Forums/NHL

Thought experiment - Why is it ok to overpay UFA's but not RFA's?

Sep 20 at 2:44
#1
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 15,807
Likes: 3,838
The real answer is "never" but we all know, the choice isn't always as easy as saying it. So lets dig deeper.

We all know their most productive years are generally behind them when they are UFA's (depends on age of when they sign but lets assume 28-29 is the avg age for UFA)

The assumption is that Marner is getting paid too much, right? (I agree btw) So assume he puts up 90 points every year until the end of his contract. Would he be worth the equivalent of his current over payment he is getting now when he is 29 on the open market? Wouldn't you want to pay the player for his potential not his past pedigree knowing that he probably won't be able to put up 90+ points every of his new contract? Of course, there is always the chance Marner is a 60 point guy the rest of his contract but in all realness, what are the odds he puts up less numbers from 23-29 than he would from 29-35?

How many UFA's who signed contracts that take them into their 30's are worth their contracts in those years? Ovechkin, Crosby, Kane, right? What about Kopitar? Getzlaf? Parise? How much of these guys current contracts have they been earning in their current contracts? 1-2 maybe a 3rd year? Take away the few outliers, the overwhelming rest start to be "not worth" their contract around 32 years old.

I understand this is the way things have been for the past whatever amount of years so we've been trained to laugh at the idea of paying a player asking for UFA money right away but doesn't it make sense (coming from a completely impartial spectator who values players negotiating rights and GM's ability to roster a competitive team equally) especially with players you are virtually certain are going to put up good numbers, to pay them when they are in their prime and NOT into their 30's? Does anyone seriously think Rantanen, Marner, Point are all going to return to the 60-70 point range and everything prior was a fluke?

Why would anyone want to pay Marner X% of cap at 29 but not at 22? Based purely on history, he should produce his best during the 22-28 years, not the 29-35 years. So what is it?

In a perfect world where players are paid on a yearly basis based solely on production that past year, wouldn't one assume the best years to feel like you have to pay a player a lot, would be the years when they are statistically going to be giving you the best years of their careers?

I think the NHL is changing its philosophy around player contracts. Moving away from the "past pedigree" contracts to the "future potential" contracts. I think the most undeniable thing about this is that it effects the newest wave of teams players like this the most and its what causes the riff with fans the most. They see Pastrnak signing for 6M and say "hey why not our guy too?".
Using players contracts from 2-4 years ago as comparison is no longer valid with players because the change to this mentality has been rather sudden. Pretty much the day Matthews signed his contract. It changed every other RFA's idea of their evaluation of contracts going forward. Anything before is slightly hard to compare against now in the future where as the previous change was stretched out over a longer period of time.

What I find confusing is based on the current mentality, Marner should have signed anywhere from 8.5-9.5M x 7-8 year contract, right. Then when he becomes a UFA at 28-29 he would be able to get that even bigger contract on the open market. Except, who here wants to sign Marner when he is 29 based on the 7-8 past years of 90+ points? Not the Leafs probably, right? I can already hear Leafs fans saying let him go to free agency where someone will be stupid enough to pay him his big contract. So.... Leafs are stupid for paying Marner now but whoever pays for him in the future is just as stupid? Its never a time to pay a player essentially.
Trickster, krakowitz, prc and 2 others liked this.
Sep 20 at 3:04
#2
LongtimeLeafsufferer
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 28,378
Likes: 6,487
Well said Marco. If it's a new trend to pay/overpay RFAs, then the Leafs are ahead of the trend. Maybe they shouldn't have been trendsetters though. Best players getting the most money...nothing wrong with that really, it's the reality change that so many folks have hard grasping immediately.

Conversing hae we seen UFAs not getting paid/overpaid because of past performance. Gardiner getting "just" 4m X 4. Maybe that is a new trend also.
Trickster liked this.
Sep 20 at 3:28
#3
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 15,807
Likes: 3,838
Quoting: palhal
Well said Marco. If it's a new trend to pay/overpay RFAs, then the Leafs are ahead of the trend. Maybe they shouldn't have been trendsetters though. Best players getting the most money...nothing wrong with that really, it's the reality change that so many folks have hard grasping immediately.

Conversing hae we seen UFAs not getting paid/overpaid because of past performance. Gardiner getting "just" 4m X 4. Maybe that is a new trend also.


I wouldn't say ahead of the trend as they are basically the ones being "punished" first for it and won't be better for worse necessarily as time goes on but one thing is for sure, everyone in the future will be in the same boat. That's the key. This isn't a Toronto or Colorado or Tampa bay problem. It'll be an NHL problem going forward. I say problem but it may turn out to be not that much of a problem in the long run. More of a changing of the guard regarding paying players what w think they are worth right now, in the future and based on past production.

As for Gardiner, i think his injury had more to do with anything but even if we exclude him. Teams are starting to pay attention to the changing of the guard and NOT paying players those big fat contracts that take them into their late 30's anymore. This change wont happen over night either but I predict that in two years time, UFA's won;t be getting 8 year contracts anymore and RFA's will unanimously be getting paid for their potential and not so much just their ELC production.
palhal and Trickster liked this.
Sep 20 at 3:49
#4
LongtimeLeafsufferer
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 28,378
Likes: 6,487
Marco: It's might be a NHLPA problem. Seems like the premium few might be getting more of cap pie. If the middle and lower guys get less....the majority of NHLPA members will be really pissed and may want CA changes.
hanson493, Trickster, F50marco and 1 other person liked this.
Sep 20 at 4:30
#5
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 641
Quoting: palhal
Marco: It's might be a NHLPA problem. Seems like the premium few might be getting more of cap pie. If the middle and lower guys get less....the majority of NHLPA members will be really pissed and may want CA changes.


Quoting: F50marco
I wouldn't say ahead of the trend as they are basically the ones being "punished" first for it and won't be better for worse necessarily as time goes on but one thing is for sure, everyone in the future will be in the same boat. That's the key. This isn't a Toronto or Colorado or Tampa bay problem. It'll be an NHL problem going forward. I say problem but it may turn out to be not that much of a problem in the long run. More of a changing of the guard regarding paying players what w think they are worth right now, in the future and based on past production.

As for Gardiner, i think his injury had more to do with anything but even if we exclude him. Teams are starting to pay attention to the changing of the guard and NOT paying players those big fat contracts that take them into their late 30's anymore. This change wont happen over night either but I predict that in two years time, UFA's won;t be getting 8 year contracts anymore and RFA's will unanimously be getting paid for their potential and not so much just their ELC production.


Not that you asked for it but here's my opinion on why Rfa's typically arent paid premier wages. One, how many 19-23 year olds were coming into the league putting up top line numbers from recent history? I think the hard cap's existence and the fact that guys cant hit UFA until 26/27 (dumb for the players at this point) puts the teams in serious control. most prospects dont get to slot into top lines and put up 60 points their rookie year. They arent being counted on. Take tampa bay for example. they signed stamkos kucherov, palat, johnsson, killorn, had callahan etc. not much room for VETERAN presence after that because they overpaid some guys to stay on. This forced the team to use point before they would like and sped up his pay process. Think about it this way, if they didnt need the low money, elc type contract on the team to begin with he doesnt get his shot and he stays a prospect in their system UNTIL UFA status. This crop of free agents was really good really early in their career alot of that is due to the way the cap is structured.

Why paying Rfa's vs Ufa's is such an issue: Its simple, it becomes history vs projection. With a UFA 9 times out of 10 you know what you are getting from the player when he hits his first UFA window. you have 6+ years of progression to know what he is capable of. with RFA you are limited to 2 sometimes 3 before that big payday arrives. Would you rather have 3 years of data to see which year may be an outlier or have 6 years of data. I think toronto is a unique situation, not the norm. most teams arent putting their young guys on top lines at 19/20 years old. they were very fortunate to have drafted 3 immediate top 6 players but that isnt the norm at all but an extreme rarity.
Trickster liked this.
Sep 20 at 4:32
#6
BtZ's buttercup
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 2,601
Likes: 1,406
Very well thought out.
Good read and I agree with you.
F50marco liked this.
Sep 20 at 9:18
#7
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 15,807
Likes: 3,838
Quoting: hanson493
Not that you asked for it but here's my opinion on why Rfa's typically arent paid premier wages. One, how many 19-23 year olds were coming into the league putting up top line numbers from recent history? I think the hard cap's existence and the fact that guys cant hit UFA until 26/27 (dumb for the players at this point) puts the teams in serious control. most prospects dont get to slot into top lines and put up 60 points their rookie year. They arent being counted on. Take tampa bay for example. they signed stamkos kucherov, palat, johnsson, killorn, had callahan etc. not much room for VETERAN presence after that because they overpaid some guys to stay on. This forced the team to use point before they would like and sped up his pay process. Think about it this way, if they didnt need the low money, elc type contract on the team to begin with he doesnt get his shot and he stays a prospect in their system UNTIL UFA status. This crop of free agents was really good really early in their career alot of that is due to the way the cap is structured.

Why paying Rfa's vs Ufa's is such an issue: Its simple, it becomes history vs projection. With a UFA 9 times out of 10 you know what you are getting from the player when he hits his first UFA window. you have 6+ years of progression to know what he is capable of. with RFA you are limited to 2 sometimes 3 before that big payday arrives. Would you rather have 3 years of data to see which year may be an outlier or have 6 years of data. I think toronto is a unique situation, not the norm. most teams arent putting their young guys on top lines at 19/20 years old. they were very fortunate to have drafted 3 immediate top 6 players but that isnt the norm at all but an extreme rarity.


Thanks. I'll just retort the highlighted part.

Agreed. Experience trumps a lot but think about it for a sec.....how often are UFA's earning their contracts there afterwards? How often are players in their 22-28 earning an hypothetical equal contract had they got one?

There is no doubting the empirical data. On average, players best seasons are in the their 20's. Not 30's. So why would you pay the most money to the players after they've given the best years of their career already? That's why it comes down paying potential vs paying past accomplishments. In the case of Marner for example, its not like they are handing him 10M because he was the 4th OV pick in his draft and he was good in junior. He showed for 3 straight years he was elite. Clear progression every year and all within the ages where players are the most inexperienced.

SJ just gave Karlsson, an amazing player 11.5M that will take him till 37. Is that more justified? Karlsson will not be able to produce 70+ points and play 25 mins a night at 35 more than likely will he? Why is that ok, yet Marner for example a player only going to get better and has proven enough to make anyone think that he should continue to improve as he enters his prime years.

One ideology is considered safe and one is risky but when you look at the data, is it really? Seems paying a UFA, market value is what is more risky than paying a player into his late 30's.
Trickster liked this.
Sep 22 at 9:22
#8
Formerly klondikebar
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 2,973
Likes: 1,460
mind. blown.
F50marco liked this.
Sep 22 at 6:22
#9
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 937
Likes: 948
First of all...holy crap! This has been a fantastic read. I love reading stuff like this, bravo @F50marco !


Quoting: F50marco

One ideology is considered safe and one is risky but when you look at the data, is it really? Seems paying a UFA, market value is what is more risky than paying a player into his late 30's.


I will begin with saying that players drafted particularly outside of the top 3 are not scouted well enough. Especially when players are not scouted enough, teams/GMs don't know what said players are capable of...so these players get drafted a few slots higher/lower etc.

The other factor is...those players who suddenly surprise people at the NHL level. They don't show they have "it" at the lower levels but as soon as they get to the big show, they do.

I guess depending on player, there can be risk young or old...but at least with older players there's a track record. With young players track records (specific to each player) do not exist.
F50marco liked this.
Sep 23 at 9:17
#10
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 641
Quoting: F50marco
Thanks. I'll just retort the highlighted part.

Agreed. Experience trumps a lot but think about it for a sec.....how often are UFA's earning their contracts there afterwards? How often are players in their 22-28 earning an hypothetical equal contract had they got one?

There is no doubting the empirical data. On average, players best seasons are in the their 20's. Not 30's. So why would you pay the most money to the players after they've given the best years of their career already? That's why it comes down paying potential vs paying past accomplishments. In the case of Marner for example, its not like they are handing him 10M because he was the 4th OV pick in his draft and he was good in junior. He showed for 3 straight years he was elite. Clear progression every year and all within the ages where players are the most inexperienced.

SJ just gave Karlsson, an amazing player 11.5M that will take him till 37. Is that more justified? Karlsson will not be able to produce 70+ points and play 25 mins a night at 35 more than likely will he? Why is that ok, yet Marner for example a player only going to get better and has proven enough to make anyone think that he should continue to improve as he enters his prime years.

One ideology is considered safe and one is risky but when you look at the data, is it really? Seems paying a UFA, market value is what is more risky than paying a player into his late 30's.


Yeah but i think Marner is a completely different issue. My problem (bruins fan) with the marner situation is the leafs didnt really need him at that cap hit. tavares at 11, matthews at 11.6 nylander at 6.9, alot of what marner got should have gone into the defense to make it better long term. You have star studded talent on the offense already but youve just handcuffed yourself to 4 players albeit in their prime and all of them play offense. Not great for a TEAM sport. In other instances like brayden point for example, you dont want to pay for an outlier performance playing with some of the best players in hockey. Is HE generating the scoring chances or is his linemates? He wants to be paid like a 90 point player but what happens if he only hits 70 points the rest of his career? he has a 40, 60 and 90 point scoring season. You can see the trajectory but he also played with kucherov who had almost 130 points himself so again is it him or is it his linemates elevating him? Its really tough to predict what a player will be at early stages of his career. I dont disagree that the "mistake" contracts are given in UFA. I think UFA is too late in a players career that it hurts both player legacy and teams cap hits. Backes should have gotten no more than 3 years on any deal because of his play style. Bruins overpaid and gave him 5. its costing them now and next year. Now dont get me wrong i would rather overpay a young guy for lesser production than an older vet for lesser production but you have to think that some of those deals also are lessened BECAUSE of the fact they are aging. If backes at 30 was still a true 1st line center, he gets more than a 6m aav right?
F50marco liked this.
Sep 23 at 10:28
#11
best poster
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 1,377
Likes: 792
i believe this is the direction a lot of gms are going to be going in. the 2016 free agency contracts were a wake up call that giving older guys long, unmovable contracts is a bigger handicap to the team than giving younger players an extra million or so.
F50marco liked this.
Sep 23 at 12:03
#12
Below Market Value
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,232
Likes: 1,073
Another reason UFAs get overpaid is simply due to the economics of the situation. A UFA has the freedom to receive bids from any team they want, causing teams to pay more than what the player is actually worth in order to get the player. Lower supply (a few players) + Higher demand (many teams) = higher price. An RFA is bound to his team (barring the rare offer sheet), allowing the team to drive down his price compared to the value he brings.

The UFA market is more akin to a free market, while the RFA "market" is more like a monopoly. And I've now exhausted the extent of my knowledge of basic microeconomics.
Sep 23 at 3:01
#13
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 15,807
Likes: 3,838
Edited Sep 23 at 3:23
Quoting: DoctorBreakfast
Another reason UFAs get overpaid is simply due to the economics of the situation. A UFA has the freedom to receive bids from any team they want, causing teams to pay more than what the player is actually worth in order to get the player. Lower supply (a few players) + Higher demand (many teams) = higher price. An RFA is bound to his team (barring the rare offer sheet), allowing the team to drive down his price compared to the value he brings.

The UFA market is more akin to a free market, while the RFA "market" is more like a monopoly. And I've now exhausted the extent of my knowledge of basic microeconomics.


Yeah I get the economics of it. I just feel that it may be an outdated ideology that is slowly changing from the looks of it.

Simply because the players have less rights, the team feels they must automatically use this leverage to bring down a players value even though they know they're worth it. Then through the media and down to the fans, the idea becomes that the player is greedy rather than the GM's having an unfair advantage.

UFA - Players use the market to their advantage to bring up their value.
RFA - Players use their production to get what they'd deserve.

So if an RFA is trying to be compensated based on their production and a UFA is using open market and multiple teams to drive up their value, wouldn't it be proactive to pay the RFA and refrain from paying the UFA?
Sep 23 at 3:30
#14
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 641
Quoting: F50marco
Yeah I get the economics of it. I just feel that it may be an outdated ideology that is slowly changing from the looks of it.

Simply because the players have less rights, the team feels they must automatically use this leverage to bring down a players value even though they know they're worth it. Then through the media and down to the fans, the idea becomes that the player is greedy rather than the GM's having an unfair advantage.

UFA - Players use the market to their advantage to bring up their value.
RFA - Players use their production to get what they'd deserve.

So if an RFA is trying to be compensated based on their production and a UFA is using open market and multiple teams to drive up their value, wouldn't it be proactive to pay the RFA and refrain from paying the UFA?


if you overpay a guy now, wouldnt you then overpay that same FA when he hits UFA? Marner at 27 if he DOES have excellent years, what will his UFA contract look like coming off of 10.893? IF he performs he isnt taking the same aav or even less to play... he will want a raise, and could easily command it. 28 year old marner could easily play for another 7 years after that deal. you cant predict longevity in a contact sport. sometimes one bad injury (marc savard) and your done.
Sep 23 at 3:46
#15
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 15,807
Likes: 3,838
Quoting: hanson493
if you overpay a guy now, wouldnt you then overpay that same FA when he hits UFA? Marner at 27 if he DOES have excellent years, what will his UFA contract look like coming off of 10.893? IF he performs he isnt taking the same aav or even less to play... he will want a raise, and could easily command it. 28 year old marner could easily play for another 7 years after that deal. you cant predict longevity in a contact sport. sometimes one bad injury (marc savard) and your done.


Yes exactly. So why would you be ok paying Marner what he demands in UFA and not when he is RFA? That's the difference here. When Marner becomes a UFA, you'll be getting a player that is statistically going to produce less than he did previously. (Taking the whole contract into account).

The amount Marner will get in UFA will be driven up by the amount of teams wanting to pay him to play for their team. The RFA contract you paying is based on what he's performed thus far and what you project him to be able to do for the remainder of that contract.

The economics of the situation are what they are and the NHLPA can negotiate better conditions if they want in the next CBA but all I'm getting at is if you think about it not from either a player or a GM or a Fan even, overpaying an RFA like Marner for example makes more sense than overpaying a UFA. Simply because the GM's have this advantage over RFA's is the only reason we "feel" Marner, once again fro example, is being overpaid.

If Marner was a free agent right now, he'd be making more than he currently is. The only thing stopping teams from offer sheeting Marner at what they would probably be able to was the OS compensation being absolutely bogus. Paying a player what he's worth AND four 1st rounders simply doesn't make fiscal sense. Just straight up paying the player and that's it, would probably be fine by many teams considering how hard it is to get a superstar player in their prime and considering the alternative in UFA would be getting a player leaving his prime as well as paying more than the player is worth.
Sep 23 at 3:55
#16
Below Market Value
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,232
Likes: 1,073
Quoting: F50marco
Yeah I get the economics of it. I just feel that it may be an outdated ideology that is slowly changing from the looks of it.

Simply because the players have less rights, the team feels they must automatically use this leverage to bring down a players value even though they know they're worth it. Then through the media and down to the fans, the idea becomes that the player is greedy rather than the GM's having an unfair advantage.

UFA - Players use the market to their advantage to bring up their value.
RFA - Players use their production to get what they'd deserve.

So if an RFA is trying to be compensated based on their production and a UFA is using open market and multiple teams to drive up their value, wouldn't it be proactive to pay the RFA and refrain from paying the UFA?


An issue that a lot of teams have is that they end up with positional needs on their NHL roster that need to be addressed (whether it's due to losing players to free agency, retirement, etc.) and the easiest way to do that is through the UFA market. It'd be cheaper to fill these holes with prospects and undrafted players from overseas, however a lot of these players are unknown quantities on NHL ice. General managers are generally pretty risk-averse and UFAs have easily verifiable NHL track records, which makes them safer bets for general managers, at least in the first couple years of the deal.
hanson493 liked this.
Sep 23 at 5:01
#17
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 15,807
Likes: 3,838
Quoting: DoctorBreakfast
An issue that a lot of teams have is that they end up with positional needs on their NHL roster that need to be addressed (whether it's due to losing players to free agency, retirement, etc.) and the easiest way to do that is through the UFA market. It'd be cheaper to fill these holes with prospects and undrafted players from overseas, however a lot of these players are unknown quantities on NHL ice. General managers are generally pretty risk-averse and UFAs have easily verifiable NHL track records, which makes them safer bets for general managers, at least in the first couple years of the deal.


Very true and this appears to still be the way many GM's operate. I guess you can say, I'm not arguing for GM's to change the way they are operating. More the way fans perceive that negotiation.

This really comes down to RFA's not being able to negotiate what they're truly worth based on their production compared to a UFA and the perception of them attempting to try and negotiate for it comes off as them being greedy.

Whats comes off more greedy? A player like Marner contract or a player like Zuccarello's contract? That is a question I struggle to answer myself.
Sep 25 at 6:03
#18
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,698
Likes: 700
In my opinion, it has always been believed that UFA's have leverage over any interested teams. I think of it as a valuable work of art in an auction. The highest bidder wins the UFA (Or do they?). Top UFA's have always named their price and location (Tavares, Panarin, Karlsson). This will always be the case for top UFA's. They'll always control their own destiny.

RFA's, on the other hand, have never utilized many of the tools at their disposal until recently. Offer sheets, hold-outs, and bridge deals are some of the means at their disposal. I think it's always been the norm that top UFA's are simply worth more despite being several years older. This makes no sense at all. Why should a team pay say $10M AAV for a 28 year old UFA when his best years may be in the rear view? The league is only getting younger, and I believe that the league's best young players are more opportunistic now than ever before.

Personally, I think an RFA like Matthews is much more valuable at $11.5M AAV than say Tavares at about the same term and $$. Tavares will most likely start to decline during the second half of his current contract while Matthews will be at or near his peak. This concept is even more telling for mid range players. Take a player like Mats Zuccarello and compare him to Alex Tuch. Does anyone actually think Zucc's deal will look better than Tuch's halfway through? I don't think so. And Tuch got less $$$.
Sep 25 at 10:19
#19
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 15,807
Likes: 3,838
Quoting: Brian2016
In my opinion, it has always been believed that UFA's have leverage over any interested teams. I think of it as a valuable work of art in an auction. The highest bidder wins the UFA (Or do they?). Top UFA's have always named their price and location (Tavares, Panarin, Karlsson). This will always be the case for top UFA's. They'll always control their own destiny.

RFA's, on the other hand, have never utilized many of the tools at their disposal until recently. Offer sheets, hold-outs, and bridge deals are some of the means at their disposal. I think it's always been the norm that top UFA's are simply worth more despite being several years older. This makes no sense at all. Why should a team pay say $10M AAV for a 28 year old UFA when his best years may be in the rear view? The league is only getting younger, and I believe that the league's best young players are more opportunistic now than ever before.

Personally, I think an RFA like Matthews is much more valuable at $11.5M AAV than say Tavares at about the same term and $$. Tavares will most likely start to decline during the second half of his current contract while Matthews will be at or near his peak. This concept is even more telling for mid range players. Take a player like Mats Zuccarello and compare him to Alex Tuch. Does anyone actually think Zucc's deal will look better than Tuch's halfway through? I don't think so. And Tuch got less $$$.


Well this seems to be the logic I'm getting at despite having to accept the fact that because RFA's don't have the same rights as UFA's, they are forced into "settling" for less than what we all know they will be worth in the duration of that contract. Even though its starting to change a bit.

The quick and easy answer to my own question is: because they can. I just feel the perception in the NHL is that you pay a player for what he's capable of giving you. People can argue over how long it takes for someone to be proven or not but the evidence doesn't lie. A player at 22 that puts up 90 points in a season, isn't going to be bum from year 23-28. As always there is the potential for down years but that applies to veteran players as well so whats thee problem? Why must you wait for a player to produce 5-6-7 years of data before committing to the price tag they've proven? By the time, they've done that and you sign them, they tend on average not be able to provide the same results as they did so where is the logic in that mentality?

Ultimately, this logic only should apply to the cream of the crop. It can't be applied evenly across the wide spectrum of players.
Brian2016 liked this.
Sep 25 at 11:45
#20
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 641
Quoting: F50marco
Well this seems to be the logic I'm getting at despite having to accept the fact that because RFA's don't have the same rights as UFA's, they are forced into "settling" for less than what we all know they will be worth in the duration of that contract. Even though its starting to change a bit.

The quick and easy answer to my own question is: because they can. I just feel the perception in the NHL is that you pay a player for what he's capable of giving you. People can argue over how long it takes for someone to be proven or not but the evidence doesn't lie. A player at 22 that puts up 90 points in a season, isn't going to be bum from year 23-28. As always there is the potential for down years but that applies to veteran players as well so whats thee problem? Why must you wait for a player to produce 5-6-7 years of data before committing to the price tag they've proven? By the time, they've done that and you sign them, they tend on average not be able to provide the same results as they did so where is the logic in that mentality?

Ultimately, this logic only should apply to the cream of the crop. It can't be applied evenly across the wide spectrum of players.


But at the same time theres multiple young RFAs that just put up their first 90 point season. could that not be an outlier and these guys are trying to capitalize on one year of success?
Sep 25 at 11:59
#21
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 15,807
Likes: 3,838
Quoting: hanson493
But at the same time theres multiple young RFAs that just put up their first 90 point season. could that not be an outlier and these guys are trying to capitalize on one year of success?


I mean lets assume it was an outlier. Still Marner for example put up 61 points as a 19 year old rookie. That's already in elite territory.:
https://www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&year_min=2001&season_start=1&season_end=-1&rookie=N&age_min=0&age_max=19&pos=S&is_playoffs=N&c1stat=points&c1comp=gt&c1val=60&threshhold=5&order_by=goals

Followed by a 69 point season which still puts him into an elite category:
https://www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&year_min=2001&season_start=1&season_end=-1&rookie=N&age_min=0&age_max=20&pos=S&is_playoffs=N&c1stat=points&c1comp=gt&c1val=68&threshhold=5&order_by=points

So if the debate is not whether you think Marner is overpaid or not but rather if you are confident he can produce big numbers in the future if last season was an outlier, i think you have your proof.

If this season was just a tick in offense, even if it decreases to a more normal 2.8 Goals/game type, Marner's continued growth could easily offset the decrease in league average scoring.

Even if he is a perennial 80 point guy, that is incredibly valuable. Saying 70 points is really not realistic. If at 19 and 20 he is a 60-70 point guy, One has to assume he should be able to outperform his ELC scoring amounts.
Sep 25 at 12:06
#22
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 641
Quoting: F50marco
I mean lets assume it was an outlier. Still Marner for example put up 61 points as a 19 year old rookie. That's already in elite territory.:
https://www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&year_min=2001&season_start=1&season_end=-1&rookie=N&age_min=0&age_max=19&pos=S&is_playoffs=N&c1stat=points&c1comp=gt&c1val=60&threshhold=5&order_by=goals

Followed by a 69 point season which still puts him into an elite category:
https://www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&year_min=2001&season_start=1&season_end=-1&rookie=N&age_min=0&age_max=20&pos=S&is_playoffs=N&c1stat=points&c1comp=gt&c1val=68&threshhold=5&order_by=points

So if the debate is not whether you think Marner is overpaid or not but rather if you are confident he can produce big numbers in the future if last season was an outlier, i think you have your proof.

If this season was just a tick in offense, even if it decreases to a more normal 2.8 Goals/game type, Marner's continued growth could easily offset the decrease in league average scoring.

Even if he is a perennial 80 point guy, that is incredibly valuable. Saying 70 points is really not realistic. If at 19 and 20 he is a 60-70 point guy, One has to assume he should be able to outperform his ELC scoring amounts.


But that is the question. Sure he outperformed his elc. He way overachieved in that regard. if he regresses to a high 70 point player that contract wont be worth what they are paying for it. Im not saying he does or he doesnt. Im saying do you really want to pay guys top dollar for 3 years of evidence? and lets say instead of his contract being up this year its up next year and we throw in a 75 point season. so his stats are 61, 69, 96, 75 still elite for a 22/23 year old winger. are you comfortable paying him 10.893 million for 5 years?
Sep 25 at 1:05
#23
Sensible Commentary
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 789
Likes: 389
I think I agree with the general premise. A couple of thoughts:
1) I think part of it is also the mentality of Hockey Men, a predominantly conservative group of people, to say "well, the young players need to pay their dues" or some BS and that older players "have earned it," whatever that means.
2) As an aside, do you think John Chayka's long-term signings with the Coyotes are smart bets to make?
Sep 25 at 2:26
#24
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 15,807
Likes: 3,838
Quoting: hanson493
But that is the question. Sure he outperformed his elc. He way overachieved in that regard. if he regresses to a high 70 point player that contract wont be worth what they are paying for it. Im not saying he does or he doesnt. Im saying do you really want to pay guys top dollar for 3 years of evidence? and lets say instead of his contract being up this year its up next year and we throw in a 75 point season. so his stats are 61, 69, 96, 75 still elite for a 22/23 year old winger. are you comfortable paying him 10.893 million for 5 years?


Well I guess that's the crux of what it comes down to. Is Marner through years 23-28 going to be a 70-75 player? Based on the 3 years he's shown? If you think so, you are opposed to the contract. If you think that league wide scoring is going up not because its an outlier but because of a league wide trend as well as the idea that most players improve statistically during their prime years, I'm not sure you can be too dissatisfied with his contract. If he does what he's trending towards and feels he's going to give, he's earning that contract. Even though based on player comparables and the rules RFA's have to work with, he's technically overpaid.
hanson493 liked this.
Sep 25 at 3:09
#25
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 641
Quoting: F50marco
Well I guess that's the crux of what it comes down to. Is Marner through years 23-28 going to be a 70-75 player? Based on the 3 years he's shown? If you think so, you are opposed to the contract. If you think that league wide scoring is going up not because its an outlier but because of a league wide trend as well as the idea that most players improve statistically during their prime years, I'm not sure you can be too dissatisfied with his contract. If he does what he's trending towards and feels he's going to give, he's earning that contract. Even though based on player comparables and the rules RFA's have to work with, he's technically overpaid.


Exactly. I think players/ the league should look into having shorter RFA period but longer ELC periods. that way you meet in the middle on contracts. i agree with what you are saying about marner. I dont project him to be a 70-75 point player (As long as tavares and marner both remain healthy). That being said hes still making more than any rfa forward will get over 6 years annually. point would have to sign a 15.036 aav contract to meet that same aav marner has.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Remove Option
Submit Poll