Player Discussion David Pastrnak VII

[Mr. Make-Believe]

I've used the Tarasenko deal as a comparable numerous times. I personally think it's the best comparable in the league to Pasta all aspects considered.

I'm curious to see what people would think of this offer:

2018 - 7.25
2019 - 7.25
2020 - 7.25
2021 - 6.5 (1.0 bonus)
2022 - 7.75 - NTC
2023 - 8.5 (3.0 bonus) - NTC
2024 - 7.75 - NTC
2025 - 7.75 - NTC

Total value = 60 million over 8 years. Guaranteed 54.5 million in case of a lock-out in 2021 or 2023.

AAV is 7.5

He gets the same amount of bonus money in 2021 and 2023 as Marchand does.

He's guaranteed the same amount of money in case of a lockout as Tarasenko. Tarasenko doesn't have bonus money, but his contract is structured so his base salary in 2021 or 2023 is only 5.5 million, meaning he's guaranteed at least 54.5 million of the 60.

Gave him the same NTC as Tarasenko (last 4 years)

Buys the safe amount of UFA years as Tarasenko as well (4).

Looking at actual salary and not AAV, he would be the 6th highest paid Bruin in 2018, 3rd in 2019, 2nd in 2020, tied for 2nd in 2021 (if no lockout), and wouldn't become the highest paid Bruin based on existing contracts until 2022.

Sure it's more than Marchand over the same 8 years, lockout or no lockout. But your buying Pasta from prime ages 21-29, not 29 through 37 like Marchand, so I think that is fair.

You are bang-on with this comparison. Tarasenko signed his deal two years ago (or is it three?) after posting near identical numbers to Pastrnak in the season he became an RFA. And this was BEFORE the market was "completely redefined" ( ) by one contract out of Edmonton.

 

[PB37]

You are bang-on with this comparison. Tarasenko signed his deal two years ago (or is it three?) after posting near identical numbers to Pastrnak in the season he became an RFA. And this was BEFORE the market was "completely redefined" ( ) by one contract out of Edmonton.

Agreed. Edmonton has to overpay a bit to keep and attract players; it's one of the least desirable cities to play for in the league according to agents.

http://www.hockeystat.com/heres-look-nhls-least-favorite-teams-play/

Chia will help turn some of that around like he did with Boston, but just like he did here, he won't be shy dishing out the coin to do it. Tossing money at Dra and McDavid was a must and shouldn't be looked at as standard bearers for players of similar ilk looking to get new deals.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Agreed. Edmonton has to overpay a bit to keep and attract players; it's one of the least desirable cities to play for in the league according to agents.

http://www.hockeystat.com/heres-look-nhls-least-favorite-teams-play/

Chia will help turn some of that around like he did with Boston, but just like he did here, he won't be shy dishing out the coin to do it. Tossing money at Dra and McDavid was a must and shouldn't be looked at as standard bearers for players of similar ilk looking to get new deals.

Right. Any more than any other one contract should be considered "market defining".

Would Draisaitl received that contract from the Chicago Blackhawks? The Predators? Hell... The Bruins? I'd suggest likely not.

Would the Coyotes do it, though? Or the Florida Panthers? I would say they would if it they felt he was a bankable star they could market.

Remember Michael Nylander? His last NHL contract was to be with the Edmonton Oilers for nearly $3 million MORE than what he took to go to the Capitals. The Oilers often have to pay a premium.

 

[Pia8988]

First time I've heard this claimed.

Link? Source?

That's the entire point of the escrow. Players are complaining about losing too much money because the cap is higher than it should be so they're losing. They're paying like 15% of their salaries into escrow and not getting much of it back because the 50/50 split is landing too much on the players side.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

That's the entire point of the escrow. Players are complaining about losing too much money because the cap is higher than it should be so they're losing. They're paying like 15% of their salaries into escrow and not getting much of it back because the 50/50 split is landing too much on the players side.

That's the point of escrow though. To ensure the 50/50 split.

Are you claiming that escrow isn't functioning as intended?

Not attempting to be a jerk or argumentative... This is just the first time I've heard this.

 

[Pia8988]

No, I think his point is the cap is too high giving players an artificial sense of a contract. So a 7.5 million new contract isnt really that due to escrow taking a chunk annually

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

No, I think his point is the cap is too high giving players an artificial sense of a contract. So a 7.5 million new contract isnt really that due to escrow taking a chunk annually

If that's his point, he needs to word it clearer.

It's a 50/50 revenue split. Players are not getting "WAY MORE THAN THAT." They are getting 50% and escrow is a provision that helps ensure that number.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

First time I've heard this claimed.

Link? Source?

its a simple reality... escrow is being taken from players with signed contracts and not returned to them. the amount of all the salaries is way above the 50%

therefore we can use some logic... if the contracts are currently way above 50% hrr then basing new deals on these contracts will only increase the problem

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

If that's his point, he needs to word it clearer.

It's a 50/50 revenue split. Players are not getting "WAY MORE THAN THAT." They are getting 50% and escrow is a provision that helps ensure that number.

the wording is... basing new contracts on existing contracts when existing contracts don't fit into the allowed 50% hrr to begin with... is a problem. that was my wording.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

That's the point of escrow though. To ensure the 50/50 split.

Are you claiming that escrow isn't functioning as intended?

Not attempting to be a jerk or argumentative... This is just the first time I've heard this.

escrow is a fail safe to protect the nhl when the cap is falsely calculated and reveunues don't cover expenses. the players salary is the expense in question

so yes its working as intended.

but the effect is... players who signed contracts are now losing a reported 18% of that contract back to the league. we can apply some logic here. if the players are losing 18% because their collective pay is 18% too high then the individual contracts are too high

I hope this isn't as confusing as you've suggested it is. too much money is being paid to the players and then clawed back. and its been happening for years. and its getting worst. and the players are getting angry about it

and this WILL BE A HUGE PART OF THE NEXT CBA FIGHT

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

the wording is... basing new contracts on existing contracts when existing contracts don't fit into the allowed 50% hrr to begin with... is a problem. that was my wording.

"Players are only entitled to 50% of hrr and they are getting WAY MORE THAN THAT"

That was a direct quote. Not a misrepresentation.

escrow is a fail safe to protect the nhl when the cap is falsely calculated and reveunues don't cover expenses. the players salary is the expense in question

so yes its working as intended.

but the effect is... players who signed contracts are now losing a reported 18% of that contract back to the league. we can apply some logic here. if the players are losing 18% because their collective pay is 18% too high then the individual contracts are too high

I hope this isn't as confusing as you've suggested it is. too much money is being paid to the players and then clawed back. and its been happening for years. and its getting worst. and the players are getting angry about it

and this WILL BE A HUGE PART OF THE NEXT CBA FIGHT

Saying escrow is something that's increasing and that the players are upset about it is true.

Saying that the players are getting more than 50% of the revenue, or that they are getting paid a certain amount and then have to give BACK, is NOT true.

It's not confusing and I've never suggested it was.

I agree that it's a big issue with CBA negotiations... But until a more affable alternative is suggested, escrow is a necessary evil. Have you seen a better potential alternative?

 

[smithformeragent]

This ends another chapter of the David Pastrnak saga.

Tune in again next week.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=135476877#post135476877