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?