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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
gscarpenter2002 said:
To add, you sure as hell are not making $3.5 mil, with escalator deals to $7 mil (at a point in time when the NHL max salary will be closer to $9.5 mil).

Next year revenues are estimated to drop so that leaves you roughly 4 years for revenues to rise 35% from current levels! Not gonna happen.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Dion Mustard said:
Not to be picky, but he didn't lead, he tied with two other guys for the top spot. To lead is to be out front on your own, IMO.

And yet, he has a trophy on the mantle piece that is given to "the League's goal-scoring leader". Trying to minimise this doesn't help you, it just makes you look desperate.

Pepper said:
Next year revenues are estimated to drop

Huh? Says who? Revenues were projected to drop to $1.7 billion this year, I haven't seen anything that suggested any expectations things would drop after that. It's always been said that the big hit would be in the first year after the lockout.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
PecaFan said:
And yet, he has a trophy on the mantle piece that is given to "the League's goal-scoring leader". Trying to minimise this doesn't help you, it just makes you look desperate.



Huh? Says who? Revenues were projected to drop to $1.7 billion this year, I haven't seen anything that suggested any expectations things would drop after that. It's always been said that the big hit would be in the first year after the lockout.
But there has been much speculation that the $1.7B projection is overly optimistic - that this years big revenue hit will be greater than originally expected. If this year comes in at $1.4B or $1.5B and projects flat (or minimal growth) for '06-'07, the team cap next year can and will be lower. In addition, there was talk that the cap spread (difference between cap and floor) was being reduced from $17.5M to $16M starting next year - this would result in an ~$750K increase in the floor and decrease in the cap, all else being equal in terms of revenue.
 

Dion Mustard*

Guest
bizoncol said:
I'm pretty sure that back in 1985 there was such a great hockey specialist who had been saying the same dumb things about another teenager. Like Nash, that kid was playing on the one of the worst NHL teams, he was minus-35 and scored almost same amount of goals. Yep, Mario was just lucky as well.

Man, you are stupid. In every year MARIO has been in the league, his assist total has been above his goal total. In fact, every year he played more then 30 games, his point total was above 60. So tell me, how the **** can you compare MARIO to Nash? (he was -35 his first year, but also had 100 points; almost twice as much as Nash had with his worse +/-)

http://www.nhl.com/players/8448782.html


In Columbus Nash was just lucky, in Swiss league he was lucky to play with Joe Thornton. Rrrrrright. BTW in play-offs Thornton played with VonArx and Hagman. Nash played with Marha at center and Riesen on the right side. St.Louis spent in Davos a couple weeks and even didn't touch ice in play-offs. You're juging players only by stats and not bothering yourself to watch one game. Try to do it sometimes.

Say Nash comes no where close to scoring 30 goals again. Will you agree his 41 goals were luck? So, until he matches that output, it is luck.

But, I ain't juding anything. I saw a number of games, and talked with other who not only saw some games, but were actually on the ice when the game was played. When you can match that, come talk to me. Until then, you're just making yourself look stupid by slanting facts.

WOW, you got one team right - Slovenia! Actually he scored against USA, Sweden and Finland, but not against Germany or Japan. In Quarters, Semis, and Finals he had frikin 4 assists. And according some specs like you he still can't pass. BTW yours "great" Kovalsuck had 0 (none, nothing, zero) points in those 3 play-offs games.

He had 4 assists and you think that now makes him a play maker. Do you even remember how he got those assists? According to you and your ilk, Nash is a superstar goal scorer. And yet, in the 3 biggest games of the tourney, Nash couldn't put the puck in the net. I don't care if he had 10 assists. According to you, he's a goal scorer. And *franchise* goal scorers worthy of contracts like the one he signed should put up donuts in the big games.

BTW, I've never call Kovi "great". But because according to the minons around here, Nash is great because he tied for the lead in goals, then Kovi must be great as well, simply because he was one of the Richard winners, and had more points then Nash.

You obviously haven't seen a minute from the last WC and have no idea that some real specs, who had never seen Nash till that championship, have named him "the ideal forward for modern hockey". You can still judge everyone by stats though...

You obviously know ****all about hockey. I have never heard anybody beyond Doug MacLean or idiotic Columbus fans, call Nash that.

You're right, you can judge a player by his stats.

Lets look at some of Nash's

in 15 playoff games last year, he had 2 assists.

at the WC, Rick Nash had 0 goals in the playoff round.

during his last season in the NHL, he had 16 assists in 80 games, was a -35 (in fact, if you take into account his last 4 years in NA, he is a combined -108), saw less then 1 minute of PK time, and failed to advance his team to a playoff spot.

Yep, looks like stats tell the truth. He's a one dimensional player he goes silent in the big games.

Well worth the $27 million you just threw at him.

Pecafan said:
And yet, he has a trophy on the mantle piece that is given to "the League's goal-scoring leader". Trying to minimise this doesn't help you, it just makes you look desperate.

So do 2 other guys, so lets not keep forgetting to mention those two who finished the year with more points.

Like was said. Iggy's and Kovi's teammates spent their year trying to land a playoff spot. Nash's teammates spent the year trying to feed him in the slot.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
PecaFan said:
Huh? Says who? Revenues were projected to drop to $1.7 billion this year, I haven't seen anything that suggested any expectations things would drop after that. It's always been said that the big hit would be in the first year after the lockout.

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. The NHL estimated the revenues to be at 1.7B but several people have suggested the real number could be even lower, thus the salary cap will drop accordingly.

Note "some people" doesn't mean much at this point. Even if the revenues are at the 1.7B, a 35% increase in the next 4 years is pretty damn optimistic.
 

Xoggz22

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
7,433
2,643
Columbus, Ohio
eye said:
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.
I posted this elsewhere so I guess I can get ripped if people want here too....

Just one question and not to be obnoxious...

If Nash scores 40-50 goals for the next 3 years does his contract suddenly become good value because while he'll be paid $6.5M in 4 years it will count at $5.4 against the cap?

I'm not saying this was a good deal but given he is the face of the franchise and is expected (not guaranteed) to produce a better overall game over then next several years his contract will be worth it in the long run.

I know the argument right now is short run and what it will do to "other teams stars" but let's look at the other signings by GMDM. I don't think he is being fiscally irresponsible. CBJ needs Nash beyond the next 5 years. I think this contract makes it more difficult for others to sign him because the baseline will already be there ($7M). Prusek, Hrdina, Berard, Foote (maybe a little high but for what the CBJ needed I wouldn't call it terrible), Klesla, Westcot...

I recognize people will view Nash's deal only but I'm not sure how many realize we can't afford to piss him off with a bad offer and lose him when the contract is done. Personally I still would have liked to see a 3 year deal first. If it was the first 3 years of this deal ($3.5M, $4.5M, 5.5M) the average is $4.5M. Do people think that is reasonable? I do.
 

Xoggz22

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
7,433
2,643
Columbus, Ohio
Dion Mustard said:
Man, you are stupid. In every year MARIO has been in the league, his assist total has been above his goal total. In fact, every year he played more then 30 games, his point total was above 60. So tell me, how the **** can you compare MARIO to Nash? (he was -35 his first year, but also had 100 points; almost twice as much as Nash had with his worse +/-)

http://www.nhl.com/players/8448782.html




Say Nash comes no where close to scoring 30 goals again. Will you agree his 41 goals were luck? So, until he matches that output, it is luck.

But, I ain't juding anything. I saw a number of games, and talked with other who not only saw some games, but were actually on the ice when the game was played. When you can match that, come talk to me. Until then, you're just making yourself look stupid by slanting facts.



He had 4 assists and you think that now makes him a play maker. Do you even remember how he got those assists? According to you and your ilk, Nash is a superstar goal scorer. And yet, in the 3 biggest games of the tourney, Nash couldn't put the puck in the net. I don't care if he had 10 assists. According to you, he's a goal scorer. And *franchise* goal scorers worthy of contracts like the one he signed should put up donuts in the big games.

BTW, I've never call Kovi "great". But because according to the minons around here, Nash is great because he tied for the lead in goals, then Kovi must be great as well, simply because he was one of the Richard winners, and had more points then Nash.



You obviously know ****all about hockey. I have never heard anybody beyond Doug MacLean or idiotic Columbus fans, call Nash that.

You're right, you can judge a player by his stats.

Lets look at some of Nash's

in 15 playoff games last year, he had 2 assists.

at the WC, Rick Nash had 0 goals in the playoff round.

during his last season in the NHL, he had 16 assists in 80 games, was a -35 (in fact, if you take into account his last 4 years in NA, he is a combined -108), saw less then 1 minute of PK time, and failed to advance his team to a playoff spot.

Yep, looks like stats tell the truth. He's a one dimensional player he goes silent in the big games.

Well worth the $27 million you just threw at him.



So do 2 other guys, so lets not keep forgetting to mention those two who finished the year with more points.

Like was said. Iggy's and Kovi's teammates spent their year trying to land a playoff spot. Nash's teammates spent the year trying to feed him in the slot.
So what is Nash worth to Columbus? Clearly you wouldn't want him on your team since he apparantly sucks and is just lucky. I think you'll find reasonable posters here, who don't follow the Jackets, will tell you Nash is a stud. Individual stats are great to offer as comparisons. Nash is no Mario and never will be. Mario's day and age was different than this one. I don't see a point in comparing the two.

Don't let jealousy cloud your judgement. Nash is one of the top young (or any) players in the game. We'll see if the Jackets screwed up in time.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Pepper said:
Next year revenues are estimated to drop so that leaves you roughly 4 years for revenues to rise 35% from current levels! Not gonna happen.
Boy, you sure do love setting forth uninformed speculation as "fact", don't you. Now, in addition to being Doug McLean's right hand man who clearly sat at his elbow as he was negotiating with Nash's agent (and accoridngly know EXACTLY how those negotiations went), you are an economist as well.

Line up the Nobel prizes now, boys. Pepper is on the way.

By the way, as I have stated, I am neither a Columbus fan or a Nash fan.

Honestly, Pepper, what i find most irritating about your positions are the dead certainty with which you hold them. To you, it is an inescapable FACT that McLean has overpaid in a market that is fraught with uncertainty.

Let me put it to you this way. For agument's sake, let's say that one views Rick Nash as a franchise player; a perennial all-star now and in the foreseeable future. A perennial 50-60 goal scorer who will be in the top 3 or 4 snipers in the league. Let us also say that you want to ensure that he remains with your team. Let us also say that arbitration is going to remain a crapshoot as it always has. Let us also say that it is your belief that hockey's economic damage is going to have been overstated, and you expect revenues to exceed $1.7 billion this year and in fact recover to $2.2 billion over the next 5 years, so that you are looking at a cap of $48.7 million and a max salary of $9.74 million.

Let's also say you note that a few FA's like hossa may be selecting arbitration and you take the view that he will set a certain bar that Nash may potentially (not will, mind you - just potentially) take a certain advantage of later on if left to arbitration.

Assuming all that, would you still be of the view that Nash's contract paying him $3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.4 and 7.4 mil (or whatever it was) was bad, after taking all things into consideration? Just asking. Not saying those things are the case or will be. But assume they are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
gscarpenter2002 said:
Boy, you sure do love setting forth uninformed speculation as "fact", don't you. Now, in addition to being Doug McLean's right hand man who clearly sat at his elbow as he was negotiating with Nash's agent (and accoridngly know EXACTLY how those negotiations went), you are an economist as well.

You sure continue to be arrogant despite being shot down in every argument in this thread so far.

You didn't read my following post did you?? I clearly said that it's only an estimation by some people, not a fact by any means. But hey, don't let me ruin your Ignorance Pride Parade.

gscarpenter2002 said:
By the way, as I have stated, I am neither a Columbus fan or a Nash fan.

Well you just ran out of excuses then.

gscarpenter2002 said:
Honestly, Pepper, what i find most irritating about your positions are the dead certainty with which you hold them. To you, it is an inescapable FACT that McLean has overpaid in a market that is fraught with uncertainty.

Compared to all other signins of young players even remotely comparable to Nash (which btw doesn't include anybody from your pathetic attempt of comparing Nash's money to big-name UFAs) Nash was overpaid, there's no way around it.

gscarpenter2002 said:
Let me put it to you this way. For agument's sake, let's say that one views Rick Nash as a franchise player; a perennial all-star now and in the foreseeable future. A perennial 50-60 goal scorer who will be in the top 3 or 4 snipers in the league.

Yes, let's do that.

gscarpenter2002 said:
Let us also say that you want to ensure that he remains with your team. Let us also say that arbitration is going to remain a crapshoot as it always has. Let us also say that it is your belief that hockey's economic damage is going to have been overstated, and you expect revenues to exceed $1.7 billion this year and in fact recover to $2.2 billion over the next 5 years, so that you are looking at a cap of $48.7 million and a max salary of $9.74 million.

Let's do that as well.

gscarpenter2002 said:
Let's also say you note that a few FA's like hossa may be selecting arbitration and you take the view that he will set a certain bar that Nash may potentially (not will, mind you - just potentially) take a certain advantage of later on if left to arbitration.

Whoa, we're on the roll! Let's do that too.

gscarpenter2002 said:
Assuming all that, would you still be of the view that Nash's contract paying him $3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.4 and 7.4 mil (or whatever it was) was bad, after taking all things into consideration? Just asking. Not saying those things are the case or will be. But assume they are.

Nash's money WOULD BE OK *IF* all those assumptions would come true. If Nash becomes a regular 50-60G player, if NHL revenues increase tens of percents over the next few years, if if if if...

Here's the problem: Maclean didn't cover his back at all, he took a flat-out UNNECESSARY risk which MIGHT hurt his team but which also WILL hurt other teams in the league. He didn't use any of the weapons available to him, he surrendered like French Army in front of Nash's agent. Sure, he will look good IF everything goes as you said.

Answer this question: Does a good GM bet everything on one horse?

Also think about this: There are several other examples of young players being low-balled by their GMs (and with low-balling I mean giving lower contracts than someone with RFA or arbitration status might have gotten with same stats) early in their career (read: the first contract after their ELC) but which have remained with the team for years after despite that low-balling.

Maclean could have secured the services of Nash with many other ways instead of handing him a ridiculous contract after 2 years in the NHL. Maclean could have offered him a 3y 7.5M contract which would have been very reasonable and given that Nash had very little if no leverage, he would have most likely accepted it. After that deal Maclean could have handed him the 7M per year deal IF he had continued to develop and score 40+ goals, but only then. And Nash would have most likely accepted that deal as well because he wouldn't get substantially more anywhere else and even if he does, Maclean can match it.

I just don't see any way around this, Maclean could have reached his objective with much better managing than he did.

Oh and I ask you to cut the patronzing & arrogant crap from your replies, you're not talking to some 15-year old NHLPA fanboi who needs to be explained the same things every week over and over again. I know I haven't deserved that, having said that I apologize for being guilty of the same earlier in this post. Let's keep this at mature level ok?
 
Last edited:

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
jacketracket said:
Perhaps because it isn't accurate.

I haven't tallied the responses, pro and con, but they seem to be running 50-50.

Go check out this thread

POLL

I think the results speak for themselves...Let's say you're 50/50 isn't that close...
 

Winston Wolf

Registered User
May 15, 2003
12,089
6,690
Philadelphia
Didn't read the whole thread, but I guarantee that by the third year of this contract Rick Nash will practically be a bargain at $5 million a year. Rick Nash might be overpaid for a year or two, but in the end it will even out, or even work out in Columbus' favor.
 

jacketracket*

Guest
Pepper said:
Go check out this thread

POLL

I think the results speak for themselves...Let's say you're 50/50 isn't that close...
Two things ... the opinion in this thread, which we are discussing, are running 50/50.

Secondly, your poll is meaningless.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
jacketracket said:
Two things ... the opinion in this thread, which we are discussing, are running 50/50.

Secondly, your poll is meaningless.

The opinions in THIS thread are mainly from those who are interested of business aspect of NHL and BJ fans.

And how come the poll is suddenly meaningless?? Compared to what? To the opinions in this thread??

Face it, a huge majority thinks that Nash was overpaid, deal with it.
 

jacketracket*

Guest
Pepper said:
The opinions in THIS thread are mainly from those who are interested of business aspect of NHL and BJ fans.
Wrong ... and that's why I pointed out your error. The majority of respondents in this thread are not CBJ fans, and the feelings seem to be fairly evenly distributed, between "too much" and "okay".

And how come the poll is suddenly meaningless?? Compared to what? To the opinions in this thread??
The poll is worded in such a manner as to be somewhat prejudicial --- you make no mention of Nash's value to the CBJ as the face of hockey in central Ohio, his unique value as a 19 year-old Richard trophy winner, etc.

You stilt your poll by referring to the fact that MacLean was in the driver's seat, and probably could have low-balled Nash had he chosen to.

Face it, a huge majority thinks that Nash was overpaid, deal with it.
Wrong.

Stick that in your crack pipe and smoke it.
 

grapeshine

Registered User
Dec 9, 2002
426
0
Visit site
Pepper said:
The opinions in THIS thread are mainly from those who are interested of business aspect of NHL and BJ fans.

And how come the poll is suddenly meaningless?? Compared to what? To the opinions in this thread??

Face it, a huge majority thinks that Nash was overpaid, deal with it.

You're using the poll as evidence that your argument is correct. It's called appeal to popularity, the use of which is considered a fallacy. The fact that a whole lot of hockey enthusiasts on a webboard agree with you doesn't make your argument more correct. Discrediting opinions because they are coming from BJ fans is also fallacious.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
jacketracket said:
Wrong ... and that's why I pointed out your error. The majority of respondents in this thread are not CBJ fans, and the feelings seem to be fairly evenly distributed, between "too much" and "okay".

You misunderstood once again. I didn't say all fans are BOTH BJ fans and interested about NHL business, I said they are either BJ fans or interested about NHL business.And then there are couple of other fans as well.

jacketracket said:
The poll is worded in such a manner as to be somewhat prejudicial --- you make no mention of Nash's value to the CBJ as the face of hockey in central Ohio, his unique value as a 19 year-old Richard trophy winner, etc.

It stated the facts - he had no leverage and then there were his stats. Everybody knows his statue.

But hey, keep digging your head in the sand, it seems your ostrich tactic is working for you.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
grapeshine said:
You're using the poll as evidence that your argument is correct. It's called appeal to popularity, the use of which is considered a fallacy. The fact that a whole lot of hockey enthusiasts on a webboard agree with you doesn't make your argument more correct. Discrediting opinions because they are coming from BJ fans is also fallacious.

I didn't say the poll proves I'm correct, I said the majority of the people here agree with my view that Maclean overapaid - there's a HUGE difference to what you claimed I said.

The poll was to non-BJ fans because based on this thread, nearly all BJ fans thought it was a good signing which is perfectly natural.
 

jacketracket*

Guest
Pepper said:
You misunderstood once again. I didn't say all fans are BOTH BJ fans and interested about NHL business, I said they are either BJ fans or interested about NHL business.And then there are couple of other fans as well.
... and you're wrong, once again. Initially, you implied that the only posters who didn't feel that MacLean had made a mistake were CBJ fans.

This isn't the case, as evidenced by responses in this thread.



It stated the facts - he had no leverage and then there were his stats. Everybody knows his statue.
Wrong ... it states the facts as you see them.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Well, Pepper, you cover quite a bit of ground in your post, so I will try to address it all in the time I have left in my lunch hour.

As an introductory comment, I want to respond briefly to your request at the bottom aboout keeping this on a mature level. While your apology is duly noted, I do find it noteworthy that you make that suggestion AFTER a display of rampant cheapshots, ad hominem attacks and intemperate remarks in the post to which i am replying and in your replies to many other posters. That is a pretty self-serving approach at this point. however, let's move along.

Pepper said:
You sure continue to be arrogant despite being shot down in every argument in this thread so far.

I would note that to be YOUR opinion as to who has been "shot down". In my opinion, you have made no salient points in this entire thread which I have been able to identify. You seem to feel I was the subject of a big "gotcha" with respect to my earlier thread where I referenced a number of UFA salaries in my attempt to identify what $4 mil will get you in the NHL. Then I covered my a** or whatever you suggested i was doing. Let's be clear. i don't feel any need to cover my tracks or whatever you suggested. This is a hockey business message board. I enjoy talking about the business of sport, and I have reams and reams of actual business experience that I can bring to bear on the subject. My business experience, quite frankly, dwarfs all but a few posters here such as Icon, dr and others, and of those few posters (among which you do not number, again quite frankly) I am not even sure if they can match mine, but I can certainly acknowledge their substantial expertise in their own right such that the difference is not really meaningful in this context. As such, I feel pretty secure in posting anything here, and do not worry even if i am wrong on a given point. In other threads, I have been only too happy to acknowledge same. The point is this: I have no desire to cover my tracks on any previous post or in connection with any given discussion here. I just wanted to clarify that.

If you consider the preceding "arrogant", you are entitled to that view. I don't really care what you think of me personally. I am sure the feeling is reciprocal.

In my view, my original point - that Nash's signing is not a terrrible one - is unshaken in my view.

You didn't read my following post did you?? I clearly said that it's only an estimation by some people, not a fact by any means. But hey, don't let me ruin your Ignorance Pride Parade.

Yep. Noted. I place little value in the opinions of sportswriters, mind you.


Compared to all other signins of young players even remotely comparable to Nash (which btw doesn't include anybody from your pathetic attempt of comparing Nash's money to big-name UFAs) Nash was overpaid, there's no way around it.

Putting aside your intemperate rhetoric, I have thought about this a little. Based on Nash's average, it seems that McLean has decided that Nash is comparable over the course of the next 5 years to Todd Bertuzzi, who is making about $5.4 million. Presumably, McLean has decided that Nash, averaged over 5 years, will be comparable to Bertuzzi, after factoring in the fact that Bertuzzi will demand a raise when his contract is up.

With that said, I looked up a few non-UFA contracts:

Peca $3.2 mil
Hejduk $3.9 mil (formely $4.3 mil)
Sykora $3.1 mil
Satan (formerly $3.9 mil)
Elias $4.1 mil last year
And of course Yashin's $7.6 mil.

Tossing away Yashin, you still have a number of guys who make more or less what Nash is going to make this year. Satan is a particularly good comparable, IMO.


Nash's money WOULD BE OK *IF* all those assumptions would come true. If Nash becomes a regular 50-60G player, if NHL revenues increase tens of percents over the next few years, if if if if...

As i am sure you detemined, my point is this. Given the fact that one of the key factors in signing a player longterm is to mitigate those risks (and then to mitigate the injury risk by way of insurance), I do not see how you can be so dogmatic that the signing is horrible. As far as increasing NHL revenues, I suspect the NHL nternally knows how revenues will ramp up better than the two of us, or a bunch of sportswriters who flunked grade 10 remedial math. They know how many tickets they are selling, how many sponsors are renewing, etc. As far as tens of percents being necessary, it might interest you to know that, if revenues increase a modest 5% per year (matching previous revenue increases), revenues will increase from $1.7 billion to $2.066 billion, translating to a max salary of $8.3 million. To get to the salary levels i posted earlier, that would take less than 8% annual growth.

Here's the problem: Maclean didn't cover his back at all, he took a flat-out UNNECESSARY risk which MIGHT hurt his team but which also WILL hurt other teams in the league. He didn't use any of the weapons available to him, he surrendered like French Army in front of Nash's agent. Sure, he will look good IF everything goes as you said.
See, in my view, what McLEan has done is not take a risk. He has mitigated a risk.

As far as surrendering, are you that certain Nash was not asking for a max contract?

Answer this question: Does a good GM bet everything on one horse?

You ask. I answer: no. In my view, the BJ's are not betting everything. They are paying Nash much less than a max salary. If you expect Nash to be a perennial all-star, leading goal scorer and franchise player, he is a bargain at less than the max.

Also think about this: There are several other examples of young players being low-balled by their GMs (and with low-balling I mean giving lower contracts than someone with RFA or arbitration status might have gotten with same stats) early in their career (read: the first contract after their ELC) but which have remained with the team for years after despite that low-balling.
Please cite those examples, so that I can respond accordingly. I cannot think about it unless you can tell me who you are referring to. Maybe there are, but you tell me.

Maclean could have secured the services of Nash with many other ways instead of handing him a ridiculous contract after 2 years in the NHL. Maclean could have offered him a 3y 7.5M contract which would have been very reasonable and given that Nash had very little if no leverage, he would have most likely accepted it. After that deal Maclean could have handed him the 7M per year deal IF he had continued to develop and score 40+ goals, but only then. And Nash would have most likely accepted that deal as well because he wouldn't get substantially more anywhere else and even if he does, Maclean can match it.
You are certain Nash would have taken a 3 yr $7.5 million deal. He might have - if he had lost his mind. Had he been offered anything less than about $3.5 to $4 mil per year, it would have been to his benefit to await arbitration next year, take the BJ's to arbitration every year after that and earn a boatload of money. Keep in mind he would not be taking into account the fact he might be a fluke, like you and others do. Athletes do not think like that. He would also not be worried about a career ending injury. He will be insured throught the wazoo on his own nickel, as most young NHL stars are.

As well, under any reasonable scenario, under your proposed deal, the max salary would have to stay at $7.8 mil. That number goes up as revenues increase.

After this year of taking what he is given and 4 years of tough negotiating/arbitration, exactly how quickly do you think he will want out of Columbus? Even if he is offered a max contract?

I just don't see any way around this, Maclean could have reached his objective with much better managing than he did.

That is a matter of determining his objectives. If he wanted to lock up his top player for as long a period as he can insure in the insurance market (which is now no longer than 5 years, i believe - a Yashin contract is no longer even insurable), he achieved his objective.

Oh and I ask you to cut the patronzing & arrogant crap from your replies, you're not talking to some 15-year old NHLPA fanboi who needs to be explained the same things every week over and over again. I know I haven't deserved that, having said that I apologize for being guilty of the same earlier in this post. Let's keep this at mature level ok?

I did my best, Pepper. As to whether you are a 15 year old fanboi or not, I don't know. Is the picture by your avatar you? I too apologize for whatever offences i may have given.
 

KallioWeHardlyKnewYe

Hey! We won!
May 30, 2003
15,508
3,330
Dion -- you're a NOTED Nash hater. Is that any different from being Blue Jacket homers?

If I recall correctly, during the last hockey season that was played, you came to the CBJ board completely unprovoked and proceeded to pick fights about Nash. In fact, I know you did that. How does that make you any different from the "Jacket homers?"

Same horse, different color.
 

bizzz*

Guest
Dion Mustard said:
Man, you are stupid. In every year MARIO has been in the league, his assist total has been above his goal total. In fact, every year he played more then 30 games, his point total was above 60. So tell me, how the **** can you compare MARIO to Nash? (he was -35 his first year, but also had 100 points; almost twice as much as Nash had with his worse +/-)
http://www.nhl.com/players/8448782.html.
You're a complete moron with a bunch of teenage complexes. You're comparing points total in 1984 with 2003 and you can't even make a step beyond the numbers.
I've put Nash Nash next to Mario. I was comparing morons who judge players only by their stats. Nash and Mario both were minus-35 and that's a reason why some idiots now and then could say that they're just lucky.

Say Nash comes no where close to scoring 30 goals again. Will you agree his 41 goals were luck? So, until he matches that output, it is luck.
You can't say anything more idiotic. You're just making yourself look stupid by all meanings.

He had 4 assists and you think that now makes him a play maker. Do you even remember how he got those assists? According to you and your ilk, Nash is a superstar goal scorer. And yet, in the 3 biggest games of the tourney, Nash couldn't put the puck in the net. I don't care if he had 10 assists. According to you, he's a goal scorer. And *franchise* goal scorers worthy of contracts like the one he signed should put up donuts in the big games.
He played on the only one alive Canadian line. They were shotdown buy the bes defensive national team in the world.
I saw a number of games, and talked with other who not only saw some games, but were actually on the ice when the game was played.
BTW, I've never call Kovi "great". But because according to the minons around here, Nash is great because he tied for the lead in goals, then Kovi must be great as well, simply because he was one of the Richard winners, and had more points then Nash.
You probably talked to Zamboni driver.

You obviously know ****all about hockey. I have never heard anybody beyond Doug MacLean or idiotic Columbus fans, call Nash that.
Toss all your kid's complexess somewhere your idiotic behind.

in 15 playoff games last year, he had 2 assists.
I've seen some those play-offs games. Before talk about Swees play-offs you could bothr youself and watch some moments too. Buts stats are enough for you.
Nash all the time was carrying two opposite players on his shoulders while his partners could send the puck nowhere else but only in goalie chest. Only during one play-ofs over-time Nash created 2 ideal opportunities for his partners, but they missed both of them.

at the WC, Rick Nash had 0 goals in the playoff round..
But he had 4 assists in 3 games, stats lover! Nash is bad because can't make assists in Swiss play-offs and he's even more bad because he couldn't score in WC playoffs. Wonderful.

That's enough for answer to such a moronic post.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
jacketracket said:
... and you're wrong, once again. Initially, you implied that the only posters who didn't feel that MacLean had made a mistake were CBJ fans.

My bad, I should have said 90% of the posters who didn't feel it was a overpayment were CBJ fans.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
gscarpenter2002 said:
As an introductory comment, I want to respond briefly to your request at the bottom aboout keeping this on a mature level. While your apology is duly noted, I do find it noteworthy that you make that suggestion AFTER a display of rampant cheapshots, ad hominem attacks and intemperate remarks in the post to which i am replying and in your replies to many other posters. That is a pretty self-serving approach at this point. however, let's move along.

I know, all that was just to make a point. But like you said, let's move along on adult level.

gscarpenter2002 said:
Peca $3.2 mil
Hejduk $3.9 mil (formely $4.3 mil)
Sykora $3.1 mil
Satan (formerly $3.9 mil)
Elias $4.1 mil last year
And of course Yashin's $7.6 mil.

1) All of those are pre-CBA contracts

2) All of them have EXCELLENT track records with several great seasons. Nash has exactly 1 great season (and not everyone consideres 57 points 'great' despite scoring 41 goals but I digress).

3) Hedjuk's new contract (under the new CBA) calls for average 5.0M per year. This guy has 50+ goal seasons and ~100p season under his belt.


gscarpenter2002 said:
Tossing away Yashin, you still have a number of guys who make more or less what Nash is going to make this year. Satan is a particularly good comparable, IMO.

They are not comparables! All of them have 5+ great seasons in the NHL, they are PROVEN not to be one-year wonders.

gscarpenter2002 said:
See, in my view, what McLEan has done is not take a risk. He has mitigated a risk.

As far as surrendering, are you that certain Nash was not asking for a max contract?

Sorry but I really fail to see how is giving a 5y 5.4M per year deal 'risk mitigation'?? He takes 2 huge gambles (revenues rising nearly 10% per year and Nash developing in to a 50g+ scorer). Even if the revenues rise, how can he tell that Nash will develope in to a REGULAR 40-50G scorer?

Sorry, in my books that's pretty far from risk mitigation. If he had wanted to mitigate risks, he would have given him a small base salary and lots of bonuses.

gscarpenter2002 said:
Please cite those examples, so that I can respond accordingly. I cannot think about it unless you can tell me who you are referring to. Maybe there are, but you tell me.

Well, all the current top stars who have remained in the organisation from the start. Brodeur, Sundin, Iginla, Leetch etc. all of them stuck with their teams despite getting the usual first-pro contract treatment i.e. didn't get the max amount of money. Here's a counter-question: can you name any top players who bolted to other team at the first chance because they were low-balled after their ELC expired? I can't remember any such occasion (and I know it's hard to name them since they usually sugar-coat the farewell speeches, but I haven't even heard rumors of such, have you?)

Another question: do you think it's a realistic scenario where Maclean gives Nash a 3y 7.5M offer (with possible bonuses for performance) and after than contract gives him a 5y 35M contract (assuming that Nash keeps performing)? Why wouldn't that work?

gscarpenter2002 said:
I did my best, Pepper. As to whether you are a 15 year old fanboi or not, I don't know. Is the picture by your avatar you? I too apologize for whatever offences i may have given.

Heh, no it's not me. It's a e-mail joke making rounds over here, it's the result of a 5 straight guys giving a make-up to a queer (as in Queer Eye For The Straight Guy but vice versa). You can't possibly offend me but it's slightly irritating to respond to posts which are full of patronizing arrogance. I'm sure you understand.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe said:
Dion -- you're a NOTED Nash hater. Is that any different from being Blue Jacket homers?

If I recall correctly, during the last hockey season that was played, you came to the CBJ board completely unprovoked and proceeded to pick fights about Nash. In fact, I know you did that. How does that make you any different from the "Jacket homers?"

Same horse, different color.

Actually Dion is not a Nash hater, he just hates everything that is linked to London Knights. He was in full Perry-bash mode last spring when Perry was tearing up the OHL with Knights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->