Worst Nhl contracts?

[maurice93]

I'm not moving them...reality is.

1. You explicitly said in a non cap world that players would leave Montreal for bigger dollars in the states. That was the starting point.

2. I then raised the fact the Montreal is one of the clear 3 big markets in the NHL right now in terms of revenues. In a non cap world they could have a much higher payroll than the average team.

3’. You ignored my fact because it proved your point wrong. Instead you responded , with cost of living is higher. That is moving the goalpost #1.

4. I acknowledged your fact. It is higher and it impacts the Canadiens in a cap world. But I then brought it back to your first point that in a non cap world that Montreal’s revenue power would allow them to pay more to players to make up for it.

4. Once again you ignored the entire fact of revenue power = spending power. Instead you brought up factors that are relevant in a cap world and called my post arrogant. Moving the goalposts #2.

5. When accused of moving the goalposts you say I am not acting with reality. But you are the one that is ignoring the point you made to start this thing.

I fully accept as per your last post that -
1) Montreal has to overpay for players for various reasons
2) Montreal had certain factors that make it hard to sign players if you are both paying them the same.

But the point is you yourself raised the non cap world scenario. I then brought up revenue power as totally changing things in this scenario. You ignored it and went back to cap would scenario twice.

So in summary:
- I considered and responded to your facts in a fair manner
- you ignored my facts, moved the goalposts, and then had the gall to consider me arrogant.

Here’s arrogance.

On this topic I win, you lose.

 

[maurice93]

No goalie is worth that much money. You can't win when your paying that much to a goalie.

You can win with an overpaid goalie if that goalie is playing really well and everything else is well managed or well timed cap wise for the rest of your team.

Montreal could probably be a real contender right now if Price was playing at his 2014/ 2015 levels. But he has not been at that level for a while. In fact Montreal could probably at least be mid range contender if Price was playing at above average levels or top 10 goalie level this year. But right now anyway he is a sieve. If Price played to the level of a 6-7 million dollar goalie this year Montreal might be good.

What is scary for Montreal is they are equipped this year to overcome his questionable contract. They are helped greatly by the fact that they have to pay nothing to their 3 younger centres. But eventually they will need to be paid and at that point with Price and Weber becoming less effective it will hurt.

The window for Montreal is now as a mid-level good contender but it could be short due to back end payroll pressure that will restrict its one big advantage right now which is team depth.

 

[Fun For All]

1. You explicitly said in a non cap world that players would leave Montreal for bigger dollars in the states. That was the starting point.

2. I then raised the fact the Montreal is one of the clear 3 big markets in the NHL right now in terms of revenues. In a non cap world they could have a much higher payroll the the average team.

3’. You ignored my fact because it proved your theory wrong. Instead you responded , with cost of living is higher. That is moving the goalposts #1.

4. I acknowledged your fact. It is higher and it impacts the Canadiens in a cap world. But I then brought it back to your first point that in a non cap world that Montreal’s revenue power would allow them to pay more to players to make up for it.

4. Once again you ignored the entire fact of revenue power = spending power. Instead you brought up factors that are relevant in a cap world and called my post arrogant. Moving the goalposts #2.

5. When accused of moving the goalposts you say I am not acting with reality. But you are the only one that is ignoring the major fact I raised spending power in a non cap world.

I fully accept as per your last post that -
1) Montreal has to overpay
2) Montreal had certain factors that make it hard to sign players if you are both paying x.

But the point is you yourself raised the non cap world scenario. I then brought up revenue power as totally changing things in this scenario. You ignored it and went back to cap would scenario twice.

So in summary:
- I considered and responded to your facts in a fair manner
- you ignored my facts, moved the goalposts, and then had the gall to consider me arrogant.

Here’s arrogance.

On this topic I win, you lose.

My reply...
1-players, if given a choice, will leave Montreal wither there is a cap or not

2-when the NHL didn't have a salary cap, Montreal did not spend anymore than anybody

3-your fact is your opinion and your opinion is wrong

4-again, they already had a crack at a non-cap world and didn't take advantage of it

4-there revenue power does not translate to spending power

5-reality is that you don't accept that Montreal is not the first choice for free agent players, not even close

Here is more reality...Players don't chose Montreal first because of tax laws, cost of living, language issues, weather issues, family issues, a mediocre hockey team

You are right on your last point...you are arrogant to assume you're right and I'm wrong.

 

[maurice93]

Quebec’s marginal tax rate for high level earners ( hockey players) is now actually slightly lower than Ontario. Quebec dings you on the first 100,000 of income where you will pay 6,000 more taxes than a person from Ontario.

Some years ago I remember hearing there was a Habs player that lived on the Ontario side of the Quebec border for tax reasons when the rates were different. There as some tax saving but I thought the hassle of driving an hour to the arena in no traffic would be an issue.

But the hobbyist in me now thinks the player probably used it as an excuse to stay at a hotel in Montreal some nights!

 

[maurice93]

My reply...
1-players, if given a choice, will leave Montreal wither there is a cap or not

2-when the NHL didn't have a salary cap, Montreal did not spend anymore than anybody

3-your fact is your opinion and your opinion is wrong

4-again, they already had a crack at a non-cap world and didn't take advantage of it

4-there revenue power does not translate to spending power

5-reality is that you don't accept that Montreal is not the first choice for free agent players, not even close

Here is more reality...Players don't chose Montreal first because of tax laws, cost of living, language issues, weather issues, family issues, a mediocre hockey team

You are right on your last point...you are arrogant to assume you're right and I'm wrong.

Before responding to your 5 points For all reading this — FFA just claimed there was no translation between ability to spend and having more revenues in a non cap world. Why am I wasting my time with this guy. I should be mad with myself. At least when I argue with someone like Shack, where we know each other dislikes the other teamI can acknowledge he is living in some form of reality.

My response to your 5 points.

1. So moving the goalposts again.

2. Do you not read? I already acknowledged this point a few posts back in anticipation of this exact query. When the NHL did not have a salary cap Montreal did not have that much more revenue power relative to the rest of their counterparts. Around 2000 the Hans franchise was struggling a bit for a few reasons. Things changed accross the big 3 sports since then (excluding football) when local TV contracts started to grow exponentially in certain markets. Fact is certain teams really benefitted more from this than others, and as of today Montreal is the third largest revenue team in the league and that will not change much for a while. That was not the case in 2000.

3. So Montreal having the third largest revenues is an opinion? Or the statement that a team has more spending power when it has more revenues is an opinion? You really don’t know the difference between facts and opinions.

4. Huh? Do you live in a different world than the rest of us?

5. I already acknowledged that twice before you posted it. Montreal had certain factors going against it and those really hurt in a cap world that can’t be overcome by spending power. Montreal is not for every one.
But if they pay you more it will become attractive for many more.

But i am going to end this now since you refuse to believe the basic concept that more revenues would allow you to spend more.

 

[Fun For All]

But i am going to end this now since you refuse to believe the basic concept that more revenues would allow you to spend more.

More revenue does not mean you are going to spend more...

 

[Darts]

Sammy Pollock was probably the best GM ever. I was really young back then but I vaguely remember Pollock trading over the hill veterans like Moore, Harvey, etc. to expansion teams for draft choices.
Best trades in Canadiens history: Pollock clipped Wings for Mahovlich (msn.com)
Relentless Ineptitude: Sam Pollock, Mario Tremblay and the 1974 NHL Draft.

 

[maurice93]

Two time Stanley Cup champion Phil Kessel?
More than okay.

Jeff Finger is the easiest example.

Jeff Finger is an interesting one. Even as middle+ contract size, the amount paid to someone who had accomplished so little and would accomplish so little was baffling. I could be wrong, but I think this signing was based largely on early day analytics

I think an argument against him being the worst contract is that in the early years of the cap you could bury your mistakes in the minors.

So it didn’t hurt the Leafs much. Similar to Clarkson where they were able to find a hole to get out of it.

 

[maurice93]

Yes but it may be Carey price, I believe he's 35th in goaltending stats approximately. Everyone thinks he's going to return to form but there's no evidence he ever will. The odd part is they chose him over halak and he's lights out now 10 years later. However skinner is an awful contract.

It’s skinner. Although price is also a bad one. The way I look at bad contracts is how easily you can wind out of them.

So in skinner vs price

Test 1 - Could you trade either contract for value with no retention or very small retention (for cap reasons would need to be expiring contract as well coming back). No and no

Test 2 . What about just expiring contracts in return? No and no.

If you fail the first two tests you are clearly a bad contract.

Test 3 - What about you add kickers like second and third rounders or even one non top 10first? No and no..

Test 4 - you can retain up to 50% of the salary? Can you then get value?

This is where in my opinion it ends. I think nobody wants Jeff skinner at 7 years / 32m. But I think you would have a few contending teams willing to take in Carey Price at 7/35, and might even give you a late first.

 

[maurice93]

I think the only option left for Buffalo with respect to Skinner is to buy him out and cut your losses. Save 33%. With the 3 million you save you can probably use that to get a better player than Skinner. I suppose they may wait a few years to do it as they are not spending at cap anyway ... so that the # of stretch years on the buyout is reduced.

 

[Fun For All]

It’s skinner. Although price is also a bad one. The way I look at bad contracts is how easily you can wind out of them.

So in skinner vs price

Test 1 - Could you trade either contract for value with no retention or very small retention (for cap reasons would need to be expiring contract as well coming back). No and no

Test 2 . What about just expiring contracts in return? No and no.

If you fail the first two tests you are clearly a bad contract.

Test 3 - What about you add kickers like second and third rounders or even one non top 10first? No and no..

Test 4 - you can retain up to 50% of the salary? Can you then get value?

This is where in my opinion it ends. I think nobody wants Jeff skinner at 7 years / 32m. But I think you would have a few contending teams willing to take in Carey Price at 7/35, and might even give you a late first.

Contending teams are up against the cap so there is no room even at 50% of salary to take Price.

Jeff Skinner is 28...might be a little early to bail on him.

 

[wazup]

It’s skinner. Although price is also a bad one. The way I look at bad contracts is how easily you can wind out of them.

So in skinner vs price

Test 1 - Could you trade either contract for value with no retention or very small retention (for cap reasons would need to be expiring contract as well coming back). No and no

Test 2 . What about just expiring contracts in return? No and no.

If you fail the first two tests you are clearly a bad contract.

Test 3 - What about you add kickers like second and third rounders or even one non top 10first? No and no..

Test 4 - you can retain up to 50% of the salary? Can you then get value?

This is where in my opinion it ends. I think nobody wants Jeff skinner at 7 years / 32m. But I think you would have a few contending teams willing to take in Carey Price at 7/35, and might even give you a late first.

Price just got lit up for 6 more last night and has been awful for 3 years but somehow is immune to criticism. Plus he's nearing mid 30s. Both are nightmares. I'm more interested in Tyler Seguin to see if he gets back on track. Two goals in 26 po games last year and declining stats overall. I think he's hurt now.

 

[maurice93]

Contending teams are up against the cap so there is no room even at 50% of salary to take Price.

Jeff Skinner is 28...might be a little early to bail on him.

You take a mediocre expiring or short term in return. That in itself would not be a very hard thing to do if you find someone that wants him at 7/35.

 

[Fun For All]

Price just got lit up for 6 more last night and has been awful for 3 years but somehow is immune to criticism. Plus he's nearing mid 30s. Both are nightmares. I'm more interested in Tyler Seguin to see if he gets back on track. Two goals in 26 po games last year and declining stats overall. I think he's hurt now.

Carey Price has had one great year...

 

[maurice93]

Price just got lit up for 6 more last night and has been awful for 3 years but somehow is immune to criticism. Plus he's nearing mid 30s. Both are nightmares. I'm more interested in Tyler Seguin to see if he gets back on track. Two goals in 26 po games last year and declining stats overall. I think he's hurt now.

He hasn’t been awful for 3 years just overpaid. He has been an above average starter but not close to elite. Unfortunately the path is that he will decline so merely overpaid would be positive towards the end

He has stretches where he is really off like this. But recovers.

But I don’t think nearly as highly as many Montreal fans. He was elite for a few years.. other than that he had been in the category of some of the other really good goalies for most of his career.... but clearly not any better as some beehive.

 

[maurice93]

Carey Price has had one great year...

He had one great year where he was clearly the best. But He had a handful of years where he was a top 5 goalie over that period. He is not a generational goalie that was posted this summer. That being said I am not sure if there has been a generational goalie the last 15 years.

Last year he was arguably above average starter, past his peak. but it’s only going to hold steady or get worse.

 

[shack]

I am always amused when leafs fans bring this up as some massive loophole that led to a huge advantage for Montreal... and worse than that get many (perhaps not Shack) who extrapolate that advantage to Montreal across the two dynasties.

Was it an advantage for a brief time? Yes
Could it be seen as unfair? certainly
Was it a huge advantage? No
Did it have any impact on the 50s or late 70s dynasty? no.
Did the Canadiens ever have a big unfair advantage? Yes in the territory days that spanned most of the Original Six era they had first dibs on anybody within a fixed distance of Montreal. But you know what other team had the same advantage. The Leafs. I suppose every American team had it as well, but given there was basically no Americans playing hockey back then it meant nothing to them. So Montreal had an advantage over Toronto, because French Quebec and Montreal talent was better than Toronto talent at the time.

But let’s get back to the draft point you raised. You know why you remember Rejean Houle and Marc Tardif as the last two? Because they were the only two players that Montreal ever got of value because of this draft advantage. And let’s not pretend that those players were that relevant to their success. Tardif jumped to the WHA early on. Houle was a decent third line type. Unfortunately he probably hurt Montreal more in the long run. If he had went somewhere else he likely does not develop a rep on the market, never becomes a Montreal GM, and does not butcher a team in a way that rivals JF Jr.

So why didn’t the Habs get much value from this so called Huge draft advantage. Because the draft pool itself in most of those years was enormously weak because of the existing sponsorship system that was in place and possibly still territory signings before the draft. Top players, Quebec born or non Quebec born, were already with teams and were not part of the draft pool. In fact in those early bad draft pools, Montreal only got one player who became reallly valuable in their 70s cups. And that was Ken Dryden. Not the Habs fault the Leafs couldn’t scout their home area properly.

So in summary. The habs had the same massive territory rules advantage in the original six days as the leafs. While the short term draft advantage was unique to Montreal it really had little impact. But the myth of this impact has grown out of control.

I have talked to leafs fans who tell me this is how the habs got Guy Lafleur and other early era greats Which is not the case.

The late 70s habs were great because of great drafting / shrewd trades which built up a great prime age core. They also had some really good veterans which they did benefit from the old era territory rules in acquiring them. But none of their cups really had anything to do with Rejean Houle!!

Awesome reply, thanks. I knew that you were the one to ask.

I knew that this situation existed but I did not know how long it went on for and really how much of an impact it had. You have clarified it nicely.

Tardif was one of my favourite non-Leafs and was sad to see him defect. Tragically, it probably cost him having a much better career because some goon in the WHA absolutely pounded him to a pulp in a horrible incident. Tardif was defenseless. I don't think that he was ever the same. And it's interesting how you describe Houle as being the downfall of the dynasty.

Lafleur was obtained when Montreal had the Oakland Golden Seals 1st round pick. They were a bad team, but the Kings started to rival them for the worst record. So (Sad) Sam Pollock traded Ralph Backstrom to the Kings and with him they won enough games to stay ahead of Oakland and Montreal got Guy. Sam was very, very shrewd. Even without your explanation, I knew that Pollock had more to do with their success than that Quebec draft thing. Now that I think of it, the Kings helped form another dynasty when they traded Butch Goring to the Isles for Bill Harris. Once the trade was made NYI won their 4 in a row.

 

[shack]

Shack I’m not going to argue with you that in a non cap world that Toronto would not have some spending power over Montreal.. They certainly would. But the point that was made was that Montreal would suffer to American markets in a non cap world which is blatantly false.

I wasn't necessarily referring to spending power to acquire players. I was referring to how, in a cap world where many teams spend close to the limit, living in a big market might lure a player to one of those bigger markets. There's a few extra bucks to be had.

I speculated that Toronto might have some advantage over Montreal as there is more big business here. Would it be enough to make a player more willing to come to Toronto than Montreal? I wouldn't even attempt to try to make a strong argument to that effect.

 

[shack]

Wrong, hockey players aren't even on the radar in NYC. Lunquist had a moderate head and shoulders endorsement. Once again you're IGNORING (all caps) facts. Top players make ok endorsements but diddly compared to other sports figures.

You are talking national contracts. How many hockey players overall have American national contracts regardless of where they play? It's a hockey thing, not a New York thing. However, New Yorkers love their Rangers and there's lots of money to be had from local endorsements there and more so in a city like NYC than most every other NHL city. You need to compare apples to apples.

I know you are dying to prove me wrong any time you can, but you need to choose your spots better.

 

[wazup]

Before responding to your 5 points For all reading this — FFA just claimed there was no translation between ability to spend and having more revenues in a non cap world. Why am I wasting my time with this guy. I should be mad with myself. At least when I argue with someone like Shack, where we know each other dislikes the other teamI can acknowledge he is living in some form of reality.

My response to your 5 points.

1. So moving the goalposts again.

2. Do you not read? I already acknowledged this point a few posts back in anticipation of this exact query. When the NHL did not have a salary cap Montreal did not have that much more revenue power relative to the rest of their counterparts. Around 2000 the Hans franchise was struggling a bit for a few reasons. Things changed accross the big 3 sports since then (excluding football) when local TV contracts started to grow exponentially in certain markets. Fact is certain teams really benefitted more from this than others, and as of today Montreal is the third largest revenue team in the league and that will not change much for a while. That was not the case in 2000.

3. So Montreal having the third largest revenues is an opinion? Or the statement that a team has more spending power when it has more revenues is an opinion? You really don’t know the difference between facts and opinions.

4. Huh? Do you live in a different world than the rest of us?

5. I already acknowledged that twice before you posted it. Montreal had certain factors going against it and those really hurt in a cap world that can’t be overcome by spending power. Montreal is not for every one.
But if they pay you more it will become attractive for many more.

But i am going to end this now since you refuse to believe the basic concept that more revenues would allow you to spend more.

Don't bother conversing with FFA, it's not worth your effort even typing.