Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Contract Savings by keeping Hall/Paajarvi out of the NHL

Eberle, Hall & Paajarvi making the team in 2010-2011

PlayerYear 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5Year 6

Eberle making the team in 2010-2011, Hall & Paajarvi making the team in 2011-2012

PlayerYear 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5Year 6

Eberle making the team in 2010-2011, Paajarvi making the team in 2011-2012 & Hall making the team in 2012-13

PlayerYear 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5Year 6


Raine Snow said...

That is starting to seem to be the consensus among many bloggers right now. As far as the money issues go with it. I disagree. I wouldn't be objective to Hall playing another year in juniors, simply do to the fact that there is a log jam with the Oilers right now, and a player like Omark, who is 24 this hockey season, could get some limelight; but it has nothing to do with Hall's RFA status.

It doesn't make sense to keep them out of the line up due to their RFA status. If we held out on Hall, Eberle, or Paajarvi for another year or two, that is giving them another year or two to get better. Yes? Ok, that's what many of our blogging friends want...but with that in mind, the better they become the higher dollars he will want on his next contract. Get him in early, have his contract expire at 22 and he won't demand the top dollars. IE Gagner and Cogliano.

Have Paajarvi come in at age 21, and he re-ups at 24...I bet that contract is going to be smoking high!

SO in the end, what is the difference if you start him earlier? The arguments really aren't strong here.

(I doubt these players are worth 6 million at age 21)

dawgbone said...

The counter argument to that is what we have with Sam Gagner.

The Oilers have him under contract for 2 more seasons. After that he is an RFA with arbitration rights and only 2 RFA years left.

Had last year been Sam Gagner's rookie year, he'd have 2 years left on his ELC. After that he's an RFA with 4 RFA years left.

If you are looking to do a long term deal, I think you can get a better cap hit negotiating on 4 RFA years rather than 2.

As for whether they are $6mil players or not, you are right it's a complete hypothetical. I'm basing it on the fact that all of the recent 1st overall picks are making that much (or more) on their 2nd deals.

I'm also using Getzlaf & Perry's deals as comps for Paajarvi & Eberle but factoring in a slight increase because the cap has gone up since they signed their deals.

And if they aren't $6mil players, what have you lost? If Hall goes the gagner route and puts up 50 points by the end of his 3rd year, there's a good chance he signs a 1 or 2 year deal. Then if he breaks out you are left with less RFA years.

In the scenario I (and a few others) have proposed you are covered whether these guys are worth $6mil on their 2nd contracts or on their 3rd (saved RFA years).

These are the arguments that have been used against this idea:

1. We don't know what the cap will be.

2. It's 3 years away, we don't know what the future will hold

3. It will hurt their development

4. It will piss them off.

5. You just don't send a #1 pick back.

6. They are ready.

The first two are ridiculous arguments because just riding it out and seeing what happens has gotten numerous GMs in trouble (including the Oilers) over recent years.

Three and four have zero evidence to support them. In fact there are examples to suggest that it's not true at all.

Five is another ridiculous argument (which Zona covered

6. Paajarvi has made a case but Hall hasn't. That being said another year in a good SEL isn't going to hurt him.

spOILer said...

You're making up numbers, so what weight can we give this "analysis"?

dawgbone said...

The only numbers I am making up are the 2nd contract.

In other words, what do the Oilers gain from this if things go right with the 3 kids.

If I was in charge of the Oilers that would be what I'm basing my gameplan on right now because if "it happens" (the kids are as advertised) I am in an excellent position to succeed.

If it doesn't happen, I haven't hurt myself in any way.