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

[Dion Mustard*]

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.

What is a player worth if he doesn't make your team better? The Jackets have gotten worse since his arrival. Wouldn't it be wise to not lock yourself into a long contract with a 2 year pro, and try and use your money to build a better team around him?

I know for a fact as a Dion Phanuef fan, I was happier to see the Flames get into the playoffs, rather then Iggy score 41 goals. The Rocket Trophy means nothing if the guy who won it isn't in the playoffs.

Nash is not a "stud". After one year, ignorant media types and Doug MacLean have tried passing him off as one. Lets see him put together a few years of high performance before we label him a "stud".

And you're calling someone else an idiot?

Must be. Joe Juneau scored 35 his early in his career, and never came close to that mark again. It is easy to say he had a lot of luck on his side that year. Until Nash gets back to the 41 goal point, it will be considered a lucky season.

Like has been said before. While Iggy and Kovi, along with their teammates, were trying to get in the playoffs, Nash and his teammates were setting him up in the slot. The 41 goals is gross inflation of what it should have been if the main game plan wasn't to pad Nash's stats.

That's why the 41 goals is all MacLean, and the minions who cheer for Nash, ever talk about.

Dion -- you're a NOTED Nash hater. Is that any different from being Blue Jacket homers?

So what if I am? Most of the pro contract supporters in this thread are proven Nash lovers. If they're allowed to have their say, then so am I. But I can assure you, if Nash wore a different jersey, I'd still say this contract is terrible. But, the same can't be said for you, or your ilk.

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.

Actually, I've "hated" on a number of players. But nice of you to only mention those two (who also have been "hated" by a number of others beyond me). And funny enough, those two are players who are/were hated by almost everyone who wasn't a fan of the team they played for.

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.

Keep back pedaling, it won't help.

The fact is, until Nash repeats what he has done (and better yet, adds to it), you can't say he deserves this contract, or compare him to any other player in the league. The only stat you should look at is the one that say's he is only a 2 year pro, and the one that say's the Jackets have gotten worse since his arrival.

You can't say anything more idiotic. You're just making yourself look stupid by all meanings.

No, I'm wondering if you'd think Nash was such a "superstar" if he never gets back to that total. Again, if Nash scores less then 30 goals a year for the rest of his career, would his 41 goals be nothing but a fluke, or a lucky season? Answer the question.

He played on the only one alive Canadian line. They were shotdown buy the bes defensive national team in the world.

I'm not sure what this was suppose to say, as I speak English, not Pejorative Slur. But I'd like to point out that the finals was not the only game Nash was held goalless.

You probably talked to Zamboni driver.

Oh, you are so funny. However, even if it was the Zamboni driver, it was someone who was there. I'll help you out, it wasn't the driver, but a pretty important player for Davos last year. So, eat it.

Toss all your kid's complexess somewhere your idiotic behind.

Finish high school before throwing out your psycho babble bullsh!t.

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.

Dude, you have a pic of Nash as your Avatar. It's clear you are a fan of him, and would lie, and omit important facts and details in order to support your cause.

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

You should probably fix your spelling mistakes before using the word "moronic".

 

[jacketracket*]

Any GM whose modus opererandi is giving huge fat deals to 21y old kids in hoping that they will remember it in 5 years when they are UFAs won't be GMs for too long. When Nash is a UFA and Rangers come knocking with 7y max salary deal, do you seriously think he's going to skip it just because Maclean was stupid enough to overpay him royally 5 years earlier?

We'll have to wait until the time comes, to tell. In the mean time, MacLean HAS TAKEN STEPS TO GUARD AGAINST THAT by signing Nash to a hassle-free contract that was reasonable to both parties.

He could have given him the normal treatment like to other young stars (Gaborik, Heatley, Kovalchuk etc) and saved his owner a lot of cash but I guess Maclean got sentimental there.

Did I miss the post-new CBA signings of Kovalchuk, Heatley, and Gaborik?

 

[Pepper]

We'll have to wait until the time comes, to tell. In the mean time, MacLean HAS TAKEN STEPS TO GUARD AGAINST THAT by signing Nash to a hassle-free contract that was reasonable to both parties.
Did I miss the post-new CBA signings of Kovalchuk, Heatley, and Gaborik?

No you didn't miss them, Kovalchuk & Heatley are RFAs and thus have more levearage, Gaborik was under contract already.

Hassle-free is the new synonym for laziness now? Hey, give the kid the money he wants so I don't have to deal with angry agent and few ignorant journalists.

 

[grapeshine]

No you didn't miss them, Kovalchuk & Heatley are RFAs and thus have more levearage, Gaborik was under contract already.

Hassle-free is the new synonym for laziness now? Hey, give the kid the money he wants so I don't have to deal with angry agent and few ignorant journalists.

Pepper, you've convinced me: Maclean is a lazy, know-nothing idiot. You're ten times smarter than him and have a much better mind for business. Excellent work.

I honestly enjoy healthy, intelligent debate but your absolute insistence that you're 100% correct just doesn't make it fun. The constant cheap-shots aren't so endearing either.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Pepper, I have to agree with the above poster. I fail to see how this discussion is ever going to come to a reasonable point with you. You are simply naysaying virtually any point I am making by way of either changing the subject, flipping the issue back at me (I say "prove statement A" and you reply "Well, prove your statement") or simply spinning it in another direction.

Your entire premise depends on the following positions:

1. Columbus could have signed Nash to a 3 year $7.5 million dollar by offering it and Nash would have taken that deal without hesitation.

2. If they didn't do that, Columbus could have signed Nash to a $5-7 million per year deal at a point in the future and he would have taken THAT deal without hesitation.

3. There are no comparables to Nash except for Heatley, Kovalchuk and Gaborik (and he is inferior to them as well), none of whom are signed yet.

4. Every single existing contract signed pre-CBA does not count as far as comparables.

5. Columbus is taking a huge risk by signing Nash to this deal when he could fall back to something less than an elite level player.

6. Nash is himself something less than an elite player. All he did was score goals. He had less than 60 points (although you have not pushed this point hard, admittedly).

7. Players do not respond to being treated well financially earlier in their contract when it comes time to sign an extension or become a UFA.

In spite of the fact that you have provided absolutely ZERO evidence of those positions other than your own opinion, I have provided hard evidence to refute many of them and provided reasoned positions in opposition that at least allow one to conclude that reasonable people can disagree on which side is more valid. My positions are encapsulated as follows:

1. Nash would have had to lose his mind to sign a 3 year deal for the money you refer to, and given Columbus' desire to lock up Nash for as long as injury insurance can provide, they would have been mental to offer him a mere three year deal.

2. Absent a longterm deal, Nash would have played out the string and sought arbitration every year, except where he got a RFA offer sheet. That is how he would maximize his earnings in the absense of a 5 year deal.

3. The arbitration process allows the presentation of any non-UFA as a comparable. Whether or not that comparable is persuasive is for the arbitrator to evaluate, but given that arbitrators almost invariably have minimal hockey experience, any capable agent can build a case for just about everything, and it is extremely risky to allow your payroll to be dictated by such a process.

4. Pre-existing contracts ARE eligible for comparables (after the 24% deduction), and in fact that is the majority of available comparables. After the 24% deduction, it is simplicity itself to successfully argue to an arbitrator that once the deduction happens that puts them on the same footing as post-CBA contracts (if not worse for the player, since the 24% deduction came as a result of a league-wide deduction rather than the marketplace setting the salary).

5. The DATA (not opinion) clearly shows that NHL leading goal scorers become elite level players with multiple all-star level performances.

6. Guys who lead the league in goals are elite level players almost by definition.

7. Players will respond to being treated fairly in pre-UFA contracts when the time comes to the decision time.

I have many other points, but I limited myself to the same number as I mentioned for you.

Yet you continue to charge ahead with point-by-point "refutations" which go nowhere and provide not a scintilla of evidence to the contrary. You remain of the view that it is OBVIOUS that this signing is foolishness.

You do so in spite of a lack of any apparent negotiating credentials of your own. You do so in spite of a number of statements showing (in my OPINION)that you lack much appreciation for any of the elements involved in negotiating a transaction, including (without limiting the generality of the foregoing) risk management. And no, you do not have to prove yourself to me; I doubt you would be much inclined to, anyway. I can go only by your evaluations of McLean's negotating tactics and assessing the level of knowledge that you are showing by those comments. I am satisfied with my assessment based on your posts in this thread.

I have been on the same side as you many times, Pepper. I am not this time.

I am sorry. I am withdrawing from this discussion. It is a waste of my time and probably a waste of yours. I disagree with your point of view on this. Of course you are welcome to your own opinions, as am I. I leave it for others to judge for themselves whose positions as summarized above are more persuasive.

 

[Weary]

I honestly enjoy healthy, intelligent debate but your absolute insistence that you're 100% correct just doesn't make it fun.

Then the best debates occur when each party believes that he is half right?

 

[Pepper]

Pepper, you've convinced me: Maclean is a lazy, know-nothing idiot. You're ten times smarter than him and have a much better mind for business. Excellent work.

Wow, you almost got my point

I honestly enjoy healthy, intelligent debate but your absolute insistence that you're 100% correct just doesn't make it fun. The constant cheap-shots aren't so endearing either.

Cheapshots?? You're talking about shooting down your arguments?

 

[grapeshine]

Then the best debates occur when each party believes that he is half right?

Man, that's really oversimplifying matters. A good debate isn't about being right or wrong, as much as it is about teasing out divergent points of view. If you insist from the beginning that you're 100% correct, you're not debating: you're a fanatic. To debate well, an individual must understand his opponent's position as well as his own.

 

[grapeshine]

Wow, you almost got my point



Cheapshots?? You're talking about shooting down your arguments?

My second paragraph suggests that I think you're capable and intelligent. I think some of what you said in this thread makes a lot of sense and is well argued. What is bothersome, however, is that I don't think you once acknowledged any counterargument presented to you as interesting, valid or worthy of consideration.

 

[Pepper]

Pepper, I have to agree with the above poster. I fail to see how this discussion is ever going to come to a reasonable point with you. You are simply naysaying virtually any point I am making by way of either changing the subject, flipping the issue back at me (I say "prove statement A" and you reply "Well, prove your statement") or simply spinning it in another direction.

That's a cheap cop-out and you know it, I only asked you to provide examples of players who have bolted to other teams because of low-balling several years earlier; you couldn't come up with any. Not really my fault now is it? Also your list of comparables was not really relevant as in included 30+ players with several great seasons and proven track record. Again, not my fault.

You also had several factual errors concerning the arbitration process, it was pretty clear that the whole concept of arbitration process and how agents & GMs back up their cases was pretty unfamiliar to you as shown by the comments in your previous post.

You think you're dealing with some 15y pro-PA fanboy again and you're used to getting the last word, well guess again. You might think you can bully me around with your arrogance but that's not gonna work.

1. Columbus could have signed Nash to a 3 year $7.5 million dollar by offering it and Nash would have taken that deal without hesitation..

That was one example, it could have been 2y 5-6M deal as well. He would have taken it because he wouldn't have any choice but to take it. See Gaborik.

2. If they didn't do that, Columbus could have signed Nash to a $5-7 million per year deal at a point in the future and he would have taken THAT deal without hesitation.

Give Nash 2 years to show that the last year was not a flash in the pan and he's ready to take the next step, if that happens hand him a $7M per year deal which he would gladly take as it makes him most likely the highest paid player in the league (~ the same money as Iginla who's much more proven).

3. There are no comparables to Nash except for Heatley, Kovalchuk and Gaborik (and he is inferior to them as well), none of whom are signed yet.

Gaborik is signed at 2.69M per year. And yes, those 3 are much closer comparables than any of the players you have listed so far.

4. Every single existing contract signed pre-CBA does not count as far as comparables.

Never claimed that, hell I've used Gaborik's pre-CBA contract as a comparable!

5. Columbus is taking a huge risk by signing Nash to this deal when he could fall back to something less than an elite level player.

They took unnecessary financial risk.

6. Nash is himself something less than an elite player. All he did was score goals. He had less than 60 points (although you have not pushed this point hard, admittedly).

Nash is a 2nd year pro with one great season, we can't tell how (if at all) he will develope from his 60pts level.

7. Players do not respond to being treated well financially earlier in their contract when it comes time to sign an extension or become a UFA.

There's absolutely no evidence of players leaving teams because of normal hardballing when negotiating their first contract after ELC.

In spite of the fact that you have provided absolutely ZERO evidence of those positions other than your own opinion,

That's YOUR opinion.

1. Nash would have had to lose his mind to sign a 3 year deal for the money you refer to, and given Columbus' desire to lock up Nash for as long as injury insurance can provide, they would have been mental to offer him a mere three year deal.

Please tell me the options Nash has other than sit out or take the deal. And the 3y deal was just an example, it could be a 2y deal as well.

2. Absent a longterm deal, Nash would have played out the string and sought arbitration every year, except where he got a RFA offer sheet. That is how he would maximize his earnings in the absense of a 5 year deal.

1) You assume he would have been given a RFA offer sheet by some other team, that hasn't happened since Fedorov/Sakic in late 90's.

2) Teams can choose to take 2y deals from arbitration

3) CBJ can offer Nash a long-term contract after/during his assumed 2/3y contract for more money, does Nash have a reason to turn it down?

3. The arbitration process allows the presentation of any non-UFA as a comparable. Whether or not that comparable is persuasive is for the arbitrator to evaluate, but given that arbitrators almost invariably have minimal hockey experience, any capable agent can build a case for just about everything, and it is extremely risky to allow your payroll to be dictated by such a process.

Like you were shown earlier, age/experience is one of the major criterias in arbitrations.

4. Pre-existing contracts ARE eligible for comparables (after the 24% deduction), and in fact that is the majority of available comparables. After the 24% deduction, it is simplicity itself to successfully argue to an arbitrator that once the deduction happens that puts them on the same footing as post-CBA contracts (if not worse for the player, since the 24% deduction came as a result of a league-wide deduction rather than the marketplace setting the salary)..

Pre-CBA contract are comparables but pre-CBA contracts with 24% rollback is not the same as post-CBA contracts meaning the market has changes more than 24%.

Yet you continue to charge ahead with point-by-point "refutations" which go nowhere and provide not a scintilla of evidence to the contrary. You remain of the view that it is OBVIOUS that this signing is foolishness.

Maclean paid too much, this is the view shared by HUGE majority over here. He could have gotten the same for less money, and giving Nash that huge deal he hurt several other teams in the process.

That's the bottom line, he got what he wanted but he gave too much to achieve it.

 

[jacketracket*]

No you didn't miss them, Kovalchuk & Heatley are RFAs and thus have more levearage, Gaborik was under contract already.

Ahh ... you've blindly stumbled into my point.

You'd be carping about the contracts given Kovalchuk, Heatley, and Gaborik, had theirs been the first deals done under the new CBA (unless one of them played for your favorite team).

 

[jacketracket*]

Maclean paid too much, this is the view shared by HUGE majority over here.

Wrong ...

 

[Pepper]

You'd be carping about the contracts given Kovalchuk, Heatley, and Gaborik, had theirs been the first deals done under the new CBA (unless one of them played for your favorite team).

If they were as bad as Nash's, yes.

 

[Pepper]

Wrong ...

Go check the poll. Oh sorry I forgot, only opinions in this thread count

 

[jacketracket*]

Go check the poll. Oh sorry I forgot, only opinions in this thread count

Well, I'd also accept intelligent opinions, too ... you have any?

 

[Pepper]

Well, I'd also accept intelligent opinions, too ... you have any?

Read back this thread, you can try proving my claims wrong but I suspect it's too much to ask considering your whole contribution seems to unwitty one-liners.

GSCarperter2002 atleast takes the time to actually think about his replies.

 

[jacketracket*]

Read back this thread, you can try proving my claims wrong but I suspect it's too much to ask considering your whole contribution seems to unwitty one-liners.

So you don't, I see ...

 

[Pepper]

So you don't, I see ...

Another one-liner with zero relevance, information or anything of substance in general.

You're out of your league in this one.

 

[jacketracket*]

You're out of your league in this one.

Good point.

Momma always told me not to argue with the witless, yet here I go again ...

 

[Pepper]

Good point.

Momma always told me not to argue with the witless, yet here I go again ...

There you go again...Your contribution to this thread is close to zero anyway so I don't see what's the point of arguing.

Besides, you hurling one-liners & insults can't really be considered 'arguing'.

I'm not gonna waste any more time with you as you have nothing of substance to offer here.

 

[dru]

Get a room you guys.

 

[jacketracket*]

There you go again...Your contribution to this thread is close to zero anyway so I don't see what's the point of arguing.

My contribution to this thread has been to repeatedly point out that your assertion that MacLean erred in his negotiations with Nash is merely your opinion --- subject to discussion and debate --- and not fact.

In short, I've noted that you are wrong ...