Quoting: WhatsaMaattaWithYou
I agree and to think the 1st w Marleau has set the new standard to what it will cost to dump salary. If VAN were giving up a 1st, they should have went after a different player and since TB needed cap relief, VAN could have used that to their advantage. Imagine what PIT has to give up to remove themselves from Johnson, Gubransson, Hornqvist and Bjugstad. I don't see how teams can continue to be contenders on a yearly basis by paying mid tier players and bottom 6 players monies that should given to your top 2 starting lines. Since when should a 20 goal scorer be paid almost 7m per year? It's insane.
Contracts should be performance based and bonuses paid should not reflect negatively towards the cap. The cap structure should allow a premium payment for players who have expired their RFA status and players entering and in their athletic primes. Once a player hits 31yrs of age, a new structure should be set to recognize the start of regression in performance and decline in abilities. By the time a players' "premium contract" has expired, said player should be financially secure enough to be able to live, save, etc. on the "regression contract". I'm not saying to pay an older player RFA money, but no way should they be making upwards of 10% of a teams total cap hit. There could be a clause set in, that if a player, once they hit 31 and has 2 or 3 years of declining numbers in a season, injuries exempt, their contract would be reworked to fit within a certain parameter. An example, if a player makes a base salary of 8m per year, played all 82 games and only put up 40 points when they used to average 70+ points in their prime years, they would get a base salary of 4m with performance bonuses. Spezza, Seabrook, Lucic, Ryan, Kesler, Erickson and even Toews to an extent, are all decent examples of bad contracts and payments on past performances. Paying certain players, especially role players based on past performance is bad business. Paying the "Stanley Cup Tax" on UFAs from most recent championships is also not wise. The CBA and NHL need to find a middle ground on how to handle the cap situation. Soon, players who deserve to be in the NHL won't be able to because they will price themselves out of the league and teams will consist of 2 solid lines of quality players and the bottom pairings will be nothing but sub-par players, RFAs and undrafted players.
Great analysis. You make a very good point, but so many teams are in the win now mode that they will jump at signing UFA if a GM thinks it put the team into the playoffs.
Just for fun, click on Okposo, then compare his current contract. Look at top 3 comparable: Lucic, Milan, Turris, Kyle and Horton, Nathan. While some do very well, Tavares and JVR come to mind, there are too many who do not.
I hope Betterall does not sign a big name UFA and continues to follow the steady progress path of trading with teams who want to deal (I.e. Anaheim and Carolina, Montour and Skinner).
It is too bad that the Sabres could not pick up Haula. He has a low cap, decent past performance and only had to give up a 5th (conditional) and a "C" prospect. I just noticed, I said Haula instead of Stastny in my comment above. LOL. I am going to correct it now.
On the other hand, unless at least 3 of Thompson, Olofsson, Nylander, Pilut, Mittelstadt, Ruotsalainen or Cozens (not likely), can perform at top six or second pairing NHL caliper, we will be a lottery team again and miss the playoffs.