Crosby contract

[Darkstone42]

I don't like long term deals because, for me, the risk is always bigger than the reward.

Seven years takes the majority of players to the wrong side of 30. At 31, about 85% of players, I'd estimate, start their regression.

In Crosby's case specifically, he has a recurring injury problem, and he's also the type of player who won't just retire. He'll keep playing, even through mounting injury trouble, waiting for that one healthy year. Eventually, after 7 years, I predict, he'll be playing 40 games a year and posting 50 points in his best years because of injuries. And he'll play out the contract. He might even try to get another one.

I really hope I'm wrong about that, but it's way too risky a deal for a guy like Crosby.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Do it.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

BTW, I got crucified for saying Crosby was injury prone by people saying the exact same in this thread. For those of you said that a hearty fuck you hypocrite!

 

[Darkstone42]

BTW, I got crucified for saying Crosby was injury prone by people saying the exact same in this thread. For those of you said that a hearty fuck you hypocrite!

For my part, injury history and injury prone are not the same.

There's a difference between assessing past contribution and predicting future value. In that thread, we were doing the former. In this, it's the latter.

 

[Darkstone42]

For my part, injury history and injury prone are not the same.

There's a difference between assessing past contribution and predicting future value. In that thread, we were doing the former. In this, it's the latter.

To put that post in terms of money and contracts, Crosby has earned a $9 million per year cap hit (and then some), even with these injury-plagued seasons.

However, predictively, the term should be short, 7 or fewer years, due to those injuries, which have likely knocked years off the end of his career, even if he's healthy in the short term now.

 

[evolver115]

Do it.

Do you really expect there to be an alternative?

 

[awaz]

I don't like long term deals because, for me, the risk is always bigger than the reward.

Seven years takes the majority of players to the wrong side of 30. At 31, about 85% of players, I'd estimate, start their regression.

In Crosby's case specifically, he has a recurring injury problem, and he's also the type of player who won't just retire. He'll keep playing, even through mounting injury trouble, waiting for that one healthy year. Eventually, after 7 years, I predict, he'll be playing 40 games a year and posting 50 points in his best years because of injuries. And he'll play out the contract. He might even try to get another one.

I really hope I'm wrong about that, but it's way too risky a deal for a guy like Crosby.

exactly. you're risking a player not performing to a 9 mil cap hit.. perhaps he just scores a point/game, in the ones he plays in, and gets 60 points in a season.. thats not worth the 9 mil.. and its not all that unrealistic, especially a year or two down the road

its a massive risk for a possible savings of 1 or 2 mil of cap space in 5 or so years.. and by that time, that will be a minimum salary for a 6th dman or 12th forward..

 

[pixburgher66]

How often do you think GMs give out these contracts expecting to see it the whole way through? Just curious. Personally, I'd like something like 7 years, but I'd go up to 10. Beyond that? Ehhhh...like others have said: Sid's gonna be a Penguin for a long time either way.

 

[elocomotive]

I don't like long term deals because, for me, the risk is always bigger than the reward.

Without an injury clause, I hate that deal.

With one, I still don't like it.

5-7 years,never more.

I'm not knocking you for thinking in Crosby's case, with his specific injury problems, that a long-term deal is not the best move. But to say it is ALWAYS the wrong move, that the risk is always bigger than the reward is not correct. It's just flat out wrong.

And you are only looking at the absolute top contracts and contracts of 10 years or more. A 5-7 year contract IS a long-term contract. And it's not just the top 5 players in the league we are talking about here. And sure, a lot of guys fizzle in their 30s, but they all definitely don't. Some play better in their early 30s especially. And if the contract shrinks from a top 5 paid guy in the league now to only the #35 highest paid in 6 years, you don't need that player to be what he once was for the contract to have value.

 

[Darkstone42]

I'm not knocking you for thinking in Crosby's case, with his specific injury problems, that a long-term deal is not the best move. But to say it is ALWAYS the wrong move, that the risk is always bigger than the reward is not correct. It's just flat out wrong.

And you are only looking at the absolute top contracts and contracts of 10 years or more. A 5-7 year contract IS a long-term contract. And it's not just the top 5 players in the league we are talking about here. And sure, a lot of guys fizzle in their 30s, but they all definitely don't. Some play better in their early 30s especially. And if the contract shrinks from a top 5 paid guy in the league now to only the #35 highest paid in 6 years, you don't need that player to be what he once was for the contract to have value.

That extra $2 million you'll save five years down the line is the best case scenario. Is that worth the risk of the worst case scenario of being on the hook for, say, $7 million in cap hit for an underachieving player?

It doesn't matter the player, by my assessment, the risk isn't worth it. I am also a firm proponent of roster turnover, even on a championship team. And I don't mean two or three guys, I mean upwards of seven every year.

 

[elocomotive]

That extra $2 million you'll save five years down the line is the best case scenario. Is that worth the risk of the worst case scenario of being on the hook for, say, $7 million in cap hit for an underachieving player?

That's just one scenario for one player. And even with that one player, you're acting like the only scenario is to have a $9 million hole in the cap for years. First off, you have LTIR options, and trade options, and buyout options, and all sorts of possibilities beyond just losing money. So first, you are oversimplifying the downside. Second, several million in potential cap room can be huge if used properly.

Take Nick Backstrom for example. He's got a 10-year deal at $6.7 million per. That makes him the 25th highest paid player in the NHL right now. He probably would have demanded more per year RIGHT NOW if he didn't have 10 years of guaranteed money. So we're already seeing some value from that. In 3 years, he'll probably be like the 50th highest paid guy in the league, likely playing well beyond his value. And certainly he could be a tremendous value in the 5-8 year range of the deal in his late 20s/early 30s. So, yes, to say the player doesn't matter is incorrect. And to say a long-term contract is never beneficial is simply wrong. It can be - it depends on the player.

You're a risk averse person. So naturally you don't like it. But teams sometimes win Cups by taking risks. The Hawks took on a cap disaster to go for it all a few years back - think it wasn't worth it? The Kings took on some risky, longer contracts and gave up talent to improve their squad - I think they like the result. I'm not saying the conservative route isn't often more prudent, but sometimes the risk is necessary. To say it never works it flat out wrong.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I also want to go on record saying this is a ludicrous, idiotic rumor that will in. I way remotely resemble what the actual contract will be.

BOOKMARKIT!!!!

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

And, to whoever posted it earlier, there is no way in hell that I would want out of either the Ovechkin or ESPECIALLY the Backstrom deal right now.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

For my part, injury history and injury prone are not the same.

There's a difference between assessing past contribution and predicting future value. In that thread, we were doing the former. In this, it's the latter.

So which is he? I am confused.

He has missed a bunch of games due to two significant different injuries. I don't think that high ankle sprains are prone to recurrence but concussions certainly are and he has had 1 maybe 2?

A history of injury that is known to make a player more likey to get that injury again would necessarily make him injury prone, no?

 

[DChero]

My biggest question is - why do people think $9 mil is going to be such a big chuck of cap in 5-10 years? We've discussed this.

Sure, there's a risk that he misses significant time, but we're going to offer him contracts anyway. He's still going to make at least $8.7 per year and probably offer even more with a shorter deal. This isn't a team that's rebuilding. This is a team that's built to win now. They need as much cap room as possible.

 

[pixburgher66]

Can I also say that I'm pretty sure that Sid got extremely pissed off/motivated by going to Game 3. Too bad Shero couldn't sign him to an extension that night...probably would've taken 10 years 4million.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

My biggest question is - why do people think $9 mil is going to be such a big chuck of cap in 5-10 years? We've discussed this.

Sure, there's a risk that he misses significant time, but we're going to offer him contracts anyway. He's still going to make at least $8.7 per year and probably offer even more with a shorter deal. This isn't a team that's rebuilding. This is a team that's built to win now. They need as much cap room as possible.

Well, unless the sport grows dramatically (hint hint CBA idiots, get it done!) the cap has to eventually plateau at some level. I don't see NBA sized contracts in the future of the sport if it continues to be a distant 4th. Any long term lock out could be devastating to the momentum that it has gained, as well. The Cap has risen nicely in the past 6 years but it will not continue on that pace, you would have to think.

 

[DChero]

Well, unless the sport grows dramatically (hint hint CBA idiots, get it done!) the cap has to eventually plateau at some level. I don't see NBA sized contracts in the future of the sport if it continues to be a distant 4th. Any long term lock out could be devastating to the momentum that it has gained, as well. The Cap has risen nicely in the past 6 years but it will not continue on that pace, you would have to think.

I guess the biggest concern would be the new CBA. That could change it dramatically. I expect the sport to continue to grow over the next few years at a competitive pace. The Olympics helped this a lot last time when the US players were showcased. The league also has a much better television deal than it did in the past years.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Exactly, an extended lockout would kill any momentum and that needs to not happen.

 

[evolver115]

Well, unless the sport grows dramatically (hint hint CBA idiots, get it done!) the cap has to eventually plateau at some level. I don't see NBA sized contracts in the future of the sport if it continues to be a distant 4th. Any long term lock out could be devastating to the momentum that it has gained, as well. The Cap has risen nicely in the past 6 years but it will not continue on that pace, you would have to think.

The NHL just enjoyed one the highest profile seasons on record. The past year just witnessed the first time every playoff game was played to a National audience. Viewership is up across the board, and if peeps haven't noticed, the second largest media market in the States has a team one win from the Cup.

The league hasn't experienced this kind of popularity since 94. I could see how the cap could continue a steady rise for years to come, provided the players and owners can work towards a new labor agreement before the start of next season.