Jump to content

Andrei Kostitsyn inked


Recommended Posts

As I've noted before, this was not possible. The absolute minimum he could have got was $3.25M, or his qualifying offer. It is quite rare that a player in his last arbitration year simply takes his qualifying offer which suggests one of the following:

1) The Habs threatened to not qualify Kostitsyn and used that as leverage

2) They warned that they'd likely walk away from an arbitration award of ___, given the lack of time before camp where this would come into play, that could have cautioned Kostitsyn to just take essentially a 1 year extension

3) Management went to Kostitsyn and asked him to not to take a raise for the good of the team

All are realistic and at the same time, hard to believe but when I saw the numbers, these are the thoughts that jumped in my head.

Or he wanted 1 year only in order to become UFA ASAP and get the hell out of this hockey-crazy city. That's the thought that jumped in my head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Or he wanted 1 year only in order to become UFA ASAP and get the hell out of this hockey-crazy city. That's the thought that jumped in my head.

At the end of the day it was the best decision for him to test the UFA waters. In reality, if he has a poor Kostitsyn season he can re-up for the same amount for another 4 years. If he is average, the UFA status will net him more. If he has an outlier career season of 70 points somebody will inflate his salary even higher.

The only risk to him is a season ending knee injury, but as we have seen with Markov, that won't even stop him from getting his $$ next season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or he wanted 1 year only in order to become UFA ASAP and get the hell out of this hockey-crazy city. That's the thought that jumped in my head.

If he wanted out as quickly as possible, he could've demanded a trade or taken the team to arbitration. Both could have accomplished this goal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he wanted out as quickly as possible, he could've demanded a trade or taken the team to arbitration. Both could have accomplished this goal.

I think Wamsley has called it. It's in Kostitsyn's interest to go short-term here. The worst case scenario is that he end sup remaining at the current salary bracket. More likely, he will have either a typical or a strong season, in which case he'll bag more in his UFA year, whether with us or with someone else. That, to me, is what habs29 overlooks in attacking the organization for not locking up RFAs to long-term deals. It's usually in the RFA's interest NOT to sign such a deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Wamsley has called it. It's in Kostitsyn's interest to go short-term here. The worst case scenario is that he end sup remaining at the current salary bracket. More likely, he will have either a typical or a strong season, in which case he'll bag more in his UFA year, whether with us or with someone else. That, to me, is what habs29 overlooks in attacking the organization for not locking up RFAs to long-term deals. It's usually in the RFA's interest NOT to sign such a deal.

funny how other organizations do get their players to commit and by doing, are able to buy the UFA years from their players at cheaper rates and its funny how other teams are able to get their players to take home town discount as RFA. It's also no coincidence that those organizations are now the successful ones, rather then being the middle of the road team the habs have been for far too long. Chicago signed their 2 stars up front and 2 big dmen to long term commitments at a much more reasonable rates then they would cost if they hit UFA. Philly - Ditto, Detroit - Ditto, Vancouver - Ditto. Had Tallon not screwed up his RFA tendersheets at the deadline and bid against himself for Huet and Campbell, the hawks would have be the class of the league right now - perfect example of how tanking for so long at the death of a horrible owner can turn a franchise around. Had Philly not been so stupid and signed a real goalie three years ago, they would also have been a killer team in the playoffs given the guys the have locked up.

Successful organizations with a long-term view are cognizant of locking up their assets. These organizations make a commitment to the player and in return their players have taken less money then would have been available on the open market. If you sign your young prized assets, best case scenerio is you have guys signed at a discount from market rates. Worst case is that you proabably still have a movable asset - as long as you don't sign players to stupid Gomez/Redden/Drury/Horcoff kind of deals.

The habs continue with one year deals and IMO that puts more pressure on the player and serves as a distraction to both the player and the team. Then when we lose our guys to UFA's we end up trading our #2 picks to fill holes that wouldn't have been there (i.e. Streit), had they locked up guys before they hit UFA status. Right now we have an oppertunity with young guys like Subban/MaxPac/Price/Eller to have that closeness within the team and these guys may be willing to take less. You don't think Zetterberg/Datszyk/Holmstrom/Franzen couldn't have gotten more if they went to the open market?

With AK46, I think the situation was probably more the organization not wanting to offer him an increase - I'm basing this more on how little JM used AK46 on the PP, shifted him around the lineup for mistakes then most other non-performing front line players and had a guy who scored 2 PP goals all year and another scrub with no hands a regular fixture on the PP, as well as the flippant comments JM made when AK46 got off to a hot start. Instead of trying to be more apprecaitive of his play and being more positive in the media, was dismissive and commented that it is a contract year. I know if I made that kind of comment to one my high performing staff members, they'd be pretty pissed, so why would you expect a pro athelete to be any different???

Lastly, if the habs signed AK46 for $4m-$4.25M 4 years and he scores 25 goals/year and brings his physical game I'd be satisfied - to me that is the worst case scenerio for AK46, as he has become a much more complete player and I really don't get the hate for him by some on this forum. How many people were complaining about Gionta and Cammy when they weren't producing and seemed to be in neutral for parts of the season (Cammy in particular?) How many were demanding they be moved. Gomez and Cammy have taken as many bonehead penalties as AK46 has and made a lot of just dumb plays during the stretches that they struggled (in Gomez's case that was most of the season).

Anyway, I really think that he is going to break out to be a 30-35 goal scorer, in which case you would have gotten a bargain, now we'll probably see another guy walk away for nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

funny how other organizations do get their players to commit and by doing, are able to buy the UFA years from their players at cheaper rates and its funny how other teams are able to get their players to take home town discount as RFA. It's also no coincidence that those organizations are now the successful ones, rather then being the middle of the road team the habs have been for far too long. Chicago signed their 2 stars up front and 2 big dmen to long term commitments at a much more reasonable rates then they would cost if they hit UFA. Philly - Ditto, Detroit - Ditto, Vancouver - Ditto. Had Tallon not screwed up his RFA tendersheets at the deadline and bid against himself for Huet and Campbell, the hawks would have be the class of the league right now - perfect example of how tanking for so long at the death of a horrible owner can turn a franchise around. Had Philly not been so stupid and signed a real goalie three years ago, they would also have been a killer team in the playoffs given the guys the have locked up.

Successful organizations with a long-term view are cognizant of locking up their assets. These organizations make a commitment to the player and in return their players have taken less money then would have been available on the open market. If you sign your young prized assets, best case scenerio is you have guys signed at a discount from market rates. Worst case is that you proabably still have a movable asset - as long as you don't sign players to stupid Gomez/Redden/Drury/Horcoff kind of deals.

The habs continue with one year deals and IMO that puts more pressure on the player and serves as a distraction to both the player and the team. Then when we lose our guys to UFA's we end up trading our #2 picks to fill holes that wouldn't have been there (i.e. Streit), had they locked up guys before they hit UFA status. Right now we have an oppertunity with young guys like Subban/MaxPac/Price/Eller to have that closeness within the team and these guys may be willing to take less. You don't think Zetterberg/Datszyk/Holmstrom/Franzen couldn't have gotten more if they went to the open market?

With AK46, I think the situation was probably more the organization not wanting to offer him an increase - I'm basing this more on how little JM used AK46 on the PP, shifted him around the lineup for mistakes then most other non-performing front line players and had a guy who scored 2 PP goals all year and another scrub with no hands a regular fixture on the PP, as well as the flippant comments JM made when AK46 got off to a hot start. Instead of trying to be more apprecaitive of his play and being more positive in the media, was dismissive and commented that it is a contract year. I know if I made that kind of comment to one my high performing staff members, they'd be pretty pissed, so why would you expect a pro athelete to be any different???

Lastly, if the habs signed AK46 for $4m-$4.25M 4 years and he scores 25 goals/year and brings his physical game I'd be satisfied - to me that is the worst case scenerio for AK46, as he has become a much more complete player and I really don't get the hate for him by some on this forum. How many people were complaining about Gionta and Cammy when they weren't producing and seemed to be in neutral for parts of the season (Cammy in particular?) How many were demanding they be moved. Gomez and Cammy have taken as many bonehead penalties as AK46 has and made a lot of just dumb plays during the stretches that they struggled (in Gomez's case that was most of the season).

Anyway, I really think that he is going to break out to be a 30-35 goal scorer, in which case you would have gotten a bargain, now we'll probably see another guy walk away for nothing.

Those other teams locked up their stars long term. Not their 5th/6th forwards. Our stars will be signed long term too, not Kostitsyn though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

funny how other organizations do get their players to commit and by doing, are able to buy the UFA years from their players at cheaper rates and its funny how other teams are able to get their players to take home town discount as RFA. It's also no coincidence that those organizations are now the successful ones, rather then being the middle of the road team the habs have been for far too long. Chicago signed their 2 stars up front and 2 big dmen to long term commitments at a much more reasonable rates then they would cost if they hit UFA. Philly - Ditto, Detroit - Ditto, Vancouver - Ditto. Had Tallon not screwed up his RFA tendersheets at the deadline and bid against himself for Huet and Campbell, the hawks would have be the class of the league right now - perfect example of how tanking for so long at the death of a horrible owner can turn a franchise around. Had Philly not been so stupid and signed a real goalie three years ago, they would also have been a killer team in the playoffs given the guys the have locked up.

Successful organizations with a long-term view are cognizant of locking up their assets. These organizations make a commitment to the player and in return their players have taken less money then would have been available on the open market. If you sign your young prized assets, best case scenerio is you have guys signed at a discount from market rates. Worst case is that you proabably still have a movable asset - as long as you don't sign players to stupid Gomez/Redden/Drury/Horcoff kind of deals.

The habs continue with one year deals and IMO that puts more pressure on the player and serves as a distraction to both the player and the team. Then when we lose our guys to UFA's we end up trading our #2 picks to fill holes that wouldn't have been there (i.e. Streit), had they locked up guys before they hit UFA status. Right now we have an oppertunity with young guys like Subban/MaxPac/Price/Eller to have that closeness within the team and these guys may be willing to take less. You don't think Zetterberg/Datszyk/Holmstrom/Franzen couldn't have gotten more if they went to the open market?

With AK46, I think the situation was probably more the organization not wanting to offer him an increase - I'm basing this more on how little JM used AK46 on the PP, shifted him around the lineup for mistakes then most other non-performing front line players and had a guy who scored 2 PP goals all year and another scrub with no hands a regular fixture on the PP, as well as the flippant comments JM made when AK46 got off to a hot start. Instead of trying to be more apprecaitive of his play and being more positive in the media, was dismissive and commented that it is a contract year. I know if I made that kind of comment to one my high performing staff members, they'd be pretty pissed, so why would you expect a pro athelete to be any different???

Lastly, if the habs signed AK46 for $4m-$4.25M 4 years and he scores 25 goals/year and brings his physical game I'd be satisfied - to me that is the worst case scenerio for AK46, as he has become a much more complete player and I really don't get the hate for him by some on this forum. How many people were complaining about Gionta and Cammy when they weren't producing and seemed to be in neutral for parts of the season (Cammy in particular?) How many were demanding they be moved. Gomez and Cammy have taken as many bonehead penalties as AK46 has and made a lot of just dumb plays during the stretches that they struggled (in Gomez's case that was most of the season).

Anyway, I really think that he is going to break out to be a 30-35 goal scorer, in which case you would have gotten a bargain, now we'll probably see another guy walk away for nothing.

Is it just me? Or is this full of confirmation bias.

Crediting Chicago for one thing and then glossing over a MASSIVE screwup. Crediting Philly and then glossing over the fact that they don't have a goalie.

Why do I think that if Montreal had locked in young players that they would get raped for tiny things like failing to tender offer sheets or acquiring a competent goaltender.

You are also projecting scenarios with zero information. Maybe Meehan and Kostitsyn were asking for $5M per to buy up their UFA seasons, maybe Gauthier offered what you thought would be the right deal and AK rejected it. You don't buy up UFA season cheaply. If Kostitsyn hits the UFA market next season after an average AK46 season I can guarantee you his bottom floor is $4M. So why the hell would he take that guarantee when it is barely better than his potential UFA salary floor. UFA inflates worth.

If the Habs had done with Price what the Hawks did with Toews and Kane in February 2009 (let's go low, so 5 years @ 4M) they would have paid $4M per for his awful 2010 and paid $8M for the 2011-2012 season. Instead they paid $6.5M and not $12M for those same 3 seasons. After next season if Price gets a 5 year $5M deal (a $2.25M raise) it will cost the Habs $31M for 8 years, in your scenario he would cost somewhere between $35 over the same 8 seasons if he signed for a $1M raise after year 5.

They control him for his RFA years and they control his salary inflation. That was the benefit of the lockout. It allows the Habs to survive overinflated UFA paychecks that Gionta and Cammalleri were awarded, let alone Gomez.

Locking up players like Toews and Kane for 2 extra UFA years is not cost effective and I don't understand why teams do it. It is monkey see, monkey do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me? Or is this full of confirmation bias.

Crediting Chicago for one thing and then glossing over a MASSIVE screwup. Crediting Philly and then glossing over the fact that they don't have a goalie.

Why do I think that if Montreal had locked in young players that they would get raped for tiny things like failing to tender offer sheets or acquiring a competent goaltender.

You are also projecting scenarios with zero information. Maybe Meehan and Kostitsyn were asking for $5M per to buy up their UFA seasons, maybe Gauthier offered what you thought would be the right deal and AK rejected it. You don't buy up UFA season cheaply. If Kostitsyn hits the UFA market next season after an average AK46 season I can guarantee you his bottom floor is $4M. So why the hell would he take that guarantee when it is barely better than his potential UFA salary floor. UFA inflates worth.

If the Habs had done with Price what the Hawks did with Toews and Kane in February 2009 (let's go low, so 5 years @ 4M) they would have paid $4M per for his awful 2010 and paid $8M for the 2011-2012 season. Instead they paid $6.5M and not $12M for those same 3 seasons. After next season if Price gets a 5 year $5M deal (a $2.25M raise) it will cost the Habs $31M for 8 years, in your scenario he would cost somewhere between $35 over the same 8 seasons if he signed for a $1M raise after year 5.

They control him for his RFA years and they control his salary inflation. That was the benefit of the lockout. It allows the Habs to survive overinflated UFA paychecks that Gionta and Cammalleri were awarded, let alone Gomez.

Locking up players like Toews and Kane for 2 extra UFA years is not cost effective and I don't understand why teams do it. It is monkey see, monkey do.

Who's glossing over those massive screw-ups??? I'm stating the good things the clubs did and citing their stupidity as well. Talon deserved to be fired, doesn't matter if it was someone under him who screwed up but not getting paperwork in for his RFA - it was utter stupidity. If one of my employees accountable for that did that I'd fire his ass. Same thing for igning a one dimensional Dman like Campbell or Huet to stupid deals was incredibly stupid. But the point is once they identified there young guys, they locked them up long-term and they signed them early.

As for Philly, they've done a good job locking up a solid D and forward group, but ever since Bob Clarke was GM, they just haven't as an organization understood the importance of a goalie - which is quite ironic, since he really owes his 2 cup rings to Bernie Parent. It's not like they spent their money and couldn't afford a goalie. Last year they just went and signed Zherdev as another redundant forward on an already stacked lineup instead of spending the money where they needed it.

I think you have taken some university logic courses too much to heart in applying them in almost every post you make :rolleyes: I also think you are also doing a lot of assuming yourself. What makes you think AK46 was asking for $5M long-term - that would be highly unlikely given his production to date and his track record.

As far as how much of a premium you need to pay RFA's, I think Detroit is a good example. They have shown commitment to their home grown talent - kept them happy and the players their show loyalty in return and want to stay in Detroit long-term. You don't think Lidstrom could have gotten get $8M-$10M on the open market??? Or Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Holstrom and Franzen couldn't get more money if they tested free agency??

Frankly, I like the approach of locking up guys for 8-12 years when they are 22-24. I do have an issue of giving that term to guys that are 27-30 like Lecavalier or Hossa. Signing guys younger, paying a bit of a premium early and saving big dollars later, is a risk to the player and the team. To the player he may be foregoing a bigger payout, but signing an earlier longer term deal, getting more money early, in return for less in UFA years. Th player protects himself against injury and getting security. From the team's perspective you lock up guys that you've developed, you create a feeling of commitment to the organization that fosters loyalty and in the long run, if you identify the right players you lock up your core long-term. If you show your core that you want to lock them long term to keep the group together, there are players who will take less (Philly/Detroit/Chicago are prime examples). The big win for long-term deals is that while you pay more now, you can significantly lower the cap hit in the UFA years you've bought. With the lower cap hit in those years, those players also should be more movable if things don't work out, due to the lower cap hit and from I understand, before a certain age, there are a lot more restrictions on the no trade/no movement clauses available to those players.

I'd rather lock up my own players on long term contracts and securing more cost-effecive deals over the longer term, then have to offer term AND big $ to UFA's that you have to compete for on the open market. When you sign a UFA, you end up (or at least the habs do), giving more years then you should AND an extra $1 to $2m then what the guy is really worth.

From the Habs, the following are the guys I'd try and lock up this summer (I'm including AK46, bcoz I do value him much higher then a lot of others here):

Subban - 12 years - $3M/$3M/$4M/$5.5M/$5.5M/$6/$6M/$6M/$5.5M/$5.5M/$5M/$5M

Price - 12 years - $4.5M/$4.5M/$5M/$5.5M/$6M/$6M/$6M/$6M/$5.5M/$5M/$5M/$4.5M

Eller - 7 years - $2M/$2.5M/$3M/$3M/$3.5M/$3.5M/$3.5M (buying 2 UFA years, lowering the cap hit in those years)

MaxPac - 8 years - $2.5M/$3M/$3.5M/$3.5M/$4M/$4M/$4M/$4.5M (gamble, given his injury, but I'd be more then willing, but lowering the cap hit in the 3 UFA years you are buying)

AK46 - 6 years - $4M/$4M/$4.5M/$4.5M/$4.5M/$4.5M

White - 7 years - $1M/$1.2M/$1.2M/$1.4M/$1.5M/$1.7M/$1.7M (basically giving him an average close to what Moen got as a UFA, but for longer term)

Weber - 7 years - $1.2M/$1.5M/$1.5M/$2M/$2.5M/$2.5M/$2.5M (basically buying two UFA years and lowering the annual cap hit in those later years)

Looks like Gomez will get a free pass this year (if Ownerhip was willing this year, I'd Souray/Redden him), next year I'd trade or demote him regardless what of he does next year. Trade him if he has any value regardless of the numbers he puts up (while his salary will drops significantly, the cap hit probably still be worth the numbers he puts up). Dump him to the minors if its another crap year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those other teams locked up their stars long term. Not their 5th/6th forwards. Our stars will be signed long term too, not Kostitsyn though.

I actually think it is a good strategy locking up 5th/6th forwards long-term. The habs have locked up 4th/5th (IMO 10th- gomer) forward long-term through UFA or trades. They also locked up a 35 year old unmovable dead horse in Spacek for 3 years through free agency along with, what was it 4 or 5 year deal for Hammer - when no else was willing to go over 3 years.

I'd much rather lock up my younger guys long term then go blow money and extra term on older UFA's like Spacek, Moen, Laraque, Samsanov or make stupid trades for dead weight like Gomez or Ninnimma. Or even worse having to trade your 2nd round pick on an annual basis to plug the holes of UFA's that you let walk or not having the depth when injuries srike you down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subban - 12 years - $3M/$3M/$4M/$5.5M/$5.5M/$6/$6M/$6M/$5.5M/$5.5M/$5M/$5M

Price - 12 years - $4.5M/$4.5M/$5M/$5.5M/$6M/$6M/$6M/$6M/$5.5M/$5M/$5M/$4.5M

Eller - 7 years - $2M/$2.5M/$3M/$3M/$3.5M/$3.5M/$3.5M (buying 2 UFA years, lowering the cap hit in those years)

MaxPac - 8 years - $2.5M/$3M/$3.5M/$3.5M/$4M/$4M/$4M/$4.5M (gamble, given his injury, but I'd be more then willing, but lowering the cap hit in the 3 UFA years you are buying)

AK46 - 6 years - $4M/$4M/$4.5M/$4.5M/$4.5M/$4.5M

White - 7 years - $1M/$1.2M/$1.2M/$1.4M/$1.5M/$1.7M/$1.7M (basically giving him an average close to what Moen got as a UFA, but for longer term)

Weber - 7 years - $1.2M/$1.5M/$1.5M/$2M/$2.5M/$2.5M/$2.5M (basically buying two UFA years and lowering the annual cap hit in those later years)

I can understand some of those but 7 years to Ryan White? 4th line players under no circumstance should get 7 year deals; if they were that good, they wouldn't be 4th liners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand some of those but 7 years to Ryan White? 4th line players under no circumstance should get 7 year deals; if they were that good, they wouldn't be 4th liners.

Two reasons - I really think White can be a solid 3rd liner. He's a heart and soul guy and I'd much rather have him then Moen who was picked up for 3 years at $1.5M and really hasn't brought the physical element on a nightly basis the way White has. I think he can develop into a real leader (think he was a captain in Calgary???) and I'd like him to be around long-term.

Secondly, successful teams also have consistency in their role players. Think Detroit with Draper, Maltby, McCarthy. Having a few role players around a long time as part of your core group, goes a long way in developing chemistry and loyalty to the crest. Those guys all got substantial raises and if you identify the right guys early, you can again have long-term cap savings by reducing cap hits in the years the market would have over-paid for them.

Chris Higgins is another guy I really liked and wish he was still on the habs. I'd gladly pay Higgins the $2.2M or whatever he was getting over the $1.5M that Gainey paid Moen. The issue with Higgins was he was mis-cast into a top 6 guy. While Higgins is a good #5/6 when depth requires it on a time to time basis, he is the perfect third liner. Gets tons of chances with his speed, just not much finish - but is great on both sides of the ice. I see White being a similar type of player and once he gets more experience, I seem him being a leader and a guy that is loved in the locker room, because he sticks up for his mates and give a solid effort every night. And as I've already siad, having consitency with role players goes a long way to improve team chemistry and loyalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two reasons - I really think White can be a solid 3rd liner. He's a heart and soul guy and I'd much rather have him then Moen who was picked up for 3 years at $1.5M and really hasn't brought the physical element on a nightly basis the way White has. I think he can develop into a real leader (think he was a captain in Calgary???) and I'd like him to be around long-term.

Chris Higgins is another guy I really liked and wish he was still on the habs. I'd gladly pay Higgins the $2.2M or whatever he was getting over the $1.5M that Gainey paid Moen. The issue with Higgins was he was mis-cast into a top 6 guy. While Higgins is a good #5/6 when depth requires it on a time to time basis, he is the perfect third liner. Gets tons of chances with his speed, just not much finish - but is great on both sides of the ice. I see White being a similar type of player and once he gets more experience, I seem him being a leader and a guy that is loved in the locker room, because he sticks up for his mates and give a solid effort every night. And as I've already siad, having consitency with role players goes a long way to improve team chemistry and loyalty.

I don't see White the same way. I don't think talent wise he'll be good enough to be a 3rd liner, not enough offensive punch. Although minor league stats clearly don't always tell the tale, Pyatt was a much, much better offensive performer in Hamilton than he was. He certainly can help the team but his role will likely be as a 6-8 minute energy player. Although having some consistency is good, I still don't offer him more than a 1 year deal until he actually proves he can be a regular NHL'er over a full season.

As for Higgins, part of the issue with him is that even though we all saw him as a very good 3rd liner, it wasn't up until the last year or so that he saw himself the same way. With the Habs, there were always rumblings that he wasn't happy with his role, rumblings that also manifested in New York. Now, he seems to embrace that role and I agree, he'd be a solid pickup for a two-way 3rd line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two reasons - I really think White can be a solid 3rd liner. He's a heart and soul guy and I'd much rather have him then Moen who was picked up for 3 years at $1.5M and really hasn't brought the physical element on a nightly basis the way White has. I think he can develop into a real leader (think he was a captain in Calgary???) and I'd like him to be around long-term.

Secondly, successful teams also have consistency in their role players. Think Detroit with Draper, Maltby, McCarthy. Having a few role players around a long time as part of your core group, goes a long way in developing chemistry and loyalty to the crest. Those guys all got substantial raises and if you identify the right guys early, you can again have long-term cap savings by reducing cap hits in the years the market would have over-paid for them.

Chris Higgins is another guy I really liked and wish he was still on the habs. I'd gladly pay Higgins the $2.2M or whatever he was getting over the $1.5M that Gainey paid Moen. The issue with Higgins was he was mis-cast into a top 6 guy. While Higgins is a good #5/6 when depth requires it on a time to time basis, he is the perfect third liner. Gets tons of chances with his speed, just not much finish - but is great on both sides of the ice. I see White being a similar type of player and once he gets more experience, I seem him being a leader and a guy that is loved in the locker room, because he sticks up for his mates and give a solid effort every night. And as I've already siad, having consitency with role players goes a long way to improve team chemistry and loyalty.

I pretty much DITTO every thing Habs29retired has said other than White maybe a shorter term. That would include that last three or four posts. I would add this caveat,long term deals give you assets that are moveable because they are priced right presumedly. Qne year deals are prescriptions for divorce.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much DITTO every thing Habs29retired has said other than White maybe a shorter term. That would include that last three or four posts. I would add this caveat,long term deals give you assets that are moveable because they are priced right presumedly. Qne year deals are prescriptions for divorce.

They're priced right if they perform to expectations. If they don't, then you run into a Calgary situation where half the team has bloated multi year contracts and you perpetually spin your wheels. Locking up a key piece, a franchise player is one thing, but your secondary pieces? There's a reason no teams have given their secondary players (note the plural) long-term deals, the risk outweighs the reward. Sure, you can sign 3 or 4 but if one falters, your savings pretty much go out the window as the bloated value of the one deal offsets what you saved by going long-term on the others.

And just so it's out there, if anyone hasn't already guessed, I'm very much against any deal beyond 5 years for any player. I actually expect this to be a point of contention in the next CBA; I suspect we may see a few more of those types of deals from teams hoping to get them done before that 'loophole' potentially closes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're priced right if they perform to expectations. If they don't, then you run into a Calgary situation where half the team has bloated multi year contracts and you perpetually spin your wheels. Locking up a key piece, a franchise player is one thing, but your secondary pieces? There's a reason no teams have given their secondary players (note the plural) long-term deals, the risk outweighs the reward. Sure, you can sign 3 or 4 but if one falters, your savings pretty much go out the window as the bloated value of the one deal offsets what you saved by going long-term on the others.

And just so it's out there, if anyone hasn't already guessed, I'm very much against any deal beyond 5 years for any player. I actually expect this to be a point of contention in the next CBA; I suspect we may see a few more of those types of deals from teams hoping to get them done before that 'loophole' potentially closes.

Calgary's issue wasn't the term of long term deals. There issues was a totally incompetent GM who didn't realize that the post-lock out NHL had changed. THe long term deals he did sign were to the right players, but a few of them were structured badly AND he gave too many NTC/No Movement clauses - something Gainey also screwed up by giving that clause to a scrub and garbage player like Laraque.

-7 years/or 5 years/$7M (don't remeber what it was), was a good term/price for Iginla and is still a good deal. If Calgary wanted to move Iginla today, the only challenge would be Iginla would control where he goes otherwise, an easy contract to move.

-THe kipper Contract was also long-term (5-6 yrs) and i think it was around $5.5 to $6.5M, which again I wouldn't have had any hesitation of doing and I think Kipper is pretty movable.

-the Six year deal for Reghyr (who I'm not that big of a fan of, since he is slow), is still an affordable $4M to $4.5M deal which if I would have no issue with. Not sure if that is another NMC - but if there is that is what you need to avoid. BUt still it is a very movable contract

-Phaneuf was the ontract that killed him. He gave Phaneuf to the 6 or 7 year/$6M contract, or something close to that. Which is stupidity - I think given Phaneuf's contract year it was the right thing to do to lock him up long-term, but the went from rookie salary to $6M. For a contract to work for both sides, you need to have the player and team benefit cap wise. Pay the player more then you have to as a RFA during the RFA years, but less then you have to during UFA years (ie. a $3.5M/4.5M/5.5M/6M/6.5M/6.5M/$6.5M), so you are reducing the overall cap hit. Player gets term, dollars and security, team gets player locked, at an overall reduced cap hit and has long-term commitment from him. Even if the Phanuef contract was structured badly, Sutter fumbled as a GM by making a rash multi-player deal with the WORST team in the league and ended up getting even worse garbage from the Leafs in return. Even after that trade there were GM's saying they wish they knew Phaneuf was available - much like the Joe Thornton trade to SJ. Phanuef offers a similar parallel to the Subban situation, but at some point you have to evaluate what a players ceiling is, if you are astute and do it well early, you can have a lot of long-term savings locking him. I would not even blink twice if I was PG to take a deal like that (with lower numbers initialy) to Subban's agent to land on the numbers I proposed here.

So the long term deals isn't what did in Sutter, it was going after players who had a long history of doing nothing in the big game or play-off success, when he already had a team that struggled in the playoffs.

- Bouwmeeser - NEVER been a winner in the NHL or WHL, and putting them in a role where they are expected to be leaders.

-Jokinen - Been on what 3-4 teams, never beenin the playofs

-The garbage he picked up from the leafs and immidiatley signed or built into his long term plan - Stajan, Hagman

-Making a pretty good move to get the habs to give up their top two picks so he cold pick up Cammeleri and then not resiging Cammeleri who WANTED to stay in favour of getting the bum Jokeinin

-proceeded to pick up too many players on a gamble that were the one hit wonde variety (not sure of name - russion player - Kulimen??? from the rangers)

Lastly, Darryl wanted a big, SLOW, physical team that grinds, clutches, grabs, which wasn't suited to the NHL. He drafted badly, not wanting to draft russians/europeans (seems to be a disciple of Don CHerry), and wants his team to play a trapping defensive style (hmmm, who does that sound like) and really other then his star players, stockpiled on old slow players.

Lastly, he gave almost everyone NTC/NMC clauses, which ties your hands when you want to make trades.

There is a single long-term deal that had a crippling effect on the team.

Sutter reminds me a lot of Houle a bumbling GM who was a lousy judge of talent and made one rash decision after another - both from his player selection, as well as his coaching. He wasn't undone by the long term deals he signed - he chose the right core, his issue was how he fundamently was trying to build a late 90's team/early 2000 style of team in the faster post-lock out era and never seemed to waver from his stubborn stupidity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're priced right if they perform to expectations. If they don't, then you run into a Calgary situation where half the team has bloated multi year contracts and you perpetually spin your wheels. Locking up a key piece, a franchise player is one thing, but your secondary pieces? There's a reason no teams have given their secondary players (note the plural) long-term deals, the risk outweighs the reward. Sure, you can sign 3 or 4 but if one falters, your savings pretty much go out the window as the bloated value of the one deal offsets what you saved by going long-term on the others.

And just so it's out there, if anyone hasn't already guessed, I'm very much against any deal beyond 5 years for any player. I actually expect this to be a point of contention in the next CBA; I suspect we may see a few more of those types of deals from teams hoping to get them done before that 'loophole' potentially closes.

We should be a little gun shy, with those millstone contracts for free agents. However if you wrap up your own players with longer contracts the presumption is that you are getting a better buy. All players may not live up to their contracts, however wrapping up your own players starts you in a better place contractwise. I don't mind the seven year frame but five is good. Obviously you tie up your key players and use more disgression with role players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We should be a little gun shy, with those millstone contracts for free agents. However if you wrap up your own players with longer contracts the presumption is that you are getting a better buy. All players may not live up to their contracts, however wrapping up your own players starts you in a better place contractwise. I don't mind the seven year frame but five is good. Obviously you tie up your key players and use more disgression with role players.

THe issue of a 5 or 7 year deal with a guy like SUbban is you are really only buying 1 or 3 years of free agency in return for paying him more during for 4 of his RFA years.

The benefit of locking down guys like Subban for longer terms is that you can significantly reduce the cap hit by by $2 to $3M in those years when those guys could demand upwards of $7M on the open market, it is also difficult to lock top guys down, because there will always be someone like Sather who will pay stupid money to get the guys they want.

From a players perspective, they have to make a decision, on whether they want to hit the $8M homerun and not be on as strong of a team, or take less and be on a team like the wings, where their top 4 guys could have got more by going to free agency. However, to get the players to buy into this concept, the team has to be willing to make that longer term commitment to the players first.

Montreal has always gone with 1 to 3 year deals with their young players and I don't think that Koivu even got anything longer then a 4 year deal. THe situation with Ryder was ridicilous, where I think he went 3 or 4 straight years of 1 yr deals before becoming a UFA. that is bad asset management. In ryders case it was even worse, since they really weren't even playing him much during the last third of the season, so they may as well just moved the guy. But then, that's just a whole different issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THe issue of a 5 or 7 year deal with a guy like SUbban is you are really only buying 1 or 3 years of free agency in return for paying him more during for 4 of his RFA years.

The benefit of locking down guys like Subban for longer terms is that you can significantly reduce the cap hit by by $2 to $3M in those years when those guys could demand upwards of $7M on the open market, it is also difficult to lock top guys down, because there will always be someone like Sather who will pay stupid money to get the guys they want.

2-3 million? It saves money but generally not that much. As an example, Mike Richards is underpaid (relatively speaking) at $5.75 but by no means is he a 7.75-8.75 M player. Long term generally saves in the hundreds of thousands up to just over 1 million unless you're doing a retirement contract like a Marc Savard or even Kovalchuk. None of the players you're advocating the 7 year deals for fall under that category.

You're right in that it doesn't make a lot of sense to go 5 years for Subban or anyone coming off an entry level deal unless the goal is to get him signed for the lowest possible cap hit with a long-ish term. Sure, a 5 year pact only buys out one UFA year but the cap hit will be cheaper than if you're tacking on extra UFA years. Depending on what the cap situation is for that team, that may be the ideal scenario in some circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2-3 million? It saves money but generally not that much. As an example, Mike Richards is underpaid (relatively speaking) at $5.75 but by no means is he a 7.75-8.75 M player. Long term generally saves in the hundreds of thousands up to just over 1 million unless you're doing a retirement contract like a Marc Savard or even Kovalchuk. None of the players you're advocating the 7 year deals for fall under that category.

You're right in that it doesn't make a lot of sense to go 5 years for Subban or anyone coming off an entry level deal unless the goal is to get him signed for the lowest possible cap hit with a long-ish term. Sure, a 5 year pact only buys out one UFA year but the cap hit will be cheaper than if you're tacking on extra UFA years. Depending on what the cap situation is for that team, that may be the ideal scenario in some circumstances.

Maybe $2-3M is a stretch, but I think $1.5M to $2M is acheivable.

Hossa's hit is $5.275M, he was offered what $7.5M by Edmonton. that's over $2M

You don't think Zetterberg coudn't have gotten between $7M to $8M on the open market, rather then his 12 year/$72M cap hit of $6M by resigning long-term? Datsyk also has a $6.7M, which I think could have been lowered with a longer term contract.

Mike Richards could have got upwards of $7M.

If Jeff Carter returns to the close to the 40 or 40+ goal mark and gets over his injuries, his $5M cap hit will be at least $2M less then what a team like Toronto would have thrown at him. hell even after this year's numbers, if he hit free agency he would have easily commanaded $7M as a UFA.

I don't believe in offering a 10 year contract to anyone over 27 unless there is a big drop in actual salary during the last few years. That has been severly limited now due to the Kovulchuk contract - Vinny's salary cap hit wouldn't be so bad, if he had a few more years at the back-end at $2/$3M, but as it is i woudn't want to touch that contract.

But for Subban/Price age guys, I think if you structure the contract where they get a nice bump during their RFA years, in exchange for a a lower average salary in their UFA years, you will average out to an overall lower cap hit - IF and ONLY if the term is long enough. I'd like the habs to take that approach while it is still available right now. As I've said before, the guys that i think are worth locking up for sure are Price, Subban, MaxPac, Eller for sure, I also thought that Ak46 was someone who should have been locked up, if he'd take something under $4.5M. I also belive that keeping a strong core of elite talent, as well as supporting players (Lidstrom, Zetterberg, Holstrom, Franzen, Draper, Maltby), around for such a long time has not only created loyalty within the wings organization, but also has helped make it a destination players want to play in. Otherwise, who the hell would want to live in Detroit for that long??? have you been to Detroit??? it is a DUMP!!! But despite being a dump of a city to live in, for hockey players, it is a prime destination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe $2-3M is a stretch, but I think $1.5M to $2M is acheivable.

Hossa's hit is $5.275M, he was offered what $7.5M by Edmonton. that's over $2M

You don't think Zetterberg coudn't have gotten between $7M to $8M on the open market, rather then his 12 year/$72M cap hit of $6M by resigning long-term? Datsyk also has a $6.7M, which I think could have been lowered with a longer term contract.

Mike Richards could have got upwards of $7M.

If Jeff Carter returns to the close to the 40 or 40+ goal mark and gets over his injuries, his $5M cap hit will be at least $2M less then what a team like Toronto would have thrown at him. hell even after this year's numbers, if he hit free agency he would have easily commanaded $7M as a UFA.

I don't believe in offering a 10 year contract to anyone over 27 unless there is a big drop in actual salary during the last few years. That has been severly limited now due to the Kovulchuk contract - Vinny's salary cap hit wouldn't be so bad, if he had a few more years at the back-end at $2/$3M, but as it is i woudn't want to touch that contract.

But for Subban/Price age guys, I think if you structure the contract where they get a nice bump during their RFA years, in exchange for a a lower average salary in their UFA years, you will average out to an overall lower cap hit - IF and ONLY if the term is long enough. I'd like the habs to take that approach while it is still available right now. As I've said before, the guys that i think are worth locking up for sure are Price, Subban, MaxPac, Eller for sure, I also thought that Ak46 was someone who should have been locked up, if he'd take something under $4.5M. I also belive that keeping a strong core of elite talent, as well as supporting players (Lidstrom, Zetterberg, Holstrom, Franzen, Draper, Maltby), around for such a long time has not only created loyalty within the wings organization, but also has helped make it a destination players want to play in. Otherwise, who the hell would want to live in Detroit for that long??? have you been to Detroit??? it is a DUMP!!! But despite being a dump of a city to live in, for hockey players, it is a prime destination.

I must admit that I particularely (spell) like the bold part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree with acquiring, developing, and keeping players of Nick Lidstrom, Henrik Zetterberg and Pavel Datsyuk's caliber.

hahahaha

But the point is valid. Signing your best players to long term with "lower than it could be" contracts really helps when it comes to attract quality UFA's to complete your squad. That's why I wouldn't mind to see Price and Subban receive both 10 or 12 years extensions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hahahaha

But the point is valid. Signing your best players to long term with "lower than it could be" contracts really helps when it comes to attract quality UFA's to complete your squad. That's why I wouldn't mind to see Price and Subban receive both 10 or 12 years extensions.

And I say this: signing a goalie to a 10 or 12 years is batpoop crazy.

They are good tools to avoid offer sheet scenarios. But forfeiting four cheaper years seems poor asset management to me. Martin signed Olesz to a big second contract and it didn't really help Florida at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...