When I saw the story about MacArthur my first question was: who? I try to keep on top of all major NHL contributors and that one I had never heard of. So the obvious next question was: why on earth is a no name NHL contributor get $2.4 million from an arbitrator? Then came a story shortly after Perron signed for $2.15M, which is a name I certainly do know.
MacArthur (25):
G: 16
A: 19
Salary: $2.5M
Perron (22):
G: 20 (+25%)
A: 27 (+40%)
Salary: $2.15M
First off Atlanta did the right thing to abandon a player that is worth about $1.5M. MacArthur shows no signs of improvement. His PP stats are terrible. David Backes is getting paid $2.5 for an extra 12 assists compared to MacArthur. Callahan is making $2.3 for similar numbers. Fehr (#18 overall) is making $2.1. Disappointing Bernier is getting $2M. Stafford (much more potential) is making $1.9. Steen $1.7. Ladd $1.6M etc.
Presumably Atlanta wanted to sign him this year. It's not like they really needed his services at the deadline. That's what makes this arbitration award so bad: Atlanta traded a 3rd & 4th rounder for nothing because the arbitrators were generous.
Of course the Thrashers could have shot themselves in the foot by not providing good alternatives to what MacArthur's agent provides. There are plenty of players in this category (no shortage of supply).
July 21, 2010
July 20, 2010
Kovalchuk Mess
New Jersey finally pushed the CBA rule makers to their limits. By signing a contract that is almost guaranteed to not be completed the NHL did the right thing to step in and say no.
Of course that made people ask the simple question:
Why now?
The answer to this is probably that Kovalchuk's contract is well over the 40 mark, a point where very few players continue to play (especially snipers who typically retire early: Bure, Naslund, Sundin).
Also, the NHL is aware Kovalchuk wanted $10M/year. If he plays 10-11 years and then retires, he'll have that.
A Better Way?
Of course there is a much easier way of dealing with these contracts. That is to institute a "maximum salary cap hit" for long term SPC. Any contract year's cap over 4 years would be subject to these maximums (that is to say a 36 year old signing a 4 year contract would not be impacted at all, but a 5 year contract would, but would only apply to the last year). Say $4M for players over 35, $2M for players over 37 and $1M for players over 39. However the sum of the contract would still be the same, so the difference would be applied to the years there there is no maximum:
I'm sure others could see how it would affect players like Luongo and Hossa. But at least it would create a consistent system as opposed to this ad-hoc system full of surprises. All of the sudden these long terms contracts are worthless!
What will the NHL accept?
Obviously the Devils will go back the drawing board, however, I'm not sure how much cap space they can give up. I'm sure N.J and the NHL will take a lot about this over the next few days and a slightly modified contract will be approved (and this whole process will turn out to be a joke).
Of course that made people ask the simple question:
Why now?
The answer to this is probably that Kovalchuk's contract is well over the 40 mark, a point where very few players continue to play (especially snipers who typically retire early: Bure, Naslund, Sundin).
Also, the NHL is aware Kovalchuk wanted $10M/year. If he plays 10-11 years and then retires, he'll have that.
A Better Way?
Of course there is a much easier way of dealing with these contracts. That is to institute a "maximum salary cap hit" for long term SPC. Any contract year's cap over 4 years would be subject to these maximums (that is to say a 36 year old signing a 4 year contract would not be impacted at all, but a 5 year contract would, but would only apply to the last year). Say $4M for players over 35, $2M for players over 37 and $1M for players over 39. However the sum of the contract would still be the same, so the difference would be applied to the years there there is no maximum:
| Proposed Cap Schedule | Current Cap Schedule |
| $9.56 | $6.00 |
| $9.56 | $6.00 |
| $9.56 | $6.00 |
| $9.56 | $6.00 |
| $9.56 | $6.00 |
| $9.56 | $6.00 |
| $9.56 | $6.00 |
| $9.56 | $6.00 |
| $9.56 | $6.00 |
| $4.00 | $6.00 |
| $4.00 | $6.00 |
| $2.00 | $6.00 |
| $2.00 | $6.00 |
| $1.00 | $6.00 |
| $1.00 | $6.00 |
| $1.00 | $6.00 |
| $1.00 | $6.00 |
| =$102 | =$102 |
I'm sure others could see how it would affect players like Luongo and Hossa. But at least it would create a consistent system as opposed to this ad-hoc system full of surprises. All of the sudden these long terms contracts are worthless!
What will the NHL accept?
Obviously the Devils will go back the drawing board, however, I'm not sure how much cap space they can give up. I'm sure N.J and the NHL will take a lot about this over the next few days and a slightly modified contract will be approved (and this whole process will turn out to be a joke).
July 14, 2010
Northwest Expecations - 2010
I'm still tweaking these, but this is a start. I've adjusted my technique. I've pulled 5 years worth of data to generate these tables. The "young" player problem still exists (because I lack data to differentiate between a good 19 year old or a average 19 year old).
Notation:
Name [GFScore@EV, GAScore@EV]
I've separated out PP & PK now. However these values are based on the player's past performance over the last 5 years. The first 7 rows only included EV goals. there are still some bugs (eg. Johnny vs. John...), which I am working on (I have to find all of them first).
Note: the percentage besting the team's name is the percentage of salary cap used.
The little arrows indicate whether there is a substantial change in the team's expected points from last season (more than 10 difference).
Note: These include RFA's who haven't signed yet.
Notation:
Name [GFScore@EV, GAScore@EV]
I've separated out PP & PK now. However these values are based on the player's past performance over the last 5 years. The first 7 rows only included EV goals. there are still some bugs (eg. Johnny vs. John...), which I am working on (I have to find all of them first).
Note: the percentage besting the team's name is the percentage of salary cap used.
The little arrows indicate whether there is a substantial change in the team's expected points from last season (more than 10 difference).
Note: These include RFA's who haven't signed yet.
Central Expectations - 2010
I'm still tweaking these, but this is a start. I've adjusted my technique. I've pulled 5 years worth of data to generate these tables. The "young" player problem still exists (because I lack data to differentiate between a good 19 year old or a average 19 year old).
Notation:
Name [GFScore@EV, GAScore@EV]
I've separated out PP & PK now. However these values are based on the player's past performance over the last 5 years. The first 7 rows only included EV goals. there are still some bugs (eg. Johnny vs. John...), which I am working on (I have to find all of them first).
Note: the percentage besting the team's name is the percentage of salary cap used.
The little arrows indicate whether there is a substantial change in the team's expected points from last season (more than 10 difference).
Note: These include RFA's who haven't signed yet.
Notation:
Name [GFScore@EV, GAScore@EV]
I've separated out PP & PK now. However these values are based on the player's past performance over the last 5 years. The first 7 rows only included EV goals. there are still some bugs (eg. Johnny vs. John...), which I am working on (I have to find all of them first).
Note: the percentage besting the team's name is the percentage of salary cap used.
The little arrows indicate whether there is a substantial change in the team's expected points from last season (more than 10 difference).
Note: These include RFA's who haven't signed yet.
Pacific Expectations - 2010
I'm still tweaking these, but this is a start. I've adjusted my technique. I've pulled 5 years worth of data to generate these tables. The "young" player problem still exists (because I lack data to differentiate between a good 19 year old or a average 19 year old).
Notation:
Name [GFScore@EV, GAScore@EV]
I've separated out PP & PK now. However these values are based on the player's past performance over the last 5 years. The first 7 rows only included EV goals. there are still some bugs (eg. Johnny vs. John...), which I am working on (I have to find all of them first).
Note: the percentage besting the team's name is the percentage of salary cap used.
The little arrows indicate whether there is a substantial change in the team's expected points from last season (more than 10 difference).
Note: These include RFA's who haven't signed yet.
Notation:
Name [GFScore@EV, GAScore@EV]
I've separated out PP & PK now. However these values are based on the player's past performance over the last 5 years. The first 7 rows only included EV goals. there are still some bugs (eg. Johnny vs. John...), which I am working on (I have to find all of them first).
Note: the percentage besting the team's name is the percentage of salary cap used.
The little arrows indicate whether there is a substantial change in the team's expected points from last season (more than 10 difference).
Note: These include RFA's who haven't signed yet.
Atlantic Expectations - 2010
I'm still tweaking these, but this is a start. I've adjusted my technique. I've pulled 5 years worth of data to generate these tables. The "young" player problem still exists (because I lack data to differentiate between a good 19 year old or a average 19 year old).
Notation:
Name [GFScore@EV, GAScore@EV]
I've separated out PP & PK now. However these values are based on the player's past performance over the last 5 years. The first 7 rows only included EV goals. there are still some bugs (eg. Johnny vs. John...), which I am working on (I have to find all of them first).
Note: the percentage besting the team's name is the percentage of salary cap used.
The little arrows indicate whether there is a substantial change in the team's expected points from last season (more than 10 difference).
Note: These include RFA's who haven't signed yet.
Notation:
Name [GFScore@EV, GAScore@EV]
I've separated out PP & PK now. However these values are based on the player's past performance over the last 5 years. The first 7 rows only included EV goals. there are still some bugs (eg. Johnny vs. John...), which I am working on (I have to find all of them first).
Note: the percentage besting the team's name is the percentage of salary cap used.
The little arrows indicate whether there is a substantial change in the team's expected points from last season (more than 10 difference).
Note: These include RFA's who haven't signed yet.
Northeast Expectations - 2010
I'm still tweaking these, but this is a start. I've adjusted my technique. I've pulled 5 years worth of data to generate these tables. The "young" player problem still exists (because I lack data to differentiate between a good 19 year old or a average 19 year old).
Notation:
Name [GFScore@EV, GAScore@EV]
I've separated out PP & PK now. However these values are based on the player's past performance over the last 5 years. The first 7 rows only included EV goals. there are still some bugs, which I am working on (I have to find all of them first).
Note: the percentage besting the team's name is the percentage of salary cap used.
The little arrows indicate whether there is a substantial change in the team's expected points from last season (more than 10 difference).
Note: These include RFA's who haven't signed yet.
Notation:
Name [GFScore@EV, GAScore@EV]
I've separated out PP & PK now. However these values are based on the player's past performance over the last 5 years. The first 7 rows only included EV goals. there are still some bugs, which I am working on (I have to find all of them first).
Note: the percentage besting the team's name is the percentage of salary cap used.
The little arrows indicate whether there is a substantial change in the team's expected points from last season (more than 10 difference).
Note: These include RFA's who haven't signed yet.
Southeast Expecations - 2010
I'm still tweaking these, but this is a start. I've adjusted my technique. I've pulled 5 years worth of data to generate these tables. The "young" player problem still exists (because I lack data to differentiate between a good 19 year old or a average 19 year old).
Notation:
Name [GFScore@EV, GAScore@EV]
I've separated out PP & PK now. However these values are based on the player's past performance over the last 5 years. The first 7 rows only included EV goals. there are still some bugs (eg. Johnny vs. John...), which I am working on (I have to find all of them first).
Note: the percentage besting the team's name is the percentage of salary cap used.
The little arrows indicate whether there is a substantial change in the team's expected points from last season (more than 10 difference).
Note: These include RFA's who haven't signed yet.
Notation:
Name [GFScore@EV, GAScore@EV]
I've separated out PP & PK now. However these values are based on the player's past performance over the last 5 years. The first 7 rows only included EV goals. there are still some bugs (eg. Johnny vs. John...), which I am working on (I have to find all of them first).
Note: the percentage besting the team's name is the percentage of salary cap used.
The little arrows indicate whether there is a substantial change in the team's expected points from last season (more than 10 difference).
Note: These include RFA's who haven't signed yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)