A few additional thoughts after last night’s post.
Back in the Summer of Kovalchuk, much was made of the fact that the tail of the (ultimately rejected) contract was minuscule compared to the front-loaded years, by a long shot when compared to other similar deals (e.g. Luongo, Hossa). I wrote a post called The League’s Case, which included this chart:
player term tail tail/term tail value t$/yr top years ratio Luongo 12 3 25.00% $3.6 $1.2 $23.4 15.44% Zetterberg 12 2 16.67% $2.0 $1.0 $15.2 13.20% Hossa 12 4 33.33% $4.0 $1.0 $31.6 12.66% Kovalchuk 17 6 35.29% $3.5 $0.6 $68.0 5.15%The columns:“term” = length of contract. “tail” = the length of the tail. “tail/term” = the ratio of the length of the tail to the overall term (i.e. how big is the tail relative to the “dog”). “tail value” = the total salary paid over the course of the tail years.“t$/yr” = the average salary during the tail years. “top years” = the total of the commensurate top salary years (for example, if the tail is 6 years long, “top years” tallies the top six salary years; if the tail is 2 years long, the “top years” column tallies the top two salary years). Lastly, “ratio” = the ratio of the tail $$ to the top years’ $$.[…] [Note that] the ratio of the tail dollars to the top dollars is two or three times smaller than everyone else’s. Luongo gets about a sixth of his top salary during his last years. Kovalchuk gets about a twentieth.
Now let’s update the chart with the Weber numbers. We’ll include the numbers as reported, and the adjusted numbers per my last post (link above).
|player||term||tail||tail/term||tail value||t$/yr||top years||ratio|
What interests me about these numbers is that, while the Weber offer sheet is careful to keep the tail relatively short, compared to the front-loaded years, the tail is still very close to the ridiculous Kovalchuk ratio of 5.15%. Even the non-adjusted number, 7.1%, is much more Kovalchukian than the Luongo, Zetterberg, Hossa deals. And the adjusted number, 5.5%, is nearly the same as the offensive Kovalchuk ratio, the one we all mocked so openly two years ago.
The reason for this, of course, is that Weber’s contract pays much, much more money in the biggest three years than even Kovalchuk’s rejected deal did ($11.5 for each of three years, $34.5 total — compared to $42 for Weber, or $55 adjusted).
The point being, if Kovalchuk’s tail was a circumvention, it’s arguable that Weber’s is, too.