Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

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

    Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    Grantland's (yeah, it's a pretty cool site, NAS.) sports column The Triangle takes an in-depth look at the full list of the 21 contracts longer than 8 years that were signed in the salary cap era of the NHL. 

    It's an informative and entertaining player-by-player examination of each deal, not just the mega $$$ but the long-term team consequences often involved.  After reading I'm glad the Bruins don't share the same philosophies as some of these other teams.  Not that Chiarelli ever showed signs of following in line.

    http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/67639/were-any-long-term-nhl-contracts-a-good-idea-2

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

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    Just looking at the deals handed out this year, long and mid range deals, i can't believe how much money these players got for what they put out. Clarkson ? Clowe ? Horton ? Bozak ? Wow, i know its the going rate as they say, but way to much in my view. If these guys are worth that much, how much is Stam(p)kos worth in his next deal ? $20 mil a year ? I know its a lot of question marks but man when you watch these g.m's spend money it just leaves me shaking my head.

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

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    In response to 50belowzero's comment:

    Just looking at the deals handed out this year, long and mid range deals, i can't believe how much money these players got for what they put out. Clarkson ? Clowe ? Horton ? Bozak ? Wow, i know its the going rate as they say, but way to much in my view. If these guys are worth that much, how much is Stam(p)kos worth in his next deal ? $20 mil a year ? I know its a lot of question marks but man when you watch these g.m's spend money it just leaves me shaking my head.



    50, my thoughts are how the GMs think it was a good investment at the time; that the team will reap the rewards of that asset but somehow that financial stake can sometimes become too much of a burden to rid themselves of.

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

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    Don't get the long contracts at all. Economics at play here though, one the was used in the Seguin  deal. Horton signed for insane years not necessarrily money.  Bergeron and Rask were signed for style and necessity respectively. Both got years in a contract.  PC did what he could in all conditions.  Signed for years, dumped to meet the cap, keep the team competitive. It is the nature of the beast.  Back to the topic, long term contracts on proven players, otherwise if injured or emotionally impaired, you are a goner.  The window of talent on the bs team is limited. 6 years at best.  PC, has done his job.  Seguin is the person who needs to prove worthiness. Bergeron and  Rask do not .  Lastly, these contracts are awesomein an inflationary economy!

    BDC log in issues are just insane! Help!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    This was a nice goodnight story!

    It is truely impressive shocking not even worthy of a raised eyebrow how the Flyers managed to get on that list so many times.

    In other news, now we know who shupe talks the ear off of when he's not... typing our eyes out?

    "One caveat: As the rest of this list demonstrates, long-term contracts to goaltenders have historically ended up in disaster."

     

    -- Proud user of Chambraigne; Now with Wiener Scent! --

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    great article, down goes brown is awesome. 

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

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    Great article, RHO.  Grantland is, in my opinion, the best of the best when it comes to mixing entertainment and quality.

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

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    In response to DrCC's comment:

     

    This was a nice goodnight story!

    It is truely impressive shocking not even worthy of a raised eyebrow how the Flyers managed to get on that list so many times.

    In other news, now we know who shupe talks the ear off of when he's not... typing our eyes out?

    "One caveat: As the rest of this list demonstrates, long-term contracts to goaltenders have historically ended up in disaster."

     

    -- Proud user of Chambraigne; Now with Wiener Scent! --

     



    True, Dr.  Bryzgalov is just the latest example of their instability and in his case financial misjudgement at that position over the years.  As recently as 2006/07 and 2009/10 five goalies suited up for them in each season.  Things must have improved for them this year as they only used four.

     

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

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    Great article, RHO.  Grantland is, in my opinion, the best of the best when it comes to mixing entertainment and quality.

     



    It never disappoints, NAS and I've been a regular reader from the time you brought it to our attention.  Always interesting and witty stuff. 

     

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

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    In response to islamorada's comment:

    Don't get the long contracts at all. Economics at play here though, one the was used in the Seguin  deal. Horton signed for insane years not necessarrily money.  Bergeron and Rask were signed for style and necessity respectively. Both got years in a contract.  PC did what he could in all conditions.  Signed for years, dumped to meet the cap, keep the team competitive. It is the nature of the beast.  Back to the topic, long term contracts on proven players, otherwise if injured or emotionally impaired, you are a goner.  The window of talent on the bs team is limited. 6 years at best.  PC, has done his job.  Seguin is the person who needs to prove worthiness. Bergeron and  Rask do not .  Lastly, these contracts are awesomein an inflationary economy!

    BDC log in issues are just insane! Help!

     



    isla, can you explain what you mean here?

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

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    Back to the Flyers goaltending for a minute, to me it all seemed to unravel when they chose to sign Vanbiesbrouck to a free agent deal instead of Curtis Joseph. Strangely enough they took Vanbiesbrouck over Cujo because he was less money. The Flyers had a pretty good team back then but Beezer never panned out for them while Cujo starred for the Leafs. If they had spent the money back then like they do now, they might have had another Cup. Then again their g.m was Bobby Clarke and he didn't believe great goaltending was needed to win a Cup, oh well.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

     

    Bergeron's style of play is fitting to the Bs management.  Rask was necessary in order to retain his services.  I used the past tense, yet they both will receive long contacts.  I personally dislike long contracts.

     

    In response to RichHillOntario's comment:

    In response to islamorada's comment:

     

    Don't get the long contracts at all. Economics at play here though, one the was used in the Seguin  deal. Horton signed for insane years not necessarrily money.  Bergeron and Rask were signed for style and necessity respectively. Both got years in a contract.  PC did what he could in all conditions.  Signed for years, dumped to meet the cap, keep the team competitive. It is the nature of the beast.  Back to the topic, long term contracts on proven players, otherwise if injured or emotionally impaired, you are a goner.  The window of talent on the bs team is limited. 6 years at best.  PC, has done his job.  Seguin is the person who needs to prove worthiness. Bergeron and  Rask do not .  Lastly, these contracts are awesomein an inflationary economy!

    BDC log in issues are just insane! Help!

     

     



    isla, can you explain what you mean here?

     




     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    About half of the deals in the article I would call "good" deals.  Crosby, Richards, Carter, Ovechkin, Keith... I would make those for sure.  I wouldn't go beyond age 35 as some players have a significant drop off.  But when you see guys like Clarksen getting 6 mill per year, the value of a long contract paying Carter or Richards less becomes clear.  You run the risk of injury, but most of the time with a very good player between 25 and 35 it's worth it.

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

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

                                         "I am still scared of Bear"

     

    Holmgren can't get out of his own way with contracts. Lucky to be working for a deep-pocketed owner like Snyder. There blueline still stinks!





     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from asmaha. Show asmaha's posts

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

     

    On the whole, I don't have much of a problem with long-term deals *if* given to players already on the roster and with a proven track record of success with the current team/system. Weber, Keith, Bergeron, Franzen, etc are players who are remarkably consistent on their own teams. If a long-term deal means a cap hit that's manageable through the length of a long contract, despite everyone knowing there will be diminishing returns at some point, then so be it.

     

    What this article rightfully points out, though, is the goalie situation. Why on Earth anyone would give a goalie anything over 5 years is beyond me. Sure, goalies can have longer runs than that, but there are also always 4-5 good options in free agency every year and plenty of quality talent coming up through the ranks. It’s just not worth it.

     

    And the worst of them all....giving someone outside your organization the big long-term deal. Every player/team/system/coach situation is different. Good to see PC going after players such as Peverly, Seidenberg, Kelly, Jagr, Karlsson and even Iginla with the incentive-laden and short term contract instead of the big fish. Get 2-3 great years out of new players coming into the system and see what happens. If things go well, see if they will take extensions before they hit the market. If they don’t pan out (Peverly) or don’t take the extension (Ryder, Horton), there’s always another player ready to come in or a way to ship one out.

     

    Chiarelli is handling all of this extremely well, in my opinion.

     

    Great article…

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from RichHillOntario. Show RichHillOntario's posts

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

                                         "I am still scared of Bear"

     

    Holmgren can't get out of his own way with contracts. Lucky to be working for a deep-pocketed owner like Snyder. There blueline still stinks!





     



    Seems like it's the Flyer way of doing things, San.  Remember in '05 when Clarke signed Derian Hatcher for $14 milliion over four years and Mike Rathje for 5 years and $17 million? Meanwhile the rest of the league seemed to be using quick forwards to zip around them.  Off ice didn't both have injury troubles during the terms of their deals?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RichHillOntario. Show RichHillOntario's posts

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    In response to OatesCam's comment:

     

    About half of the deals in the article I would call "good" deals.  Crosby, Richards, Carter, Ovechkin, Keith... I would make those for sure.  I wouldn't go beyond age 35 as some players have a significant drop off.  But when you see guys like Clarksen getting 6 mill per year, the value of a long contract paying Carter or Richards less becomes clear.  You run the risk of injury, but most of the time with a very good player between 25 and 35 it's worth it.

     



    I'd add Ryan Clowe to that category, OC.  No disrespect intended but it makes me wonder what is superstar money if these guys are able to pull down this kind of contract from teams. 

    I can't even begin to imagine what Bobby Orr in his prime would command right now in terms of the return on the deal i.e., annual Norris trophies, 30+ goal seasons, 100+ plus points, Hart trophies, Cups.  Staggering!

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from RichHillOntario. Show RichHillOntario's posts

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    In response to islamorada's comment:

     

     

    Bergeron's style of play is fitting to the Bs management.  Rask was necessary in order to retain his services.  I used the past tense, yet they both will receive long contacts.  I personally dislike long contracts.

     




     

     




    I understand your thinking now, isla.  Cheers.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

                                         "I am still scared of Bear"

     

    Holmgren can't get out of his own way with contracts. Lucky to be working for a deep-pocketed owner like Snyder. There blueline still stinks!





     



    San

    colburn, kimmo and streit are all decent top 4 def.  schenn grossman and andre meszaros are not a terrible bottom 3.  Not very mobile but not terrible.  

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from RichHillOntario. Show RichHillOntario's posts

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     

    San

     

    colburn, kimmo and streit are all decent top 4 def.  schenn grossman and andre meszaros are not a terrible bottom 3.  Not very mobile but not terrible.  

     



    I'd agree with you.  Having been a Leaf I'm most familiar with Luke Schenn.  He struggled learning his position on some bad Leaf teams but one thing he consistently brought was effort and a willingness to hit anybody.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from RichHillOntario. Show RichHillOntario's posts

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    In response to 50belowzero's comment:

     

    Just looking at the deals handed out this year, long and mid range deals, i can't believe how much money these players got for what they put out. Clarkson ? Clowe ? Horton ? Bozak ? Wow, i know its the going rate as they say, but way to much in my view. If these guys are worth that much, how much is Stam(p)kos worth in his next deal ? $20 mil a year ? I know its a lot of question marks but man when you watch these g.m's spend money it just leaves me shaking my head.

     



    50, if the article's cut-off point were not 8 years for contracts I'd include Bobby Holik's whopping 5 year, $45 million deal with the Rangers in 2002 as bloated.  He topped 20 goals 6 times but Holik's peak production year was 97/98 with the Devils where he generated 65 points including 29 goals. 

     

    The first year of that big contractsaw him produce 35 points in 64 games then he topped it in 2003/04 with 56 points in 82 games including 25 goals.  The Rangers missed the playoffs both seasons.  Wasn't he primarily assigned against the other team's top line in his heyday?

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

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    In response to RichHillOntario's comment:

    Holmgren can't get out of his own way with contracts. Lucky to be working for a deep-pocketed owner like Snyder. There blueline still stinks!


    Seems like it's the Flyer way of doing things, San.  Remember in '05 when Clarke signed Derian Hatcher for $14 milliion over four years and Mike Rathje for 5 years and $17 million? Meanwhile the rest of the league seemed to be using quick forwards to zip around them.  Off ice didn't both have injury troubles during the terms of their deals? [/QUOTE]


    Holmgren didn't learn what not to do when going through all of Bobby Clarkes terrible contracts. Bunch of pilons for defenseman!

    James Wisniewski's contract is the bestest ever. Wiz has his own website as well LoL

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

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    In response to RichHillOntario's comment:

    In response to 50belowzero's comment:

     

    Just looking at the deals handed out this year, long and mid range deals, i can't believe how much money these players got for what they put out. Clarkson ? Clowe ? Horton ? Bozak ? Wow, i know its the going rate as they say, but way to much in my view. If these guys are worth that much, how much is Stam(p)kos worth in his next deal ? $20 mil a year ? I know its a lot of question marks but man when you watch these g.m's spend money it just leaves me shaking my head.

     



    50, if the article's cut-off point were not 8 years for contracts I'd include Bobby Holik's whopping 5 year, $45 million deal with the Rangers in 2002 as bloated.  He topped 20 goals 6 times but Holik's peak production year was 97/98 with the Devils where he generated 65 points including 29 goals. 

     

    The first year of that big contractsaw him produce 35 points in 64 games then he topped it in 2003/04 with 56 points in 82 games including 25 goals.  The Rangers missed the playoffs both seasons.  Wasn't he primarily assigned against the other team's top line in his heyday?



    Yes he was RHO, a lot of money for a defensive specialist to be sure.While Holik was a good player while with the Devil's, he was not worth the money by the time the Rags overpaid him. He was paid on reputation with the likes of Paul Coffey when the B's signed him, what a waste of money. 

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

    Re: Were Any Long-Term NHL Deals A Good Idea?

    In response to asmaha's comment:

     On the whole, I don't have much of a problem with long-term deals *if* given to players already on the roster and with a proven track record of success with the current team/system. Weber, Keith, Bergeron, Franzen, etc are players who are remarkably consistent on their own teams. If a long-term deal means a cap hit that's manageable through the length of a long contract, despite everyone knowing there will be diminishing returns at some point, then so be it.

    This is a useful distinction, I think, but it doesn't necessarily separate the bad deals on that list into two very different piles.  DiPietro was an Isles pick with what looked like top 10 goalie talent.  Luongo was coming off of an even bigger contract and some good time in Vancouver when he signed his vacuum contract.  But on the whole, I like the risk of signing a known quantity rather than bidding up a price.  A side effect is that players on the roster know you have a history of looking after your own.

    What this article rightfully points out, though, is the goalie situation. Why on Earth anyone would give a goalie anything over 5 years is beyond me. Sure, goalies can have longer runs than that, but there are also always 4-5 good options in free agency every year and plenty of quality talent coming up through the ranks. It’s just not worth it.

    And the worst of them all....giving someone outside your organization the big long-term deal. Every player/team/system/coach situation is different. Good to see PC going after players such as Peverly, Seidenberg, Kelly, Jagr, Karlsson and even Iginla with the incentive-laden and short term contract instead of the big fish. Get 2-3 great years out of new players coming into the system and see what happens. If things go well, see if they will take extensions before they hit the market. If they don’t pan out (Peverly) or don’t take the extension (Ryder, Horton), there’s always another player ready to come in or a way to ship one out.

    Chiarelli is handling all of this extremely well, in my opinion.




    The two points about goalies and not paying for the big fish seem to contradict one another, asmaha, and the idea that there are always 5-6 options on the market seems to me to run counter to many, many years of Bruins history when good teams lost to better goaltenders.  When you have an elite goalie, you want to keep him as long as is humanly possible.  I would refer back to your first point here, too - Craig Anderson was nothing until he landed in the right situation; conversely, Mike Smith was a solid prospect in Dallas, was looked to be the saviour in Tbay, couldn't stop a beach ball there, lands in Phoenix, now signs a new deal.  Sign a guy who fits with your team and style, not a guy with good stats on the FA market.  The best long term goalie deals?  Brodeur.  Lundqvist.  Kiprusoff.  There aren't that many that have ever gone beyond 5, but it's hard to truly evaluate them when two ofthe top 3 involve Philly and the Isles.

    Oh, and all of the guys on your list came to the Bruins with an existing contract.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share