Player Discussion David Pastrnak VII

[s3antana5757]

Like I've been saying, it takes two to tango. We have no idea if Pastrnak (and/or his agent) even wanted to negotiate last offseason, or even during the season. Everyone seems to want to place the blame for not signing Pastrnak at the feet of Sweeney, but no one can say for sure that Pastrnak was ever a willing participant in the process.

That's not always the case. Boston was in a powerful negotiating place. They could've paid him more last year(16-17), and given him financial security for the rest of his life. Pasta now knows he's going to get paid, either by Boston or some other team. That was not a certainty last year. Even if you started or tried to start a negotiation, it's a good faith effort and allows him know he's wanted.

I agree

I posted last August 20 this

"I think Pastrnak has a breakout year and gets 34, 35 goals and 75ish points. I know his high to date is 26 points but jumping 50 points can be done. Also what happens if Pastrnak has a big year and Chiarelli screws up the market with one of his patented overpays with McDavid or Draisaitl. I'd lock him up now 8/25."

Wow

Amazing post and forsight by me

I always thought I was awesome but didn't really want to brag but this seals it

Did you really DKH? That's incredible.

 

[DKH]

People seem to be under the misguided belief that Pasta has no leverage here. Of course he does. He is not going to sign a well below market deal just because Sweeney wants him to. And the point that he only did it for one year is irrelevant. The relevant point is that he did it. And he's going to get paid for it. Whether that's here or elsewhere.

aren't you starting 'trrrr.......training camp early

has anyone ever died from holding their breath. That's the one outcome that would concern me that Pastrnak has.

 

[DKH]

That's not always the case. Boston was in a powerful negotiating place. They could've paid him more last year(16-17), and given him financial security for the rest of his life. Pasta now knows he's going to get paid, either by Boston or some other team. That was not a certainty last year. Even if you started or tried to start a negotiation, it's a good faith effort and allows him know he's wanted.



Did you really DKH? That's incredible.

you want to another scoop

2020 Bruins parade in June

 

[HeartsAlive]

I like Sweeney's drafting and patience with the prospects, I really do. But this should have been done a long long time ago. Instead we're having honest discussions about whether or not he'll be traded. All the while he's signed McQuaid, Miller, Backes and Beleskey to take up nearly 15 million against the cap for 2 more years. Marchand's deal is amazing, but it's starting to look like the outlier.

 

[Bruinswillwin77]

I like Sweeney's drafting and patience with the prospects, I really do. But this should have been done a long long time ago. Instead we're having honest discussions about whether or not he'll be traded. All the while he's signed McQuaid, Miller, Backes and Beleskey to take up nearly 15 million against the cap for 2 more years. Marchand's deal is amazing, but it's starting to look like the outlier.

He will get signed for like 7m and there will be people whining about how he shouldn't make more then Bergeron and Marchand.

I'm not worried that he won't sign but I can't wait to read the boards when he does.

 

[Salem13]

I like Sweeney's drafting and patience with the prospects, I really do. But this should have been done a long long time ago. Instead we're having honest discussions about whether or not he'll be traded. All the while he's signed McQuaid, Miller, Backes and Beleskey to take up nearly 15 million against the cap for 2 more years. Marchand's deal is amazing, but it's starting to look like the outlier.

I say the HF D twins of Quaider and Millzy are at fair money as much as everyone says we have to trade one.

I hate the Backes term and Bells was a flop and he seems to know it.

Lets hope for more betterer from him.

 

[riverhawkey91]

That's not always the case. Boston was in a powerful negotiating place. They could've paid him more last year(16-17), and given him financial security for the rest of his life. Pasta now knows he's going to get paid, either by Boston or some other team. That was not a certainty last year. Even if you started or tried to start a negotiation, it's a good faith effort and allows him know he's wanted.

In fairness, if they were negotiating a deal after the 15/16 season at all, it would have been for a bridge deal, not a long-term deal.

No agent would let their client sign a long-term deal after two decent half-seasons, especially not ones who showed the potential that Pastrnak did. I'd bet there are very few long-term deals negotiated and signed prior to the player's last ELC year -- and in the cases it does happen, it's probably only after having two fairly high-end seasons, i.e. with Crosby and Malkin.

Plus in reality it's probably good for the Bruins that they didn't sign him to a bridge last year. Right now a bridge deal is looking like the absolute worst case scenario for the team moving forward.

 

[HeartsAlive]

I say the HF D twins of Quaider and Millzy are at fair money as much as everyone says we have to trade one.

I hate the Backes term and Bells was a flop and he seems to know it.

Lets hope for more betterer from him.

I don't disagree that McQuaid and Miller are fair value, I just don't see the need for both of them. I think we're just as good a team with Postma + Gryz/O'Gara as the 6 and 7 D on this team and spending the 1.75 or so difference on other players.

 

[wintersej]

Marchand's contract in terms of salary:

17/18: $8M ($4M singing bonus)
18/19: $8M ($3M signing bonus)
19/20: $7.5M ($4M signing bonus)
20/21: $5M ($1M signing bonus)
21/22: $6.5M ($4M signing bonus)
22/23: $5M ($3M signing bonus)
23/24: $5M ($2M signing bonus)
24/25: $4M ($3M signing bonus)

Really anyone should be able to look at that deal and see why the AAV isn't at all comparable to anything Pastrnak is likely looking at.

I posted this yesterday on the old thread after looking at Cam Fowler's deal, but now that I just noticed Marchand's is sort of along the same lines, I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being how they approach Pastrnak's deal:

17/18: $7.5M
18/19: $7.5M
19/20: $7.5M
20/21: $4.0M ($3M signing bonus)
21/22: $7.5M
22/23: $4.0M ($3M signing bonus)
23/24: $7.5M
24/25: $7.5M

Overall: $53M/8Y = $6.625M cap hit

Pay him a slightly higher salary than he'd normally be looking at as a form of lockout protection, which also serves to knock down the overall cap hit.

Great and well thought out post.

 

[KrejciMVP]

If I was Sweeney and Pastrnak did that the bridge deal would be $4.5

If Pastrnak attitude at 6/36 is insulted I would be disgusted and his jersey would go in the trash

Next year's draft is considered deep and top heavy so if Vegas wants to hand over the potential first round pick #32 and #63 I'm in

But I seriously think No way he gets an offer sheet

Zero

I been told by folks who's name you would recognize it would be shocking in what is going on with the change in contract

I find the confusion on HF who has the hammer - it's not Pastrnak

Pasta's not doing the negotiations, he's being told what to do by his agent. Going by his stats and the market this is how the business works get and he should get what he's worth. He's a great kid and I dont think you would throw his jersey away.

 

[wintersej]

I don't disagree that McQuaid and Miller are fair value, I just don't see the need for both of them. I think we're just as good a team with Postma + Gryz/O'Gara as the 6 and 7 D on this team and spending the 1.75 or so difference on other players.

This is certainly true. It was less true when those two were signed and Carlo and McAvoy were not close to the NHL roster.

 

[Salem13]

Great and well thought out post.

Bergeron's contract is even more bonus centric for 2021.

As I have said before, the one Bruin who wants to play is DK46.

Poor guy gets nothing without playing.

Edit: The guy with the "bad contract"

 

[DKH]

Bergeron's contract is even more bonus centric for 2021.

As I have said before, the one Bruin who wants to play is DK46.

Poor guy gets nothing without playing.

Edit: The guy with the "bad contract"

agree everyone complains about his contract but he can legitimately file for unemployment benefits in 2020-21 and he should

 

[riverhawkey91]

Bergeron's contract is even more bonus centric for 2021.

As I have said before, the one Bruin who wants to play is DK46.

Poor guy gets nothing without playing.

Edit: The guy with the "bad contract"

The signing bonus part really only matters for lockout protection, and in that respect Bergeron's deal really isn't protected very much (only $1M signing bonus out of $4.375M salary that year).

I think the lower salary there is more due to his age and how much hockey he'll have played by that point, like with Marchand's deal. Krejci's deal definitely shows the contrast between what Pastrnak's deal will look like versus Marchand/Bergeron's deals though...not having those lower 35(+) years definitely isn't good for the AAV.

Someone better at this than me would have to explain the logic of the signing bonuses in 18/19 and 19/20, but at least in the last two years I'd guess that's some sort of buyout protection maybe?

 

[neelynugs]

If I was Sweeney and Pastrnak did that the bridge deal would be $4.5

that's probably about right - on a 3 year bridge deal, kucherov got something like 4.7M per year. but then when he's up for another deal, he crushes it. seems much smarter to sign pastrnak to 6-7 years now and save some cash vs the bridge and then getting crushed (see: subban, pk).

 

[LSCII]

Wait, I thought it was all on Sweeney to get this contract thing done. That's what you've been saying. Until this post, where you acknowledge that Pasta has some say in how it goes down. We're finally getting somewhere!

I've said all along the onus to entice Pasta to sign is on Sweeney, and so far that hasn't happened. Saying Pasta has leverage doesn't change that in the least. The Bruins have to give him a reason to sign at the terms they want. Whether that's more money, extra years, less years, or lockout protection. They have to up the ante.

 

[LSCII]

that's probably about right - on a 3 year bridge deal, kucherov got something like 4.7M per year. but then when he's up for another deal, he crushes it. seems much smarter to sign pastrnak to 6-7 years now and save some cash vs the bridge and then getting crushed (see: subban, pk).

Exactly. Sign the guy now for more than you really want, because in the end, it will be a bargain if all goes according to plan. That's a far better use of money than giving it to a 32 year old free agent that will inevitably suck by the end of the deal, IMO, but they didn't consult me last year...

 

[KrejciMVP]

Exactly. Sign the guy now for more than you really want, because in the end, it will be a bargain if all goes according to plan. That's a far better use of money than giving it to a 32 year old free agent that will inevitably suck by the end of the deal, IMO, but they didn't consult me last year...

But he's a FA and paid his dues, 38 point Backes deserves that money!

 

[LSCII]

Well then the real hold-up was Draisaitl..? Or was it the protection for the work stoppage?

You're right. It IS a lot of assuming. All we know is that Pastrnak is without a contract.

There's no assumption being made here. If Sweeney had done enough, they'd be talking about the deal they made instead of having him not signed.

 

[chizzler]

There's no assumption being made here. If Sweeney had done enough, they'd be talking about the deal they made instead of having him not signed.

I'm not sure it would've made a difference. His agent saw what McDavid got. Shortly after it was Draisaitl next. Any competent agent would wait and see how Draisaitl did. Everything is escalated. Sure, he could convince him with a rediculous offer but how much is too much. To me it's as simple as agents doing their job and the player listening. A young player at that.

 

[EverettMike]

Not rhetorical, hoping someone who is good with this stuff can answer this:

Has there ever been a bridge deal for a budding star that worked out well in the long run for the organization? (The player had to have been widely considered to be a budding star when the bridge deal was signed, but that doesn't mean they had to have lived up to expectations, though they might have.)

 

[DKH]

that's probably about right - on a 3 year bridge deal, kucherov got something like 4.7M per year. but then when he's up for another deal, he crushes it. seems much smarter to sign pastrnak to 6-7 years now and save some cash vs the bridge and then getting crushed (see: subban, pk).

logic will prevail though

It's like when you are in school and the teacher says 'Lawrence, you take the side of JP Barry representing Pastrnak'

you want long term deal maybe 6 years so he's out at 27

you want close to $8 M

you want NMC

you want as much bonus money as possible

I take Sweeney

you want around Forsberg, Drouin money and term

you want limited NMC

you want low bonus money especially in the year 2020-21 where there may be an issue

CONCLUSION OF FAIRNESS

$7 M AVV if 6 years

higher if longer like 8 years

modified NMC for later years he picks 10-15 teams something like that

bonus money similar to Marchand and try and get at least a couple in 2020-21

the one that riverhawkey91 did seemed fair and well thought out

the Bruins management needs to get over what they paid Marchand, this makes no sense in all seriousness when Krejci makes more

 

[riverhawkey91]

Not rhetorical, hoping someone who is good with this stuff can answer this:

Has there ever been a bridge deal for a budding star that worked out well in the long run for the organization? (The player had to have been widely considered to be a budding star when the bridge deal was signed, but that doesn't mean they had to have lived up to expectations, though they might have.)

Short answer is no -- I actually asked this same thing (along with whether there have actually ever been any bad long-term second deals for a 21 year old) like two Pastrnak threads ago and just ended up looking into it further on my own.

In reality, it's impossible to tell because you ultimately have no idea what a long-term deal would have looked like had they negotiated one instead. You pretty much have to assume it would have landed somewhere between the price of the bridge deal and the price of their 3rd contract, but by then you already know the value of the latter so every long-term deal is going to look better in hindsight.

Personally though, in today's NHL, I don't even believe in the mentality behind bridge deals anymore -- especially not for budding stars. These days, often the 2-3 years a player spends on a bridge deal gets them up to *at least* the long-term amount they would have feasibly been looking at anyways, just on inflation alone. And that's before even factoring whether they got better or not -- most of the time they get up to that number even if they didn't, so the whole "prove it" thing ends up being kind of meaningless. The risk is almost entirely on the team's side with bridge deals now.

The best examples of them working I was able to find were Joe Pavelski and Logan Couture (not sure either ever counted as a budding star), but IMO that's only really because they signed undervalued 3rd deals. I'm sure there are a bunch of situations where a player looked good, signed a bridge deal early and then ended up looking bad...but I would bet you in almost all of those cases they still got a raise off that bridge deal, no matter how bad they looked.

 

[sarge88]

I've said all along the onus to entice Pasta to sign is on Sweeney, and so far that hasn't happened. Saying Pasta has leverage doesn't change that in the least. The Bruins have to give him a reason to sign at the terms they want. Whether that's more money, extra years, less years, or lockout protection. They have to up the ante.

I'd take it step further and go 10 x 7 with a limited NMC for years 7-10.

Can they do options in the NHL? Maybe even give him and option to walk away in years 8-10.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Not rhetorical, hoping someone who is good with this stuff can answer this:

Has there ever been a bridge deal for a budding star that worked out well in the long run for the organization? (The player had to have been widely considered to be a budding star when the bridge deal was signed, but that doesn't mean they had to have lived up to expectations, though they might have.)

id probably point to the sedin twins... signed multiple short term deals that allowed the team to build to contender status... once they became older got rewarded with a big deal

rejected Toronto to stay for less... are huge members of the community...

would be hard to find a better example I think... but theres certainly ones out there