Yesterday I wrote that I think the idea of keeping players in the minors so that they can't start their entry-level contracts is one of the worst justifications for keeping a player out of the NHL. i I mentioned it, so I guess I better explain it! It never fails, if you suggest the Coyotes keep Strome or the Leafs keep Nylander, people always say "why waste a year of his ELC?"
But I think this is dumb. Why does it matter if you have a player under contract but aren't using him? The only time I think it would be beneficial is if you could somehow work it so you had like six top prospects who all had entry-level deals so that you could then spend heavily on vets and stack your team, thus manipulating the salary cap to your benefit. The problem with that idea is that it's so unrealistic, and you'd get screwed when all their contracts came up at once, that it isn't worth thinking about.
But on the other hand, there are many reasons why wasting the entry-level deal shouldn't even be a factor.
I believe that if a player is deserving to be in the NHL and isn't, that that isn't going to be psychologically healthy, nor is the player going to improve against playing people they can dominate as mush as they would if they were challenged. It is my personal experience that if you aren't challenged you get bored. Bored players can reasonably be expected to regress, or at the least, develop bad habits. So if all that's true, should we really be concerned about "wasting" a year of team control?
So that's a factor, but the main reason is this: If a player's Entry Level Contract ends in (for example) 2018 you will sign him to a contract based on 2018 prices. But if you wait a year you will pay more because of inflation, but you will also be risking that he improves drastically in that one year, which will make signing him more expensive.
It seems like fairly common sense that the early you can sign the player to a long team deal, the cheaper cap hit you can get and thus the more value the contract and player will have to your team.
This kind of thinking is why bridge contracts quickly fell out of fashion (see Subban, PK). If you're going to bet on a player, why not do it a year early? The risk/reward is much more forgiving.
But if you have a player like a Strome, Nylander or McDavid who are not just a potential stars, but as close to sure things as possible, then you don't need any extra information in order to sign them.
It seems to me that it would be smart to let their entry-level deals run out as early as possible and sign them to the max 8 years (ideally, obviously it only works if the player cooperates) at a cap hit that is lower than if waited for an extra year or two (since salaries go up every year, especially for top- end players).
My point is that everything in the world has an opportunity cost and if you choose to try to extend the life of an entry-level deal there is a downside, and that downside is seemingly always overlooked.
I mean, who cares if you have a player for an extra year of control if you don't use him the first year anyways? Strome is just unlucky to come into the league when its fashionable to not rush rookies. Its a total BS strategy that can't be backed up by any proof and pretty soon it will go away since dressing rookies that are good and taking advantage of the ELC is actually a way to load up your roster with talent. (Not to the extent of the example outlined at the beginning, but I do think the advantages of playing 18 and 19 year-olds far outweighs the negatives.
Sure, you could ruin a player by rushing him, according to popular theory. The obvious fact that this reason for a player not working out is retroactively assigned to him, apparently has no effect on the conversation, and everybody just assumes every single player who busts out of the NHL was rushed there and didn't work out for the exact same reason.
My theory: most GMS are way too scared to lose their jobs to try anything different or interesting and so the NHL doesn't feature a lot of critical thinking or risk taking at the management level. I joke a lot, but I'd be a way better GM than Don Maloney, as long as I inherited his Rolodex.
I'd rush all my top picks to the NHL, I'd play offensive defenseman only and I'd let the players grow their hair as long as they wanted. And I would never, ever, send a player back to the minors just so I could keep him under team control for a year longer.
To me, the Jets made one of the biggest mistakes in NHL history when they chose their fascist military logo over their very cool old-school one. I mean, nothing says Canada the nation of peacekeepers and serial apologists like a fighter jet over a maple leaf.
I'm joking about the fascist remark, by the way, but I don't care for their logo at all.
The Jets are team I don't understand because I look at their roster and I think they should be way better. And yet, here we are, just one week before December arrives and the Coyotes have one more point in the standings.
Not that I am complaining. Look for the favored Coyotes to cover the spread.
I will complain about something though: Why are their ten games on at once tonight but none in the afternoon? I really enjoy a good Saturday afternoon game.