Sports & Recreation

Leafs Talk (2018/19): Power UP*

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 12th, 2018 10:07 am
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 27, 2008
3369 posts
173 upvotes
Adelaide
Evil Baby wrote:
Dec 2nd, 2018 5:54 pm
For me, the cap circumvention isn't the amount paid, it's the bonuses. It makes his contract very attractive to the poorer teams out there. They could get a very good player at a very owner friendly price tag while helping that team get over the bottom of the cap.

They certainly didn't need to wait till Dec 1st to accomplish that but that will help the Leafs in the future.
Ahh yeah, those are quite common now. I do wonder if the owners see it as a problem as I would imagine the players like having the option for those signing bonuses to "lockout proof" their contracts. Guess it would benefit the owners to limit it so players aren't able to lockout proof a contract.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 23, 2003
7400 posts
1109 upvotes
BongoBong wrote:
Dec 2nd, 2018 5:43 pm
I would be interested how the contract itself actually looks but I am pretty sure the contract itself is 41.7 million. The reason that site shows the higher salary is because it is taking into account the cap hit for this year which is inflated.

Basically the amount of money he is getting is 41.7 million and the cap hit for years 2-6 is the same now then if he had signed for 41.7 million at the beginning of the year. I just don't see this as the smart management and cap circumvention that some people think it is.
No.

The real contract is 7.5 mil a year if he had signed at the start. From the Star:

“As more than one agent noted this weekend, the annual average value of Nylander’s contract isn’t technically $6.9 million — on paper it’s $7.5 million, a $45-million deal minus the $3.2 million he’ll forego for sitting out the opening two months of the season. That $7.5-million paper average makes a decent run at the $8.5-million annual average currently paid to Leon Draisaitl, the Oilers winger who stood as another comparable in negotiations. Draisaitl went into Sunday tied for 19th in the NHL points race. As one player agent said of Nylander’s contract: “It’s better than Draisaitl’s.” By what rationale? Nylander secured $24.3 million in signing bonuses; Draisaitl got $14 million. And Nylander will hit unrestricted free agency sooner than Draisaitl, which presents the opportunity for an earlier pay bump.”
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 18, 2005
18035 posts
1569 upvotes
Niagara Falls
Buggy166 wrote:
Dec 3rd, 2018 9:08 am
No.

The real contract is 7.5 mil a year if he had signed at the start. From the Star:

“As more than one agent noted this weekend, the annual average value of Nylander’s contract isn’t technically $6.9 million — on paper it’s $7.5 million, a $45-million deal minus the $3.2 million he’ll forego for sitting out the opening two months of the season. That $7.5-million paper average makes a decent run at the $8.5-million annual average currently paid to Leon Draisaitl, the Oilers winger who stood as another comparable in negotiations. Draisaitl went into Sunday tied for 19th in the NHL points race. As one player agent said of Nylander’s contract: “It’s better than Draisaitl’s.” By what rationale? Nylander secured $24.3 million in signing bonuses; Draisaitl got $14 million. And Nylander will hit unrestricted free agency sooner than Draisaitl, which presents the opportunity for an earlier pay bump.”
What does the Star mean by what rationale? The only rationale that mattes, annual cap hit. Who gives a crap how much of a bonus he got. The heavy front ended bonus actually helps the team, not hurt it. Was it Feschuk that came up with that crap? Beyond the annual cap hit, like mentioned before, having a heavily front loaded bonus structure makes the contract much easier to get rid of down the road if Nylander isn't performing or the Leafs just need the cap space.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 23, 2003
7400 posts
1109 upvotes
Evil Baby wrote:
Dec 3rd, 2018 9:48 am
What does the Star mean by what rationale? The only rationale that mattes, annual cap hit. Who gives a crap how much of a bonus he got. The heavy front ended bonus actually helps the team, not hurt it. Was it Feschuk that came up with that crap? Beyond the annual cap hit, like mentioned before, having a heavily front loaded bonus structure makes the contract much easier to get rid of down the road if Nylander isn't performing or the Leafs just need the cap space.
you just contradicted yourself in your own statement.

when it comes to contracts, everything matters, not just cap hit.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 3, 2011
1969 posts
351 upvotes
Evil Baby wrote:
Dec 3rd, 2018 9:48 am
What does the Star mean by what rationale? The only rationale that mattes, annual cap hit. Who gives a crap how much of a bonus he got. The heavy front ended bonus actually helps the team, not hurt it. Was it Feschuk that came up with that crap? Beyond the annual cap hit, like mentioned before, having a heavily front loaded bonus structure makes the contract much easier to get rid of down the road if Nylander isn't performing or the Leafs just need the cap space.
100% agree.

I'm not sure why people are so worked up about the bonus money. For a team flush with money like the Leafs, this works to our advantage and makes the contract much easier to trade later. The main thing concern for us is the cap hit, and I think what we got for Nylander is reasonable.
Baaaaaaaaa!
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 18, 2005
18035 posts
1569 upvotes
Niagara Falls
Buggy166 wrote:
Dec 3rd, 2018 10:48 am
you just contradicted yourself in your own statement.

when it comes to contracts, everything matters, not just cap hit.
Ok, the primary and real thing that actual matters to the team is the cap hit, everything else is bonus, no no trade clauses, bonus money or whatever else they want to add is just gravy. Also, the Star fails to make any case whatsoever that a heavy front ended bonus structure is bad for the team. They probably failed to explain how Nylander getting more bonus that Draisaitl was bad because they can't think of an actual reason as to why that would be a negative towards the team.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 3, 2011
1969 posts
351 upvotes
Evil Baby wrote:
Dec 3rd, 2018 11:55 am
Ok, the primary and real thing that actual matters to the team is the cap hit, everything else is bonus, no no trade clauses, bonus money or whatever else they want to add is just gravy. Also, the Star fails to make any case whatsoever that a heavy front ended bonus structure is bad for the team. They probably failed to explain how Nylander getting more bonus that Draisaitl was bad because they can't think of an actual reason as to why that would be a negative towards the team.
Ugh. Feschuk is annoying to listen to and read in print.
Baaaaaaaaa!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 23, 2003
7400 posts
1109 upvotes
Evil Baby wrote:
Dec 3rd, 2018 11:55 am
Ok, the primary and real thing that actual matters to the team is the cap hit, everything else is bonus, no no trade clauses, bonus money or whatever else they want to add is just gravy. Also, the Star fails to make any case whatsoever that a heavy front ended bonus structure is bad for the team. They probably failed to explain how Nylander getting more bonus that Draisaitl was bad because they can't think of an actual reason as to why that would be a negative towards the team.
Article's main point was that Nylander isnt anywhere close to Pastrnak or Draisaitl, but got paid better, and based on his 2 year history, I'd tend to agree.

The second point it makes, is that, if the trade-ability of a contract is the best thing about it, its very clear that it wasn't a great thing for the team. I'd also agree with this.

None of this matters if Nylander puts up 70-90 points per season in the years ahead, but all of this matters if he plays like a 2nd line player and produces only 50-60 points.

At this point, only time will tell.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 18, 2005
18035 posts
1569 upvotes
Niagara Falls
Buggy166 wrote:
Dec 3rd, 2018 12:15 pm
Article's main point was that Nylander isnt anywhere close to Pastrnak or Draisaitl, but got paid better, and based on his 2 year history, I'd tend to agree.

The second point it makes, is that, if the trade-ability of a contract is the best thing about it, its very clear that it wasn't a great thing for the team. I'd also agree with this.

None of this matters if Nylander puts up 70-90 points per season in the years ahead, but all of this matters if he plays like a 2nd line player and produces only 50-60 points.

At this point, only time will tell.
But he's not paid as much as Draisaitl or even close to his cap hit, especially if you take into account % of cap when the contracts were signed. Nylander's cap his is 6.9, Draisaitl's is 8.5. It doesn't matter one iota what the bonus structure is, that's won't affect who the Leafs can sign in the future at all. I can't think of 1 negative to a large bonus. Can you? Can the Star? Unless someone can explain that to me it makes zero sense to say this contract is garbage because Draisaitl did get as much bonus money as Nylander.

As for Pastrnak, it would have been great to sign Nylander for less than Pastrnak is getting, but we didn't. Boston got the better end of the deal and Pastrnak isn't being paid as much as his play deserves. That can happen when you sign early and long term.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 3, 2011
1969 posts
351 upvotes
Buggy166 wrote:
Dec 3rd, 2018 12:15 pm
The second point it makes, is that, if the trade-ability of a contract is the best thing about it, its very clear that it wasn't a great thing for the team. I'd also agree with this.
The cap hit for years 2 to 6 to be under 7 million is a great thing for the Leafs, either for trading or for keeping him on the team.

Both sides got what they wanted, so this was a good deal all around. Don't let Feschuk tell you otherwise. Like Phil Kessel said, that guy (Feschuk) is such an idiot.
Baaaaaaaaa!
[OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jun 9, 2003
23852 posts
1256 upvotes
Markham, ON
easy...Pastrnak is going to fire his agent. Simple as that.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 23, 2003
7400 posts
1109 upvotes
sharpshooter88 wrote:
Dec 3rd, 2018 1:40 pm
The cap hit for years 2 to 6 to be under 7 million is a great thing for the Leafs, either for trading or for keeping him on the team.

Both sides got what they wanted, so this was a good deal all around. Don't let Feschuk tell you otherwise. Like Phil Kessel said, that guy (Feschuk) is such an idiot.
i dont take sports writers seriously, just glance at their points of view and see if there's anything to them.

It remains to be seen if Nylander's actually worth 7 mil. To me, that hasnt happened just yet, although i think hes capable of it. Lets see.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 1, 2005
5706 posts
1300 upvotes
Markham
Buggy166 wrote:
Dec 3rd, 2018 6:31 pm
i dont take sports writers seriously, just glance at their points of view and see if there's anything to them.

It remains to be seen if Nylander's actually worth 7 mil. To me, that hasnt happened just yet, although i think hes capable of it. Lets see.
As Don Cherry said, 20 goals is now with $7 mil?!?!?

Pressure is on now to produce and show you're worth the money.
We're all bozos on the bus until we find a way to express ourselves...

Failure is always an option...just not the preferred one!

Top