Jarvis signs 8 year, $63.2M contract with Carolina

[Hammertime]

10 minutes ago, NoCupSyndrome said:

 

IMHO, I don't think this will age well with respect to EP. He stumbled at the end of last year no doubt but I think he is motivated to earn the contract and win.

 

I was referring to. 

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, Drakrami said:

Hmmmm 30 goal 70 points guy playing on their 1st line and produces in the playoffs for 7.9mil AAV? That's just market price, may be even underpaid. What betting on potential? lol. 

 

And teams selectively betting on 21-22 year olds with 8 year contracts does not lead to work stoppages. It is when all players are paid unsustainable salaries that lead to work stoppages. But the revenue sharing and salary cap is supposed to prevent that. 

One year of that, no pedigree, 

 

6 hours ago, Drakrami said:

Hmmmm 30 goal 70 points guy playing on their 1st line and produces in the playoffs for 7.9mil AAV? That's just market price, may be even underpaid. What betting on potential? lol. 

 

And teams selectively betting on 21-22 year olds with 8 year contracts does not lead to work stoppages. It is when all players are paid unsustainable salaries that lead to work stoppages. But the revenue sharing and salary cap is supposed to prevent that. 

The point is 8 years after one season is usually reserved to (or used to be anyways) star players with pedigrees, or at least surprise star players without a pedigree.    Not Sanderson, Norris, anyone and their dog's who has one good year leading up to their second contract.   The league is still overpaying for UFAs, but at least most of those guys went through a bridge (or two) or a medium term show me deal first.  

 

Cap is going to go up yes.   Went up 5% last year, and it's anticipated to go up another 4-5% again next season.   Which helps.   Shouldn't that pie be evenly distributed throughout the team, not used up just on guys whose deals are up next .... Stamkos and Tavares second deals for example, first overall picks.   Tavares for sure earned his deal.   People were complaining about Nylanders at the time and that worked out about as good as they could possibly hope for (still too much), and now he's getting paid again.   RFA isn't supposed to be UFA.  And they haven't been weighed the same until recently.   Even EPs bridge and Brocks bridge were paid on the high end.   It's happped to us too.  JT Miller, a few years older, used to be the norm.   

 

Get that players most likely will have their best seasons 25-32 (especially forwards).   Thing is now they are going to get their cake (RFA deals) and eat it too (if they work out anyways, get a second massive deal once they get to Zinbanejad, Jt Miller's and Kadri's age) Stone.  Lindholm.   We will see less and less of those and more and more goofy stuff (reasonable RFA deals, some with UFA years bought).  For sure could see limiting RFA deals term, and UFA for that matter, both down a year as a result of all  the buyouts incoming in 4-5 years. 

Edited September 1 by IBatch

[bh90]

11 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

It’s part of the CBA so it’s not sketchy. It’s just never been done before. The NHL central registry approved it. Jarvis will get a $3.2 million deferred signing bonus on July 1, 2032. So the cap hit will be $400k per year cheaper over 8 years. 
 

This could be an avenue that Edmonton takes with Draisaitl and McDavid. Would be huge for Edmonton if both players agreed to it. 

This is technically the second contract in NHL signed like this.

 

The first? Jacob Slavin with these same Canes. But with a small deferral. I wonder if that was the trial contract to see if NHL approves it.

 

Well if you can do this than why not sign Lankinen to 1 year - 875k to fill in for Demko and give him 2 or 3 million in deferral for 2024?

[EastCoastExpress]

8 minutes ago, bh90 said:

This is technically the second contract in NHL signed like this.

 

The first? Jacob Slavin with these same Canes. But with a small deferral. I wonder if that was the trial contract to see if NHL approves it.

 

Well if you can do this than why not sign Lankinen to 1 year - 875k to fill in for Demko and give him 2 or 3 million in deferral for 2024?

Cause Bettman will for sure apply a Cap Penalty that lasts 6 years @ 3M per year if it is the Vancouver Canucks.

Edited September 1 by EastCoastExpress

[Coconuts]

2 hours ago, bh90 said:

This is technically the second contract in NHL signed like this.

 

The first? Jacob Slavin with these same Canes. But with a small deferral. I wonder if that was the trial contract to see if NHL approves it.

 

Well if you can do this than why not sign Lankinen to 1 year - 875k to fill in for Demko and give him 2 or 3 million in deferral for 2024?

 

I'm pretty sure the Vegas offer to Marchessault was also based on a similar structure, for the same amount he got in Nashville even I believe, I recall him saying it wasn't a standard offer

 

Good chance we could see more of it going forward 

[Drakrami]

6 hours ago, IBatch said:

One year of that, no pedigree, 

 

The point is 8 years after one season is usually reserved to (or used to be anyways) star players with pedigrees, or at least surprise star players without a pedigree.    Not Sanderson, Norris, anyone and their dog's who has one good year leading up to their second contract.   The league is still overpaying for UFAs, but at least most of those guys went through a bridge (or two) or a medium term show me deal first.  

 

Cap is going to go up yes.   Went up 5% last year, and it's anticipated to go up another 4-5% again next season.   Which helps.   Shouldn't that pie be evenly distributed throughout the team, not used up just on guys whose deals are up next .... Stamkos and Tavares second deals for example, first overall picks.   Tavares for sure earned his deal.   People were complaining about Nylanders at the time and that worked out about as good as they could possibly hope for (still too much), and now he's getting paid again.   RFA isn't supposed to be UFA.  And they haven't been weighed the same until recently.   Even EPs bridge and Brocks bridge were paid on the high end.   It's happped to us too.  JT Miller, a few years older, used to be the norm.   

 

Get that players most likely will have their best seasons 25-32 (especially forwards).   Thing is now they are going to get their cake (RFA deals) and eat it too (if they work out anyways, get a second massive deal once they get to Zinbanejad, Jt Miller's and Kadri's age) Stone.  Lindholm.   We will see less and less of those and more and more goofy stuff (reasonable RFA deals, some with UFA years bought).  For sure could see limiting RFA deals term, and UFA for that matter, both down a year as a result of all  the buyouts incoming in 4-5 years. 

 

A huge majority of 8 year deals for 21-23 year olds have been wins though. Contracts like Draisaitl, B Tkachuk, J Hughes are just huge wins.  Comparatively, you are paying 21-23 year olds 8mil x 8 years vs signing 29-30 year olds for the similar amounts of money as retirement contracts. A player's prime year has moved up, now a player's prime is more likely to be aged 22-27 years old. So you are paying 8mil x 8 years for a player's prime years with these contracts. 

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, Drakrami said:

 

A huge majority of 8 year deals for 21-23 year olds have been wins though. Contracts like Draisaitl, B Tkachuk, J Hughes are just huge wins.  Comparatively, you are paying 21-23 year olds 8mil x 8 years vs signing 29-30 year olds for the similar amounts of money as retirement contracts. A player's prime year has moved up, now a player's prime is more likely to be aged 22-27 years old. So you are paying 8mil x 8 years for a player's prime years with these contracts. 

Absolutely - those are the guys who were drafted early.   Which is exactly what I said earlier, if your a first overall pick or top of the draft, come in right away or early and show your stuff, for sure get a term deal after.    If you come in with that pedigree it's usually getting paid.  After proving it first.  Did Yakupov and Stephan get 8 year deals?  Nope.   Did the Sedins, nope.    They didn't earn one.   So if a second round pick comes in and kicks butt, his final ELC year, should they then give him a full term deal?   

 

No primes are not likely to be 22...that's reserved for a select few.    The elite of the elite or cream.   25-32 is still the normal range for regular blue chip players.    Nothing has changed in hockey other then the older still capable vet is now turfed over the next shiny new toy  because of $$.   The one that's don't retire take the league min, and even those guys sometimes won't find work unless your a former big name.   That's "why" the league is younger.    I'd like a list of the guys who've hit their prime at 22 the last two decades.  It won't be a big list, and bet most of those guys went on to become the leagues top players.    Don't confuse primes with NHL players who get a shot, come in for a couple years, and then get pink

slips, that skews the stats.    The peak production for a forward is still 28 and for defenseman is still 29, even with all the tweeners who come in and don't make it past 23/24.    And blue chip

NHL D's often have their best seasons past 30.   Then it's pretty much expected a 3-4 period of steady slow but still prime production.   Sedins peaked at 29-30.   Started at 25.   Naslund 26-31 were his five best years.   JT Miller is currently having his best years too.   98 points is NHL.coms prediction for him this year. 

 

 

I'd really like to see the list of players whose primes start at 22.   Bet they at rare (outside the tweeners who don't make it, the league has a lot of Bear's Goldobins and Vey's at any given moment, JV's too).  On our team ... sure hope it wasn't EP, because we just paid a shit ton and he's going to be 26 next season. 

 

I don't have any issue with the leagues top players getting max deals.   It's the ones below them that set a dangerous precedent.    What if Lekkermaki comes in this year,  has a meh year followed by a meh year and then scores 30 goals and 61 points, are we supposed to then offer him a 8.8 x 8 deal?   (adjusted for cap going up 4% a year or so).  That's a lot of cap percentage.   Now this guy has to score at a 35/35 pace at least going forward to get your value.   Norris in OTT.  This 

"new model"  it's not going to work on all those kids. 

 

Edit:  JT Miller, Hyman, Brock. Marchand.  Sedins Naslund.   Factually in our teams entire history, the only guys worthy or who earned  a full term deal out of the gate were Smyl, Linden, Bure (they sure didn't get that), QHs and EP.    That's it.   Five guys out of hundreds.     Nedved and Brock's maybe close.   Maybe Butcher too.  If every player who had a decent season in their ELC gets an 8 year deal, you bet we are headed for another labour dispute.    Still think that the majority of NHLers, should be bridged, including ones that show promise.   

 

On our team maybe one could argue QHs hit his prime at 22, id say both EP and QHs hit their primes at 24...that was EPs first 100 point season, followed with 89 (both a tier above anything prior), and with QHs 91 points is a big jump over his previous two years as well.    Not one other person hit their prime at 22.   Brock, Lindholm,  Zadarov, Joshua, Garland, Hyman, JT Miller .. Naslund the Sedins.   That's still the norm from where i'm sitting anyways.   Guys like Carlson and Josi for defenseman too.  Unless you're awfully special anyways.   Like a HHOFer. 
 

Let's do COL. 

 

Makar had a noticeable bump at 23.   

McKinnon 22.   Rantanen 21.    So 3 guys on their roster.  

 

That's not the majority, these are the outliers, the guys at or near the tops at their position.  

 

Edited September 1 by IBatch

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, Drakrami said:

 

A huge majority of 8 year deals for 21-23 year olds have been wins though. Contracts like Draisaitl, B Tkachuk, J Hughes are just huge wins.  Comparatively, you are paying 21-23 year olds 8mil x 8 years vs signing 29-30 year olds for the similar amounts of money as retirement contracts. A player's prime year has moved up, now a player's prime is more likely to be aged 22-27 years old. So you are paying 8mil x 8 years for a player's prime years with these contracts. 

The main point I was trying to make is, the league can't afford to overpay both UFA and RFA deals.   And they are heading towards buyouts on both now.   OEL worked out how exactly?   And he actually earned his deal.    After years of putting up Shea Weber like stats.   IF your going to do the Hyman/De-Brusk type deals, that's fine - your doing term and banking on what that player has produced up to date, plus a couple seasons of peak production in there to boot.    De-Brusk, do you really think he's hit his peak prime yet?   If their primes are now 22-27...well all UFA deals are bad ones.   You're not getting any prime years.    The league can't afford to pay all RFAs like UFAs.   Maybe this deal will work out great for CAR,  but they've just made a deal that puts every other GM at risk who's had a guy on his final year of his ELC score 31 goals, or on pace for that but missed 10-15 games.   

 

Sure hope we have that problem with Lekkermaki, also sure hope that by then the league will have smartened up, because fully expect some more Norris situations to be popping up if this continues.    

 

Do recognize that UFA term deals hurt the second half.    Also recognize you need a balance.   Look at how long Dallas has to wait for Benn and Seguin's deals (and build a team behind them).   Kane and Toews got paid CHI was done.   PIT Malkin and Crosby got paid and had to wait a long time for cap to go up to win some more cups.    It's how it works.  

 

For us, sure glad the only ones with term are EP, Miller and De-Brusk.   You can absolutely bet, that they will structure the future around QHs and probably Demko though.   Teams need guys on their RFAs' to outperform their contracts, while their vets on UFA deals, are still in their primes.    

 

Horvat is another example of a player who hit his prime during the usual time span.   26 his first 30 goal season, 27 scored 38, 28 (on a new team) scored 33.    Bet his peak prime was 27...and that he's got another 3-4 years of his prime left in the tank.   Lou sure banked on it. 

The league is younger now because of cap.   They need ELC's to balance the books.   That's it.   And you see guys who've made bank already, stick around and take a lot less then they are actually worth all the time.   Same with guys who for sure are better options than the try-out guys and tweeners, just retire.   You don't see a playoff team loading up on the 22 year olds who still are trying to break into the league.    Perry, Schenn's and rentals like Zadarov and Lindholm, or guys in their primes and who have experience. 

 

Id wager it's the same as it ever was.   3-4 years is the initial "breakout" phase.   And 25-32 GM's consider prime years.   I'd broaden that to 25- 33.   Seen too many blue chip defenseman have solid seasons at 33 or even 34.    

Edited September 1 by IBatch

[Coconuts]

 

 

 

[EastCoastExpress]

5 hours ago, IBatch said:

The main point I was trying to make is, the league can't afford to overpay both UFA and RFA deals.   And they are heading towards buyouts on both now.   OEL worked out how exactly?   And he actually earned his deal.    After years of putting up Shea Weber like stats.   IF your going to do the Hyman/De-Brusk type deals, that's fine - your doing term and banking on what that player has produced up to date, plus a couple seasons of peak production in there to boot.    De-Brusk, do you really think he's hit his peak prime yet?   If their primes are now 22-27...well all UFA deals are bad ones.   You're not getting any prime years.    The league can't afford to pay all RFAs like UFAs.   Maybe this deal will work out great for CAR,  but they've just made a deal that puts every other GM at risk who's had a guy on his final year of his ELC score 31 goals, or on pace for that but missed 10-15 games.   

 

Sure hope we have that problem with Lekkermaki, also sure hope that by then the league will have smartened up, because fully expect some more Norris situations to be popping up if this continues.    

 

Do recognize that UFA term deals hurt the second half.    Also recognize you need a balance.   Look at how long Dallas has to wait for Benn and Seguin's deals (and build a team behind them).   Kane and Toews got paid CHI was done.   PIT Malkin and Crosby got paid and had to wait a long time for cap to go up to win some more cups.    It's how it works.  

 

For us, sure glad the only ones with term are EP, Miller and De-Brusk.   You can absolutely bet, that they will structure the future around QHs and probably Demko though.   Teams need guys on their RFAs' to outperform their contracts, while their vets on UFA deals, are still in their primes.    

 

Horvat is another example of a player who hit his prime during the usual time span.   26 his first 30 goal season, 27 scored 38, 28 (on a new team) scored 33.    Bet his peak prime was 27...and that he's got another 3-4 years of his prime left in the tank.   Lou sure banked on it. 

The league is younger now because of cap.   They need ELC's to balance the books.   That's it.   And you see guys who've made bank already, stick around and take a lot less then they are actually worth all the time.   Same with guys who for sure are better options than the try-out guys and tweeners, just retire.   You don't see a playoff team loading up on the 22 year olds who still are trying to break into the league.    Perry, Schenn's and rentals like Zadarov and Lindholm, or guys in their primes and who have experience. 

 

Id wager it's the same as it ever was.   3-4 years is the initial "breakout" phase.   And 25-32 GM's consider prime years.   I'd broaden that to 25- 33.   Seen too many blue chip defenseman have solid seasons at 33 or even 34.    

Agree. Naslund, Bertuzzi, Morrison were all late bloomers.

Current examples are Joshua, Miller and to some extent even Garlund

Jack Hughes has a great value contract for NJ now but what does the next one look like?

Long terms are great for core players. And lower AAV like Debrusk, well worth the risk long term.

[EastCoastExpress]

9 hours ago, Drakrami said:

 

A huge majority of 8 year deals for 21-23 year olds have been wins though. Contracts like Draisaitl, B Tkachuk, J Hughes are just huge wins.  Comparatively, you are paying 21-23 year olds 8mil x 8 years vs signing 29-30 year olds for the similar amounts of money as retirement contracts. A player's prime year has moved up, now a player's prime is more likely to be aged 22-27 years old. So you are paying 8mil x 8 years for a player's prime years with these contracts. 

I agree, to an extent. The problem is you have to renew them when they are actually approaching PEAK which is going to be the problem.

Edmonton is stuck now, New Jersey wont be able to afford Jack when they need to.

[The Duke]

I understand the strategy around making these deals - from both the players and the clubs.  
 

What id like to see are more lenient buyout rules - at least cap-wise. Let the players collect most of their money as usual, but drop the AAV penalty to a solid 1/4 the previous cap, regardless of signing bonuses and hit and without the stupid extended period.  Maybe fine tune with some age limits in there or something. But teams need a way to get out of these deals without giving draft picks to useless franchises to take them on and are never going to compete. 
 

Make it accessible.  Will big money teams like Toronto take advantage?  Maybe a bit.. but even something like 1/4 of dead cap adds up in a hurry if you’re cutting those cheques on the regular.  

Edited September 1 by The Duke

[EastCoastExpress]

3 minutes ago, The Duke said:

I understand the strategy around making these deals - from both the players and the clubs.  
 

What id like to see are more lenient buyout rules - at least cap-wise. Let the players collect most of their money as usual, but drop the AAV penalty to a solid 1/4 the previous cap, regardless of signing bonuses and hit and without the stupid extended period.
 

Make it accessible.  Will big money teams like Toronto take advantage?  Maybe a bit.. but even something like 1/4 of dead cap adds up in a hurry if you’re cutting those cheques on the regular.  

I agree. but is fun watching Edmonton and Toronto having to re-up the skill guys contracts because they over paid earlier.

System seems fair and Canucks could capitalize soon via smart contracts (minus EP40)

[The Duke]

4 hours ago, EastCoastExpress said:

I agree. but is fun watching Edmonton and Toronto having to re-up the skill guys contracts because they over paid earlier.

System seems fair and Canucks could capitalize soon via smart contracts (minus EP40)

Yeah, and I think it’s fair for sure.  Just my personal soapbox: I’d prefer any move to shift discussion around how good a player is, not how good a player is vs his contract. 

[EastCoastExpress]

29 minutes ago, The Duke said:

Yeah, and I think it’s fair for sure.  Just my personal soapbox: I’d prefer any move to shift discussion around how good a player is, not how good a player is vs his contract. 

exactly... that is a hard shift.

the thing is, we dont talk about JT Miller.

[Ghostsof1915]

I guess the agents are predicting a work stoppage with all the signing bonus money. 

[Dizzle]

7 hours ago, The Duke said:

I understand the strategy around making these deals - from both the players and the clubs.  
 

What id like to see are more lenient buyout rules - at least cap-wise. Let the players collect most of their money as usual, but drop the AAV penalty to a solid 1/4 the previous cap, regardless of signing bonuses and hit and without the stupid extended period.  Maybe fine tune with some age limits in there or something. But teams need a way to get out of these deals without giving draft picks to useless franchises to take them on and are never going to compete. 
 

Make it accessible.  Will big money teams like Toronto take advantage?  Maybe a bit.. but even something like 1/4 of dead cap adds up in a hurry if you’re cutting those cheques on the regular.  

I wouldn’t mind one penalty free buyout per team every year or two. 

[NoCupSyndrome]

On 8/31/2024 at 6:34 PM, Hammertime said:

I was referring to. 

 

Aahh noted

[IBatch]

13 hours ago, The Duke said:

I understand the strategy around making these deals - from both the players and the clubs.  
 

What id like to see are more lenient buyout rules - at least cap-wise. Let the players collect most of their money as usual, but drop the AAV penalty to a solid 1/4 the previous cap, regardless of signing bonuses and hit and without the stupid extended period.  Maybe fine tune with some age limits in there or something. But teams need a way to get out of these deals without giving draft picks to useless franchises to take them on and are never going to compete. 
 

Make it accessible.  Will big money teams like Toronto take advantage?  Maybe a bit.. but even something like 1/4 of dead cap adds up in a hurry if you’re cutting those cheques on the regular.  

Problem with this is the owners and other players who actually earn their paycheques end up paying for it in the end.  More buyouts, more escrow. 

5 hours ago, Dizzle said:

I wouldn’t mind one penalty free buyout per team every year or two. 

It's too easy for GM's to write bad cheques and push things off to the future.  Salary's will start to escalate as well.    Right now it's not too hard to note an outlier bad contract when it's written (and discard that as a reasonable comp for whomever is up next), or at least notice it a few years in,  it wouldn't take long for things to get messy (like the mid-late 90's) again. 

 

The system the way they've created it, is pretty much perfect for what it is.     It's just too bad we have 32 teams and not 28 or even better, 24.   Bad for the product, and terrible for fans with cup aspirations, especially those in Canada.   Once a decade a team shows up that looks like it can win it all, and flops. 

Edited September 2 by IBatch

[Dizzle]

5 hours ago, IBatch said:

Problem with this is the owners and other players who actually earn their paycheques end up paying for it in the end.  More buyouts, more escrow. 

It's too easy for GM's to write bad cheques and push things off to the future.  Salary's will start to escalate as well.    Right now it's not too hard to note an outlier bad contract when it's written (and discard that as a reasonable comp for whomever is up next), or at least notice it a few years in,  it wouldn't take long for things to get messy (like the mid-late 90's) again. 

 

The system the way they've created it, is pretty much perfect for what it is.     It's just too bad we have 32 teams and not 28 or even better, 24.   Bad for the product, and terrible for fans with cup aspirations, especially those in Canada.   Once a decade a team shows up that looks like it can win it all, and flops. 

I would strongly disagree that the system is perfect or close to it. Having to trade picks to move serviceable players just because they don’t fit in a salary structure screams broken to me.