Keith joins the long contract club
by James Mirtle on Dec 4, 2009 7:00 AM CST
19 comments
I think it's Duncan Keith week around here given the defensive defencemen list and his new 13-year contract. The fellows at Second City Hockey are even more excited, at least in their own way:
Keith's deal is far and away the most palatable cap hit of the three, and provided he stays healthy, we are all now likely watching the last man to ever wear #2 in the Indian Head. Given his size and the speed at which he plays the game, he could wear down toward the end of that deal, something that's not out of the question after what was shown during last year's post season run.But overall, this is a fine deal. The only major problem with this deal is that much like Toews and Kane, Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook have become inextricably linked with one another, and their play feeds from that, and Seabrook is due for a new deal at the end of next year. While it's different skill sets, it's a reasonable argument that Brent Seabrook is just as valuable to this team as Keith, and should be paid accordingly.
As a side note, it was pointed out to me on Twitter last night that Keith has the third-best plus-minus, leaguewide, over the past three years. The more you know...
As for the deal: Well, this is the territory we're in these days. Five years ago, during the lockout, Keith had a 26-point season in the minors; now he'll forever be one of the faces of the franchise for this era of the Blackhawks. Only 26, he very well could be old and somewhat grey and still in the league on this deal — and who knows what salaries (and the cap) will look like by then.
But, the more you look around, the more that's becoming the norm.
It's going to be really interesting how all of these decade-plus contracts play out long term because we've never seen such a dramatic trend toward locking up young players like this. I believe there are now eight players with 11-plus season contracts in play, a number that's going to continue to rise under this CBA:
Rick DiPietro, Alex Ovechkin, Mike Richards, Henrik Zetterberg, Johan Franzen, Marian Hossa, Roberto Luongo and Keith.
DiPietro's is already a headache for the Islanders, who are rising from the ashes of last year's last-place team with two veterans in goal. What happens when they have to move one to allow their "face of the franchise" back in the lineup? He's got $50-million remaining on his deal, all guaranteed if he can't play due to injury, and this for a team already losing buckets every season.
Will more of these deals go wrong down the line? I've asked the question before, but as great a benefit of having Keith with a low cap hit is, does that out weigh the risks?
Probably. But they're gambling on something no one can possibly control.
0 recs |
19 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
I’m pretty much done being upset over these kinds of deals, because as you said, it’s basically becoming the norm.
It’s actually shocking to me, that despite the risk being painfully (no pun intended) obvious with DiPietro, teams continue to give out these long-term contracts. At the same time, I’m not shocked at the teams (and markets) of the other players in that list:
- Washington
- Philly
- Detroit
- Detroit
- Chicago
- Chicago
All big U.S. markets that could eat a contract if need be because they draw in more revenues than the salary cap.
It’s only a matter of time until another one goes wrong. We’ve already seen Ovechkin’s injury (and suspension) issues this season. I know he’s vowed to not change his style of play, but what happens when he blows out a shoulder or a knee and misses most of a season, or worse, is never the same again?
Will another one going bad stop these contracts? Absolutely not. I don’t really have a problem with the long-term contracts the more I think about them. If you want to give a 15-year contract, hey, go for it. What’s more of an issue to me is the frock years on the end to drop the cap hit, realistically turning it into a 12 or 13-year deal. It’s very similar to the NFL, adding years to the contract that will for all intents and purposes never happen because it’s too much money for the teams to play to one player. But they add it on to make the contract “look” bigger and have players and agents happy they seemingly got paid.
and Vancouver is among them too
Vancouver is not a big US market but still ranks 5th in revenue and 6th in operating income, according to Forbes. The weakest team financially out of that group is Washington, with below league average revenue and net operating loss last year.
One of these deals, DiPietro aside, going bad won’t stop it. The big market clubs have the revenues to cover that eventuality. It is, effectively, the way for them to spend over the cap. Just don’t do it with a player who is already 35. If the guy gets hurt, stick him on LTIR forever.
I bet DiPietro eventually becomes a Maple Leaf without ever playing a game for tthem.
Exactly. Mike Rathje is still creating cap space on the Flyers, by way of his continuing to be on IR, instead of actually retired. Not only that, but near the end of these, with the setup of a 6M cap hit and an actual cost of only 1M, these deals will become attractive to some bottom feeder teams. There is more options than initially appears with dealing with these contracts, as long as you’ve got the money to afford to spend on players on IR.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
Uh, being on the LTIR instead of just retiring isn’t actually creating cap space. In fact, it’s the opposite.
If a guy retires after signing a contract with the team when he was over 35, then it’d be better if he stayed unretired but on long term injury. But he was 31 when he signed that deal, so he actually hurts the team by not retiring, since his salary counts in full each summer and he counts against their tagging totals every year.
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
If a suffered a career-ending injury he can be placed on LTIR [see: Rathje, Mike] and the team can replace virtually all of his salary as a result – even if the player is subject to the 35-and-older rule [see: Mogilny, Alexander]. Tagging can be an issue, but it would only be an issue to the extent that the affected team is trying to sign guys to extensions before the become free agents.
If the player is subject to the 35-and-older rule and retires AND the retirement is not due to injury, then LTIR is unavailable and the player’s cap hit simply becomes dead cap space that cannot be replaced.
Don't forget insurance
The teams insure these contracts in case of injury.
So it’s unlikely, for instance, that Chuckles Wang is 100% out-of-pocket on Dippy’s deal.
by garth the hoser on Dec 4, 2009 11:05 AM CST reply actions
I think they can only insure something like the first seven or eight years on these huge deals.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Dec 4, 2009 11:51 AM CST up reply actions
Thank-you James
for more on Duncan Keith as every week should be Duncan Keith week. :)
What’s everybody’s problem with these deals? Isn’t this precisely what the league needs a little commitment from the owners to the top players and vice versa? It’s what helps build the game with the average fan connecting to their favourite players and seeing them for their duration of their career.
You guys can contimplate the negative “what if’s” all you want, but what if Keith remains healthy and helps guide the ’Hawks to mutliple Cups and Norris Trophies and ends up in the H.O.F. as a lifetime ’Hawk spending his whole career with Chicago? Would it be such a horrendous deal then? You know there is a chance that “that” could happen.
Instead of complaining all the time maybe try to look at the bright side of many of these long-term deals. Keith’s deal is breath of fresh air in a era where seldom do you see an athlete, regardless of which sport, start and end their career with one organization.
It's never about the eventual destination, but rather the long journey and its challenging obstacles that are presented and what it takes to overcome them, that makes the taste of success all the more worthwhile!!!
If it’s not “sports players are greedy, they have no loyalty to the team that brought them up” it’s “ZOMG, what the hell with these lifetime contracts?” Regardless of what happens, there are people who are going to find a reason to complain.
Kane, Toews, and Keith are locked up for several years. Congrats to Blackhawks fans – while it’ll be interesting to see how they put together a roster for the next couple of years, they’ve got core pieces of the team signed and they know they can build around those guys … and for that, they should be thrilled.
I think some of it is the boredom of some members of the msm. When teams are relatively stable, they get bored. When players aren’t traded all over the league like inanimate chess pieces being moved around, they get bored. When there aren’t any interesting if outlandish trade rumours to speculate about, they get bored. When there aren’t enough coaches and GMs and assorted front office personnel getting fired, they get bored.
Clearly, the purpose of the NHL isn’t to try to assemble teams to play hockey – it is to treat a bunch of human beings as pawns to be shuffled for the amusement of so-called reporters with the attention span of gnats with ADD. :-)
(James completely excepted from this, of course – it required an attention span of Herculean dimensions just to keep up with all the twists and turns of the Coyotes bankrupty story instead of just reflexively spitting out “no one get hockey in the desert! Move the team” and moving on to the next bright shiny thing.)
I like it when every team, favorite of mine or not, has a few players who are always in the same uniform instead of constantly seeing someone in a different color jersey and trying to remember when the heck that guy signed with that team because the roster churn is so confusing.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
Signing these guys was obviously important, but if I’m a Hawks fan, it’s apparent that a hometown discount doesn’t exist.
For example, Keith has not been nominated for a Norris trophy and he’s now the highest paid d man in the league. And is Toews a $6 mill per year player? Not yet.
Perhaps it’s because this team overpaid for Huet, Campbell, etc. At some point, this comes back to bite you – this summer at the latest.
That’s the result of the much earlier free agency, though. Teams have to decide early who they think is going to be worth large amounts of salary cap space and lock them up as reasonably as possible, because if they wait too long then some team with more space is going to turn their heads with a much larger contract. A team can’t keep a salary lower because they have exclusive rights to negotiate with a player until he is nearly past his prime.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
Yes, free agency starts earlier than it did before the lockout, but other teams have managed to sign players at hometown discounts since the lockout – Detroit and Boston for example.
Chicago’s problems stem from overpaying free agents and paying their own players inflated salaries early in their careers simply because they had the cap space to do so. Byfuglien is not a $3 mill per year player; Sopel, Kopecky and several others are overpaid.
When this contract kicks in, Keith won’t even the highest-paid defenseman on the Blackhawks [unless Chicago manages to unload Campbell’s contract]. Even then, there’s at least half a dozen defensemen that will have bigger cap hits. [Chara, Bouwmeester, Phaneuf, Rafalski, Visnovski, Markov, Redden, and Boyle come to mind just halfway thinking about it.] However, he’ll be the first defenseman to get a contract longer than 8 years [with Campbell having the previous record at 8 years].
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
On Facebook? Use Connect to join SB Nation. Share insights with fans and friends.- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- NHL 2010-11 Season Preview: Wrestling with Atlanta Thrashers
- Chris Pronger's contract accepted; why NHLPA could have advantage
- Pass or Fail: When 'Jersey Shore'-level celebs invade hockey arenas
- NHL's ultimatum: Amend CBA or reject Kovalchuk, Luongo deals?
- Report: Matthew Hulsizer is Coyotes' mystery ownership candidate
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
