UFA 2012 / July 1st 2012 Thread

[PG]

I know we probably stand little chance of attracting either of these two, but the one thing that really bothers me about Burke is that his ridiculous stance on "cap circumventing" deals takes the leafs out of the running before we even have a chance to be considered.

Yeah, but you can't argue with success!

If I owned the team, I'd insist he changed that stance or I'd fire him, unless it's ownership that is telling him not to sign deals like this.

I really don't understand how he can operate in this manner, I could see a scenario where we lose Kessel because we refuse to give him a deal like this.

It infuriates me to no end. It's hard enough to build a Cup contender, and yet you handicap yourself even more with some idiotic self-imposed "principles"?

Wasn't the first team to start the long term contracts the New York Islanders?  First with DiPietro and then Yashin?  How is that working out for them?

Do not assume that Burke is avoiding long term contracts merely for "self-imposed principles".  You can make a business argument either way.  They are working for Detroit. Definitely not Long Island. Philadelphia may not be in love with them as much as they were.  They jetissoned Richards and Carter and must be regretting the commitment to Bryzgalov.  Do you think that Vancouver would find it easier to trade Luongo with a shorter contract?

Personally, I would prefer a strategy of paying more per year on shorter contracts than taking the risk of the longer contracts.

All you did was mention the long-term contracts that aren't working out. How is Burke's "way" working out for him? More specifically, have any of his UFA signings worked out?

Actually, other than Bozak, have any of them been less than horrible? Connolly, Komisarek, Armstrong, Orr, Beauchemin (he saved himself but the initial signing was bad), Gustavsson, etc.

With all due respect, I find it odd that people defend Burke's stance when he has arguably the worst track record with UFAs over the last 3 years.

I'd rather overpay Brad Richards for 23 years than have any of the aforementioned scrubs for the years they are signed. At least Richards impacts games in a positive way.

***I won't give him credit for MacArthur when Burke himself admitted to not wanting him and being talked into it by Nonis.

 

[Tigger]

I guess I'm glad Burke isn't signing ufa's to long term deals then?

 

[Kin]

Sorry, but the topic was not about circumventing the salary cap.  The topic under discussion was the premise that the Leafs are handicapping themselves through self-imposed principles.

Yes, the self-imposed principles against signing the sort of deals that Burke has described as "circumventing" the salary cap". Here's the post that kicked it off.

I know we probably stand little chance of attracting either of these two, but the one thing that really bothers me about Burke is that his ridiculous stance on "cap circumventing" deals takes the leafs out of the running before we even have a chance to be considered.

Pretty straight forward. Not long term deals, cap circumventing deals.

The rebuttal is that there are valid business reasons for avoiding long term contracts, namely the risk.  I then proceeded to provide examples, DiPietro and Yashin, while conceding that not all long term contracts are as disastrous.

Again, those are not examples of the sorts of deals being discussed. And Yashin, I mean, Yashin's deal was not signed during the current CBA so it is straight up nonsense to use it as an example of anything. I mean, Bobby Hull signed a long term deal with the Jets too so didn't they start the whole trend?

The insertion into the argument that front-end loaded contract are somehow different is both irrelevant and invalid.  (Just a small piece of advice, but when you have to stoop to offer the Komisarek contact as evidence of best practice in anything, you have already lost the argument.)

Now you're just being silly. There's a very significant difference between a deal like Luongo's and a deal like DiPietro's. Burke has specifically talked about deals that add years on the end of the contract at a low salary to reduce the overall cap hit as circumventing the cap. That is the principle being discussed and objected to. DiPietro's deal doesn't do that.

And just a small piece of advice? Learn how to read. I didn't say Mike Komisarek's deal was the best practice of anything. I said it was simply an example of a shorter-term deal being front-loaded.

The best counter-argument to your inanity is that there are the exact same reasons to avoid short-term deals as there are long term deals. Namely, that some of them don't work out as evidenced by basically every contract Burke has signed during his tenure here. But every contract comes with risk. Choosing to avoid the risk of a long term contract is pre-emptively taking the Maple Leafs out of the discussion on signing the better free agents. That's not a good thing.

As pointed out by cw in another thread, there is no example of a long term contract (front-end loaded or not) helping any team win a Cup.  So, to paraphrase Ben Scrivens, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.

I can't speak to cw's supposed post but what you're saying here is just absolutely flat out wrong. People have already mentioned the examples from the Kings but Marian Hossa is another example.

 

[L K]

Sorry, but the topic was not about circumventing the salary cap.  The topic under discussion was the premise that the Leafs are handicapping themselves through self-imposed principles.

Yes, the self-imposed principles against signing the sort of deals that Burke has described as "circumventing" the salary cap". Here's the post that kicked it off.

I know we probably stand little chance of attracting either of these two, but the one thing that really bothers me about Burke is that his ridiculous stance on "cap circumventing" deals takes the leafs out of the running before we even have a chance to be considered.

Pretty straight forward. Not long term deals, cap circumventing deals.

The rebuttal is that there are valid business reasons for avoiding long term contracts, namely the risk.  I then proceeded to provide examples, DiPietro and Yashin, while conceding that not all long term contracts are as disastrous.

Again, those are not examples of the sorts of deals being discussed. And Yashin, I mean, Yashin's deal was not signed during the current CBA so it is straight up nonsense to use it as an example of anything. I mean, Bobby Hull signed a long term deal with the Jets too so didn't they start the whole trend?

The insertion into the argument that front-end loaded contract are somehow different is both irrelevant and invalid.  (Just a small piece of advice, but when you have to stoop to offer the Komisarek contact as evidence of best practice in anything, you have already lost the argument.)

Now you're just being silly. There's a very significant difference between a deal like Luongo's and a deal like DiPietro's. Burke has specifically talked about deals that add years on the end of the contract at a low salary to reduce the overall cap hit as circumventing the cap. That is the principle being discussed and objected to. DiPietro's deal doesn't do that.

And just a small piece of advice? Learn how to read. I didn't say Mike Komisarek's deal was the best practice of anything. I said it was simply an example of a shorter-term deal being front-loaded.

The best counter-argument to your inanity is that there are the exact same reasons to avoid short-term deals as there are long term deals. Namely, that some of them don't work out as evidenced by basically every contract Burke has signed during his tenure here. But every contract comes with risk. Choosing to avoid the risk of a long term contract is pre-emptively taking the Maple Leafs out of the discussion on signing the better free agents. That's not a good thing.

As pointed out by cw in another thread, there is no example of a long term contract (front-end loaded or not) helping any team win a Cup.  So, to paraphrase Ben Scrivens, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.

I can't speak to cw's supposed post but what you're saying here is just absolutely flat out wrong. People have already mentioned the examples from the Kings but Marian Hossa is another example.

I don't think it is dishonest to look at the list of Conference finalists as "successful" teams either:
2012
Rangers - Richards
Devils - Kovalchuk
Kings - Richards and Carter
Phoenix - long-term bankruptcy

2011
Tampa - Lecavalier
Vancouver - Luongo
Boston - Savard
San Jose - none

 

[bustaheims]

I don't think it is dishonest to look at the list of Conference finalists as "successful" teams either:
2012
Rangers - Richards
Devils - Kovalchuk
Kings - Richards and Carter
Phoenix - long-term bankruptcy

2011
Tampa - Lecavalier
Vancouver - Luongo
Boston - Savard
San Jose - none

Though, to be fair, only one of those contracts was a UFA signing with a new team. The rest of them signed contracts while extending their stay with their current team (and, in Carter and Richards cases, ended up being traded).

 

[Big Daddy]

First 24 hour breakdown. Had some time this morning and was curious to know where the majority of free agents were from so here goes.

Canada    -  49  Players
                  9  Goalies
                  13 Defenceman
                  27 Forwards 

USA        -    12 Players
Sweden    -    3  Players
Finland    -    1 Player
Czech      -    1 Player

I thought that was incredible since through free agancy your filling holes.  All the holes are being filled with canadians  I love it.  So I dug further
Of the 49 canadians the provinces are well represented.

ONT 17  ALTA 11  QUE 5  MAN 5  SASK 5  BC 4    NB 1  NS 1.

Nicely spread out across the country.
On defence there are 10 westerners and 3 from ONT

As far as age groups which is surprising how many very useful young guys are making it to free agency.
Under 25    ~ 1  player
Ages 25-29 ~ 28 players
Ages 30-34 ~ 13 players
Ages 35-39 ~  5  players
Over 40      ~  2  players

Just some observations for everyone to enjoy.. What a great Canada Day for 49 famalies.

 

[Kin]

Though, to be fair, only one of those contracts was a UFA signing with a new team. The rest of them signed contracts while extending their stay with their current team (and, in Carter and Richards cases, ended up being traded).

That's largely a meaningless distinction though, especially in the case of Kovalchuk.

 

[bustaheims]

That's largely a meaningless distinction though, especially in the case of Kovalchuk.

It is and it isn't. I mean, lack of willingness to sign these deals hasn't cost the Leafs players there were already on their roster and it's debatable whether or not signing them would have helped them retain talent they do have at a lower cap hit. A big part of the reason people raise this issue is that they feel it has cost the Leafs in the UFA market, and, well, firstly, I'm not convinced that's true - the only UFA they may have missed on specifically because of Burke's stance here might be Brad Richards, but, even then, the way it played out, it felt like it was pretty much NYR or bust for him - and, really, the majority of these contracts aren't signed in the UFA market. Really, there are 4 guys who have signed 8+ year deals while part of the free agent market - Hossa, Richards, Campbell and Kovalchuk. We'll likely see 2 more this summer, sure, but, that's still 6 of them in total. There just aren't many cases where, as Deebo put it, the Leafs were out of the running without having a chance to be considered.

 

[Big Daddy]

First 24 hour breakdown. Had some time this morning and was curious to know where the majority of free agents were from so here goes.

Canada    -  49  Players
                  9  Goalies
                  13 Defenceman
                  27 Forwards 

USA        -    12 Players
Sweden    -    3  Players
Finland    -    1 Player
Czech      -    1 Player

I thought that was incredible since through free agancy your filling holes.  All the holes are being filled with canadians  I love it.  So I dug further
Of the 49 canadians the provinces are well represented.

ONT 17  ALTA 11  QUE 5  MAN 5  SASK 5  BC 4    NB 1  NS 1.

Nicely spread out across the country.
On defence there are 10 westerners and 3 from ONT

As far as age groups which is surprising how many very useful young guys are making it to free agency.
Under 25    ~ 1  player
Ages 25-29 ~ 28 players
Ages 30-34 ~ 13 players
Ages 35-39 ~  5  players
Over 40      ~  2  players

Just some observations for everyone to enjoy.. What a great Canada Day for 49 famalies.

Forgot to mention kid under 25 was Schultz and the greybeards are Brodeur and Whitney

 

[Kin]

It is and it isn't. I mean, lack of willingness to sign these deals hasn't cost the Leafs players there were already on their roster and it's debatable whether or not signing them would have helped them retain talent they do have at a lower cap hit. A big part of the reason people raise this issue is that they feel it has cost the Leafs in the UFA market, and, well, firstly, I'm not convinced that's true - the only UFA they may have missed on specifically because of Burke's stance here might be Brad Richards, but, even then, the way it played out, it felt like it was pretty much NYR or bust for him - and, really, the majority of these contracts aren't signed in the UFA market. Really, there are 4 guys who have signed 8+ year deals while part of the free agent market - Hossa, Richards, Campbell and Kovalchuk. We'll likely see 2 more this summer, sure, but, that's still 6 of them in total. There just aren't many cases where, as Deebo put it, the Leafs were out of the running without having a chance to be considered.

But what we're talking about are these contracts and whether or not they're good investments for the teams that take them on. In that context it's absolutely a meaningless distinction(especially in the case of Kovalchuk where he was a UFA, regardless of who he ended up signing with). I mean, in the case of Richards and Carter, it'd be impossible to argue that it wouldn't be far, far more advantageous to the Kings if they had signed those deals as UFA's because then they wouldn't have had to trade Schenn, Simmonds, Johnson and a first in addition to taking on the financial commitment. Not only was LA willing to take on the financial cost, they were also willing to sacrifice the assets and it ended up working out pretty well for them.

I mean, sure, I guess it's fair to say that Burke hasn't yet burdened himself with the problem of having to sign young super stars or pending UFA's to extensions and so it's impossible to tell if his stance would apply there as well but if the issue is just whether these contracts can  pay off for these teams than how they came to be seems fairly meaningless.

 

[princedpw]

I know we probably stand little chance of attracting either of these two, but the one thing that really bothers me about Burke is that his ridiculous stance on "cap circumventing" deals takes the leafs out of the running before we even have a chance to be considered.

Yeah, but you can't argue with success!

If I owned the team, I'd insist he changed that stance or I'd fire him, unless it's ownership that is telling him not to sign deals like this.

I really don't understand how he can operate in this manner, I could see a scenario where we lose Kessel because we refuse to give him a deal like this.

It infuriates me to no end. It's hard enough to build a Cup contender, and yet you handicap yourself even more with some idiotic self-imposed "principles"?

Wasn't the first team to start the long term contracts the New York Islanders?  First with DiPietro and then Yashin?  How is that working out for them?

Do not assume that Burke is avoiding long term contracts merely for "self-imposed principles".  You can make a business argument either way.  They are working for Detroit. Definitely not Long Island. Philadelphia may not be in love with them as much as they were.  They jetissoned Richards and Carter and must be regretting the commitment to Bryzgalov.  Do you think that Vancouver would find it easier to trade Luongo with a shorter contract?

Personally, I would prefer a strategy of paying more per year on shorter contracts than taking the risk of the longer contracts.

All you did was mention the long-term contracts that aren't working out. How is Burke's "way" working out for him? More specifically, have any of his UFA signings worked out?

Actually, other than Bozak, have any of them been less than horrible? Connolly, Komisarek, Armstrong, Orr, Beauchemin (he saved himself but the initial signing was bad), Gustavsson, etc.

With all due respect, I find it odd that people defend Burke's stance when he has arguably the worst track record with UFAs over the last 3 years.

I'd rather overpay Brad Richards for 23 years than have any of the aforementioned scrubs for the years they are signed. At least Richards impacts games in a positive way.

***I won't give him credit for MacArthur when Burke himself admitted to not wanting him and being talked into it by Nonis.

I will agree that overall, Burke deserves an F on his free agent signings, but individually I'd characterize them as follows (these are the ones I remember):

Highly Detrimental:
Komisarek
Armstrong
Orr

Average/Mediocre/Non-problematic/Not Enough Info UFA:
Connolly
Gus
Dupuis
Scrivens
Owuya
Rynnas

Beneficial:
Bozak
Beauchemin
MacArthur

Game-changing:
None yet

This characterization takes in to account that you will almost always pay more for a UFA than you will an RFA or rookie.

I characterize Connolly as "non-problematic" because his contract is short and I don't believe it is preventing us from signing a better free agent center. Jokinen and Richards are the 2 centers I can think of that are better but I don't believe that Connolly was the reason those guys weren't signed.  (Forgive me if I'm forgetting someone.)  Hopefully, there will be a better center available next year; Connolly will be off the books at that point.  In my mind Connolly is pure stop-gap and always has been.  I can understand if people dispute this categorization.  It is subjective.

I give Burke credit for MacArthur because I give him the credit and the blame for all signings.  It doesn't matter whether or not one of his staff tells him rightly or wrongly to sign some guy.  He's the one that either listens to them and agrees or disgrees.  He makes the final call.

Beauchemin is clearly massively beneficial.  He was turned in to Lupul and Gardiner.  Signing a free agent F and then trading him for players X and Y on other teams that you like more is just as good as signing X and Y from the start.  It is an excellent and necessary way to build the team's talent base.  I'd be perfectly happy if Burke plays the Beauchemin game over and over again several more times.  I would be very happy if Connolly plays a little better and then Burke trades him at the trade deadline next year for some younger asset.  It's a way of turning MLSE money in to longer term assets.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

@felixpotvin
There's something profoundly unpalatable about revenue sharing teams offering free agents $100,000,000.00 contracts.



I agree with the above, ugh.

 

[Kessel Run]

I like Prust but 4 years 10 mil is stupid money for a 4th liner. Thanks for the chuckle Montreal.

I wasn't sure if anyone else thought that as well.  Only once did Prust score more than 5 goals in a season.

NYR let him go and signed Asham for only $1.0 MIL.

I agree it is way too much for Prust but in 2010-2011 he had 13 goals and 16 assists for 29 points. Only last year did he have 5 goals.

 

[Sudafederov]

You know UFA prices are crazy when you look at Komisarek's cap hit on July 2 and think to yourself, "That's not too bad".

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I like Prust but 4 years 10 mil is stupid money for a 4th liner. Thanks for the chuckle Montreal.

I wasn't sure if anyone else thought that as well.  Only once did Prust score more than 5 goals in a season.

NYR let him go and signed Asham for only $1.0 MIL.

I agree it is way too much for Prust but in 2010-2011 he had 13 goals and 16 assists for 29 points. Only last year did he have 5 goals.

His first 100 games with the Rangers, his SH% was more than double his highest in any other NHL season.  I'd say that isn't really sustainable for Prust, and he's more in line with being around 5-7 goals a season.

 

[ZBBM]

People used to rag on Mats for being indecisive....  Ship or get into the pot, Parise & Suter!

 

[Corn Flake]

People used to rag on Mats for being indecisive....  Ship or get into the pot, Parise & Suter!

Maybe Burke had Mats call them. 

 

[Britishbulldog]

People used to rag on Mats for being indecisive....  Ship or get into the pot, Parise & Suter!

Maybe Burke had Mats call them.

;D

 

[Kin]

Beauchemin is clearly massively beneficial.  He was turned in to Lupul and Gardiner.  Signing a free agent F and then trading him for players X and Y on other teams that you like more is just as good as signing X and Y from the start.  It is an excellent and necessary way to build the team's talent base.  I'd be perfectly happy if Burke plays the Beauchemin game over and over again several more times. 

I'm not sure why the Beauchemin trade and the Beauchemin UFA signing can't be measured separately on their own merits.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

People used to rag on Mats for being indecisive....  Ship or get into the pot, Parise & Suter!

Into.... the pot...?