Dose: Contract years wilting

We all have our obsessions, fixations and quirks.

While I believe that broader fantasy hockey success - and, really, success in real sports like the NHL - comes down to stacking up as many good decisions as possible while limiting or adapting to the bad ones, sometimes weird little ticks are what tend to separate “experts” and fanatics. After all, if the general level of knowledge is comparable, maybe it’s the oddball variables (soft spots for certain players, weird grudges and bad injury memories for others) that can move the needle.

I’ve long been fascinated by the natural motivational force that is the contract year.

Now, it’s not an exact science; in fact, you could reasonably call it a pseudoscience. Some players are weird differently. Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin have always been re-signed at basically the first moments the Pittsburgh Penguins could do so (lets out a sad little whimper), and one would be foolish to question their drive.

THE DECLINE OF THE CONTRACT YEAR

The prospect of a full contract year for Marc-Andre Fleury had struck me as especially intriguing, though. “MAF” is a common whipping boy, particularly in unforgiving hockey communities that look past his Stanley Cup ring and fixate on his often underwhelming individual stats.

Sign up for some fantasy hockey over at Yahoo and make sure to get a copy of Rotoworld's Draft Guide.

Also don't forget, for everything NHL, check out Rotoworld's up to the minute coverage on Player News, as well as follow @Rotoworld_HK and @cyclelikesedins on Twitter.

Even so, there have been enough flashes of brilliance from the top pick of the 2003 NHL Draft that I was curious to see how far he could push himself in 2014-15. It's easy to forget his 2008 playoff run, which oddly enough, was way better individually than the 2009 championship year immortalized by his sprawling Game 7 save on Nicklas Lidstrom. In 20 postseason games in 2008, Fleury went 14-6 with a brilliant .933 save percentage. He hasn't approached that work (.905 career postseason save percentage), although look at what he's done so far: 7-2-0 with a .931 save percentage, including three shutouts.

Fleury isn't going to allow extra goals on purpose now that he signed a four-year, $23 million contract extension, yet I cannot help but lament the missed opportunity to see what he could do with that monetary carrot dangling.

In fact, I almost wonder if this is yet another sign that it's best to retire most of my interest in the contract year.

Frankly, it seems like only RFAs and fringe players even get to play those years out. General Managers have become more and more comfortable with the constraints of the salary cap, allowing them to lock up core players early.

That's great news for teams (not to mention fans pondering expensive jersey purchases), yet it's kind of a bummer for those who follow the league at large. While the NBA sees iconic players like LeBron James changing teams, NHL free agency watchers feel lucky to get a Thomas Vanek here or there.

Really, it's starting to feel like we should look at "earning phases" more than contract years. Teams can re-sign players a full season before their current deals expire, so in a way, that second-to-last season can be an artificial contract year.

Honestly, the example that’s etched into my mind is Jonathan Quick winning the Los Angeles Kings’ first Stanley Cup. It's kind of funny to think about it now that Quick has one of those questionable lifetime deals (he's in the second year of a 10-year, $58 million blood oath, er, contract), but he was one of the most ridiculous steals in the league when he raised that first Cup. Quick was carrying a $1.8 million cap hit and matching salary when he (and the Kings) seemed unbeatable during that run.

WILL SOMEONE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MARKET?

Here’s the thing about the decline of the contract year: not every goalie is worth locking up long term. Honestly, I’d say that few beyond Henrik Lundqvist have the track record to justify a huge commitment.

(I look at the Tampa Bay Lightning as a bright example. Rather than just panic and give Ben Bishop a lifetime deal, they followed the Columbus Blue Jackets’ example with Sergei Bobrovsky and gave Bishop a market-value deal but for a shorter term.)

I felt like the Penguins might be one of the few contenders to take advantage of a warped goalie market, but apparently not. Let’s look at the teams making big investments in goalies to see who’s left:

Note: I’m leaving off ugly deals with only two years remaining, which is why you don’t see Cam Ward on here.

Arizona: Mike Smith ($5.67 million)

Boston: Tuukka Rask ($7M)

Chicago: Corey Crawford ($6M)

Colorado: Semyon Varlamov ($5.9M)

Dallas: Kari Lehtonen ($5.9M)

Detroit: Jimmy Howard ($5.3M)

Florida: Roberto Luongo ($4.53M for eternity)

Los Angeles: Quick ($5.8M)

Montreal: Carey Price ($6.5M)

Nashville: Pekka Rinne ($7M)

New Jersey: Cory Schneider ($6M starting next season)

NY Islanders: Jaroslav Halak ($4.5M)

NY Rangers: Lundqvist ($8.5M)

Ottawa: Craig Anderson ($4.2M)

Philadelphia: Steve Mason ($4.1M)

Pittsburgh: Fleury ($5M, then $5.75M)

Tampa Bay: Bishop ($5.9M starting next season)

Vancouver: Ryan Miller ($6M)

Winnipeg: Ondrej Pavelec ($3.9M)

Looking at this list, Fleury’s contract doesn’t look as crazy, even if he rarely rises above the “league average” level.

Still, what’s so great about falling in with the pack?

Doing the conventional thing usually just means that you’re giving up an opportunity to leverage a faulty market, and that’s exactly what you could say about goaltending in the NHL. Look at that list and ask yourself: how many of those guys are going to match the value of their contracts? How many smart GMs would take a mulligan on some of those deals?

The Anaheim Ducks, Washington Capitals, Toronto Maple Leafs (yes, believe it or not they’ve actually been smart about their goalies, maybe despite themselves), San Jose Sharks and a select other few teams are in a position to notice the growing number of competent goalies and the shrinking total of No.1 jobs available.

The Ducks have been one of the boldest franchises when it comes to not committing to the first semi-competent goalie they see, but I wonder if some of that is due to budgetary constraints; while other contenders would use the space freed up by the cheap (but injured) goalie duo of John Gibson and Frederik Andersen, Anaheim doesn’t have the same spending power. (It would be nice to see that change at this trade deadline, as the Ducks could finally make a run if they use some of the robust space they have available.)

Honestly, I'm still pondering how teams should handle their goalies, but I'm pretty sure the "shrug your shoulders and give the guy you sort of trust about $6M" strategy is deeply flawed. After all, current Penguins GM Jim Rutherford is the same guy who gave Cam Ward $6.3M in Carolina, a deal the Hurricanes still have to muscle through for two more seasons.

NHL GMs probably think rolling with a guy on an expiring contract counts as living dangerously, but is it any worse than rolling the dice with a long-term deal?

For a full list of injuries (note Patrick Sharp) and suspensions (including Jack Johnson), click here. Go to Rotoworld's NHL page for breaking hockey news and more.