Doug McLean fails to consider 24% rollback in Rick Nash offer - bad RFA precendent

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by eye, Aug 8, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. eye

    eye Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    around the 49th para
    Home Page:
    Am I missing something here? Rick Nash is a great young player that has had good fortune in finding the net early in his career but what was Doug McLean thinking? After whining about high salaries and how his 4th liners were making more money than the Blue Jackets ownership he goes out and makes this unnecesary and unprovoked offer to Nash who is a RFA. In essence, he actually gave Nash over 7 million per if you take the 24% rollback into cosideration and set a bad precedent for the entire league and future negoatiatons with RFA's. What if the puck doesn't go in as often for the somewhat one dimensional Rick Nash?

    With all the stupid contracts being offered I can already anticipate Bettman going after 3 year max length contracts in the next CBA.
     
  2. NFITO

    NFITO hockeyinsanity*****

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    28,022
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I don't think you can blame McLean for failing to consider the 24% rollback... all teams have failed here, not just Columbus.

    But I do blame McLean for failing to realize how much of an impact this signing has over the entire NHL salary structure and will pave the way for a choatic next 6 years of this CBA.

    so much for controlling salaries, when you can't control the contracts you should have most leverage in - a 21 yo coming off his rookie contract.

    think that Nash's name will come up in every negotiation from player agents hitting arbitration?

    thanks McLean... hope he realizes he didn't just screw his rivals, but his own team as well! unless ofcourse he's expecting to be fired before long, and leave the future mess he's created to the next CBJ GM.
     
  3. ClosetOilersFan

    ClosetOilersFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,202
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    The current CBA will benefeit most owners. However, in every system throughout the world, there are morons who will make poor decisions. Giving a huge raise to an RFA like that is crazy! Simply going from 3.5 million to 4 million by the last years would secure Nash, as a GM would have to give up a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round draft pick to steal him which is highly unlikely. In thie example, the deal is simply throwing away money.

    Is this going to have adverse effects around the league? No.

    People are forgetting that under a cap structure, any team that paid 39 million or more, will HAVE TO make cuts somewhere when they make signings such as this, which means another player will have to pay for it at some point.

    -J
     
  4. Egil

    Egil Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Messages:
    8,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Home Page:
    The owners are protected by the escrow.

    nuckfaninTO: Not all teams have failed to take into acount the rollback. Many teams have either stayed out of the UFA feeding frenzy or signed a couple guys to reasonable contracts. Half the teams in the League have gone crazy, the other half are enjoying the show.
     
  5. Resolute

    Resolute Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    AB
    I have no problem with paying players as good as Nash $5+ million.

    That doesnt mean that every RFA is pulled up. Not many players have Nash's ability.
     
  6. Resolute

    Resolute Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    AB
    Incidentally, "failing to consder the 24% rollback" is exactly why every NHLPA proposal that did not include a salary cap was completely worthless.

    Just imagine signings like this with a watered down luxury tax instead of a hard salary cap.
     
  7. joepeps

    joepeps Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,924
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:

    I'm happy to say... for once... Toronto didn't do it...

    Toronto is not driving up prices.... hey got hit the most in the lock out fo rthe small market teams.. and the Small Market teams will be ****in themselves this time... if theres another lockout in 6 years.. don't expect the Owners to be united.... :teach:
     
  8. Psycho Papa Joe

    Psycho Papa Joe Porkchop Hoser

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    23,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Forensic Accountant
    Location:
    Cesspool, Ontario
    Home Page:
    In the end it's just one contract. Players can site the contract in arbitration, but there will be 10-15 other lower contracts that the GM's can site in their favor. This is assuming the GM's are smart and don't repeat McLean's poor decision.
     
  9. joepeps

    joepeps Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,924
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
    It's not jsut 1 contract.. it's a comparission contract and so is everyone elses....
     
  10. Psycho Papa Joe

    Psycho Papa Joe Porkchop Hoser

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    23,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Forensic Accountant
    Location:
    Cesspool, Ontario
    Home Page:
    Read my post. Yes it's a comparison contract. No friggen kidding I said that. But the GM's will have 10-15 other contracts to compare it to for similar type players that are lower. Get it?
     
  11. NFITO

    NFITO hockeyinsanity*****

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    28,022
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    that right there is the key... personally I've lost faith in this, and expect other GM's to be following similar paths.
     
  12. :rolleyes:

    MacLean was attempting to lock up the player he sees as the franchise's corner stone, by reaching terms that are reasonable to both sides without contentious negotiations that may have had an effect on Nash's intentions once he becomes a UFA.

    Pout and stomp all you want, but this type of consideration is a part of the new CBA landscape --- when individual player salaries are capped, and any team can throw the kitchen sink at a Nash or Thornton in 5 years, low-balling your franchise player probably isn't the best move.
     
  13. NFITO

    NFITO hockeyinsanity*****

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    28,022
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    so you high-ball him instead?

    no 21 YO should make this kind of salary.... the Bluejackets could have signed him to a 2-3 yr deal and then negotiated again. He's a UFA in 4 yrs, not in 2.

    Columbus did a great job signing him to a long term contract... they really did well for themselves for the next season... but in the process are helping to screw the salary structure in the NHL for the next several seasons... this contract will affect other RFAs as well across the league... not to mention the Jackets themselves when they have to deal with guys like Zherdev, Svitov and others in the coming year.

    I somehow doubt that even the Jackets fans thought he'd get anywhere close to this salary before they signed him. and now it sounds like a lot of them are thinking it was a good signing??
     
  14. Psycho Papa Joe

    Psycho Papa Joe Porkchop Hoser

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    23,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Forensic Accountant
    Location:
    Cesspool, Ontario
    Home Page:
    I'm not pouting. I could really care less what a player makes. It's not my money. But looking at it from a business perspective, it was a poor decision IMO. McLean was negotiating against himself, which is pretty piss poor from a business perspective.

    I'm sure the other 29 owners and GM's were jumping up with glee when this contract was announced:rolleyes:
     
  15. Resolute

    Resolute Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    AB
    And who exactly compares with a Richard co-winner in his second season in the league?
     
  16. NFITO

    NFITO hockeyinsanity*****

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    28,022
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I noticed Muckler and Waddel especially giving each other high-fives before heading into negotiations with Havlat, Hossa, Spezza and Kovalchuk, Heatley respectively. :sarcasm:
     
  17. NFITO

    NFITO hockeyinsanity*****

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    28,022
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    any young player that was close to that, either in goals or points.

    Maybe Havlat doesn't get $5.4mill/yr on a long term deal... but does his point a game status get him close to that?

    RFA negotiations for Havlat:

    agent: Havlat deserves as much as Nash!
    team: no way!! Nash was a Rocket winner.
    agent: okay, so he gets $1.5mill less for not scoring as many goals... how much more should he get for getting more points, a better +/-, and doing it for more than 1 season?

    arbitrator: so in the end what's the overall difference here? Rocket winner? yes.. .with 57points and 913th in the league with a -35 and 2 yrs experience, vs. not a rocket winner, but a 30 goal scorer, point a game player, who's been improving every year?

    maybe not $5.4mill, but $4.5mill?
     
  18. Oh God. Enough already. He had one, one sided season and you think that makes him something? At the end of the day, he was under 60 points, and out of the top 40. And take away his goal total, and his numbers are down right awful. And unless Thornton is aquired, don't try and use last season as a positive.

    Maybe he should repeat the feat, or here's a novel idea, get his team closer to making the playoffs (instead of falling further and further down the chain) before we open up the HoF for him.

    This is an absolute terrible deal. Not only does it have the ability to screw the structure we just lost a year of hockey trying to put in place, it could very well ruin any chance the Jackets have in getting better down the road.

    Enjoy the "goodwill" you gave him. Remember that's exactly what kept Cujo from leaving Toronto. :sarcasm:
     
  19. Malakhov

    Malakhov Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,469
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Location:
    Montreal, QC
    Home Page:
    The kid scored 41 goals in a defensive minded NHL and he was awesome with the Canadian team. He's a future captain, a future 50 goals scorer and franchise player. I have absolutely no problem ith his contract at all.

    I'd rather pay that kid 5 millions than pay Theodore 5 millions on my team.
     
  20. Judging from reaction in this thread alone, Nash wasn't "high-balled".
     
  21. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    THe multiple posts criticizing Columbus for this signing are a pretty good advertisement for why 99.9% of posters do not have the capabilty to be GM's.

    superstar players get superstar salaries. Nash will get close to or at max money when he eventually becomes a FA. The best way for a team to secure his services is to avoid low-balling him before then.

    Anyone who thinks Nash could not walk into arbitration and obtain $5 million is either an astonishingly bad evaluator of comparables, a complete novice in evaluating hockey talent, a comeplte washout when it comes to evaluating negotiating leverage, or all three.

    Here is a clue for those people to grab. It has never been the idea to pay every player $1.3 million. Contracts have been given out this year at a much more measured pace than I expected; I was expecting about 8 or 9 "max players". As it is, we have no one at the max. Not the reigning goal scoring champ. Not the Stanley Cup winning goalie. Not the defending Norris trophy holder. No one.

    Columbus bidding against itself? Says who?
     
  22. Pepper

    Pepper Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    14,543
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Sorry GS2002, you're way wrong here.

    Comparables? Who are exactly the comparables? There are not many who scored over 40 goals but had less than 60 points and were what -35 (and yes I know it's a bad team).

    He's a SECOND-YEAR PRO with absolutely no leverage (no RFA, no arbitration) and he was given more money per year than Milan Hedjuk who has scored OVER 50 goals and close 100 points, something Nash has never done. There's no arbitrator in the world that would have given him that money in the new CBA.

    There's no way to spin this - he was overpaid by a lot.
     
  23. Psycho Papa Joe

    Psycho Papa Joe Porkchop Hoser

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    23,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Forensic Accountant
    Location:
    Cesspool, Ontario
    Home Page:
    Pot calling kettle black alert. I suggest you do some reading up on the CBA before making such an astute statemen:sarcasm:

    Read Pepper's post for a pretty good synopsis of negotiation leverage. Nobody is suggesting Nash be lowballed, but considering his leverage, it's pretty obvious he was significantly highballed. Good for Nash. He's a good kid, and I don't begrudge him at all for landing this deal. But it is a pretty bad business on the part of Mclean. No way you can spin it otherwise.
     
  24. kdb209

    kdb209 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16,271
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Or is someone who has read the CBA (or at least the FAQ).

    Nash was not even eligible for arbitration this year. The new CBA requires 4 years service - counting the lockout year, Nash has only 3. Nash had zero leverage.

    I'm not saying Columbus should have low-balled him, but they vastly over-payed in the short term and only got a deal that only delays his UFA status by 1 year. I don't know if the incipit good will from this deal towards a new UFA deal later is worth the price paid.

    And I also doubt that Nash's numbers are that much of a slam dunk in arbitration anyway, as others have argued, but they will be easy to argue against now as a comp by other players in their arbitration cases.
     
  25. kdb209

    kdb209 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16,271
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Exactly. The AVs got Hedjuk for only $19.5M over 5 yrs. There is no way Nash is worth almost 40% more than Hejduk. And Hejduk would have been a UFA next year. He sacrificed 4 years of UFA status for this long term deal - Nash sacrificed virtually nothing (delayed UFA by only one year).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"