The Athletic NHL Contract Efficiency Rankings, 2023: Which Teams Spend Their Money Most Wisely?

[Phil]

Quote

11. New York Rangers

Last season: 24th

 

 

Quote

This was always going to be the case for Panarin at some point. He comfortably delivered the goods worthy of his deal at the start, but now that we’re in the back half it’s getting a bit more difficult to justify an $11.6 million cap hit for three more years. Panarin is still a high-end player, it’s just that his work at five-on-five has waned over the last few seasons.

 

Quote

The much larger issue is Goodrow and Trouba. Goodrow’s deal looked like a landmine from the jump and last year saw his effectiveness at both ends of the ice noticeably decrease. A $3.6 million chunk of the cap may not seem like much, but that’s money that could be used on valuable depth — the kind of depth New York has lacked the last two seasons. It also makes the team’s cap sheet tighter than it should be. Same goes for Trouba, who would be a good bet if he were paid half of what he’s currently being paid. I thought there was a chance he could prove himself as a No. 1 when he was traded to the Rangers, but that just never came to be.

 

Quote

Fortunately, the Rangers have some solid deals elsewhere that make up ground. The deals for youngsters Kaapo Kakko, Filip Chytil and K’Andre Miller are all tidy and new depth additions Blake Wheeler and Erik Gustafsson are steals at their price tags.

 

Quote

But the obvious reason the Rangers land here is Adam Fox making under $10 million for the next six seasons. Fox is on one of the best deals in hockey as a perennial Norris candidate who is arguably the second-best defenseman in the world behind Cale Makar. To cover his entire prime at that price is a gift.

 

https://theathletic.com/4707263/2023/07/31/nhl-contract-efficiency-rankings-2023/

[RangersIn7]

Panarin gets a D+, giving them 1.27 points per game over his 4 seasons as a Ranger.

I know he’s getting older, but had a 30-goal, 90+ point season last year.

 

Sorry. But that’s in no way fair. 

[fletch]

Nice take from the Atlantic article.  When decisions on whether Kakko, Chytil, Miller, Laf get new contracts, and for how long/how much, we'll see how that impacts the composition of the veterans on the roster.  We've seen from paying market value or higher to acquire a veteran how that impacts the roster composition.  Rangers always seem to be bumping right up against the cap limits.

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, RangersIn7 said:

Panarin gets a D+, giving them 1.27 points per game over his 4 seasons as a Ranger.

I know he’s getting older, but had a 30-goal, 90+ point season last year.

 

Sorry. But that’s in no way fair. 

Yes it is fair. He was the 2nd highest paid player in the league at time of signing, and just now moved down to 3rd highest paid player after MacKinnon’s contract kicked in for this upcoming season. It was overweight before the ink dried, has gotten more overweight every year, and will continue to worsen over the next 3 seasons. It’s also buyout proof and hard to trade. No team controlled flexibility to move off of it. It has quickly become the worst contract on the team.

 

Trouba is a worse value contract, but not as bad because there’s team controlled flexibility to get out of it.

[Flynn]

I get all of these metrics.. but its kind of funny- Go to the ECF, get ranked 24.. Get bounced in the 1st round of the playoffs, get ranked 11h. 

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, Flynn said:

I get all of these metrics.. but its kind of funny- Go to the ECF, get ranked 24.. Get bounced in the 1st round of the playoffs, get ranked 11h. 

 

This isn't a valuation on team direction, it's their attempt to speak purely to contract value.

[RangersIn7]

11 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Yes it is fair. He was the 2nd highest paid player in the league at time of signing, and just now moved down to 3rd highest paid player after MacKinnon’s contract kicked in for this upcoming season. It was overweight before the ink dried, has gotten more overweight every year, and will continue to worsen over the next 3 seasons. It’s also buyout proof and hard to trade. No team controlled flexibility to move off of it. It has quickly become the worst contract on the team.

 

Trouba is a worse value contract, but not as bad because there’s team controlled flexibility to get out of it.

I can’t agree with that assessment man. And I get some of the venom that gets spit at him off of the postseason, but come on. He’s an extremely productive and dynamic offensive player. 
 

Now, I’ll take your point on the lack of flexibility it gives them cause as said, the large cap number makes moving him difficult and buying him out near impossible. I do agree on those points to a good extent. Just don’t think they are really pertinent.

 

Because here’s the thing… 

He’s a perennial 90+ point player through 4 seasons as a Ranger.

Pace out his points per game pace over that span per 82, and he’s at about a 104 point pace. 

They aren’t looking to trade him. They’d almost certainly lose any trade they made involving him.

We are NOWHERE NEAR a buyout. That’s not even in the picture.

If production does decline substantially in years 5-7, which we are in now, it’s probably something they expected on some level. And if that happens, they are and we’re screwed anyway, so it’s almost irrelevant.

 

The “Trade Panarin” conversation is inexplicable to me.

 

It’s a false narrative and a baseless and poorly formulated argument. 

[Flynn]

I get it, I really do.. But these are zero value exercises that don't have shit to do with shit.  I guess you need to fill the offseason. 

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

I can’t agree with that assessment man. And I get some of the venom that gets spit at him off of the postseason, but come on. He’s an extremely productive and dynamic offensive player. 
 

Now, I’ll take your point on the lack of flexibility it gives them cause as said, the large cap number makes moving him difficult and buying him out near impossible. I do agree on those points to a good extent. Just don’t think they are really pertinent.

 

Because here’s the thing… 

He’s a perennial 90+ point player through 4 seasons as a Ranger.

Pace out his points per game pace over that span per 82, and he’s at about a 104 point pace. 

They aren’t looking to trade him. They’d almost certainly lose any trade they made involving him.

We are NOWHERE NEAR a buyout. That’s not even in the picture.

If production does decline substantially in years 5-7, which we are in now, it’s probably something they expected on some level. And if that happens, they are and we’re screwed anyway, so it’s almost irrelevant.

 

The “Trade Panarin” conversation is inexplicable to me.

 

It’s a false narrative and a baseless and poorly formulated argument. 

 

None of your argument matters because he's not the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league, nor is he reasonably close to it. You can like Panarin and also recognize his contract is about 25% too much at this juncture.

[LindG1000]

39 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

None of your argument matters because he's not the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league, nor is he reasonably close to it. You can like Panarin and also recognize his contract is about 25% too much at this juncture.

Or you could recognize that the players are hilariously underpaid versus their peers and it's not that Panarin makes too much, but that lesser players make too little.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

Fox is so fucking good. 9.5M and get’s an A+ and has the highest +EV probability.

[RangersIn7]

43 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

None of your argument matters because he's not the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league, nor is he reasonably close to it. You can like Panarin and also recognize his contract is about 25% too much at this juncture.

That’s bullshit cause markets set prices. 
That’s what his value was on the market when he signed that contract. And he left money on the table from at least 1, if not 2, other teams. 
Plus, the year he signed the contract, he was one of the 2-3 best players in the league.
And markets change based on conditions and the goods/products and services available within them. And those things do depreciate. Which is why the tax code in this and other western countries allow for deductions based on depreciation.

 

It’s a bit different with athletes and individuals and their production level, but not entirely, especially in sports that have a hard cap which typically increases every year. Moreover, you do have a buyout provision.

And they have in the past granted amnesty buyouts to allow for precisely those things, due to changing conditions and depreciation among assets, which in this case are players. 
 

But what really makes the point is the fact that whatever his “true value”, they aren’t likely better without him. Even if he’s making too much. 
 

Now I’ll say that I wish he were making a bit less. But not because of what he’s produced through this point in his contract, but for the flexibility it would give them. 
But in no way are they getting cheated or ripped off and by in large I would say they’re very happy what he’s given them.

 

Long story short… they aren’t better without him under any realistic trade scenario or what it would potentially open up. And he’s not the problem.

[Phil]

2 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

Or you could recognize that the players are hilariously underpaid versus their peers and it's not that Panarin makes too much, but that lesser players make too little.

 

Relative to the actual cap ceiling? I don't think this is actually true. It feels, to me, like an argument that's often made in comparison to the NBA that fails for two reasons:

 

1. The NBA and NHL don't actually compare in product despite being linked on numerous fronts (Bettman, arena shares, TNT, etc). The NBA is largely a singular star-driven sport insofar as one player can absolutely make all the difference. That's not true of the NHL, which is much, much more reliant on the strength of the team than the strength of the individual.

 

2. The NBA's cap is exponentially higher and grows at a much faster rate year-to-year. Max contracts in that league, I believe, fluctuate between 25 and 35% of the cap, which is basically twice the NHL's, but when you account for point one, this discrepancy is explained away.

 

Should McDavid, Matthews, and MacKinnon all have "max" deals in the NHL? Probably, but I think it's completely reasonable to assert that, functionally, they already do.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

3 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

Or you could recognize that the players are hilariously underpaid versus their peers and it's not that Panarin makes too much, but that lesser players make too little.

So everyone is underpaid instead of him being overpaid?

 

The market decides. They never thought the cap would stay flat for so long when they signed him, so can’t blame them too much, but the fact is that he’s overpaid compared to his peers and he takes up too much of the cap.

 

He wasn’t overpaid the first two years because he actually was a top 3/5 player in the league. He’s not that anymore.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Flynn said:

I get it, I really do.. But these are zero value exercises that don't have shit to do with shit.  I guess you need to fill the offseason. 

Bingo. There's no one that takes this Athletic shit seriously.

 

You're grading cap management in '23 by highlighting a contract from '19. Makes no sense.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Pete

[Pete]

12 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Relative to the actual cap ceiling? I don't think this is actually true. It feels, to me, like an argument that's often made in comparison to the NBA that fails for two reasons:

 

1. The NBA and NHL don't actually compare in product despite being linked on numerous fronts (Bettman, arena shares, TNT, etc). The NBA is largely a singular star-driven sport insofar as one player can absolutely make all the difference. That's not true of the NHL, which is much, much more reliant on the strength of the team than the strength of the individual.

 

2. The NBA's cap is exponentially higher and grows at a much faster rate year-to-year. Max contracts in that league, I believe, fluctuate between 25 and 35% of the cap, which is basically twice the NHL's, but when you account for point one, this discrepancy is explained away.

 

Should McDavid, Matthews, and MacKinnon all have "max" deals in the NHL? Probably, but I think it's completely reasonable to assert that, functionally, they already do.

There's also a big difference in roster size. Fewer players means the all get bigger pieces of the pie.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, RangersIn7 said:

I can’t agree with that assessment man. And I get some of the venom that gets spit at him off of the postseason, but come on. He’s an extremely productive and dynamic offensive player. 
 

Now, I’ll take your point on the lack of flexibility it gives them cause as said, the large cap number makes moving him difficult and buying him out near impossible. I do agree on those points to a good extent. Just don’t think they are really pertinent.

 

Because here’s the thing… 

He’s a perennial 90+ point player through 4 seasons as a Ranger.

Pace out his points per game pace over that span per 82, and he’s at about a 104 point pace. 

They aren’t looking to trade him. They’d almost certainly lose any trade they made involving him.

We are NOWHERE NEAR a buyout. That’s not even in the picture.

If production does decline substantially in years 5-7, which we are in now, it’s probably something they expected on some level. And if that happens, they are and we’re screwed anyway, so it’s almost irrelevant.

 

The “Trade Panarin” conversation is inexplicable to me.

 

It’s a false narrative and a baseless and poorly formulated argument. 

Anyone saying the contract was bad when it was signed just has a skewed sense of reality. First it was  UFA signing so you're always paying more. Second COVID/flat cap. The contract is fine. The cap got fucked.

[Phil]

Just now, Pete said:

There's also a big difference in roster size. Fewer players means the all get bigger pieces of the pie.

 

Great point. Completely overlooked that.

[RangersIn7]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

Anyone saying the contract was bad when it was signed just has a skewed sense of reality. First it was  UFA signing so you're always paying more. Second COVID/flat cap. The contract is fine. The cap got fucked.

Ding ding ding!

 

We have a winner!

[RangersIn7]

25 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Relative to the actual cap ceiling? I don't think this is actually true. It feels, to me, like an argument that's often made in comparison to the NBA that fails for two reasons:

 

1. The NBA and NHL don't actually compare in product despite being linked on numerous fronts (Bettman, arena shares, TNT, etc). The NBA is largely a singular star-driven sport insofar as one player can absolutely make all the difference. That's not true of the NHL, which is much, much more reliant on the strength of the team than the strength of the individual.

 

2. The NBA's cap is exponentially higher and grows at a much faster rate year-to-year. Max contracts in that league, I believe, fluctuate between 25 and 35% of the cap, which is basically twice the NHL's, but when you account for point one, this discrepancy is explained away.

 

Should McDavid, Matthews, and MacKinnon all have "max" deals in the NHL? Probably, but I think it's completely reasonable to assert that, functionally, they already do.

Essentially yes, they do. And that number does change as the cap increases. 

[LindG1000]

34 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Relative to the actual cap ceiling? I don't think this is actually true. It feels, to me, like an argument that's often made in comparison to the NBA that fails for two reasons:

 

1. The NBA and NHL don't actually compare in product despite being linked on numerous fronts (Bettman, arena shares, TNT, etc). The NBA is largely a singular star-driven sport insofar as one player can absolutely make all the difference. That's not true of the NHL, which is much, much more reliant on the strength of the team than the strength of the individual.

 

2. The NBA's cap is exponentially higher and grows at a much faster rate year-to-year. Max contracts in that league, I believe, fluctuate between 25 and 35% of the cap, which is basically twice the NHL's, but when you account for point one, this discrepancy is explained away.

 

Should McDavid, Matthews, and MacKinnon all have "max" deals in the NHL? Probably, but I think it's completely reasonable to assert that, functionally, they already do.

 

It's not so much this as it is the forces working on rookie deals, second contracts, and the incentive structure around that. It's contract length, it's that rookie contracts last three years, are absolutely locked in and boosted only by performance bonuses, it's that the RFA market is entirely noncompetitive and set up to benefit rights-holders, and it's how the cap works (for example, at this moment, we owe Panarin exactly 19m over three years, not 34.8M - that's not how AAVs work, but that's absolutely how money works, and for example, how the NFL cap works). All of that conspires to fuck over players in their prime years and get fans to shit on them for taking the bag when they're slightly over the hill. But I digress some here.

 

But writ large (and oh boy, get ready for the extremely rare "G-Man criticizes Dom" post)....to say that Panarin is an anchor on the team or inefficient use of cap is a pretty dramatic take on a great player. Artemi Panarin is fourth in the NHL in points since we signed him, including 226 ES points. His 5v5 play fell off last season - didn't the whole damn team fall off last season?  We were not a good 5v5 team by the metrics that feed the model - it's systemic, not individual. 

 

Would any of you be shocked if a possession-driven Laviolette system flips Panarin to neutral or even positive value via this model? Neither would I. 

[RangersIn7]

4 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

It's not so much this as it is the forces working on rookie deals, second contracts, and the incentive structure around that. It's contract length, it's that rookie contracts last three years, are absolutely locked in and boosted only by performance bonuses, it's that the RFA market is entirely noncompetitive and set up to benefit rights-holders, and it's how the cap works (for example, at this moment, we owe Panarin exactly 19m over three years, not 34.8M - that's not how AAVs work, but that's absolutely how money works, and for example, how the NFL cap works). All of that conspires to fuck over players in their prime years and get fans to shit on them for taking the bag when they're slightly over the hill. But I digress some here.

 

But writ large (and oh boy, get ready for the extremely rare "G-Man criticizes Dom" post)....to say that Panarin is an anchor on the team or inefficient use of cap is a pretty dramatic take on a great player. Artemi Panarin is fourth in the NHL in points since we signed him, including 226 ES points. His 5v5 play fell off last season - didn't the whole damn team fall off last season?  We were not a good 5v5 team by the metrics that feed the model - it's systemic, not individual. 

 

Would any of you be shocked if a possession-driven Laviolette system flips Panarin to neutral or even positive value via this model? Neither would I. 

If he fell off last year, it’s at least in part due to him losing his riding partner of the first 3 years of his deal in Strome and having to break in a new one in Trochek. 

[LindG1000]

2 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

If he fell off last year, it’s at least in part due to him losing his riding partner of the first 3 years of his deal in Strome and having to break in a new one in Trochek. 

 

 

That dude? 

 

Chemistry can't be bought, huh?

[RangersIn7]

1 minute ago, LindG1000 said:

 

 

That dude? 

 

Chemistry can't be bought, huh?

I’m not entirely clear on what you’re saying bud.

 

 

[LindG1000]

Just now, RangersIn7 said:

I’m not entirely clear on what you’re saying bud.

 

 

Panarin struggled without Strome. Strome cratered without Panarin.

 

Can't buy what they had.