NMC and bonus money are nit minor things at all. It’s the difference of potentially millions of real dollars out of the owners pocket, depending on when in the escrow schedule the money is owed.
A full NMC has real value. It can hamstring a team, when they’re married to a failing player with an albatross contract and no way to move them. In this case, I think Armstrong is kind of in the camp of “We don’t negotiate with terrorists.”
If he gives one player bonus payments, then every negotiation from then on will have that precedent to point to. The risk of players holding out over bonuses goes up a lot. On the other hand, if Pietro goes to UFA over bonus payments, the next guy is going to know that’s not likely to be available to him either.
Pietro is being offered a contract making him the highest paid player on the team. This would be the richest contract in team history if I’m not mistaken. To be personally insulted by an offer like that in the climate of a pandemic is a little hard to believe. I still think he’s mostly posturing.
A NMC and signing bonuses aren't minor things, but you aren't likely to be able to sign players the calibre of Pietrangelo without signing bonuses. That's just the reality.
Of all the defensemen with an AAV of $7m or higher, only Chabot has neither signing bonuses or a NMC. Letang is the only other without signing bonuses. From an agents perspective, the negotiation is all about the extent of the signing bonuses, not if they are in the contract.
If we aren't going to give out any signing bonuses in contract negotiations, then we're at a severe disadvantage moving forward. If it is an ownership issue, that's unfortunate and not the fault of Armstrong.
Does giving Pietrangelo signing bonuses increase the likelihood of other players expecting them? To a degree, and we have to cross that bridge when it happens. If Pietrangelo leaves because we refuse signing bonuses, that isn't going to stop Parayko expecting them when we start talking to him next year. Parayko will be in a stronger negotiating position if we've already lost Pietrangelo. ROR is unquestionably going to expect them when we're talking with him in two years.
We're going to find out just how good a negotiator Doug Armstrong is in the next couple of weeks. I'm happy to give him credit when it's due, and even defend contracts that others describe as "bad"... but, I think a lot of his reputation with contracts is overblown. He's solid and largely risk averse. Dealing with RFAs and using a "prove it" philosophy, combined with hard red lines for UFA targets? It makes it much easier to avoid "bad" deals. Now we're at a point where it's a star player looking at UFA? Those tactics have to be more flexible, it can't be a one-trick pony.
