Player Discussion David Pastrnak X

[Elvis P]

First part isn't legal. The only bonus possible is signing, no performance

Agreed. Also, you can't have a contract that forces an employer to pay an employee who refuses to come to work. You can give the employee signing bonuses that cover the time period.

 

[smithformeragent]

Pastrnak isn't on the NESN commercial nor the single game tickets commercial.

 

[Lockheed]

Pastrnak isn't on the NESN commercial nor the single game tickets commercial.

Has anyone checked the name plates yet?

 

[CombatOnContact]

Fist part isnt legal. The only bonus possible is signing, no performance

Ah gotcha..

 

[smithformeragent]

Has anyone checked the name plates yet?

He's like Alderaan.

He's not there.

 

[Blowfish]

If he isn't at camp tomorrow isn't it that a hold out?

 

[smithformeragent]

If he isn't at camp tomorrow isn't it that a hold out?

Yes.

However, let's define holdout as extending into the regular season for the purpose of this thread.

 

[Ladyfan]

Trading Pasta is NOT acceptable to me.

 

[HustleB]

I voted long term contract. I believe it should have been multi select because I believe there will be a holdout into the season before he signs.

 

[DKH]

iQUOTE=Ladyfan;135744767]Trading Pasta is NOT acceptable to me.[/QUOTE]

This is why to this day I have not bought one hockey jersey for myself or wore one other than in Prague and it was my daughters

you cant get emotionally invested in these players- its always about the money

you ever see me in one jersey? because they are all just playing for the money

I would play for Pittsburgh, the Canadiens, the Yankees and love it if they showed me the Benjamins....I'd root for my hometown team after I retire
Pasta has a lot of potential but this rumor 8/64 they were talking about on 98.5 is absurb

one year

no leadership skills

8 freaking million

$6,999,999.99 I am on the players side

$ 7 M I'm on the Bruins

if he wants $8 M let him rot

 

[DKH]

That's a great idea ...

If only we could draft guys like Connor we wouldn't have to trade for them

good point

I wish one of us would be GM

I have been exposed as not knowing **** over the years- I might have been able to pull it off early on, but after all must gaffes I wouldnt qualify, the Knight shots would certainly rattle me- plus PIA pointed out correctly I'm too sensitive when people disagree with me and no doubt I'd flip out at even the slightest criticism and ask for Charlie to buy the site so I can control the content like John Henry buying the Globe.

Finchster would be a great GM. Earlier today he called McQuaid, Kevan Miller, Backes, and Beleskey a bunch of losers and if a I winner like Finchster says it I'm behind him, He seems like a really smart hockey mind.

but yah, we should have drafted Barzal and Connor, not signed Beleskey and Backes and given Pastrnak a blank check,

It's a bloody shame one of you guys isnt calling the shots- maybe we could GM by poll

Oh well, even if Pastrnak signs with a KHL team I think we own his rights till 27,

 

[DKH]

Burke may nudge the Calgary GM to send you two 1sts & a 2nd...

will he be GM still if they move to Seattle as rumored

 

[BobbyRyan9]

Out of curiosity, why do RFAs not report to camp? They still have a year left on their deal and a new deal could be made at any point up to (and theoretically after) free agency the following year. Is it a negotiation tactic? Is it part of the CBA?

 

[gvkmedia]

Out of curiosity, why do RFAs not report to camp? They still have a year left on their deal and a new deal could be made at any point up to (and theoretically after) free agency the following year. Is it a negotiation tactic? Is it part of the CBA?

Pastrnak has no term left on his deal.

 

[BobbyRyan9]

Pastrnak has no term left on his deal.

Ah you're right. For some reason I was thinking RFA = 1 year from UFA. RFA is essentially UFA for those coming off an ELC.

 

[JOKER 192]

I enjoy Felger too- he's very talented and he's screwing around half the time I'm sure

There's a poster like that on these very boards...............oh,wait.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

It shouldn't be difficult to find some creative bonuses in the first few years. Recognize that pastrnak is a financial asset. If he brings goals, team likely wins, more business income. So give him some hard earned $$$ in the first couple years. Started at 6m per, but reality suggests the AAV needs to be somewhere in the 7+ range minimum.

So.. 8 years, 58m

Year 1: 6.75m + 2m for scoring at .25 ppg
Year 2: 6.75m + 2m signing bonus.. cause.. Pasta
Year 3: 6m
Year 4: 6.25m
Year 5: 6.5m
Year 6: 6.75m
Year 7: 7m
Year 8: 8m

Pasta exits his contract at 28 and an 8m BASE for his next contact.

Everybody wins.

Especially us.

The probably sticking point is that Barry wants lockout protection in the form of signing bonuses in potential lockout years. So while your proposal seems reasonable numbers wise, it would need to be restructured to break down exactly which years he gets signing bonuses, and how much of the total compensation for that year is in the form of said bonuses.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

If he isn't at camp tomorrow isn't it that a hold out?

I wouldn't necessarily call it a hold out, since he technically is not under contract. he is under no obligation to be there until he signs his contract.

 

[Over the volcano]

I wouldn't necessarily call it a hold out, since he technically is not under contract. he is under no obligation to be there until he signs his contract.

Nah... he'd be a hold out.

Guys with contracts are under no obligation to play if they are willing to give up the contracts compensation. A RFA refusing to sign and play for the team that has his rights is just as much a hold out IMO

 

[Gee Wally]

I wouldn't necessarily call it a hold out, since he technically is not under contract. he is under no obligation to be there until he signs his contract.

Technically this is correct. He is not withholding agreed upon services. This would be breach and hed be liable .

Nah... he'd be a hold out.

Guys with contracts are under no obligation to play if they are willing to give up the contracts compensation. A RFA refusing to sign and play for the team that has his rights is just as much a hold out IMO

This is technically incorrect.
He is in fact free to do as he chooses as agreed upon per collective bargaining and not liable for this action. In fact it is his documented right.

 

[Over the volcano]

Technically this is correct. He is not withholding agreed upon services. This would be breach and hed be liable .




This is technically incorrect.
He is in fact free to do as he chooses as agreed upon per collective bargaining and not liable for this action. In fact it is his documented right.

If a person is willing to not get paid, they aren't liable to play - contract or no. There's only one team an RFA can play for, and there's only one team a player under contract can play for, unless they choose to hold out.

 

[Gee Wally]

If a person is willing to not get paid, they aren't liable to play - contract or no.

I suggest you read up on Alexi Yashin.
That was a technical and illegal holdout. Breach of contract.

Liable doesnt mean forced to play. But liable does enter into the scene. Via sanctions and financial liability. It can also end in treble damages depending on the breach and court.


There is a huge difference.
One is opinion. The other is reality.

An RFA legally isnt a holdout.


These are holdouts and why:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nhl-contract-holdouts-groundbreaking/

 

[Over the volcano]

I suggest you read up on Alexi Yashin.
That was a technical and illegal holdout. Breach of contract.

Liable doesnt mean forced to play. But liable does enter into the scene. Via sanctions and financial liability. It can also end in treble damages depending on the breach and court.


There is a huge difference.
One is opinion. The other is reality.

An RFA legally isnt a holdout.


These are holdouts and why:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nhl-contract-holdouts-groundbreaking/

The only difference is that a player under contract can't keep his years ticking off to become a UFA if they refuse to play for the team with their rights by contract. If a guy in Pasta's position refuses to sign or play they would eventually reach UFA status at 27.

 

[Gee Wally]

The only difference is that a player under contract can't keep his years ticking off to become a UFA if they refuse to play for the team with their rights by contract. If a guy in Pasta's position refuses to sign or play they would eventually reach UFA status at 27.

Yeah... but we are discussing holdout.

I can come back with he can sign with KHL tomorrow and never come back if he desires. That still doesnt make him a holdout.
Or an offer sheet for that matter.

So once again there is a huge business legal difference when discussing holdouts. Argue all you want. But its a fact.

 

[Over the volcano]

Yeah... but we are discussing holdout.

I can come back with he can sign with KHL tomorrow and never come back if he desires. That still doesnt make him a holdout.
Or an offer sheet for that matter.

So once again there is a huge business legal difference when discussing holdouts. Argue all you want. But its a fact.

There are differences - like the offer sheet and the ticking calendar toward UFA status- but a guy who holds out his services from the team with his rights (by CBA or contract) is holding out. It kinda is that simple.