tiny list) ... though he did a decent job handling it.   

[Kootenay Gold]

I'm glad to see that JB seems reluctant to hand out NMC's after the one he did with Eriksson at the start. The only unmovable contract on the books at the moment is Edler's.

 

[189lb enforcers?]

An AHL Comets super-team that might come out of the pending NHL lock-out/strike might be the most interesting thing to come out of the NHL’s new contract style vs the Cap vs the NHLPA vs the greedy capitalist pig owners (ha, for the Lefties). 

 

To the Op’s question, I don’t think the Canucks will be reaping any system-gaming financial awards. 

 

There has been lots of optimism and reasons to be excited, but if you look at how many quality players were on those ‘94 and ‘11 teams you get a sense of just how much more work needs to be done to this roster and it’s farm before it’s a serious contender. 

 

Colorado, Buffalo, Arizona, Carolina, Florida, etc are all teams which could absorb a player seemingly being ‘given away’ by a Chicago.

 

Then there are the teams like San Jose, Calgary and Boston, which will be naturally exfoliating contracts as to make Cap room to compete for the future ‘give aways’ as well. 

 

Even if the lofty hope of half of the Canucks top prospects making the NHL as regulars, the team will still have to sign FAs like the have been to comprise a respectable team. The Canucks might have a leg-up on some teams in terms of Cap space, but they certainly won’t be the only bidders on the ‘Give aways’ out there.

 

The Canucks have been in competition with similar rebuilding rivals and if the OP’s ideas are correct, it will be interesting to see which inexpensive team actually does take advantage of other teams’ cap struggles. 

 

I can only imagine how awesome Edmonton would have been had they traded a Leon to create a more balanced roster. (I hoped he might have been part of that Ottawa disaster trade and forced the team into further cap hell so we could snag Nurse or something similar)

[TheGuardian_]

19 hours ago, EmilyM said:

We definitely can...

 

 

...until Luongo retires early.

Luongo will go the same way as Zettenberg, hockey injuries piling up resutting in retirement. Holland stated this was the plan way back when he signed the deal(s).

8 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

with 3 years left on Luongo and the amount of games he missed the past couple of seasons.. i really don't see luongo plays out his final 3 years.. unless the panthers places luongo on LTIR if he's eligible which i don't really see the panthers doing as it would require them to get under the salary cap before the season by 4.5mil before they can place him on LTIR while if he retires early would only cost them very little in terms of cap space.. i mean with the amount of injuries Luongo have been suffering lately it's not out of the realm of possibility he ends up on LTIR.. but i really don't see the panthers putting him there as they are pretty much up against the cap every year nowadays

Wasn't his numbers like 4th or 5th best in the league last year?

1 hour ago, Kootenay Gold said:

I'm glad to see that JB seems reluctant to hand out NMC's after the one he did with Eriksson at the start. The only unmovable contract on the books at the moment is Edler's.

 

The one? Eriksson's was the 4th clause contract he handed out, more than Gillis did and much more expensive for even older players. His contracts handcuffed the team from the TDL and trade market.

 

I hope he doesn't give Boeser a super long term deal, not yet. 140 games is not enough at this time to judge a career.

[oldnews]

20 hours ago, EdgarM said:

With the growing amount of 6-7 year contracts being given out on a regular basis, I wonder if a team such as Vancouver can take advantage of this or will the Cap limit grow enough so that these teams with a lot of long contracts can still sign their young prospects?

I am thinking there is going to be a tipping point and I believe we have seen Chicago already going through this when they basically gave away Panarin.

I think there are others nearing the tipping point such as Toronto and Edmonton I am wondering what others think on this subject.

The way you game-plan this is to the 'transition' / long game approach imo.

 

What you get with short-term tankjobs is a cluster of key/core assets that co-exist / overlap on a 'timeline' but create the cap crunch situations you refer to.  The odd one may be fortunate or well-built enough to coincide that timeline with a viable and deep enough supporting cast that translates into an actual contender.  For example, Chicago was anything but a mere 'core' of Toews, Kane and Keith - they had a ridiculously deep team from top to bottom - as any true contender must.  They did a great job getting there- and early on they did a good job of retooling, but they didn't do such a great job sustaining or retooling over the longer term - and have made handfuls of costly deals since.  On the other hand, perpetual tankjobs like the Coil don't necessarily accomplish anything - because they've rarely built beyond their lottery assets, drafted poorly, haven't converted assets very well or developed them.....

 

If the Canucks want to avoid these kind of time crunch circumstances, they have to do what they've been relatively adept at in the current management group - which is, whether or not they have a high pick in any given draft, they need to maintain a continuum of viable assets via the baseline of the draft.

 

Benning's first draft:

1) Virtanen

2) Demko

3) Tryamkin

4) Gudbranson/McCann

5) Forsling/Clendenning/part of the Sutter deal

 

Second draft:

1) Boeser

2) Gaudette

3) Jasek

?4) Brisebois?

 

Third draft:

1) Juolevi

?2) Lockwood?

 

Fourth draft

1) Pettersson

2) Lind

3) Gadjovich

4) Dipietro.

 

Fifth draft - no + years to assess.

Now - no one can expect these results every year - there will be drafts like 2016 where they may only get one real viable prospect (possibly two) - however, in the extended frame / larger sample - this trend needs to have some continuity.

 

Conversely - from 2007, to 2008, to 2009, to 2010, to 2011....the team extracted virtually nothing from the draft in the end.  One Patrick White was converted into Ehrhoff, one Hodgson into Kassian - but absolutely nothing sustainable about that drafting and developing record.

 

On the other hand, sustaining can be achievable whether or not a team is gifted with lottery picks.

 

Teams like Anaheim for example have managed to draft future core assets in the midst of contending.  Getzlaf, Perry = picks made while Anaheim was a contender.  Of course, that is an outlier, but it's an example of what's possible, and on some level, necessary to make a team competitive on a longer term basis.  No better example of that than the decades long run that the Detroit Red Wings managed - and needless to say, easier shopping listed than it is done - and ironically, a goal set by Mike Gillis - that was anything but achieved in the longer run, as the team wound up on a crash trajectory without a prospect pool to bridge from contention into the future.  So, what Benning inherited was a team on the cusp of an inevitable decline and transition.  But the short game imo is absolutely the wrong approach - and the impatience of people with pipe dreams about that short game providing lottery picks and delivering inevitable championships is...a short-sighted fairy tale (with obvious examples - as all the 'superstars' in Deadmonton have amounted to nothing through a decade - it still could, but will still depend on a top to bottom build.)   It's also in part what I don't like about the Leaf approach - which overlapped dead cap/bad contracts with a perceived window of contention, spent picks on rentals in that same period, wound up losing multiple assets to free agency, spent like teenagers on allowance day on consecutive July 1sts, have painted themselves into somewhat of a corner around players like Nylander (and possibly Marner next), and whether or not they've built a pipeline from within to contend is debatable, particularly when you look at that blueline.

 

In the end, it's the long game and the ability to sustain the long game that actually creates sufficient enough windows that there's a hope to capitalize on at some point.  It takes more than a core - and it even takes more than a build - it also takes health, and some luck/good fortune.  Banking on a short term window isn't really the best approach imo - I think it's a 'better' gameplan to go in with a long-game, protracted transition and put your key cards in a continuum of development that enables you to replace assets from within once you reach a critical mass of contracts that you simply cannot retain.

 

 

 

[Kootenay Gold]

2 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

he one? Eriksson's was the 4th clause contract he handed out, more than Gillis did and much more expensive for even older players. His contracts handcuffed the team from the TDL and trade market.

The only No Movement Clause ( NMC) contract that I am aware of JB handing out was to Loui Eriksson. JB inherited the NMC's of the Sedin's

[oldnews]

18 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

The one? Eriksson's was the 4th clause contract he handed out, more than Gillis did and much more expensive for even older players. His contracts handcuffed the team from the TDL and trade market.

 

LOL.

try some facts instead of this flake narrative.

 

Under Gillis - NMC and NTCs - and these are just the ones I remember off the top of my head so feel free to add (anyone) if I've missed people....

 

Luongo

Henrik

Daniel

Kesler

Hamhuis

Edler

Garrison

Bieksa

Burrows

Malhotra

Hansen

Higgins

 

 

 

[oldnews]

20 minutes ago, Kootenay Gold said:

The only No Movement Clause ( NMC) contract that I am aware of JB handing out was to Loui Eriksson. JB inherited the NMC's of the Sedin's

And Eriksson's limiting clause is no longer a NMC - it's now a NTC - and it becomes a modified ntc after next season.

As is Sutter's (with three years of term - in his prime).

Edler holds a pre-existing NTC.

Tanev has a MNTC (modified ntc).

And the MTCs of Roussel and Beagle are relatively inconsequential when people look at the actual terms.

 

 

[TheGuardian_]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

LOL.

try some facts instead of this flake narrative.

 

Under Gillis - NMC and NTCs - and these are just the ones I remember off the top of my head so feel free to add (anyone) if I've missed people....

 

Luongo

Henrik

Daniel

Kesler

Hamhuis

Edler

Garrison

Bieksa

Burrows

Malhotra

Hansen

Higgins

 

 

 

And how many did Benning inherit? How many of those waived their clauses? Half or more players he signed for contracts over 3 million have  had a clause attached. 

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, TheGuardian_ said:

And how many did Benning inherit? How many of those waived their clauses? Half or more players he signed for contracts over 3 million have  had a clause attached. 

And how many drinks before noon does it take to make 5 more than 12?

[TheGuardian_]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

And Eriksson's limiting clause is no longer a NMC - it's now a NTC - and it becomes a modified ntc after next season.

As is Sutter's (with three years of term - in his prime).

Edler holds a pre-existing NTC.

Tanev has a MNTC (modified ntc).

And the MTCs of Roussel and Beagle are relatively inconsequential when people look at the actual terms.

 

 

Well one thing for Gillis his only NMC's were for future hall of famers.

[TheGuardian_]

13 minutes ago, oldnews said:

And how many drinks before noon does it take to make 5 more than 12?

4 eggs to make a 3 egg omelet.

[oldnews]

7 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Well one thing for Gillis his only NMC's were for future hall of famers.

I have literally no complaints whatsoever about Gillis using limiting clauses - they are the cost of doing business with veterans - and in most cases, they enabled the team to secure some 'hometown' or contender discounts.

Gillis did what was necessary to contend, and assembled the pieces to win - he was simply one game short, and had very little luck, particularly where health was concerned.

 

Complaining about him - or Benning - is just too video/fantasy GM for me.   But carry on.

Benning has one limiting clause that is problematic - Eriksson's.   The trivial narrative - as if there's a continuum of damaging limiting clauses - is simply bullcrap.