Reply With QuoteGreat outside the box thinking Guru! I actually think you are on to something here!
'Burning' a year off the entry level contract
With Grigs going back to the Q, and Buffalo burning a year off his contract it had me thinking.
Obviously everyone looks at this as horrible asset management, but is it really?
Here's my theory.
These kids have a 3 year window to earn that second contract. If they get sent back after the first year, that 3 year window gets reduced to 2.
A top prospect in their rookie year will get, what, 30-50 points? Same as their 2nd year if not lower (sophomore slump).
If the prospect had 'another' year to earn his 2nd contract, chances are he will have the opportunity to play a bigger role with the team and get a bigger pay day.
To sum it up.....If you look at the short term of sending a guy like Grigorenko back to juniors, it stinks. Grigs loses half a year of development (not really), Buffalo burns a year off his ELC. But if you look at it long term, it could potentially save Buffalo millions of dollars on Grigorenko's next contract.
Debate.
Great outside the box thinking Guru! I actually think you are on to something here!
ryan orielly managed to turn a single 55 point season into $5M
if it actually took 3 seasons of production to get to the big payday i could see where you are going with this however that really isnt the case anymore you just need that one season and you will get your payday
ask guys like kessel and jvr if you dont believe me they also parlayed single seasons into big payouts
Yahoo 1 Year Leagues:
G, A, PIM, +/-, PPP, SOG, HIT
W, GAA, SV%, SHO
2C, 2LW, 2RW, 4D, 2G, 4Bn, 1IR
I would never take the chance of messing with a guy's development to potentially save money on a contract somewhere down the line.
Contact me for Frozen Tools bug reports and inquiries
Follow Frozen Tools on Twitter @FrozenTools
Follow me on Twitter @DH_EricDaoust
I think you missed the point, but O'Reilly and Kessel turned their third year of their ELC into big paydays. What happens if their first year was 'burnt' in juniors? Technically their 2nd year, would be their 3rd year......and again, they wouldn't have gotten/earned such a big second contract.Originally Posted by lucifer316
It would be interesting to see 2nd contracts from guys who have have a year burnt on their ELC.
If anyone has time or is up to the challenge.....
I very highly doubt having a prospect up with the big club for 10 games is messing with his development.
10 games (during a normal year). That's 3ish weeks!
Does the lack of playing time outweigh the experience, practices, and lessons to become a pro + potentially save millions of dollars??
i dont know if you can automatically assume that their nhl production gets pushed a year down the line to be honest with you i would need to see stats that that is in fact what happens before i bought into it
Im not selling anything. I don't need you to buy into it, I just want a discussion/debate. There's no right or wrong answer here.
But bringing up Kessel and O'Reilly actually proves this little theory of mine even further. They both 'blew up' in their 3rd years.....
Of course I don't think their NHL production gets pushed down a year if the first year of their ELC is burned. It's all relative to linemates, playing time, coach use etc. But, in most cases, a sophomore isn't likely to be in a position to get the minutes a 3rd year player would. And with ice time comes production.
do you happen to have a list of players who had their first year burned
No, I'll have some time tonight to look deeper into this.
If anyone knows how I could find a list for this....Capgeek might have something?
It's going to be pretty tough to find rookies that have played more than 10 games and then be sent back to juniors, ahl, etc.
I quickly found two in Tyler Ennis and Ryan Callahan.
Ennis played 10 games with Buffalo in 2009-10, burning a year off his ELC.
The following year he got 49 points in all 82 games, and on his contract year he got 34 points in 48 games.
He signed for a 2.8M cap hit for 2 years right before the lockout. A real bargain if you ask me, and still a RFA when it expires.
Now he has 20 points in 28 games and is playing 2 minutes more per game. Coincidence?
Now onto Callahan.
Played 14 games with the Rangers in 2006-07, burning a year.
Played 52 games the next year putting up 13 points.
And 40 points in 81 games during his contract year.
Like the Ennis situation...he signed for a 2 year deal with a hit of 2.3, and still saving his status to restricted.
His playing time per game, again like Ennis, shot up to over 2 minutes per game.
These were the first two guys I found matching the criteria and they both had/have 2nd contract bargains. They both got significant playing time after their ELC deal (which is natural) but we can only wonder if they should have gotten that ice time on their third year and make more than 2.xM on their 2nd contract.
Did burning a year really hurt their development? Callahan is considered a really good leader and excellent player. Ennis doesn't look to bad either!
the development schedule of a 21 year old is a bit different though and callahan still played 74 games in his first season
so i am not sure he is a fair comparison with someone like grigs the ages as well as draft position were vastly different as well as the amount of actual games missed
callahan still ended up having his big jump season in the final year of his elc though as you pointed out he jumped from .25 ppg to .49 ppg so he did end up with a 1 season blow up
also with regards to callahans jump in icetime in 08-09 he may have only had 17:03 in average ice time but that was only 7 sec per game less than the 3rd forward on the team so while his icetime did jump the next season he was still only the 4th forward on his team
the difference in the actual time has a lot more to do with the way renney and tortorella deploy their forwards as his icetime compared to other forwards kept him in the same spot
I tend to believe that burning a year off an ELC is not a good thing.
If a player believes they can be a $4m player, they likely won't commit to signing a longer contract at a reduced price (say $3m).
So - while the club might gain a little value signing the player for 2yr x $3m (instead of $4m)... they also wasted that first discounted year.
My 2 cents.
I have thought about this concept many times in the past about whether or not it is worth it to burn a year of ELCs or not.
My conclusion has been it doesn't really matter either way. What's most important is that you do what you think at the time is best for the development of the player.
If a team feels the need to get in another game past the 9 game deadline in order to make their assessment of whether or not to still keep him at the NHL level then they will/should.
Too many other external factors that affect the cap and contract situation of a team in order to justify the reason to make the decision based on anything else except what they think is best for the player's development.
Posting Permissions
