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

[Br4d]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

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. 

 

If you had the facts on your side you'd be debating.

[BrooksBurner]

21 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

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?

 

 

We can debate back and forth about the history of the contract and his play over the 4 year period, and I’d agree with some and disagree with some, but it’s all pretty irrelevant because he’s not currently producing up to his contract’s worth. The odds are well in favor of that not changing given his age. The contract rating in the article is pretty accurate as a result.

[BrooksBurner]

39 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

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? 

I think you’re just guessing at my rationale so let me clarify. My comment didn’t mean I think points are everything in determining a player’s worth. There’s more than that, but Panarin offers very little outside offense. He isn’t a leader. He’s not Bergeron on defense. He doesn’t kill penalties. I didn’t really think this had to be said so I didn’t.

 

He’s still good offensively, in the regular season exclusively, but the offensive production alone says he’s not worth the cap hit. It was always going to be this way for the back half of the contract.

[RangersIn7]

21 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

We can debate back and forth about the history of the contract and his play over the 4 year period, and I’d agree with some and disagree with some, but it’s all pretty irrelevant because he’s not currently producing up to his contract’s worth. The odds are well in favor of that not changing given his age. The contract rating in the article is pretty accurate as a result.

I don’t see how 90+ points on a UFA contract he signed at 27 isn’t producing up to the contract’s worth?

 

You’re completely ignoring every other factor, which implicitly influence straight up UFA contracts and their value and their interpretation when evaluating the players that sign them… and the teams that give them out and sign them too, by the way. 

And you’re doing so 4-5 seasons after he signed the thing, and a flat cap has been imposed in the interim too. 

 

All while not acknowledging or answering whether or how they’d actually benefit from or be better, if he were playing elsewhere, or who or how they’d replace him and his high-level production with. 

And you’re attempting to boil it all down to what? His place on the scoring list each year?

Thats beyond farcical. 
Can’t be among the top-10 players in the league if you finish 12th in scoring? 

 

What’s irrelevant is the arbitrary and baseless opinion you’re professing and formulating this upon, or the endless argument you’re making that goes nowhere and proves nothing, other than that they aren’t better off without him. 
 

Ozzie Smith made an error once… so he must be bad defensively. 

We have a contending team. So let’s trade our most consistently productive offensive player who hasn’t shown any real signs of slowing down. 
 

Said no one… ever.

 

 

[RangersIn7]

1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said:

I think you’re just guessing at my rationale so let me clarify. My comment didn’t mean I think points are everything in determining a player’s worth. There’s more than that, but Panarin offers very little outside offense. He isn’t a leader. He’s not Bergeron on defense. He doesn’t kill penalties. I didn’t really think this had to be said so I didn’t.

 

He’s still good offensively, in the regular season exclusively, but the offensive production alone says he’s not worth the cap hit. It was always going to be this way for the back half of the contract.

You didn’t hire him to do those things. You knew what you were buying. He gave you that.

No one talks at all about McDavid or Draisaitl or Mackinnon or Pastrnak or Ovie, or Hughes, or etc., etc., etc, in those terms. 

Hes given them exactly as he should, given what he is as a player. Nearly 350 points in 270 games as a Ranger. 
And don’t count your chickens, because we don’t know what he’s going to do yet, and again, he’s still producing at an elite level. On a team with cup aspirations with 100 wins in 2 seasons. You don’t move that guy at that time. 

[BrooksBurner]

12 hours ago, Phil said:

 

 

 

 

 

https://theathletic.com/4707263/2023/07/31/nhl-contract-efficiency-rankings-2023/

I don’t think the model estimates are that far off. I wonder what the model value is on Lafreniere. It’s interesting to see Kakko at 4.5. It’s not surprising to see Kreider over 7 or Chytil over 5. Both are on good contracts. Without the new guys having signed ridiculously under their worth, the Rangers are probably rating in the bottom 11 instead of the top 11.

[Pete]

6 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

If you had the facts on your side you'd be debating.

If you understood the way the NHL works, you wouldn't be. 

[Pete]

I think it's hilarious that the article clearly says he HAS been worth his contract, but it MAY be hard to justify the next 3 seasons, but our resident Gluten Free Duo have taken that and ran with it to fuel their narrative, but their narrative isn't the author's narrative. 

 

Meanwhile, he literally says Goodrow and Trouba are the much bigger problems (Trouba should be making half.... where have I read that before )

 

But 3 pages on Panarin here, because of one sentence on the Athletic, that doesn't even say what is being debated here.

 

Well played.

 

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I think it's hilarious that the article clearly says he HAS been worth his contract, but it MAY be hard to justify the next 3 seasons, but our resident Gluten Free Duo have taken that and ran with it to fuel their narrative, but their narrative isn't the author's narrative. 

 

Meanwhile, he literally says Goodrow and Trouba are the much bigger problems (Trouba should be making half.... where have I read that before )

 

But 3 pages on Panarin here, because of one sentence on the Athletic, that doesn't even say what is being debated here.

 

Well played.

 

You're the one trolling here.

 

It's not like these are mutually exclusive. Panarin, Goodrow AND Trouba can all be overpaid. Trouba is the one most overpaid (around 3-4m). Goodrow is like 500k/1m overpaid, which in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant. Panarin should probably be around 9m instead of 11.5m+.

 

And if you read the posts I think everyone agrees that Panarin HAS lived up to his contract and that no one is questioning the decision they made when they signed him, but multiple things can be true at the same time. It was the right decision to sign him at the time, he's lived up to the contract in the 1st half of it, but he won't do that for the 2nd part. Everyone also knew this when the contract was signed, the flat cap just made it even worse. I don't see how this is debatable.

 

If you want to say that this conversation is pointless based on the fact that he's untradeable, that's fine, but you can just stop responding instead of turning to trolling.

[Pete]

16 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

You're the one trolling here.

 

Quote

It's not like these are mutually exclusive. Panarin, Goodrow AND Trouba can all be overpaid. Trouba is the one most overpaid (around 3-4m). Goodrow is like 500k/1m overpaid, which in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant. Panarin should probably be around 9m instead of 11.5m+.

What did I just say? Article mentions 3 players, the Gluten Free Duo made it about 1.

Quote

And if you read the posts I think everyone agrees that Panarin HAS lived up to his contract and that no one is questioning the decision they made when they signed him,

 Yea, no.

18 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

It was overweight before the ink dried, has gotten more overweight every year, and will continue to worsen over the next 3 seasons. It’s also buyout proof and hard to trade. No team controlled flexibility to move off of it. It has quickly become the worst contract on the team.

You can't make this shit up...The team's best player, a 100pt player, has the worst contract on the team? A team with Trouba and Goodrow on it? Laughable. Absolutely comical.

 

Quote

but multiple things can be true at the same time. It was the right decision to sign him at the time, he's lived up to the contract in the 1st half of it, but he won't do that for the 2nd part.

This is true of every UFA contract. If you were trying to avoid these types of contracts, no one would ever sign a UFA or player over 28 to a deal more than 3 years. But that's not reality, so what's the point of discussion?

 

Quote

Everyone also knew this when the contract was signed, the flat cap just made it even worse. I don't see how this is debatable.

This contract was signed before the flat cap, so how did people know when it was signed that the flat cap would make it "worse"? You don't see how that's debatable? You don't even know the timeline.

 

Quote

you can just stop responding instead of turning to trolling.

And you can follow your own advice and stop responding, too, right?

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

This contract was signed before the flat cap, so how did people know when it was signed that the flat cap would make it "worse"? You don't see how that's debatable? You don't even know the timeline.

lol wut? Read what I write.

 

What "everyone knew when it was signed" wasn't that there would be a flat cap, but that the contract wouldn't age too well and that during the last half of the contract he would probably be overpaid to some degree. THE FLAT CAP JUST MADE IT EVEN WORSE.

 

8 minutes ago, Pete said:

You can't make this shit up...The team's best player, a 100pt player, has the worst contract on the team? A team with Trouba and Goodrow on it? Laughable. Absolutely comical.

Panarin's contract is 100% worse than Goodrow's. 10 goals, 30 points while playing all situations and being a leader is worth around 3.5m. If you want to say he's overpaid by 600k that's fine, but it's still not a big problem.

 

Trouba

 

Panarin

 

 

 

Goodrow.

[BrooksBurner]

24 minutes ago, Pete said:

 

What did I just say? Article mentions 3 players, the Gluten Free Duo made it about 1.

 Yea, no.

You can't make this shit up...The team's best player, a 100pt player, has the worst contract on the team? A team with Trouba and Goodrow on it? Laughable. Absolutely comical.

 

This is true of every UFA contract. If you were trying to avoid these types of contracts, no one would ever sign a UFA or player over 28 to a deal more than 3 years. But that's not reality, so what's the point of discussion?

 

This contract was signed before the flat cap, so how did people know when it was signed that the flat cap would make it "worse"? You don't see how that's debatable? You don't even know the timeline.

 

And you can follow your own advice and stop responding, too, right?

[Pete]

11 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

lol wut? Read what I write.

 

What "everyone knew when it was signed" wasn't that there would be a flat cap, but that the contract wouldn't age too well and that during the last half of the contract he would probably be overpaid to some degree. THE FLAT CAP JUST MADE IT EVEN WORSE.

 

I read what you wrote, and it made no sense. Regarding the bold, you're describing 90% of unrestricted free agent contracts. He's provided more than enough value to date. This guy came in and was a top point producer at his position, playing with much less talent than his peers, making guys like Strome legitimate players, etc. (they don't all get to play with Draisaitl, Landeskog, Raatanen, etc...)

 

Quote

Panarin's contract is 100% worse than Goodrow's. 10 goals, 30 points while playing all situations and being a leader is worth around 3.5m. If you want to say he's overpaid by 600k that's fine, but it's still not a big problem.

 

Trouba

 

Panarin

 

 

 

Goodrow.

The bolded is ridiculous and I'm not wasting time on it. Neither contract is bad, but Goody's is easily worse because you're paying a 4th liner over $3M. Now, I don't think he's a 4th liner, easily a solid 3rd liner who can slot up when a game warrants it, but GG had him where he had him so $3M for a 4th liner is easily worse use of cap than $11.6 for a 100pt player. He's got to be on the 3rd line to realize value.

 

Trouba's is an albatross. But he hits guys, so he gets a pass.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

18 minutes ago, Pete said:

I read what you wrote, and it made no sense. Regarding the bold, you're describing 90% of unrestricted free agent contracts. He's provided more than enough value to date. This guy came in and was a top point producer at his position, playing with much less talent than his peers, making guys like Strome legitimate players, etc. (they don't all get to play with Draisaitl, Landeskog, Raatanen, etc...)

Ok. I've already said he's lived up to his contract so far, I even said he was a top 3 player for his first two seasons here. That's irrelevant in this discussion where we're talking about the players contract RIGHT NOW and how good/bad they are tho.

20 minutes ago, Pete said:

The bolded is ridiculous and I'm not wasting time on it. Neither contract is bad, but Goody's is easily worse because you're paying a 4th liner over $3M. Now, I don't think he's a 4th liner, easily a solid 3rd liner who can slot up when a game warrants it, but GG had him where he had him so $3M for a 4th liner is easily worse use of cap than $11.6 for a 100pt player. He's got to be on the 3rd line to realize value.

He's a 20-30 goals, 90 point player. Never scored 100 and he probably never will. He also does nothing else besides offense. Calling a 10g, 30p+, all situation player that averaged 14:10 TOI last season a 4th liner is the ridiculous thing here. Doesn't matter which number you put in front of his line. He's a valuable player so the coach will find him the minutes, especially on the PK. Doing all that plus scoring 10g/30p+ is worth 3.5m.

"GG played him on the 4th line so he's a 4th liner". Ok, he also played Panarin on the 2nd line. Should we pay a 2nd line player 11.6m?

[BrooksBurner]

47 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

lol wut? Read what I write.

 

What "everyone knew when it was signed" wasn't that there would be a flat cap, but that the contract wouldn't age too well and that during the last half of the contract he would probably be overpaid to some degree. THE FLAT CAP JUST MADE IT EVEN WORSE.

 

Panarin's contract is 100% worse than Goodrow's. 10 goals, 30 points while playing all situations and being a leader is worth around 3.5m. If you want to say he's overpaid by 600k that's fine, but it's still not a big problem.

 

Trouba

 

Panarin

 

 

 

Goodrow.

I’m right there with you on ranking if strictly talking about the cap number. The age diff, contract flexibility, and impact on overall team cap just makes Panarin’s more albatross-y to me. Trouba is still in his prime at only 29 and there’s a good chance he can still improve his play. Panarin is 32 before the year starts and it’s likely we’ve seen his best years already. Not guaranteed, but pretty likely.

Edited August 1, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

And no one is giving Trouba a pass. We've all said it a million times, there's nothing to discuss. Everyone knows he's overpaid, we're just tired of beating the dead horse.

 

I don't get why you want to change the subject to Trouba (or Kreider) everytime we're talking about someone else that might be overpaid or that we might look to trade.

[Pete]

12 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

And no one is giving Trouba a pass. We've all said it a million times, there's nothing to discuss. Everyone knows he's overpaid, we're just tired of beating the dead horse.

Beat we can beat the Panarin horse? With much less of a leg to stand on?

 

Quote

 

I don't get why you want to change the subject to Trouba (or Kreider) everytime we're talking about someone else that might be overpaid or that we might look to trade.

The article is about 3 players. We're harping on one. That's not changing the subject that's bringing the thread back on track.

[Morphinity 2.0]

Why can't we harp on their highest paid player having one of the worst contracts on the team (according to the article)?

[Pete]

15 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Ok. I've already said he's lived up to his contract so far, I even said he was a top 3 player for his first two seasons here. That's irrelevant in this discussion where we're talking about the players contract RIGHT NOW and how good/bad they are tho.

He's a 20-30 goals, 90 point player. Never scored 100 and he probably never will.

 

104+ pts per 82 games as a Ranger.

 

Quote

He also does nothing else besides offense. Calling a 10g, 30p+, all situation player that averaged 14:10 TOI last season a 4th liner is the ridiculous thing here. Doesn't matter which number you put in front of his line. He's a valuable player so the coach will find him the minutes, especially on the PK. Doing all that plus scoring 10g/30p+ is worth 3.5m.

"He does nothing except the hardest thing in the league to do, and he does it better than everyone on the team, and most of the league."

 

Do you hear yourself?

 

Quote

"GG played him on the 4th line so he's a 4th liner". Ok, he also played Panarin on the 2nd line. Should we pay a 2nd line player 11.6m?

You're making yourself sound silly stop it. Read what I wrote.

[Pete]

Just now, Morphinity 2.0 said:

Why can't we harp on their highest paid player having one of the worst contracts on the team (according to the article)?

Why can't we talk about the other two players mentioned in the article?

[Morphinity 2.0]

Go ahead, but everyone is fair game. 

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

Just now, Pete said:

Beat we can beat the Panarin horse? With much less of a leg to stand on?

There's a difference between talking about something for a couple of months and a couple of years. The Panarin contract became much more relevant after the brutal playoffs he just had. It's a natural thing to talk about right now. Trouba's contract was signed years ago and his play hasn't changed much. He was overpaid then and is overpaid now. Not really much more to talk about there.

 

When someone thinks Panarin is paid fairly as the 3rd best player in the league, while other thinks the contract is a huge albatross, there's a discussion to be had. Either participate or don't.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

"He does nothing except the hardest thing in the league to do, and he does it better than everyone on the team, and most of the league."

 

Do you hear yourself?

Lol, the troll must troll.

 

The hardest thing is to score goals, not make assists. He's 3rd in goals while he's been here. 0 PK minutes and not a good defensive player. Makes almost twice as much as the top scorer on the team. A player you hate. Isn't that funny? You hate the player on the team that's best at doing the "hardest thing in the league to do".

 

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

You're making yourself sound silly stop it. Read what I wrote.

Your entire argument for him being overpaid is that "he's played as a 4th liner". Literally the only argument. His points total equals around 3-3.5m, he's a top PK'er on the team and a leader. He played over 14 minutes per game last season. Can you explain why he's overpaid without using "4th liner" in your argument?

[BrooksBurner]

29 minutes ago, Pete said:

Beat we can beat the Panarin horse? With much less of a leg to stand on?

 

The article is about 3 players. We're harping on one. That's not changing the subject that's bringing the thread back on track.

 

@RangersIn7 brought Panarin up to begin with and said the rating wasn't fair. Instead of focusing on the good contracts or the other two bad contracts, he focused on that one. Maybe if you two stopped crying every time someone here or elsewhere says something critical about #10 it wouldn't turn into these pages of back and forth. In this case, the critical thing was Dom Lusfuhawunaad over at the Athletic gave a contract rating ya'll didn't like. Boo hoo. Your view on Panarin's contract today and moving forward is being painted with a brush from the past instead of a brush looking towards the future, considering age, decline in performance year over year, and just real basic stuff to be honest.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

@RangersIn7 brought Panarin up to begin with and said the rating wasn't fair. Instead of focusing on the good contracts or the other two bad contracts, he focused on that one. Maybe if you two stopped crying every time someone here or elsewhere says something critical about #10 it wouldn't turn into these pages of back and forth. In this case, the critical thing was Dom Lusfuhawunaad over at the Athletic gave a contract rating ya'll didn't like. Boo hoo. Your view on Panarin's contract today and moving forward is being painted with a brush from the past instead of a brush looking towards the future, considering age, decline in performance year over year, and just real basic stuff to be honest.

I don't cry whenever anyone says anything negative about Panarin, I call you out on your bullshit agenda that you've had since the day this season ended and I will continue to do so. 

 

There's there's criticism that's based in reality, and then there's your variety of criticism which is based on cherry-picked stats and revisionist history.