2 year bridge deals why it failed, and a solution to all these RFAs Boeser included

[Arrow 1983]

2019 RFA draft class is probably one of the most unique situations the NHL has ever had off the ice. No RFA draft class has ever been like this one and this is due to the knew theory that young guys can play right out of there draft year or draft year +1. The knew NHL is younger and it's faster and young players are expected to play bigger roles or even lead there team as 1st liners. These kids are now leading there teams in goals, assists and points. They are doing it at the impressive age of 21-23 years old and here lies the problem, they're not even in the prime of their playing careers. Assuming that a players prime years are between 26-32 (to avoid any useless debate I will concede one could argue that a players prime could easily star at 23-25 and go to 32-33). That said wouldn't teams  want to give there franchise players their  top earnings and longest term contract between these years. 

 

This topic is not as much about contract earnings but more about contract term. I just thought that I should point this out because I will talk about contract earning in association to contract term.

 

Why did the 2 year bridge deal fail as a possible solution to dealing with contract negations with the top RFAs. My answer would be 2 fold, first could you actually see guys like; Marner, Point, Rantanen, Aho, Tkackuk, Meir, Connor, Boeser and Laine agreeing to sign for 3.5-4.5 million per season after each of these players put up between 26-41 goals  or 94-50 points this season. 

Second, what does the 2 year term really mean. its actually good for the team now, but bad for the player in his future contract negations. Why you ask. IF a team signs a player at 22 years old he will be 24 at the end of this contract then he signs a big money deal with the same team at 24 for 8 years and he will be 32 at the end of his contract all but maybe 1 of his prime years will be over and teams and fans especially will undermined his future contributions. Thus, said players final contract is actually worth far less for that player then if he where to sign a contract at 28-29 years of age for 7-8 years. But why do GMS not want to sign 28-29 year old guys to 7-8 years simply said GMS will be over paying the last few years of said contract cause the player will no longer be in his prime.

 

So what is the solution. If a GM gives an RFA a 6 year term  at 22 then he will be 28 at the end of that contract. (See above for rational why this does not work).

So only one good option for both player and team exist, a 4 year deal between $6.5-$8 mill per season dependent on the player. Which pays them for there prime RFA years as they develop into complete players. This takes them to 26 years of age which then the GMS sign them to there maxed 8 year deals to pay for their prime years, 26,27,28 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.

 

Take Boeser as example, 4 years @ $7mill then 8 years @ 10+ million per season. It actually make so much logic that is should go in to the next CBA. Entry level contract, RFA 4 year max contract, then the player and team should have an option to sign said player to a max contract of 8 years or any term less then 8 years. Or the player should have the right to sign a 1 year contract and then become an UFA after said contract expires. Thus a team could control there player to a minimal of 8 years.

Edited June 16, 2019 by Arrow 1983

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

Some nice ideas, in theory. But, the reality is that the current and upcoming CBA (now, or at any time) will direct the choices of player agents (players). They will always push for the choice that benefits the individual knowing their career has a very short lifespan. 

 

Sidenote: your mashed paragraphs were tough to read, especially on my phone..not that I am any better, though.

[xereau]

I'd like to see far more incentive based contracts in the league, base salary and then bonuses that count towards the cap. If your team is terrible why should they be paid? Also, no questions asked buyouts should be demanded by the owners in the next CBA, just like the NFL has. Perform or you are cut, contract gone, money gone. This guaranteed anchor crap is bad for the game.

[coastal.view]

26 minutes ago, xereau said:

I'd like to see far more incentive based contracts in the league, base salary and then bonuses that count towards the cap. If your team is terrible why should they be paid? Also, no questions asked buyouts should be demanded by the owners in the next CBA, just like the NFL has. Perform or you are cut, contract gone, money gone. This guaranteed anchor crap is bad for the game.

so you do not feel sporting adults should be allowed to negotiate contracts

with legal help

 

would you extend your logic of oversight of all contractual arrangements to the private/commercial/non-sport sectors as well?

 

 

 

[JeremyCuddles]

47 minutes ago, xereau said:

I'd like to see far more incentive based contracts in the league, base salary and then bonuses that count towards the cap. If your team is terrible why should they be paid? Also, no questions asked buyouts should be demanded by the owners in the next CBA, just like the NFL has. Perform or you are cut, contract gone, money gone. This guaranteed anchor crap is bad for the game.

This

[-AJ-]

4 hours ago, xereau said:

I'd like to see far more incentive based contracts in the league, base salary and then bonuses that count towards the cap. If your team is terrible why should they be paid? Also, no questions asked buyouts should be demanded by the owners in the next CBA, just like the NFL has. Perform or you are cut, contract gone, money gone. This guaranteed anchor crap is bad for the game.

I would definitely like more allowances for performance bonuses. They're so limited now that they're extremely rare. I can't figure out why they are so restricted.

[mll]

8 hours ago, xereau said:

I'd like to see far more incentive based contracts in the league, base salary and then bonuses that count towards the cap. If your team is terrible why should they be paid? Also, no questions asked buyouts should be demanded by the owners in the next CBA, just like the NFL has. Perform or you are cut, contract gone, money gone. This guaranteed anchor crap is bad for the game.

The CBA doesn't allow performance bonuses on standard contracts.  Performance bonuses are only possible on ELCs within a set framework and age 35+ contracts.  

[IBatch]

I’d like to see a cap on RFA years, like there is for rookies, players are getting UFA dollars off the hop now.  8 million would do for right now and it could go up each year with the cap.  If McDavid was getting 8 then Boeser gets 5 and so forth .  Think that ship has sailed.   As far as unlimited buyouts then we might as well get rid of the cap all-together, big market teams like TO and NYR would constantly be making bad and inflationary deals, make a mistake whoops buy the player out and he’d go elsewhere with his millions and sign again like a lot of the guys that get bought out end up doing anyways (Lecavalier’s monster 7.75 deal would have been off the books this year? Or was it next?  And then he signed in PHI). The players would love that idea.  Big market GMs too.  Small market teams would be boned again and the middle class players would suffer even more cap squeezing to pay for the star class (who’s contracts would keep inflating).

 

Performance based contracts would be great ... can’t imagine players agreeing to this...and GMs the way they are..would sign guys base salary at what it should be and then add a pile of extra bonuses on top as the cherry to get guys to stay or sign with them.  In a way some salaries are structured like this for older guys already (have seen a few of them).  That said I like the idea, in the real world you get fired for underperforming... with some cap work it’s possible.

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, -AJ- said:

I would definitely like more allowances for performance bonuses. They're so limited now that they're extremely rare. I can't figure out why they are so restricted.

The NHL knows GMs can’t help themselves with what they pay guys...it’s what got both sides into hot water to begin with and why salaries were rolled back 20% and the cap was created.   My worry is that the base salaries they’d offer guys would be the same or more anyways and then they’d add bonuses as an added incentive to get them to stay or leave depending on what side they were on.  The only thing I can think of to keep rising RFA salaries down is to add a cap next CBA like they do with rookies, bonuses on top of them maybe could work?

[spook007]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

I’d like to see a cap on RFA years, like there is for rookies, players are getting UFA dollars off the hop now.  8 million would do for right now and it could go up each year with the cap.  If McDavid was getting 8 then Boeser gets 5 and so forth .  Think that ship has sailed.   As far as unlimited buyouts then we might as well get rid of the cap all-together, big market teams like TO and NYR would constantly be making bad and inflationary deals, make a mistake whoops buy the player out and he’d go elsewhere with his millions and sign again like a lot of the guys that get bought out end up doing anyways (Lecavalier’s monster 7.75 deal would have been off the books this year? Or was it next?  And then he signed in PHI). The players would love that idea.  Big market GMs too.  Small market teams would be boned again and the middle class players would suffer even more cap squeezing to pay for the star class (who’s contracts would keep inflating).

 

Performance based contracts would be great ... can’t imagine players agreeing to this...and GMs the way they are..would sign guys base salary at what it should be and then add a pile of extra bonuses on top as the cherry to get guys to stay or sign with them.  In a way some salaries are structured like this for older guys already (have seen a few of them).  That said I like the idea, in the real world you get fired for underperforming... with some cap work it’s possible.

Cheers Ibatch... sign me up. Its not just hockey this happens.

The standard is the fantastic play in contract year, just to see them fall like apple off the tree, after the contract has been signed. As a fan its so infuriating...

[86Viking]

10 hours ago, xereau said:

I'd like to see far more incentive based contracts in the league, base salary and then bonuses that count towards the cap. If your team is terrible why should they be paid? Also, no questions asked buyouts should be demanded by the owners in the next CBA, just like the NFL has. Perform or you are cut, contract gone, money gone. This guaranteed anchor crap is bad for the game.

You are correct unfortunately the NHLPA will never sign off on that, only way it happens is if the NHL goes on strike for probably 2 years then maybe the players will bend and say hey, I am willing to bet on myself and at least get to play the game I love and make millions...

 

I also agree that a players 2nd contract should max them out to still be an RFA giving the team more control, it also is more of a sample size for the teams to see if said player is worth 8,9,10,11,12 million dollars per year. These young guys are great but some of these contracts are obsurd, making 9-11m per year after only playing for a couple years in the league.

 

But it is what it is at the end of the day, just hope our team is gets smarter with their spending and we continue to trend upwards but we do need to step up and address areas of weakness. That will mean trading a younger player, propsect or picks going forward

[Standing_Tall#37]

The general consensus amongst most nhl front offices nowadays is that you know what an nhl player will be by time they’re 24. They say that a player has reached 90% of his peak by then. I also heard the panel saying that if a player is going to make an all star game that if they haven’t made it by age 24 they never will... with the exception of 1 player/year. 

 

When players were playing until 36....37...38 years old,  bridge contracts made sense. But now they don’t.  We mustn’t forget that the average nhl career lasts 4 seasons now and that the lengthier ones will be about 12 seasons at the high end. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

The general consensus amongst most nhl front offices nowadays is that you know what an nhl player will be by time they’re 24. They say that a player has reached 90% of his peak by then. I also heard the panel saying that if a player is going to make an all star game that if they haven’t made it by age 24 they never will... with the exception of 1 player/year. 

 

When players were playing until 36....37...38 years old,  bridge contracts made sense. But now they don’t.  We mustn’t forget that the average nhl career lasts 4 seasons now and that the lengthier ones will be about 12 seasons at the high end. 

And guys like Boeser, who came very close to a career ending injury, don’t want bridge deals.  They want security of a longer term.  

I see the older guys now coming up to UFA (excepting the elite few, like EK, Panarin) are going to get a lot less than they did before, because the young guys are taking that cap. 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, spook007 said:

Cheers Ibatch... sign me up. Its not just hockey this happens.

The standard is the fantastic play in contract year, just to see them fall like apple off the tree, after the contract has been signed. As a fan its so infuriating...

Absolutely...I had some doubts about LE but for the most part was excited, he was definitely a top line player in Boston and before in Dallas and like some I had high hopes he’d re-ignite the Sedins at least for a year or two...of course it didn’t happen ... I do think he’s trying his best and is a professional, it’s just that he never really got to play with other top line players (the Sedins weren’t anymore) and Horvat and EP play time was limited ...because he’s declined unfortunately.  It is frustrating.   Ryan in OTT is the poster boy for frustration...supposedly a very good player not even in his prime yet...if I had to pick a team that has suffered as much as us recently it would be them.

[IBatch]

44 minutes ago, Alflives said:

And guys like Boeser, who came very close to a career ending injury, don’t want bridge deals.  They want security of a longer term.  

I see the older guys now coming up to UFA (excepting the elite few, like EK, Panarin) are going to get a lot less than they did before, because the young guys are taking that cap. 

Or will they Alf?  Their agents get to use recent comparable and so far it’s they are definitely not getting a pay cut (Stone, Skinner etc) ... I think the middle class guys are the ones that will end up continuing to get boned...funny thing is they have the majority of the NHLPA votes, you’d think at one point they’d wise up and rebel.   

[JM_]

i wonder if this idea would create a lot more offer sheets? the risk is a lot lower since they'd be limited to just 4 years. 

 

I think you may see a lot of guys going to arbitration after this 4 year deal as well on the road to free agency, vs. assuming an 8 year deal would follow. 

 

 

[Wanless]

11 hours ago, coastal.view said:

so you do not feel sporting adults should be allowed to negotiate contracts

with legal help

 

would you extend your logic of oversight of all contractual arrangements to the private/commercial/non-sport sectors as well?

 

 

 

This does extend to the private sector. I'm a contract worker and I can be fired mid contract for not making targets, also if I get fired from the contract if the guy who is contracted after me charges more that what I said I would do it for I'm legally on the hook for the difference.

[IBatch]

17 minutes ago, Wanless said:

This does extend to the private sector. I'm a contract worker and I can be fired mid contract for not making targets, also if I get fired from the contract if the guy who is contracted after me charges more that what I said I would do it for I'm legally on the hook for the difference.

Absolutely...I was too for years doing mostly cost plus ... if I went over my estimate for the jobs (most 75-300k) not only would I loose the client I would also loose the luxury to work that way and be back to quoting work (which is tougher). I did a lot of both in my career and absolutely their are huge ramifications if you go over or do inferior work.  It also affects the entire company not just losing a client.

 

 

edit:  in the cap world it works much the same way, if a player isn’t performing to his cap hit the company or organization suffers...the difference is they can’t get fired and get to suck all they want.  When I hired guys I gave them a three day window to make the team.  I usually knew within one day if they could cut it...the real world is a lot different then the hockey world ..  they can suck one game do great the other...or get injured and still get the same paycheque.. or just suck completely compared to their cap hit and cash cheque’s right until their contracts done...and maybe they will do great the year before their next contract is up...and some fool will hire them thinking he will keep it up despite the evidence available from the previous contract that they sit on their laurels once they get their contracts....

Edited June 16, 2019 by IBatch

[Rob_Zepp]

45 minutes ago, Wanless said:

This does extend to the private sector. I'm a contract worker and I can be fired mid contract for not making targets, also if I get fired from the contract if the guy who is contracted after me charges more that what I said I would do it for I'm legally on the hook for the difference.

No offence but you are probably not uniquely talented in that upon firing you, they can readily find someone to take over that contract.    There are only so many upper end hockey players in the world.   This discussion is really only relevant to a handful of players on each team.    These are the cream of the crop of the most elite at what they do in the world.    Don't expect their contracts to look like yours.

[hlinkas wrister]

I've got no issues with big contracts for players who filled the net on their elc's. Some of them are ridiculously underpaid for their production (relative to their peers) and their second contracts should reflect that.