Tarasenko signs 8-year, $60 million contract

[flyercanuck]

@jammer2

 

Hopefully the kid works out. I'm just not a fan of those contracts.

 

Mike Richards, with far less skill, put up more points than Tarasenko did at the age of 23. How'd that work out? And if anyone was all heart coming out of junior, it was Richards.

[jammer2]

@flyercanuck  Hah, I always guaranteed Richards would lift the cup, silly me just didn't know it would be for a different team.

[ruxpin]

@flyercanuck  Yeah, I really thought Carter and Richards were going to be Flyers for life at one time, so I know what you mean. I can't find it right now, but Tarasenko was the quote of the day on NHL.com yesterday. He was basicallly saying how he was raised to always strive to be better, and how he will never be satisfied with the amount of goals he scores...and how he lays awake at night dreaming of the cup. Sounds to me, like he had a solid upbringing and has a good head on his shoulders. Might be all talk, but it's certainly the type of talk you want to hear out the guy you just signed for 8 years.

 

A lot of people say that before they actually get the money.  I don't think it's "all talk."  What he said could be (and I have no reason to think it's not) sincere and earnest.  And the good upbringing/head on shoulders can describe a lot of young kids.   Until after the fact.  We'll find out in 3-4 years, probably.

 

This is my problem with "organizations need to do better at evaluating their players' heads," etc.  (liberally paraphrased).   Because I really don't think there's a legitimate test or evaluation to know how someone is going to respond to a 360° change in lifestyle...until after the fact.

 

So, it remains a crap shoot.  And it remains why the long contracts probably are not a good idea.

[radoran]

A lot of people say that before they actually get the money. I don't think it's "all talk." What he said could be (and I have no reason to think it's not) sincere and earnest. And the good upbringing/head on shoulders can describe a lot of young kids. Until after the fact. We'll find out in 3-4 years, probably.

This is my problem with "organizations need to do better at evaluating their players' heads," etc. (liberally paraphrased). Because I really don't think there's a legitimate test or evaluation to know how someone is going to respond to a 360° change in lifestyle...until after the fact.

So, it remains a crap shoot. And it remains why the long contracts probably are not a good idea.

I do think that cautionary tales like Bryzgalov and Richards do show that if you do even a moderate amount of research into a player you can have a better chance to avoid these problems.

Richards clearly had issues even before his oxyproblems. Dry island wasn't created out of whole cloth.

Bryzgalov was, well... Bryzgalov.

The Flyers threw money at Bryz in a real rush to judgement. And they threw money at Richards to make him into "the next Bobby Clarke" they had touted him as from the moment he was drafted.

Serious, major mistakes that coul have been avoided - in Bryz's case by not mortgaging the team and in Richards' by not anointing him a Flyer legend and forcing his square peg i to the round hole of the captaincy efore mortgaging the franchise on a 12 year deal.

Or the NHL can simply keep doing the same thing and expect different results.

It's why the owners forced the players to limit the offers theowners could make.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Move over David Backes, move over TJ Oshie (oh wait, he got moved over...way over to Washington DC   ), meet the NEW face of the Blues franchise!

 

That said, it won't mean diddly twerks if

A) The Blues can't get equally gifted players to go along with Tarasenko

B) The team simply cannot play a complete 60 minute game that doesn't involve them thinking they will intimidate everyone in every game they play.

 

On the whole though, the Blues needed to have a young anchor for the next decade, and I can't think of a better guy they had on their roster for that than Vladimir Tarasenko.

 

Statsny, Berglund, Steen, Backes....you got Tarasenko locked up in St. Louis, Oshie is no more, time to earn those paychecks boys.

[ruxpin]

I do think that cautionary tales like Bryzgalov and Richards do show that if you do even a moderate amount of research into a player you can have a better chance to avoid these problems.

Richards clearly had issues even before his oxyproblems. Dry island wasn't created out of whole cloth.

Bryzgalov was, well... Bryzgalov.

The Flyers threw money at Bryz in a real rush to judgement. And they threw money at Richards to make him into "the next Bobby Clarke" they had touted him as from the moment he was drafted.

Serious, major mistakes that coul have been avoided - in Bryz's case by not mortgaging the team and in Richards' by not anointing him a Flyer legend and forcing his square peg i to the round hole of the captaincy efore mortgaging the franchise on a 12 year deal.

Or the NHL can simply keep doing the same thing and expect different results.

It's why the owners forced the players to limit the offers theowners could make.

 

You gave two examples that were Flyer/Holmgren examples.   That's like citing the experience of a lifelong quadriplegic in a discussion of whether or not it's safe to swim in the dark.

 

But I get your point.  Obviously, it's easier when there are clear signs.   The Bryz and Richards examples were not cases of an organization not doing extra work or psychoanalysis of a player to determine how they were going to handle big money and longterm security.  They were each cases of an organization and a GM willfully refusing to see what was clearly obvious.  I think most of us knew Bryz was a disaster before the ink was dry.  Richards was never dry and he was right under their noses.  They actually moved other players out because of the nonsense and then sign him to a huge contract.  That's not ignorance or negligence.  That's flat out willful stupidity.

 

But there are cases where a player was fairly good before the longterm/big money contract and the lifestyle change proved to be corrupting.  (Kind of an auxiliary to Hubert Humphrey's "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."   Just change "power" to "money.")  I just think you get ten players with decent skill and similar near Boy Scout behavior and throw them each $8M+ for 8-10 years and at least 4 of them will end up complacent and/or in some sort of behavioral trouble.

[jammer2]

  The one other thing to factor in here, Tarasenko plays with just good offensive players, not great by any stretch of the imagination. Guys like Oshie and Backes have proven to be easily shut down in a tight series, and their point totals are just very average. Imagine what kind of stats Tara would put up playing with an elite play-making center?

[radoran]

You gave two examples that were Flyer/Holmgren examples.   That's like citing the experience of a lifelong quadriplegic in a discussion of whether or not it's safe to swim in the dark.

I gave two examples that many are intimately familiar with.

And of course "you'll never know until it happens" but I think there were observers of both deals when they happened saying "are you f'n NUTS!?!?"

[ruxpin]

I gave two examples that many are intimately familiar with.

And of course "you'll never know until it happens" but I think there were observers of both deals when they happened saying "are you f'n NUTS!?!?"

Yes. We agree on this point. But these are quite obvious cases. Or should have been if anyone was paying the slightest bit of attention. If all people are saying is" pay the slightest bit of attention and at least rule out the obvious cases," then yeah, no discussion from me whatsoever.

I'm just saying that in fairly normal circumstances you could be paying attention, you could weigh behavior, etc. up to that point and reasonably conclude "yeah, he'll be fine" until he is, 2-3 years in with money and job security and goes all Lindsey Lohan. Or at the very least unmotivated.

My initial hesitation wasn't about the obvious cases that anyone who's conscious should rule out. Just saying for the average case, it will be a crap shoot regardless.

I guess I mean it this way: examining the prior behavior and attitude, etc. is probably a better predictive tool to guard against obvious failure than one to confidently predict success.

[radoran]

I could be wrong but I get the impression most franchises are using the "look me in the eye" test as opposed to actual professional evaluations.

If they even bother to look them in the eye in the first place. #homercoaster

Also, too, that teams pay guys to be who they WANT them to be over who they ARE.

Teams also need to be willing to just walk away from guys, especially in a capped league. "We gave up picks to get him" or "he was my draft pick so he's my guy" aren't legitimate reasons to keep players in and of themselves.

Again, if we see these sort of deals repeatedly blowing up in team's faces with unmotivatdd millionaires, they're going to make a real run at the guranteed contract. Richards and L.A. is the tip of that iceberg.

At the very least they've already gotten the players to agree to force the owners to stop offering decade long deals. But I think the primary problem with those sort of deals was injury and the real motivation behind them was cap circumvention.

[jammer2]

@radoran  Of course, if you want to *walk away*, the best thing is to not invest all types of draft picks and assets into acquiring him in the first place, like Homer did with MacDonald. The initial investment made it impossible to walk away. The "should we sign him long term" discussion should have taken place before the trade was made...and I'm not sure that was the order it occured in.

[ruxpin]

I could be wrong but I get the impression most franchises are using the "look me in the eye" test as opposed to actual professional evaluations.

If they even bother to look them in the eye in the first place. #homercoaster

Also, too, that teams pay guys to be who they WANT them to be over who they ARE.

Teams also need to be willing to just walk away from guys, especially in a capped league. "We gave up picks to get him" or "he was my draft pick so he's my guy" aren't legitimate reasons to keep players in and of themselves.

Again, if we see these sort of deals repeatedly blowing up in team's faces with unmotivatdd millionaires, they're going to make a real run at the guranteed contract. Richards and L.A. is the tip of that iceberg.

At the very least they've already gotten the players to agree to force the owners to stop offering decade long deals. But I think the primary problem with those sort of deals was injury and the real motivation behind them was cap circumvention.

 

I can't disagree with any of that.  (Well, I could, but I'd be wrong).

[Podein25]

I can't disagree with any of that.

 

 

I disagree.

 

You can, you're just not trying hard enough. It's easy if you try. 

[radoran]

I disagree.

 

You can, you're just not trying hard enough. It's easy if you try.

Do or do not. There is no try.