Hartnell's 6-year extension

[brelic]

I think this kinda flew under the radar for me. I didn't pay much attention to it at the time.

But Hartnell signed a 6-year extension @ $4.75M per season that starts next year.

This is another example of cap and asset mismanagement.

Hartnell has already peaked. He will never sniff 37 goals again, let alone 30. He will not crack 65 points again. In fact, I would be surprised if he hits 50 points again in his career.

He is 31 years old, and is under contract with the Flyers until he's 37. And this contract was signed under the new CBA, with supposed full knowledge of how long, unfulfilled contracts can continue to hamper a team's salary cap.

ANd, of course, for good measure, the contract has been upgraded from having an NTC to a wonderful NMC.

So, to sum up, too much money (he's no longer a $5M player), too long at his age, and too restrictive for the club.

Just another day in the office for the Flyers.

[Digityman]

I said it at the time, my grandmother would have had a career year with Giroux and Jagr on her line.

It was another stupid contract just based on it's length. 4m would have been fine but it's the length that's the issue obviously.

[albertaflyer]

Actually for a guy like Hartnell that's a pretty reasonable contract. He left a lot of money on the table to stay in Philly. If you look around the league at some of the guys making 5 mill or more Hartnell brings a lot more to the table. On another topic anyone notice Hartnell tweets yesterday towards his ex-wife. Pretty funny stuff. I'm going to take it that didn't end well. I'll try find them and post them.

[brelic]

Actually for a guy like Hartnell that's a pretty reasonable contract. He left a lot of money on the table to stay in Philly. If you look around the league at some of the guys making 5 mill or more Hartnell brings a lot more to the table. On another topic anyone notice Hartnell tweets yesterday towards his ex-wife. Pretty funny stuff. I'm going to take it that didn't end well. I'll try find them and post them.

Yes, that would be a great contract... for 3 years. Not 6. The length is always the freaking issue with Homer.

Bryzgalov would have been a fine contract... for 3 years. Not 9.

Pronger would have been an excellent contract... for 3 years. Not 7.

I know 3 year contracts are not popular... so meet somewhere in the middle. But, nope. Not this team.

[toughfighter83]

i think briere and hartnell contracts have to go, if this team wants to compete they have to get rid of these contracts, i like briere and i dont like hartnell to be honest, so it's time to move on unless we are stuck with these contracts and there's no chance of this team competing with less salary cap space.

[brelic]

i think briere and hartnell contracts have to go, if this team wants to compete they have to get rid of these contracts, i like briere and i dont like hartnell to be honest, so it's time to move on unless we are stuck with these contracts and there's no chance of this team competing with less salary cap space.

We are stuck. OUr best chance at trading Briere flew out the window after he was concussed. He will be bought out at the end of the year, I would hope. And that can only happen if he is not injured!

And with Hartnell, he has a full NMC, signed until he's 37. Who's going to want that contract if we don't even want it? And he controls his destiny.

[ruxpin]

I didn't see this extension until just now. All I can say is WOW.

[flyercanuck]

You could see why Holmgren would do this though. I mean the Briere and Pronger and Richards and Carter and Bryzgalov deals have all worked out so well.

[ctid]

@flyercanuck

"You could see why Holmgren would do this though. I mean the Briere and Pronger and Richards and Carter and Bryzgalov deals have all worked out so well."

lol...sarcasm at its best

[canoli]

Yes, that would be a great contract... for 3 years. Not 6. The length is always the freaking issue with Homer.

Bryzgalov would have been a fine contract... for 3 years. Not 9.

Pronger would have been an excellent contract... for 3 years. Not 7.

I know 3 year contracts are not popular... so meet somewhere in the middle. But, nope. Not this team.

as i'm sure you realize contract lengths are a function of the salary, which is determined by the market, what GMs around the league are likely to offer. So you take the good - which presumably is what the player brings to your team - with the bad, the length of the contract. There's just no way around it. Complaining about the length is fair IF you're willing to walk away and not sign the guy.

[brelic]

as i'm sure you realize contract lengths are a function of the salary, which is determined by the market, what GMs around the league are likely to offer. So you take the good - which presumably is what the player brings to your team - with the bad, the length of the contract. There's just no way around it. Complaining about the length is fair IF you're willing to walk away and not sign the guy.

I would be willing to walk away. Hartnell has served this team very well. I like the guy. If he won't take, say, $5.0-5.5M over 3/4 years, then let him walk. To me, it is worse to handcuff the team with long-term, NMC contracts.

[canoli]

If he won't take, say, $5.0-5.5M over 3/4 years, then let him walk.

Lol the ol' Squeeze Play eh? You figure Hartnell should take a "hometown discount" but that's not the way the business works. Hartnell, along with every other player "answers" to the NHLPA to some degree, and while players and their agents make the decisions they can't - they won't - accept $1mil/year less for anybody. Oh there have been some examples I'm sure. Many would say Hartnell did take a discount to stay in Philly. But it rarely happens. In a perfect world of Kumbaya, sure. In business...I don't think so.

[brelic]

Lol the ol' Squeeze Play eh? You figure Hartnell should take a "hometown discount" but that's not the way the business works. Hartnell, along with every other player "answers" to the NHLPA to some degree, and while players and their agents make the decisions they can't - they won't - accept $1mil/year less for anybody. Oh there have been some examples I'm sure. Many would say Hartnell did take a discount to stay in Philly. But it rarely happens. In a perfect world of Kumbaya, sure. In business...I don't think so.

Hehe, damn straight I put the squeeze play on him. The fact is, we have a better, younger, hungrier version of him in Simmonds.

And I wouldn't consider $5.5M over 3 years to be a hometown discount. For what will amount to 50 points a year, that's a very generous contract.

The reality is that Giroux will likely end up getting around $8M or more per year over what I suspect to be 8 years, full NMC. It's great that we locked up SImmonds for 6 years as he's part of the core now. He's better than Hartnell.

So why did we need to lock up Hartnell for 6 years again? We simply don't need him for that long, and I think it was another bad negotiation by Homer.

EDIT: Just want to add that the Flyers tend to give up on young players too early, and hang on to declining ones too long. It's the inverse of what a successful hockey club should do.

[radoran]

This was signed (along with Simmonds) before the lockout.

Having signed the players to this contract, their owner turned around and suggested that they be cut 20% immediately.

I liked the Simmonds deal, but the Hartnell deal is a real head-scratcher for me. Aside from the obvious "Flyers" nature of it all.

[toughfighter83]

We are stuck. OUr best chance at trading Briere flew out the window after he was concussed. He will be bought out at the end of the year, I would hope. And that can only happen if he is not injured!

And with Hartnell, he has a full NMC, signed until he's 37. Who's going to want that contract if we don't even want it? And he controls his destiny.

so does bryz, so it means he cant be bought out either?

[brelic]

This was signed (along with Simmonds) before the lockout.

Having signed the players to this contract, their owner turned around and suggested that they be cut 20% immediately.

I liked the Simmonds deal, but the Hartnell deal is a real head-scratcher for me. Aside from the obvious "Flyers" nature of it all.

I'm in the same boat. I think the Simmonds deal makes sense, as he is part of the core, and is young enough (24) to warrant a 6-year contract. And while Hartnell might still be considered "core" to the team, it's hard to justify a 6 year contract.

[Digityman]

Actually for a guy like Hartnell that's a pretty reasonable contract. He left a lot of money on the table to stay in Philly. If you look around the league at some of the guys making 5 mill or more Hartnell brings a lot more to the table. On another topic anyone notice Hartnell tweets yesterday towards his ex-wife. Pretty funny stuff. I'm going to take it that didn't end well. I'll try find them and post them.

My point is that before Jagr was on this team, Hartnell wasn't worth 4.5m & 6 years with NMC. In fact, most wanted Hartnell gone for a few years. Then all of a sudden he has a career year and he gets a completely inflated contract. I have no doubt that in less than a years time, people will be dragging his name through the mud once again.

To me he isn't a 1st line player. He's at best a 2nd line player if not a 3rd. Just MHO.

[Digityman]

so does bryz, so it means he cant be bought out either?

Anyone can be bought out. Bryz, Harts, Briere..... except for those on LTIR (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

[aziz]

Actually for a guy like Hartnell that's a pretty reasonable contract.

well, hinges on what you think hartnell actually is, as a player. if you think he is the 65+ point power forward who has a ton of attitude on the ice and is good in the room, then yes, pretty reasonable. if you think he is a declining 40-45 point power forward, not so much. hartnell has seen 50 points for the last time in his career, nevermind 65. (unless, of course, you put him next to a pair of offensive dynamos, but then, pretty much anyone would produce well in that scenario) the flyers are going to be paying for that one single solitary season for 6 more years, which is pretty much as unreasonable as it gets.

the other hand to it, I know, is that *some* GM out there was likely to give hartnell pretty decent money, so Holmgren had to pay if he wanted to keep hartnell around. this is the problem with Holmgren, though: he does not weigh value versus cost. he decides he needs to keep a guy, and then pays absolutely whatever it takes to make that happen. players are worth a certain amount, and no more. I understand he wanted to keep hartnell on the team, chemistry, PR, all sorts of reasons, but there is a cap to how valuable those things are. a level of expense that is not worth spending. hartnell will be a third line player soon, some would say is right now. a third line player with almost no defensive value. that spot on your roster is not worth $4.75mil, that roll CAN NOT command that large a chunk of the team's capspace. if it does, you HAVE to shortchange somewhere else to compensate, that is how you get into the kinds of messes the flyers are in right this very moment. tragically misallocated cap room resulting in a dysfunctional roster cobbled together from mismatched pieces, riddled with holes and players forced into roles and responsibilities they can not fulfill.

the more I think about it look at these things individually, the more I think Holmgren can not be allowed to touch this roster going forward. trading moratorium until the season is over, and then move him to the desk next to Clarke.

Edited April 2, 2013 by aziz

[DaGreatGazoo]

As recently, as last week, Hartnell was a 4th line player--I'm sure that makes everyone feel better.

[ruxpin]

I put the squeeze play on him

If you put the squeeze play on him, won't he just fall down?

Actually, I am assuming that at some point there is a hand shake over the deal. He probably fell down from that, too. #hartnelldown

[jammer2]

I think a lot of people don't realize the actual pricey element of adding grit to your team. I always point to Brandon Prust who signed with Montreal as a UFA last summer. He got a 5 year deal at 2.5 mill and had 2 regular season goals the season before he signed. It's quite costly to add grit, when you toss in some scoring....the price goes way up. Even if Harts floats around 50 pts, his 5 mill is actualy pretty fair in todays market.

My problem is the same as everyone elses, the age combined with the length, it was not a good business decision...but I would been more than fine with a 3-4 year deal...but 6 is crazy....he can't really skate now, at the end of this deal, he will be useless. I do like Harts though, he knows his role well and is fearless, gets in anybodys face and will not back down to anyone...I like that about Scott, he makes the team tougher to play against, which is always a good thing. Thing that sucks is his propensity for taking bad minor penalty's.....he will lose you 2-3 games singlehandely just by taking ill timed penalties that leave the team short handed at really bad times.

[flyercanuck]

@jammer2

Another thing about Hartnell is, he's quite the character. That doesn't warrant a 6 year deal or anything. But it's something that doesn't get mentioned much and is important to a team. It's good to have someone who keeps the team loose. Nobody laughs at hartnell more than he does.

[canoli]

No doubt Hartnell's season was an anomaly last year. But what prevents the Flyers from recreating that type of line again? In some respects Jagr was the weak link anyway not Hartnell, especially down the stretch. I can't believe anyone considers Clowe a candidate for top line minutes. There's Simmonds but he's so versatile I'd rather use him away from Giroux. So unless we're okay with a $4.75mil player skating 12 minutes a night we better figure out how to get Hartnell back where he's most effective. If we don't then the dire predictions about his career will come true - he'll top out at 40-some points every year. But if we get a strong winger to complement Giroux and Hartnell - maybe it's Jake maybe not - there's no reason Hartnell can't score 30+ goals again.

[brelic]

@jammer2 and @flyercanuck

Yeah, I also love a lot of what Hartnell brings to the team... but as you said jammer, it's not so much the money, but the length. In 3-4 years time, I guarantee you we'll be wishing he were gone. And maybe someone will want him, but we'll be hamstrung by his NMC. I understand a player wanting security, but seriously, you should either get an NMC or a long contract. One gives you location safety, the other gives you financial safety. But an astute GM shouldn't give it to both*

*The exception is to franchise players, like Crosby, Giroux, Toews. It's more important to do what you can (need) to keep them.