Contracts for the Big-3

[sickbeast]

I find myself wondering a lot lately if all of this is just a big orchestration on the part of the Leafs to exploit a favorable part of the CBA. If Willy gets signed Dec 1st to a 7 (or 8) year deal that pays him the first year as a signing bonus - meaning that no salary was lost by sitting out - then it will be a massive win/win.

Would Dubas be willing to suffer a short term problem (no Willy for 2 months) in order to have a better long term deal and secure him at a more favorable cap hit in years 2 through 7 (or 8)?

I have no knowledge of this at all. Just speculating. But with this Leafs management it should not actually surprise us, though no one would ever come right out and admit it even if it does happen this way.

Someone earlier in the thread ran the numbers, and it was like $400K a year in cap savings.  Seems hardly worth the shenanigans.

Without necessarily disagreeing... 7 years of $400k is $2.8 million dollars. At some point it?s real money.

Yes.  There were theories of this some time ago.  In fact I believe I said this myself about a month ago.

I personally can't help but read between the lines of what Roman Polak recently said about Babcock and certain "skill guys".  IMO that was a not so subtle hint that there may be a rift between Nylander and Babcock.  Perhaps I am taking this too far but it also makes me wonder if this has anything to do with the purported issues between Matthews and Babcock at the end of last season.

The bottom line is that the two sides haven't reached a deal (yet).  That generally means that they are too far apart monetarily.  While these other things could be true to a certain extent I think the bottom line is Nylander is shouting "show me the money!" and Dubas is saying "I can't" or "I won't".

 

[Zee]

They need to get Nylander and Lewis Gross in an Uber

 

[Guilt Trip]

Without necessarily disagreeing... 7 years of $400k is $2.8 million dollars. At some point it?s real money.

That number doesn't represent actually money, though, just AAV calculations and cap space. If cap space didn't expire, that would be worth considering, but, really, it is just $400K against the cap each season for 7 seasons. That's not even a player at league minimum salary.

You save that with 5 players contracts and it adds up quickly. You have to save where you can with each and every contract. There's a reason the Leafs haven't budged on their number. There's no such a thing as it's just 400K in a cap world.

 

[Kin]

You save that with 5 players contracts and it adds up quickly. You have to save where you can with each and every contract. There's a reason the Leafs haven't budged on their number. There's no such a thing as it's just 400K in a cap world.

So you hurt your team's performance in the regular season and risk alienating your top young players five times and maybe you save 2.5% of the cap.

 

[Guilt Trip]

You save that with 5 players contracts and it adds up quickly. You have to save where you can with each and every contract. There's a reason the Leafs haven't budged on their number. There's no such a thing as it's just 400K in a cap world.

So you hurt your team's performance in the regular season and risk alienating your top young players five times and maybe you save 2.5% of the cap.

Where did I say that? I didn't. Simply responding to the "Its only 400k" comment. If you read where I said there's a reason the Leafs haven't budged you would understand. Obviously not.

 

[bustaheims]

You save that with 5 players contracts and it adds up quickly. You have to save where you can with each and every contract. There's a reason the Leafs haven't budged on their number. There's no such a thing as it's just 400K in a cap world.

But, at that point, the risk far outweighs the reward. So, you do kinda have to look at is as just $400K when picking it up in large volumes means icing a significantly weaker roster and alienating key players.

 

[Kin]

Where did I say that?

You said that the 400k takes on real significance once it's added together to other similar savings. But the only way to make that happen is to have similarly contentious negotiations and, yes, icing a weaker roster and potentially alienating players.

In which case, like I said, you're still only saving a relatively minimal amount of the cap. There is such a thing as putting 400k in its proper perspective.

 

[L K]

I think the biggest thing is that holding a player out for marginal cap savings is kind of silly.  The potential to lose out on his services permanently over 400K is bad asset management. From Nylander's perspective if he was "in on it", it doesn't make sense because if he gets hurt tomorrow the Leafs aren't going to pay him a nickel.

 

[Bates]

Where did I say that?

You said that the 400k takes on real significance once it's added together to other similar savings. But the only way to make that happen is to have similarly contentious negotiations and, yes, icing a weaker roster and potentially alienating players.

In which case, like I said, you're still only saving a relatively minimal amount of the cap. There is such a thing as putting 400k in its proper perspective.

Why do negotiations have to be contentious to achieve savings? It's not inconceivable that both Matthews, Marner, and Rielly leave some cash on the table to make the team better.  They might view winning as important when they consider they will be wealthy for Life either way,  It's also just as possible they want their absolute max and care only about themselves.

 

[L K]

Where did I say that?

You said that the 400k takes on real significance once it's added together to other similar savings. But the only way to make that happen is to have similarly contentious negotiations and, yes, icing a weaker roster and potentially alienating players.

In which case, like I said, you're still only saving a relatively minimal amount of the cap. There is such a thing as putting 400k in its proper perspective.

Why do negotiations have to be contentious to achieve savings? It's not inconceivable that both Matthews, Marner, and Rielly leave some cash on the table to make the team better.  They might view winning as important when they consider they will be wealthy for Life either way,  It's also just as possible they want their absolute max and care only about themselves.

I don't think wanting the max is only about caring about themselves.  I think that's an unfair burden to place on a player.  The NHL sure as hell isn't communist.  The team isn't taking less in ticket sales to prop up support for the team, I'm not sure why a player is greedy for wanting what he is worth.

 

[Bates]

Where did I say that?

You said that the 400k takes on real significance once it's added together to other similar savings. But the only way to make that happen is to have similarly contentious negotiations and, yes, icing a weaker roster and potentially alienating players.

In which case, like I said, you're still only saving a relatively minimal amount of the cap. There is such a thing as putting 400k in its proper perspective.

Why do negotiations have to be contentious to achieve savings? It's not inconceivable that both Matthews, Marner, and Rielly leave some cash on the table to make the team better.  They might view winning as important when they consider they will be wealthy for Life either way,  It's also just as possible they want their absolute max and care only about themselves.

I don't think so either but with the Cap we are probably going to see more stars accept a little less for hopefully more help with the heavy lifting.
I don't think wanting the max is only about caring about themselves.  I think that's an unfair burden to place on a player.  The NHL sure as hell isn't communist.  The team isn't taking less in ticket sales to prop up support for the team, I'm not sure why a player is greedy for wanting what he is worth.

 

[Kin]

Why do negotiations have to be contentious to achieve savings?

We were talking specifically about the savings a team can realize if they don't sign a player until the end of November.

 

[Bates]

Why do negotiations have to be contentious to achieve savings?

We were talking specifically about the savings a team can realize if they don't sign a player until the end of November.

That wasn't part of the conversation with the guy you quoted but I get both points.

 

[Kin]

That wasn't part of the conversation with the guy you quoted but I get both points.

Some of us trim quotes to make things easier to read. Admittedly, that does entail the trade off of not having the entire conversation quoted in every single post but people largely manage to keep up.

 

[Bates]

That wasn't part of the conversation with the guy you quoted but I get both points.

Some of us trim quotes to make things easier to read. Admittedly, that does entail the trade off of not having the entire conversation quoted in every single post but people largely manage to keep up.

Again I'm following the guy you quoted, I read his whole post, and he didn't suggest you have a contentious negotionion with everyone to get savings. He just said that if you get a bit from everyone it becomes significant.

 

[Kin]

I don't think wanting the max is only about caring about themselves.  I think that's an unfair burden to place on a player.  The NHL sure as hell isn't communist.  The team isn't taking less in ticket sales to prop up support for the team, I'm not sure why a player is greedy for wanting what he is worth.

I also think there's no chance that in giving that inch, NHL teams wouldn't then take it as an invitation to negotiate for the mile. Once taking a few hundred thousand less for the "good of the team" becomes standard then it will be a few hundred thousand more or you only care about yourself. Then a few hundred thousand more. Then a million here or there. After all, they're all rich anyway, right?

Like I've tried to say before, the entire CBA is predicated on the notion of players taking less "for the good of the team". Asking players to take less than they might be worth within the context of a system that already artificially lowers their salaries is...I mean, hats off to the GMs for the cojones but it fails pretty miserably as a moral argument.

 

[Kin]

Again I'm following the guy you quoted, I read his whole post, and he didn't suggest you have a contentious negotionion with everyone to get savings. He just said that if you get a bit from everyone it becomes significant.

Again "savings" is specifically referring to the difference in salary/cap hit that occurs if a player is signed after a season has begun. It is not a reference to negotiating with a player hoping to get them to sign for lower than they want because the Leafs are already doing that with Nylander. This is in addition to that.

These posts all exist within the context of a larger conversation. Again, most people can keep up.

 

[Bates]

I don't think wanting the max is only about caring about themselves.  I think that's an unfair burden to place on a player.  The NHL sure as hell isn't communist.  The team isn't taking less in ticket sales to prop up support for the team, I'm not sure why a player is greedy for wanting what he is worth.

I also think there's no chance that in giving that inch, NHL teams wouldn't then take it as an invitation to negotiate for the mile. Once taking a few hundred thousand less for the "good of the team" becomes standard then it will be a few hundred thousand more or you only care about yourself. Then a few hundred thousand more. Then a million here or there. After all, they're all rich anyway, right?

Like I've tried to say before, the entire CBA is predicated on the notion of players taking less "for the good of the team". Asking players to take less than they might be worth within the context of a system that already artificially lowers their salaries is...I mean, hats off to the GMs for the cojones but it fails pretty miserably as a moral argument.

It's really the only direction to go, the League has already set up the plan that the bottom half of each team plays with almost exclusively players making around a million. The more high end talent you have the more low cost talent you have. The only real place to get some middle ground talent is to beg the top guys to subsidize it.

 

[Bates]

Again I'm following the guy you quoted, I read his whole post, and he didn't suggest you have a contentious negotionion with everyone to get savings. He just said that if you get a bit from everyone it becomes significant.

Again "savings" is specifically referring to the difference in salary/cap hit that occurs if a player is signed after a season has begun. It is not a reference to negotiating with a player hoping to get them to sign for lower than they want because the Leafs are already doing that with Nylander. This is in addition to that.

These posts all exist within the context of a larger conversation. Again, most people can keep up.

So the conversation can't change to just savings?? Someone tried to change the conversation.

 

[Kin]

It's really the only direction to go, the League has already set up the plan that the bottom half of each team plays with almost exclusively players making around a million. The more high end talent you have the more low cost talent you have. The only real place to get some middle ground talent is to beg the top guys to subsidize it.

Yeah, again, I don't fault NHL teams for trying that out. I'm just absolutely not going to attach any moral or logical significance to it. Especially a team like the Leafs.