NTC/NMC: Kings have Zero

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    NTC/NMC: Kings have Zero

    Thought this was an interesting contrast in styles, as Lombardi has zero NTC/NMC on his roster, while PC has 11 (league leader).


    League average is 6.


    Not sure what this illustrates, as I have not heard about noise about a player that PC is looking to move that refused to waive it.  That said, could also understand that it may create an extra hurdle and some complexity in negotiating with other teams.


    I don't think resigning players has been a real strength of PC, meaning getting a good deal for the Bruins.  Seems like the contract levers are salary, term & security (NTC).  Too often PC pays a premium in all 3 categories.  If he had been able to use the NTC as a way to reduce salary/term, then maybe the B's wouldn't be experiencing the Cap pressure that they are. 


     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: NTC/NMC: Kings have Zero

    Crowls - I noticed that yesterday on gapgeek. I haven't checked other teams to see if that or Boston's approach is more the norm as far as NTC contracts.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: NTC/NMC: Kings have Zero

    I disagree, Crowls, about PC's strategy for re-signings.  I think it's very calculated, and I don't think he's put them in a bad spot because of them.  In almost every case, the dollars seem high to start and then quickly look good for the team.  He's always gotten Krejci at a good deal; Bergeron's new deal seems about right now, and it will probably look better in the next few years.  I'd say none of Chiarelli's deals look like he "won" the negotiations with the player, but the trade off is that he's put an end to the perception that the Bruins are adversarial when dealing with their players.  The only two I look at are Kelly, which would look okay if he was a 15-20-35 defensive specialist as he was when the Bruins signed the deal, and Lucic, which is probably market value for him if he ever had a chance to try UFA, and was signed under the duress of an impending lockout that might have changed the RFA/UFA rules and cost the Bruins far more.

    The NTC/NMCs are mostly modified, submit a list deals.  I'm not overly concerned about PC's ability to make good moves with these guys if he needs to.  More important is the message it sends to the whole team (and I'm sure they can all log on to Cap Geek) that the Bruins are trying to build a core and commit to them - so the players should commit, too.

    The cap pressure comes from two directions - the lockout dropping the cap significantly (it's about $10M lower than it would be if there had been no lockout) - and the relatively flat age profile of this team's core with Bergeron, Krejci, Soderberg, Eriksson, Rask and McQuaid all at that magic 27 yr old threshold around the same time, and Lucic and Marchand headed there shortly.  The "refresh" started last year on the D, and the salary flexibility from that is a huge boost; now they need to find a way to make it work up front.

    The way it seems to shake out right now, I'm kinda sorta hoping Spooner follows the Marchand plan.  Approx. 20 games one year, no goals.  Next year, 20 goals.  Also, I'm totally going to get that leprechaun's f---ing Lucky Charms. 

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: NTC/NMC: Kings have Zero

    Plus the way PC's negotiated contract lengths makes them staggered in a way. Only a few come due per year, making negotiations relatively small each summer. Better than having to negotiate with half the team on a particular year.

    I find that quite brilliant on PC's part. But, yeah, the NTC/NMC thing can be  a problem no doubt.....particularly when the likes of Kelly have them.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NTC/NMC: Kings have Zero

    I'm okay with Chiarelli's contracts for the most part.  The Nothis-nothat bugs me, but as point out, it hasn't hurt yet.  I think he's done a good job with length.  He's gone long when he could and should and he's stayed close appropriately.  

    The only contract I hated was Savard's.  I hated it for two reasons.  I thought Savard was a loser and wanted him gone asap and the minipay years at the end to drop the cap hit were embarrassing.

    Even Peverley's deal at the time looked good.  Who knew The Flying Mosquito would tank like that.  It's going to be interesting to see what happens with Krug.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: NTC/NMC: Kings have Zero

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I disagree, Crowls, about PC's strategy for re-signings.  I think it's very calculated, and I don't think he's put them in a bad spot because of them.  In almost every case, the dollars seem high to start and then quickly look good for the team.  He's always gotten Krejci at a good deal; Bergeron's new deal seems about right now, and it will probably look better in the next few years.  I'd say none of Chiarelli's deals look like he "won" the negotiations with the player, but the trade off is that he's put an end to the perception that the Bruins are adversarial when dealing with their players.  The only two I look at are Kelly, which would look okay if he was a 15-20-35 defensive specialist as he was when the Bruins signed the deal, and Lucic, which is probably market value for him if he ever had a chance to try UFA, and was signed under the duress of an impending lockout that might have changed the RFA/UFA rules and cost the Bruins far more.

    The NTC/NMCs are mostly modified, submit a list deals.  I'm not overly concerned about PC's ability to make good moves with these guys if he needs to.  More important is the message it sends to the whole team (and I'm sure they can all log on to Cap Geek) that the Bruins are trying to build a core and commit to them - so the players should commit, too.

    The cap pressure comes from two directions - the lockout dropping the cap significantly (it's about $10M lower than it would be if there had been no lockout) - and the relatively flat age profile of this team's core with Bergeron, Krejci, Soderberg, Eriksson, Rask and McQuaid all at that magic 27 yr old threshold around the same time, and Lucic and Marchand headed there shortly.  The "refresh" started last year on the D, and the salary flexibility from that is a huge boost; now they need to find a way to make it work up front.

    The way it seems to shake out right now, I'm kinda sorta hoping Spooner follows the Marchand plan.  Approx. 20 games one year, no goals.  Next year, 20 goals.  Also, I'm totally going to get that leprechaun's f---ing Lucky Charms. 

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree with your disagreement.  How's that?

    Exhibit A: Sign Rask to make him the highest paid Goalie in the NHL for a material term of 8 years.  Then give him an NMC for the 1st 4 years, modified NTC (8 teams) for the next 2, followed by modified NTC (15 Teams) for the final 2. 

    When you make a guy the highest paid player at a position, why the need for any type of NTC?

    If PC held back, say $200k per NTC, he would have over $2M more to work with.  Not insignificant, especially when you are in a crunch.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: NTC/NMC: Kings have Zero

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Even Peverley's deal at the time looked good.  Who knew The Flying Mosquito would tank like that.  It's going to be interesting to see what happens with Krug.

    [/QUOTE]

    I too was surprised at "The Flying Mosquito's" drop off.I liked Peverly,he was versatile,pk,pp when needed,face off guy and could score the timely goal when needed,he also had good speed.His last year with the B's though he didn't seem like the same player,maybe his heart condition was affecting him back then,who knows,but i thought he would be a Bruin for a few years,liked him better than Kelly.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: NTC/NMC: Kings have Zero

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I disagree, Crowls, about PC's strategy for re-signings.  I think it's very calculated, and I don't think he's put them in a bad spot because of them.  In almost every case, the dollars seem high to start and then quickly look good for the team.  He's always gotten Krejci at a good deal; Bergeron's new deal seems about right now, and it will probably look better in the next few years.  I'd say none of Chiarelli's deals look like he "won" the negotiations with the player, but the trade off is that he's put an end to the perception that the Bruins are adversarial when dealing with their players.  The only two I look at are Kelly, which would look okay if he was a 15-20-35 defensive specialist as he was when the Bruins signed the deal, and Lucic, which is probably market value for him if he ever had a chance to try UFA, and was signed under the duress of an impending lockout that might have changed the RFA/UFA rules and cost the Bruins far more.

    The NTC/NMCs are mostly modified, submit a list deals.  I'm not overly concerned about PC's ability to make good moves with these guys if he needs to.  More important is the message it sends to the whole team (and I'm sure they can all log on to Cap Geek) that the Bruins are trying to build a core and commit to them - so the players should commit, too.

    The cap pressure comes from two directions - the lockout dropping the cap significantly (it's about $10M lower than it would be if there had been no lockout) - and the relatively flat age profile of this team's core with Bergeron, Krejci, Soderberg, Eriksson, Rask and McQuaid all at that magic 27 yr old threshold around the same time, and Lucic and Marchand headed there shortly.  The "refresh" started last year on the D, and the salary flexibility from that is a huge boost; now they need to find a way to make it work up front.

    The way it seems to shake out right now, I'm kinda sorta hoping Spooner follows the Marchand plan.  Approx. 20 games one year, no goals.  Next year, 20 goals.  Also, I'm totally going to get that leprechaun's f---ing Lucky Charms. 

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree with your disagreement.  How's that?

    Exhibit A: Sign Rask to make him the highest paid Goalie in the NHL for a material term of 8 years.  Then give him an NMC for the 1st 4 years, modified NTC (8 teams) for the next 2, followed by modified NTC (15 Teams) for the final 2. 

    When you make a guy the highest paid player at a position, why the need for any type of NTC?

    If PC held back, say $200k per NTC, he would have over $2M more to work with.  Not insignificant, especially when you are in a crunch.

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe he did.  Maybe Rask knew that Lundquist was about to get $1.5M more than him and wanted more, but took an NTC instead?  Rask wasn't the highest paid.  He got Rinne money.

    Besides, year to year, it's still only $200K to work with against any year's cap.  Like I say, there's messaging here, too - putting your money where your mouth is.  Chiarelli got Rask to take below market for a couple of years and asked him to prove he could be a top #1.  I'm guessing that the other half of that arrangement was..."and we'll pay you accordingly".  Plus, the NTC tells all of the other players on the roster that you're not living up to the letter of the promise only to then screw the guy and deal him to Edmonton for picks because shupe says the team could win with OchoCinco.  It says they'll be playing in front of a guy who gives them a chance to win every game for at least 8 years.  That's got value, too.

    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: NTC/NMC: Kings have Zero

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I disagree, Crowls, about PC's strategy for re-signings.  I think it's very calculated, and I don't think he's put them in a bad spot because of them.  In almost every case, the dollars seem high to start and then quickly look good for the team.  He's always gotten Krejci at a good deal; Bergeron's new deal seems about right now, and it will probably look better in the next few years.  I'd say none of Chiarelli's deals look like he "won" the negotiations with the player, but the trade off is that he's put an end to the perception that the Bruins are adversarial when dealing with their players.  The only two I look at are Kelly, which would look okay if he was a 15-20-35 defensive specialist as he was when the Bruins signed the deal, and Lucic, which is probably market value for him if he ever had a chance to try UFA, and was signed under the duress of an impending lockout that might have changed the RFA/UFA rules and cost the Bruins far more.

    The NTC/NMCs are mostly modified, submit a list deals.  I'm not overly concerned about PC's ability to make good moves with these guys if he needs to.  More important is the message it sends to the whole team (and I'm sure they can all log on to Cap Geek) that the Bruins are trying to build a core and commit to them - so the players should commit, too.

    The cap pressure comes from two directions - the lockout dropping the cap significantly (it's about $10M lower than it would be if there had been no lockout) - and the relatively flat age profile of this team's core with Bergeron, Krejci, Soderberg, Eriksson, Rask and McQuaid all at that magic 27 yr old threshold around the same time, and Lucic and Marchand headed there shortly.  The "refresh" started last year on the D, and the salary flexibility from that is a huge boost; now they need to find a way to make it work up front.

    The way it seems to shake out right now, I'm kinda sorta hoping Spooner follows the Marchand plan.  Approx. 20 games one year, no goals.  Next year, 20 goals.  Also, I'm totally going to get that leprechaun's f---ing Lucky Charms. 

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

    [/QUOTE]

    Disagree with your disagreement.  How's that?

    Exhibit A: Sign Rask to make him the highest paid Goalie in the NHL for a material term of 8 years.  Then give him an NMC for the 1st 4 years, modified NTC (8 teams) for the next 2, followed by modified NTC (15 Teams) for the final 2. 

    When you make a guy the highest paid player at a position, why the need for any type of NTC?

    If PC held back, say $200k per NTC, he would have over $2M more to work with.  Not insignificant, especially when you are in a crunch.

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe he did.  Maybe Rask knew that Lundquist was about to get $1.5M more than him and wanted more, but took an NTC instead?  Rask wasn't the highest paid.  He got Rinne money.

    Besides, year to year, it's still only $200K to work with against any year's cap.  Like I say, there's messaging here, too - putting your money where your mouth is.  Chiarelli got Rask to take below market for a couple of years and asked him to prove he could be a top #1.  I'm guessing that the other half of that arrangement was..."and we'll pay you accordingly".  Plus, the NTC tells all of the other players on the roster that you're not living up to the letter of the promise only to then screw the guy and deal him to Edmonton for picks because shupe says the team could win with OchoCinco.  It says they'll be playing in front of a guy who gives them a chance to win every game for at least 8 years.  That's got value, too.

    [object HTMLDivElement]

    [/QUOTE]

    How is Lombardi able to be successful with his "screw you over" approach?  Zero NMC/NTC's?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: NTC/NMC: Kings have Zero

    Crowls, the NMC's could have something to do with the city of Boston. It's total speculation on my part but maybe the guys in L.A. are less particular about trying to finish their careers there.


    "wow,check out all of the losers in here......"

    -Gerry Dee
     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: NTC/NMC: Kings have Zero

    3rd line forwards like Kelly and Peverley didn't deserve NTC/NMC. Kelly's contract was a year too long but his yearly income was ok, still think he can be moved.

    I think PCs intentions were right, as a former agent, but that 3rd year of a contract for a 3rd liner, who tends to tank, offensively can bite when you need to move it. Chiarelli probably thought at the time of some of those contracts, like Kelly's and Peverley's, the cap would keep climbing.

     

     

Share