The Athletic NHL Contract Efficiency Rankings, 2023: Which Teams Spend Their Money Most Wisely?

[RangersIn7]

Just now, LindG1000 said:

Panarin struggled without Strome. Strome cratered without Panarin.

 

Can't buy what they had.

Gotcha.

 

Yes. I would agree with that entirely. 

[Pete]

10 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

Panarin struggled without Strome. Strome cratered without Panarin.

 

Can't buy what they had.

Bingo. And Panarin didn't turn Trocheck into Super Mario. He's just regular small weak Mario, still.

[Pete]

DUPE

Edited July 31, 2023 by Pete

[Phil]

1 hour ago, RangersIn7 said:

Essentially yes, they do. And that number does change as the cap increases. 

 

Yup. We see it every summer as star players are paid incrementally more (as the cap increases and the market values dictate).

[Phil]

25 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

 

That dude? 

 

Chemistry can't be bought, huh?

 

Yup. Same shit happened to Jagr without Nylander and Straka. "Gomez and Drury are better!"

Sure, on paper. In reality? It was a major struggle to find anything remotely comparable, which resulted in the team having to have a rookie (Dubinsky) play Jags' center.

 

I don't know why it has to be said as often as it does, but don't fuck with happy. The grass isn't always greener.

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

36 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

It's not so much this as it is the forces working on rookie deals, second contracts, and the incentive structure around that. It's contract length, it's that rookie contracts last three years, are absolutely locked in and boosted only by performance bonuses, it's that the RFA market is entirely noncompetitive and set up to benefit rights-holders, and it's how the cap works (for example, at this moment, we owe Panarin exactly 19m over three years, not 34.8M - that's not how AAVs work, but that's absolutely how money works, and for example, how the NFL cap works). All of that conspires to fuck over players in their prime years and get fans to shit on them for taking the bag when they're slightly over the hill. But I digress some here.

 

Not sure where the 19 million over the next 3 years number came from, but Cap friendly has him at 29 million for the next 3 years?

 

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/artemi-panarin

[LindG1000]

Just now, MuddyInTheMiddle said:

Not sure where the 19 million over the next 3 years number came from, but Cap friendly has him at 29 million for the next 3 years?

 

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/artemi-panarin

We paid him a 10M signing bonus on 7/1, so we only owe him 19m from here on in.

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

1 minute ago, LindG1000 said:

We paid him a 10M signing bonus on 7/1, so we only owe him 19m from here on in.

Agree to disagree to look at it that way; that 10 million signing bonus was for 2023-24 season compensation after all.

 

The signing bonus structure(loophole) is really just there as a way to guarantee money up from that is not subject to the player escrow I believe.

[Phil]

5 minutes ago, MuddyInTheMiddle said:

Agree to disagree to look at it that way; that 10 million signing bonus was for 2023-24 season compensation after all.

 

The signing bonus structure(loophole) is really just there as a way to guarantee money up from that is not subject to the player escrow I believe.

 

OK, but it matters, a lot. It's what makes high AAV players who have these clauses more attractive (relatively speaking) than those who are owed straight salary.

 

This function is largely what Arizona has relied on to meet the cap floor every year, as an example.

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

12 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

OK, but it matters, a lot. It's what makes high AAV players who have these clauses more attractive (relatively speaking) than those who are owed straight salary.

 

This function is largely what Arizona has relied on to meet the cap floor every year, as an example.

The fact that Arizona uses this salary vs. bonus loophole to circumvent the cap is 100% accurate; and should absolutely be closed(but why would the owners want that to happen when it helps keep salaries artificially lower).

 

What I don't understand is; how is that relevant to this conversation. The original conversation was how AAV affects the "value" of a player vs. their 5v5 output which is certainly an interesting way to look at things, but really means nothing at all if you look at it myopically.

 

A player's AAV is simply the total compensation of their contract divided by the number of years on that contract. How does the fact that we frontloaded Panarin's contract affect his AAV?

 

   

[Phil]

Just now, MuddyInTheMiddle said:

The fact that Arizona uses this salary vs. bonus loophole to circumvent the cap is 100% accurate; and should absolutely be closed(but why would the owners want that to happen when it helps keep salaries artificially lower).

 

What I don't understand is; how is that relevant to this conversation. The original conversation was how AAV affects the "value" of a player vs. their 5v5 output which is certainly an interesting way to look at things, but really means nothing at all if you look at it myopically.

 

A player's AAV is simply the total compensation of their contract divided by the number of years on that contract. How does the fact that we frontloaded Panarin's contract affect his AAV?

 

Well, it might, in the event the team does broach the idea of trading him in the future. The real dollars versus cap hit might actually work in their favor if he were OK with the idea of playign in a smaller market more prone to these types of deals.

 

But right now, today, it doesn't matter.

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

4 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Well, it might, in the event the team does broach the idea of trading him in the future. The real dollars versus cap hit might actually work in their favor if he were OK with the idea of playign in a smaller market more prone to these types of deals.

 

But right now, today, it doesn't matter.

It's not even a smaller market, but more like a market with frugal almost bankrupt teams that need to circumvent the cap in order to function. 

 

If you remember correctly, the Panthers were one of the finalists for his services. Putting their amazing Stanley Cup run aside, the Panthers are the 2nd lowest revenue team in the NHL after Arizona.

 

https://puckpath.com/nhl-teams-by-revenue

 

To be fair, after perusing Cap Friendly it looks like Arizona is the only team that I see that still collects these terminally injured player's contracts to get to the cap floor, but that could just be a function of a flat cap.  

 

All of that aside, but agree that it still has no impact whatsoever on the analysis by the Athletic.

 

 

[Br4d]

51 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Yup. Same shit happened to Jagr without Nylander and Straka. "Gomez and Drury are better!"

Sure, on paper. In reality? It was a major struggle to find anything remotely comparable, which resulted in the team having to have a rookie (Dubinsky) play Jags' center.

 

I don't know why it has to be said as often as it does, but don't fuck with happy. The grass isn't always greener.

 

The reality is that lots of circumstances change over time.  A good franchise in any sport is cognizant of this and not married to certain combinations over time.

 

One of GG's weaknesses was that he was over-reliant on certain veteran relationships during his tenure here.  The classic problem was Zibanejad and Kreider who are good together on 4v4 and as penalty killers and great on the power play but really not #1 line combinational material at 5v5.  The way to resolve this early in his tenure was to stick Lafreniere in LW on line 1 and do everything he could to grow the partnership between his best two-way Center and the young LW the Rangers *had* to have come through.

 

GG finally figured part of the equation out late in his tenure when he put Kreider on line 3 while keeping the two together on the PK and PP.  That was too late though and it essentially cost him his job as he was reliant on the kid line to support each other and grow and they basically weren't good enough in combination to move up the roster.

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, MuddyInTheMiddle said:

Agree to disagree to look at it that way; that 10 million signing bonus was for 2023-24 season compensation after all.

 

The signing bonus structure(loophole) is really just there as a way to guarantee money up from that is not subject to the player escrow I believe.

Bonus money is also lockout/ labor dispute proof.

 

All money is guaranteed, but if their is a labor dispute or a work stoppage, guys don’t get their salaries but they do get any bonus money due them.

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

4 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

That’s bullshit cause markets set prices. 
That’s what his value was on the market when he signed that contract. And he left money on the table from at least 1, if not 2, other teams. 
Plus, the year he signed the contract, he was one of the 2-3 best players in the league.
And markets change based on conditions and the goods/products and services available within them. And those things do depreciate. Which is why the tax code in this and other western countries allow for deductions based on depreciation.

 

It’s a bit different with athletes and individuals and their production level, but not entirely, especially in sports that have a hard cap which typically increases every year. Moreover, you do have a buyout provision.

And they have in the past granted amnesty buyouts to allow for precisely those things, due to changing conditions and depreciation among assets, which in this case are players. 
 

But what really makes the point is the fact that whatever his “true value”, they aren’t likely better without him. Even if he’s making too much. 
 

Now I’ll say that I wish he were making a bit less. But not because of what he’s produced through this point in his contract, but for the flexibility it would give them. 
But in no way are they getting cheated or ripped off and by in large I would say they’re very happy what he’s given them.

 

Long story short… they aren’t better without him under any realistic trade scenario or what it would potentially open up. And he’s not the problem.

The cap hit for Panarin was always rich, and the teams which offered him the deal knew their offers were rich relative to his peers. They also didn’t care because it’s harder to draft a and develop a Panarin than it is to knowingly pay a little more money for one. Most fans knew that too, and wanted him for the same reasons. That included me.

 

It’s ok to acknowledge he is overpaid and still like him. It doesn’t mean you’d want to see him traded like I do.

[Pete]

He's not overpaid. His contract is appropriate for what you would have had to pay a player of his caliber in free agency 4 years ago. The fact that the cap is flat means there might be less value there than anticipated originally, but it doesn't make it a bad contract and it especially doesn't mean that the contract was bad the day it was signed. Unless you consider all free agent contracts to be bad the day they're signed, and I can see it that way too. But then let's say that about all the free agents, not just the ones we don't like. 

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

32 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

The cap hit for Panarin was always rich, and the teams which offered him the deal knew their offers were rich relative to his peers. They also didn’t care because it’s harder to draft a and develop a Panarin than it is to knowingly pay a little more money for one. Most fans knew that too, and wanted him for the same reasons. That included me.

 

It’s ok to acknowledge he is overpaid and still like him. It doesn’t mean you’d want to see him traded like I do.

You have to stop saying that because it is not factual.

 

Can measure it 20 different ways, but if you look at last season as a microcosm since it was his "least productive" as a Ranger. Panarin was #3 in the league in AAV and #17 in production.

 

According to CapFriendly there was 1,476 players that were under contract in the NHL.

 

Based on those metrics he was:

 

99.8th percentile(3/1476= .0020) for AAV 

98.9th percentile(17/1476=.0115) for production

 

It seems silly to even try to argue the point to me. If you want to say that his 5v5 needs to improve; sure as others have pointed out the whole team's 5v5 was off last season. You can't argue that his salary was not commensurate with production though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

31 minutes ago, MuddyInTheMiddle said:

You have to stop saying that because it is not factual.

 

Can measure it 20 different ways, but if you look at last season as a microcosm since it was his "least productive" as a Ranger. Panarin was #3 in the league in AAV and #17 in production.

 

According to CapFriendly there was 1,476 players that were under contract in the NHL.

 

Based on those metrics he was:

 

99.8th percentile(3/1476= .0020) for AAV 

98.9th percentile(17/1476=.0115) for production

 

It seems silly to even try to argue the point to me. If you want to say that his 5v5 needs to improve; sure as others have pointed out the whole team's 5v5 was off last season. You can't argue that his salary was not commensurate with production though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was 20th in P/GP this year. He’s not the 3rd best player in the league. It’s that simple.

 

The percentile stuff you calculated showed he was top 0.2% (top 3) of earners and outside the top 1% (top 15) of point production. You showed he’s overpaid and you didn’t even realize it.

[The Dude]

3 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

The reality is that lots of circumstances change over time.  A good franchise in any sport is cognizant of this and not married to certain combinations over time.

 

One of GG's weaknesses was that he was over-reliant on certain veteran relationships during his tenure here.  The classic problem was Zibanejad and Kreider who are good together on 4v4 and as penalty killers and great on the power play but really not #1 line combinational material at 5v5.  The way to resolve this early in his tenure was to stick Lafreniere in LW on line 1 and do everything he could to grow the partnership between his best two-way Center and the young LW the Rangers *had* to have come through.

 

GG finally figured part of the equation out late in his tenure when he put Kreider on line 3 while keeping the two together on the PK and PP.  That was too late though and it essentially cost him his job as he was reliant on the kid line to support each other and grow and they basically weren't good enough in combination to move up the roster.

Can we stop saying putting Lafrenière on the top line will make him or anything better? Or that it would have? 

 

This fantasy is absurd.  Kreider and Zibanejad have ignited each other's game. They've had career years playing along side each other. To suggest fat boy would have been a better fit, is really just trying to push  a (ughh I hate using this played out word) narrative of false pretense.  

 

How in the hell is Lafreniere a better fit? He's easy AF to defend and brings nothing special to the table. Kreiders speed, size and his defensive awareness,  make him a perfect fit for Zibanejad. 

 

The career years should speak for themselves,  but we gotta hear how fatso would have been better? Come on man. No. Just no. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

He was 20th in P/GP this year. He’s not the 3rd best player in the league. It’s that simple.

What an absolutely reductive and ridiculous statement. 

[RangersIn7]

3 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

The cap hit for Panarin was always rich, and the teams which offered him the deal knew their offers were rich relative to his peers. They also didn’t care because it’s harder to draft a and develop a Panarin than it is to knowingly pay a little more money for one. Most fans knew that too, and wanted him for the same reasons. That included me.

 

It’s ok to acknowledge he is overpaid and still like him. It doesn’t mean you’d want to see him traded like I do.

As said by others, whenever you sign a UFA, you pay a bit of a premium. And that’s all sports, and the NHL hard cap complicates matters.
 

It’s usually that guy’s 1 chance at a big payday, in a place of his own choosing for an extended term. So they try to maximize. Plus market factors like higher cost of living/taxes, or maybe it’s a less attractive market with less exposure for endorsements to supplement income, or there’s Canadian dollars vs US dollars involved, or the guy gave big production for less money for a while and he’s cashing in somewhat on past production, or what have you. And as you said, when you buy one, it’s a known commodity, vs one you draft and wait on and develop and that assumed risk. 

 

Bottom line…. UFA’s cost more. And you never get true full value on them, cause they decline typically in the latter years of their contracts. How much and how soon varies. Which is why you can’t build a team around them by and large. You can have 1 or 2 if you bring them in at the right time. But not a core full of them. 

 

All that considered, it was somewhat rich, but not ridiculously.

And he IMMEDIATELY produced to MVP levels, and has sustained that level of production. Period. The numbers over his 4 seasons as a Ranger prove my point. They’re paying him like a top producer. And he’s producing as such.

 

If he’s overpaid… 2 points.

1) It’s not major nor having a massive impact on their cap.

2) The flat cap is having the bigger impact, not his salary. If the cap were $5 million higher like it should be, I don’t think it would be a point anyone would bring up.

 

Ill close with a few questions.

 

1) What do you think he should’ve been paid in 19-20 when he signed the deal?

2) Who.., that you could actually get, would you rather have?

3) Do you honestly believe they’re better without him?

4) Why do you want him traded?

 

They are a contending team. Have a Vezina and Norris winner in their prime, plus a 40-goal 1C, plus 30 goal CK , plus a good 2C, emerging kids in Chytil, Kakko, LaFreniere, Chytil, and Schneider, plus Lindgren and Trouba and good supplementary pieces.
All of that without mentioning Panarin.

 

Why would you trade your top offensive producer when you have all that and you’re a contender?

And I can’t see any scenario where they’re better without him. Or how that creates an opportunity that gets them closer. 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by RangersIn7

[RangersIn7]

2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

He was 20th in P/GP this year. He’s not the 3rd best player in the league. It’s that simple.

 

The percentile stuff you calculated showed he was top 0.2% (top 3) of earners and outside the top 1% (top 15) of point production. You showed he’s overpaid and you didn’t even realize it.

By your rationale Karlsson would be the league’s best D, when we all know he’s not, and is basically a minus player who bleeds goals at a greater rate than he creates them, can’t kill penalties, is not hard to play against in half the ice, is 33 , has a poor injury history, has zero physicality, poor defensive instincts, and the leagues worst contract.

 

And your ignoring the fact that any “top player” lists HAVE to be broken down by position, as they have differing inherent value, and the fact that those names on those lists do shift and vary slightly at times through a season, and that you have to look over an extended, several season period.

Panarin, over the last 4 years is outscored in points by how many? 

Edited August 1, 2023 by RangersIn7

[Br4d]

59 minutes ago, Pete said:

What an absolutely reductive and ridiculous statement. 

 

Panarin is not close to the best player in the NHL at this point.

 

He's paid like he is but there are probably 15 players in the league that we would take in a heartbeat over him if they were available.

 

I'd take probably from a pool of twice that many to fix the Rangers cap and balance problems in one fell swoop but very few teams around the NHL would be interested in trading for Panarin and his contract even if there wasn't an NMC mucking up the works.

[RangersIn7]

Panarin is also, aside from arguably Adam Graves, the best free agent signing in the history of the franchise. 

[Pete]

7 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Panarin is not close to the best player in the NHL at this point.

 

He's paid like he is but there are probably 15 players in the league that we would take in a heartbeat over him if they were available.

 

I'd take probably from a pool of twice that many to fix the Rangers cap and balance problems in one fell swoop but very few teams around the NHL would be interested in trading for Panarin and his contract even if there wasn't an NMC mucking up the works.

It's an absolutely ridiculous premise for a debate, so it's one I refuse to engage with.

 

You want to have a one dimensional conversation about something that has six dimensions, just because the one dimension justifies your narrative.