Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Mikko Koivu Signs 7 Year Extension


roy_133

Recommended Posts

The Wild resigned Koivu for 7 years, 6.75 per and a NTC.

Koivu is very, very good. Actually probably underrated, as good a 2-way center as there is. It seems steep though based on term and money, usually 7 years will lower the cap hit significantly.

I only bring this up because despite the fact I don't think he's as good as Mikko, makes the Plekanec signing look pretty friendly.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2010...15/sp-wild.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only bring this up because despite the fact I don't think he's as good as Mikko, makes the Plekanec signing look pretty friendly.

I was just coming here to post the exact same thing.

I actually dont think there's as much of a difference between the two as you do - I mean obviously koivu has a huge size advantage, but i think pleks (usually) makes up for that in position.

They are extremly "similar" players imho - both gifted offensively and underrated defensively - and both young-ish.

Plek's deal looks even better now, for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just coming here to post the exact same thing.

I actually dont think there's as much of a difference between the two as you do - I mean obviously koivu has a huge size advantage, but i think pleks (usually) makes up for that in position.

They are extremly "similar" players imho - both gifted offensively and underrated defensively - and both young-ish.

Plek's deal looks even better now, for sure.

Koivu is definitely bigger and more physical, he's also significantly better in the face off circle and is as just as well positioned and smart as Plekanec. IMO he's definitely better than Tomas but not 1.75 per year better probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was also thinking about Koivu and Plekanec's signing, good we already signed Pleky before this, they both reached their 1st 70 points this season (70 points Pleky, 71 points Koivu), and both are 27 years old. Plekanec's 5m/year sound good compared with Koivu's contract. Probably a lil more pay for the leadership qualities Koivu has, must be in the family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting decision. I'm not sure what Minnesota is doing out there in St. Paul. It seems to me like year-in, year-out, they only perpetuate mediocrity. Which is too bad given that the fanbase seems supportive of hockey. There cap situation seems ugly, IMO, and this makes it worse. I like Koivu, but I hope they are going to start surrounding him with a better supporting cast instead of the overpaid Andrew Brunette, Antti Miettinen, Chuck Kobasew, Pierre-Marc Bouchard, and underachieving Martin Havlat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, anyone still feel bad about the Plekanec contract? :lol:

I know Im going to get some flack for this, but the more I think about this (Mikko's) contract, the more I dislike it & think its actually up there with Gomez'

I mean Mikko is clearly being payed for the potential for more - he's had one 71 point season and a few in the 55-65pt range. Gomez, on the other hand signed his contract 2 years after his 84 point season. He's had 3 seasons of 70 or more (4 if you pro-rate 06-07, shortened due to injuries).

Both are very good defensively, so its not like they are lacking in certain areas. I know that people will point to Koivu's "C" and say he brings "intangibles" but Gomez has had an "A" most of his career, seems well liked by his teammates and if you want to talk intangibles, you have to include the 2 stanley cup rings. Yes, Koivu is MUCH bigger and plays a grittier game than gomez, but at the end of the day, who cares how you score 70 points while playing a 2 way game - as long as you do? Gomez is faster and a more slick passer -they both have their advantages (and disadvantages).

Their contracts will end when they are close to the same age - but Gomez' contract is front loaded, so in his final year or 2 he will likely be very moveable to a poor team looking to meet cap requirements - they might even give you something of value for him. Koivu's contract sees him paid the most in his FINAL year - which seems like madness.

Anyway, I'm not trying to start a "gomez vs. mikko" discussion - i just thought it was interesting in evaluating, since everyone seems to agree Scott's contract is a bad one (myself included) - and based on that & their similarities, Im not sure how you can view Mikko's as anything but bad too. And yes, I know Scott still makes a bit more per year, but we're talking about the difference of Matthieu Darche - not exactly a huge amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Jed. The deal, IMO, is not a great one. I also don't understand why they would structure the yearly salary like that... Up and down and up and down and up...? :huh: Minnesota somehow have themselves in a bad cap situation for the players they have. The "hope" that Koivu is going to turn out to produce more than he already has is 'iffy' at best. Not with the supporting cast they have around him, anyway. Havlat, Cullen, Bouchard? That's not top-tier talent, IMO, and I don't think that overpaying Koivu before he proves that he's worth that much is a savvy decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Jed. The deal, IMO, is not a great one. I also don't understand why they would structure the yearly salary like that... Up and down and up and down and up...? :huh: Minnesota somehow have themselves in a bad cap situation for the players they have. The "hope" that Koivu is going to turn out to produce more than he already has is 'iffy' at best. Not with the supporting cast they have around him, anyway. Havlat, Cullen, Bouchard? That's not top-tier talent, IMO, and I don't think that overpaying Koivu before he proves that he's worth that much is a savvy decision.

At first glance I'd agree with you, but I've got a theory as to why this (rather odd) contract makes sense, and is actually pretty novel. Maybe one of the capologists here can tell me if my theory holds water.

From http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=327566:

Koivu's annual base salary will be $5.4 million with bonuses of $1.89 million paid every other year and a double instalment to raise the figure to $9.18 million in the final season.

So basically this is an annual cap hit of $5.4M plus bonuses. Now I know that bonuses count against the cap, but from my understanding each team is allowed to go over the cap by the amount of those bonuses and have them count against the next year's cap if they are met - but only in a year when the CBA cannot be renegotiated. Last year was one of the years where this was allowed, which is why we see teams like Chicago having to count last year's bonus payments against this year's cap.

However, in years where there is an option to renegotiate the CBA (whether it is the players and/or the league who can excercise that option) ALL bonuses count against the CURRENT YEAR's cap. I think (and I could be wrong) that this happened two years ago, but everyone involved decided to extend the current CBA. Even so, all bonus money counted against the cap up front for that year. I think this year is another one of those years, although I'm not sure if they can simply extend it again for another two years or if they need to negotiate another agreement. Regardless, though, it seems more than coincidental that Koivu's bonuses happen every second year... especially seeing as how the first high year is next year when bonuses can be carried over.

So here's how I see this contract working. Each year he's basically got a cap hit of $5.4. If it's a bonus year and he reaches his goals then whatever extra he earns counts on the next year's cap. If he doesn't reach his goals... well, the next year he's got the same $5.4 cap hit. Because Koivu is never owed bonuses on a year when the CBA may be renegotiated there is never any risk involved on the part of the Wild.

To sum up, if he plays well the wild have to pay the full cap hit - but since he's playing well he's probably worth it and the Wild don't mind paying that much. If he's not playing well or gets seriously injured or anything else, however, he's got a cap hit of $5.4 million.

Whether you think he's worth $5.4M a season is up to you, but the deal itself is pretty slick ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean Mikko is clearly being payed for the potential for more - he's had one 71 point season and a few in the 55-65pt range. Gomez, on the other hand signed his contract 2 years after his 84 point season. He's had 3 seasons of 70 or more (4 if you pro-rate 06-07, shortened due to injuries).

So I guess that kind of adresses your point too, Jed. He's being paid $5.4 based on potential, but the rest only comes if he actually fulfills his potential

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess that kind of adresses your point too, Jed. He's being paid $5.4 based on potential, but the rest only comes if he actually fulfills his potential

True - IF - your explanation does work out...im not sure as Im no cap expert, but the cap sites all have him listed at $6.75m no matter what. Further, we dont know what those bonuses are. I dont suspect they are "if you hit 100 points" - much more likely they are for benchmarks that we might consider to be letdowns for his contract...

Tough to say, without all the facts, but you're right, the bonus angle makes it at least look better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you guys are seriously wrong in criticizing the cap hit of this deal. It is imo an excellent deal for the Wild.

They are signing a legitimate number 1 center to a 7-year deal at 6.75 million per year. I argue that not only is this a good deal now.... I think it will be a total steal for the Wild in 2018 when the deal runs through its final season.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_Salary_Cap

In 2005-06, the salary cap stood at 39.0 million. For 2010-11, it stands at 59.4 million, that's an increase of 8.8% a year. If it keeps doing that well it will be at around 107 million in the final year of Mikko Koivu's contract. He'll be 34 years old then, probably a lower-tier first line center or an upper-tier second line center, and they'll have him for the equivalent of ~3.75 million in today's cap environment. It's actually even less than that, because the way the salary cap is structured the bulk of any change in the salary cap goes to the top 4 or 5 players on the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first glance I'd agree with you, but I've got a theory as to why this (rather odd) contract makes sense, and is actually pretty novel. Maybe one of the capologists here can tell me if my theory holds water.

From http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=327566:

Koivu's annual base salary will be $5.4 million with bonuses of $1.89 million paid every other year and a double instalment to raise the figure to $9.18 million in the final season.

So basically this is an annual cap hit of $5.4M plus bonuses. Now I know that bonuses count against the cap, but from my understanding each team is allowed to go over the cap by the amount of those bonuses and have them count against the next year's cap if they are met - but only in a year when the CBA cannot be renegotiated. Last year was one of the years where this was allowed, which is why we see teams like Chicago having to count last year's bonus payments against this year's cap.

However, in years where there is an option to renegotiate the CBA (whether it is the players and/or the league who can excercise that option) ALL bonuses count against the CURRENT YEAR's cap. I think (and I could be wrong) that this happened two years ago, but everyone involved decided to extend the current CBA. Even so, all bonus money counted against the cap up front for that year. I think this year is another one of those years, although I'm not sure if they can simply extend it again for another two years or if they need to negotiate another agreement. Regardless, though, it seems more than coincidental that Koivu's bonuses happen every second year... especially seeing as how the first high year is next year when bonuses can be carried over.

So here's how I see this contract working. Each year he's basically got a cap hit of $5.4. If it's a bonus year and he reaches his goals then whatever extra he earns counts on the next year's cap. If he doesn't reach his goals... well, the next year he's got the same $5.4 cap hit. Because Koivu is never owed bonuses on a year when the CBA may be renegotiated there is never any risk involved on the part of the Wild.

To sum up, if he plays well the wild have to pay the full cap hit - but since he's playing well he's probably worth it and the Wild don't mind paying that much. If he's not playing well or gets seriously injured or anything else, however, he's got a cap hit of $5.4 million.

Whether you think he's worth $5.4M a season is up to you, but the deal itself is pretty slick ;)

The key is it doesn't say "performance" bonuses. The way I read that quote is that he signed a deal like (numbers fake):

Year 1: 5 million

Year 2: 7 million

Year 3: 5 million

Year 4: 7 million

Year 5: 5 million

Year 6: 7 million

Year 9: 9 million

So they call anything over the "5 million" a "bonus", but I'm not sure if it is a "bonus" as far s the CBA is concerned. I'm just guessing though, could be totally wrong here.

I think you guys are seriously wrong in criticizing the cap hit of this deal. It is imo an excellent deal for the Wild.

They are signing a legitimate number 1 center to a 7-year deal at 6.75 million per year. I argue that not only is this a good deal now.... I think it will be a total steal for the Wild in 2018 when the deal runs through its final season.

At this point in time, he's a number 1 center like Scott Gomez is a number 1 center (except less proven). He's a good player, but the number does seem slightly high for even his best season, for his career it's even worse. The deal only works out if he continues to improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you guys are seriously wrong in criticizing the cap hit of this deal. It is imo an excellent deal for the Wild.

They are signing a legitimate number 1 center to a 7-year deal at 6.75 million per year.

71 points 1 time in his career? Thats a "legitmate #1 centre" ? What does that make gomez? An elite centre? ( 4 - 70+ point seasons including an 84 point one)

I argue that not only is this a good deal now.... I think it will be a total steal for the Wild in 2018 when the deal runs through its final season.

I guess we'll have to wait and see ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...