Quote from: IJustLurkHere on August 01, 2023, 09:50:17 PMQuote from: Significantly Insignificant on August 01, 2023, 11:29:42 AMQuote from: Nik on August 01, 2023, 10:34:45 AMQuote from: Significantly Insignificant on August 01, 2023, 09:58:03 AMIt's an interesting thought exercise. I think longer term deals can be advantageous to certain players at certain times. However, how much could certain superstars make if they were re-upping every two years? If Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin, MacKinnon were going to renegotiate every couple of years up until they hit their 30's. Subban's situation was the demise of the bridge deal being used with younger players because he went out and won a Norris.
I think hockey players in the cap era have sort of consistently established that they are, for the most part, pretty conservative and that the outright maximizing of their earning potential isn't as important to them as getting long-term guarantees. Even if the odds are against it, I bet they all know at least one guy from their careers who got a bad injury and was never the same after it so they want to insulate themselves against that within reason. There is also going to be some varying degree of not wanting to put their team in a bad cap situation.
But as I've said before NHL players deciding to that, even in large numbers, still doesn't really set the market. The Market, even an artificially constrained by the cap market, is still the market. And it's one where our own John Tavares was offered an AAV that, if he'd accepted, would have still made him the highest paid player in the NHL.
Actually, when I do the math, I am not sure why Matthews wants a short term deal. Lets say he does 3 years at 15 per. That's 45 million. Then he does 5 at 12, which is another 60 million, that's 105 million. However if he signs an 8 year deal at 13 million, then he gets 104. A million dollars over the lifetime of the deal isn't great.
The only way this makes sense is if he thinks his next deal will be longer than 5 years, and/or worth more than 12. I'm not sure what the market would be for Auston Matthews at 30 years old on an 8 year deal. Or maybe he is waiting for McDavid to sign his next deal to set the market cap.
Anyways, I'm sure he has his reasons for wanting to go shorter term. I'm okay with it either way, because short term does still do good things for the team.
I think the flaw in your estimates above may be the expectation that Matthews salary goes down on the 8 year deal. If he's looking at the Tavares deal, he could be expecting an offer more in the 15-16+ (depending on cap) even at 30 years... it just might mean moving teams (even if that means 7 years). Watching the way these deals seem to be playing out, I'd be suspecting that at some point around 30, Matthews is going to have to test the open market if he's trying to maximise earnings.
This is not an approach without risk for Matthews. He's already had injuries in his career which have impacted his play, so who is to say that he gets to the end of a 3 year extension without significant concerns. But to Nik's point, that equally says that a 3 year deal now may well be better value for the Leafs than 8.
That might be what Matthews is expecting, but this speaks to Nik's point. Matthews is absorbing the risk that someone is going to give him that deal and that money. So he may get a massive pay at age 30, or many teams may decide to back away due to his age, injury history, lack of winning, what have you. In that respect, shorter term deals to work in the favor of the team.