Jump to content

Wild GM loses his mind

tom webster

By tom webster
in The Aud Club

Recommended Posts

ECHL Prospect

ECHL

Posted
Posted

Yeah, that's fair. I haven't gotten the feel from Wild fans that they think of Fletcher in that "more of the same" line of thought though. But yeah, if there are a few out there, this will thin out that crowd a bit.

 

Oh, and I just looked at the structure of that deal and just like you, I am incredibly confused. That just might be the strangest contract I've ever seen. He's young enough that he should see the end of that contract, but even if they did expect him to retire early, why drive up the cap hit with that last year salary of 9+ million?

 

I like reading your writing.

Mbossy Fourth Liner

Mbossy

Posted
Posted

Koivu may have gone for a longer contract but the Wild need to insure the contract. Deals over seven years can't be insured.

 

The fluctuating bonus/salary gives him some lockout protection (new CBA in 2012?) if there’s a lockout in 2012-13 and Koivu loses his salary, he basically recoups it during a back-loaded contract.

 

Signing bonus payments also protect Koivu's estate, more legal protection than anything else.

shrader Hall of Famer

shrader

Posted
Posted

I think Koivu to Pomminstein is apples to oranges for comparisons. The natural comparison is Conally as they are both pivots and have health issues. Head and knees. I don't think Koivu will be skating to well in 7 years but Koivu is solid just not the guy to build a team from. Saku has knee problems too so it is genetical maybe.

 

 

If there's any genetics involved, I just hope Mikko never runs into the cancer issues that his brother did.

nfreeman Hall of Famer

nfreeman

Posted
Posted

:blink: Koivu has had more points in each of the last two seasons (not to mention that their goal production has been similar.) Koivu has also improved over the last few years, while Pommer has regressed.

 

Pommer is not way overpaid based on production and when you consider that he is pretty strong defensively, one could argue that he's not overpaid at all. What makes us all question his contract is that he's a soft player on an a soft team. Add him to a team that overall is much less soft and few would complain about him at all. It's about balance; which the Sabres lack. Koivu is not extremely physical, nor is he nearly as soft as Pommer. He may not bang, but he battles.

 

I would also add that when it comes to scoring-line centers vs. scoring-line wingers, I would gladly pay the extra $1.5 million per year for the center with comparable production, especially when that center is very strong on the dot and a proven leader on your team.

I think he's well overpaid, mostly because I think in a hard-cap system, a team has to keep its cap space powder dry to spend on players that are real difference-makers. Pommer is skilled and a fine 2-way player, but he's far from a difference-maker. He disappears for long stretches, he doesn't fire up the crowd or his teammates with physical play, he's not a leader on the team and, most unforgiveably, he was utterly nonexistent in the playoffs this year. Yes, he's put up decent numbers, but as you noted they are in decline.

 

My bottom line is that the whole picture doesn't come close to justifying $5.3MM per year -- especially because that's only about $1.5MM to $2MM away from what a real difference-maker would cost, and Pommer's contract impairs the team's ability to get that kind of player.

 

Koivu may have gone for a longer contract but the Wild need to insure the contract. Deals over seven years can't be insured.

 

The fluctuating bonus/salary gives him some lockout protection (new CBA in 2012?) if there’s a lockout in 2012-13 and Koivu loses his salary, he basically recoups it during a back-loaded contract.

 

Signing bonus payments also protect Koivu's estate, more legal protection than anything else.

I don't understand either of the bolded statements.

Mbossy Fourth Liner

Mbossy

Posted
Posted

Koivu may have gone for a longer contract but the Wild need to insure the contract. Deals over seven years can't be insured.

The fluctuating bonus/salary gives him some lockout protection (new CBA in 2012?) if there’s a lockout in 2012-13 and Koivu loses his salary, he basically recoups it during a back-loaded contract.

 

Signing bonus payments also protect Koivu's estate, more legal protection than anything else.

 

 

I don't understand either of the bolded statements.

 

Maybe I shouldn't use the word "can't", but it is truly cost prohibitive.

 

The NHL's insurance plan insures player contracts for seven years, beyond that, if the player gets hurt, the team is on the hook for the full amount of his contract. The NHL buys a plan through a NY broker BWD group, NHL teams are required to insure a handful of players through a 'temporary total disability' program administered by the league. Each team pays a premium (about 5% of salary)based on the salaries of its five highest-paid players, but is free to allocate that coverage how it wants. Typically teams insure about 7 players. The coverage kicks in aftrer about 30 games missed.

 

For the estate part, it somewhat like what lottery winners have to watch out for. Example: A lottery winner chooses annual payments instead of cash upfront. They die after receiving just one of the 20 payments. Their estate and subsequent estate tax would include the present value of the 19 'left' payments. With Mikko he gets some cash upfront for his estate to pay the tax.

inkman Hall of Famer

inkman

Posted
Posted

I appreciate ECHL.

I appreciated the ECHL as well. Former and current Sabres Marty Biron, Patrick Lalime, Steve Sheilds, Bob Boughner, Nolan Pratt all got their careers started there. Now that Buffalo doesn't have an ECHL affiliate, how has this changed their business? Do they sign less draft picks with only so many spots available in Portland? Hmm...I wonder if it has any real impact. Maybe a prospect or two could slip by without the flexibility of stashing them in the ECHL.

 

...and I know you were referring to the poster no the league.

FogBat First Liner

FogBat

Posted
Posted

1,I'll note again Pommer's contract here, which I think, like Koivu's contract, was an instance of a GM overpaying out of a need to prevent another good player from leaving his team.

 

2,I don't agree that DR hasn't learned his lesson. I think letting Tallinder and Lydman go was the right move. They just aren't worth the money or the budget room for the Sabres (I say this still desperately hoping they will use that cash to bring in a forward, though).

1, I stand corrected and I admit to making a mistake there. Thanks for putting me in my place. If we'd let Pominville go, we would have found ourselves in a situation like where Campbell was, and we traded away a very good blueliner. Now he has a Stanley Cup victory to his credit. :wallbash:

 

2, I wasn't even thinking of Tallinder and Lydman. Hank's style of play probably caused numerous heart attacks when he was with us. IMO, I wish we'd kept Lydman, but I see your logic behind it.

 

I won't argue with you that we need a better than "halfway decent" forward. Hopefully, it's not one who is past his prime.

korab rules Second Liner

korab rules

Posted
Posted

Maybe I shouldn't use the word "can't", but it is truly cost prohibitive.

 

The NHL's insurance plan insures player contracts for seven years, beyond that, if the player gets hurt, the team is on the hook for the full amount of his contract. The NHL buys a plan through a NY broker BWD group, NHL teams are required to insure a handful of players through a 'temporary total disability' program administered by the league. Each team pays a premium (about 5% of salary)based on the salaries of its five highest-paid players, but is free to allocate that coverage how it wants. Typically teams insure about 7 players. The coverage kicks in aftrer about 30 games missed.

 

For the estate part, it somewhat like what lottery winners have to watch out for. Example: A lottery

winner chooses annual payments instead of cash upfront. They die after receiving just one of the 20 payments. Their estate and subsequent estate tax would include the present value of the 19 'left' payments. With Mikko he gets some cash upfront for his estate to pay the tax.

what??? Your estate explanation is premised on an example of someone receiving lottery payments after their death. Are you saying this contract calls for payments after he is dead? You think those bonuses aren't conditioned on him being alive???

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...