Ongoing NHL thread - Part deux

[DragonfromTO]

But that's the whole point. If you're signing him cause he can play and score and blah blah blah then just say that, and don't say he's being paid for other things, or that he'll be worth it even if he only scores 10 goals.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Luongo played very badly and his team bailed him out. Notice how that seems to never happen with the Leaf goalies?

You keep replying as if i'm disagreeing with anything you're saying.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

EDIT: Dragon beat me to it, although I still think Foligno's deal is much more bearable.

 

[Darkstone42]

So it's ok to pay a guy for bullshit reasons if he's not terrible?

A contract might get inflated by those other factors, but signing a player who can at least recoup a large portion of the contract with raw productivity can make that overpayment for intangibles a lot more palatable.

 

[DragonfromTO]

A contract might get inflated by those other factors, but signing a player who can at least recoup a large portion of the contract with raw productivity can make that overpayment for intangibles a lot more palatable.

So then once again I'll point out that in that scenario you're ultimately signing the guy because of the tangibles, not the intangibles.

 

[forty_three]

But that's the whole point. If you're signing him cause he can play and score and blah blah blah then just say that, and don't say he's being paid for other things, or that he'll be worth it even if he only scores 10 goals.

Where did I say it was one or the other? Foligno got the deal because of how he plays - the whole package. He is scoring well, he is playing positions he is not used to, he nearly broke his neck and didn't miss a game. In today's NHL, a 20-30 goal guy is going to get around 5m. He got that and a bit more because not only can he deliver that, but he can also deliver leadership, heart, and locker room cohesion.

And just because the Leafs management "sold" the Clarkson deal on the same terms doesn't mean it was ever really true. I can sell my car saying it runs on cooking oil. Someone else believing it doesn't make it true.

EDIT: Dragon beat me to it, although I still think Foligno's deal is much more bearable.

I would have liked it to be lower, but like I said - I am okay with them overpaying a bit for him. And considering what he'd be worth to some shortsighted team on the open market, it could be a downright bargain.

A contract might get inflated by those other factors, but signing a player who can at least recoup a large portion of the contract with raw productivity can make that overpayment for intangibles a lot more palatable.

He's going to play top six minutes for the time being, so his production should stay at a decent level.

So then once again I'll point out that in that scenario you're ultimately signing the guy because of the tangibles, not the intangibles.

They signed him because of both, why is that so hard to understand? Looking at only the on ice production, you get X. The other factors are worth Y. Add them together and you get a contract. In his particular case, they probably gave a bit more weight to the intangibles because of what he means to the team. He has done everything they have asked of him (and more) on the ice. And they rewarded him.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Where did I say it was one or the other? Foligno got the deal because of how he plays - the whole package. He is scoring well, he is playing positions he is not used to, he nearly broke his neck and didn't miss a game. In today's NHL, a 20-30 goal guy is going to get around 5m. He got that and a bit more because not only can he deliver that, but he can also deliver leadership, heart, and locker room cohesion.

And just because the Leafs management "sold" the Clarkson deal on the same terms doesn't mean it was ever really true. I can sell my car saying it runs on cooking oil. Someone else believing it doesn't make it true.



I would have liked it to be lower, but like I said - I am okay with them overpaying a bit for him. And considering what he'd be worth to some shortsighted team on the open market, it could be a downright bargain.



He's going to play top six minutes for the time being, so his production should stay at a decent level.



They signed him because of both, why is that so hard to understand? Looking at only the on ice production, you get X. The other factors are worth Y. Add them together and you get a contract. In his particular case, they probably gave a bit more weight to the intangibles because of what he means to the team. He has done everything they have asked of him (and more) on the ice. And they rewarded him.

"They signed him for what he brings to the locker room more than the ice. The goals are just a nice bonus."


I read "the goals are just a nice bonus" as meaning "he's worth the contract even without the goals". Did I infer (or did you imply) the wrong thing?

 

[Darkstone42]

I think a good way to put this is that a market exists for point produces, and a market exists for "character guys." Those markets have associated dollar values. Whether or not the markets should exist or whether or not the values in those markets are what they should be is irrelevant. The market exists, and the values are what they are, and so you get current NHL contracts. If a guy gets paid point production money and intangibles money for just intangibles, that's where you have a problem.

 

[forty_three]

"They signed him for what he brings to the locker room more than the ice. The goals are just a nice bonus."


I read "the goals are just a nice bonus" as meaning "he's worth the contract even without the goals". Did I infer (or did you imply) the wrong thing?

Maybe I should have said the "extra" goals are a nice bonus. They are paying him a little high for a 20 goal scorer. Right now he's at 17, so conservatively he should wind up 30-35. The "Extra" is the nice part. He got the premium over a 20 goal scorer up front because of the other stuff he brings. If he gets 30 a year from here on out, he's a huge bargain.

If he regresses to 10, obviously that's a problem. Perhaps not as much of one as if he's a big asshole that no one likes. His attitude makes up for a bit.

 

[forty_three]

LOL

 

[pixburgher66]

I love DS the mediator. "Now everyone, let us think rationally and without haste."

 

[Darkstone42]

I love DS the mediator. "Now everyone, let us think rationally and without haste."

I love evaluating sports markets, especially looking at market inefficiencies. For example, in baseball until the last two years, pitch framing was a massive market inefficiency, a way to add value to your team without spending any extra money. In hockey, it seems puck possession bottom-six guys are the current market inefficiency.

 

[dash]

Verstud gone for a month according to coach Q...

Chicago Blackhawks' Kris Versteeg likely to miss a month - ESPN Chicago

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

NHL fines Philadelphia Flyers organization for violation of CBA article 16.5(b) - NHL.com - News

Actual fine amount apparently not disclosed.

I'm assuming it went something along the lines of:

Bettman: Hey, uh, Ed...we need to fine you guys for violating the terms of the CBA by having your players travel on Boxing Day.
Snider: Really? Can't we just let this one slide?
Bettman: Sorry Ed, but we fined the Kings $100K just for letting Slava Voynov on the ice.
Snider: Yeah, but you already gave them a huge break by not counting his cap hit during all of this. And $100K to Phil, that's nothing to him.
Bettman: I know, but we can't have Devils fans crying again that we have different CBA rules for different teams.

<Both laugh for about 10 minutes>

Snider <wiping away tears>: Haha, yeah, I guess you're right. We have to at least keep up the appearance of fairness.

<Both laugh for another 10 minutes>

Bettman <sheepishly>: So...uh...how does $50K sound?
Snider: I've got a better idea. How about I give you $20 and you buy me lunch.
Bettman: I might need to think about that one for a minute.
Snider: That wasn't a question.

 

[forty_three]

NHL fines Philadelphia Flyers organization for violation of CBA article 16.5(b) - NHL.com - News

Actual fine amount apparently not disclosed.

I'm assuming it went something along the lines of:

I am glad the league finally stood up to the Flyers for their shenanigans.

Does that money go right to Chris Pronger?

 

[dash]

TSX sheds 380 points as oil trades below $50 a barrel - Business - CBC News

Canadian dollar has also dipped below 85 cents US - It's going to be interesting to see the impact on the NHL salary cap for next season.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I am glad the league finally stood up to the Flyers for their shenanigans.

Does that money go right to Chris Pronger?

Damn it, how did I forget to get a Pronger reference in there?!?

 

[dare2be]

The bigger question here is...what is Boxing Day?

 

[Comeds]

The bigger question here is...what is Boxing Day?

You never saw "Boxing Helena"? I think that's what the day is based on.

 

[dash]

The bigger question here is...what is Boxing Day?

That's the day where you exchange what you got for Christmas for what you really wanted for Christmas...