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

[ClosetOilersFan]

Dion Mustard - Not to be picky, but technically being tied for 1st is still leading the league in scoring In other words, he still is the only teenager leading the league in scoring.

In regards to Nash, it's a gamble.

Concerning Atlanta, ah well.. in any industry you can expect morons to screw things up for you. On a league wide scale [really all that matters], the cap will prevent this from becoming a serious issue again.

-J

 

[Dion Mustard*]

41 goals on a team that finsihed last, had a +/- record in triple digits, had the worst road record in hockey and played with AHL linemates and you call that lucky!?

Yes, that's exactly what it's called; LUCK.

He was among the top scorers in the Swiss League

Playing with Joe Thornton and having Martin St. Louis as a teammate..

he was at the top in scoring for Team Canada was that luck too?

Yep, and as well, playing with Joe Thornton.

It's great he scored a bunch of goals against Germany, Slovinia and Japan, but how many did he get in the Quarters, Semis, and Finals?

Again, Dany Heatley lead Canada twice in scoring at the World's playing with Daniel Briere, where is all his love?

What a dumb post!!

Indeed.

 

[ClosetOilersFan]

Dion Mustard - To call his success luck is simply an obvious lack of judgement. If you want to provoke people, there are betetr ways. Perhaps you could say it's due to the fact that every player on his team was setting him up all year would be fair. Regardless, Nash still out performed most players his age and could be a future Brett Hull.

 

[MePutPuckInNet]

it's threads like this that remind me of how much I miss the good old days when players had performance bonus'....remember that? Yeah...I LIKED it when you payed a player according to what he actually ACCOMPLISHED during the season, rather than what he may or may not do two or three years from now....

 

[Brooklyndevil]

What exactly is the consequence...

People are forgetting that under a cap structure, any team that paid 39 million or more, will HAVE TO make cuts somewhere when they make signings such as this, which means another player will have to pay for it at some point.

for a team that is over the cap at the start of the season. Is it fines? Thanks!

 

[me2]

You're absolutly right Pepper. While Heatley hasn't recovered fully from the accident, no one in their right mind would take Nash over a healthy Heater. And Kovi, at this point has proven he is better then Nash. So, here the Thrashers are, possibly up the creek when dealing wiith these two because of a stupid move by Doug MacLean.

Well they shouldn't have given all that money to Holik, then maybe it wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Dion Mustard*]

Dion Mustard - To call his success luck is simply an obvious lack of judgement. If you want to provoke people, there are betetr ways. Perhaps you could say it's due to the fact that every player on his team was setting him up all year would be fair. Regardless, Nash still out performed most players his age and could be a future Brett Hull.

I hate to break this to you but;

1. the only thing I'm trying to provoke is intelligent dialogue

2. Remind people he has had ONE above average goal scoring year (not 10 like some seem to think)

3. Inform some that Nash was in a situation far different from most players his age (those who make their NHL team as a teenager are rarely used in strickly offensive roles)

4. Tell people putting a product on the ice that can compete for a playoff spot is far more important then paying one player more then the going rate because he scored alot of goals ONE year (and not much after that).

5. make sure people are aware there are plenty of cases of players with a ton of hype never living up to their fame.

Again, whether you want to call it luck or not, Rick Nash scored 41 goals once. To be fair, he has only been in the league for two full seasons, but, breaking the bank to lock up a player they didn't need to sign for that much or that long, is stupid. And more importantly, it sends repercussions across the league. It's great MacLean could sign his one possible star. Now, Ottawa, Florida & Atlanta have to get deals done with their multiple stars.

 

[allelsefails]

Well they shouldn't have given all that money to Holik, then maybe it wouldn't be a problem.

Or should have been more active in signing them and not risking the possibility of another RFA signing affecting their negotiations.

As I've said in other threads (I think... I honestly lost track of all these Nash Signing = End of Hockey) - let's just let this play out and see what happens. Maclean can be heralded as a hero for locking up his franchise player, in a CBA where younger players are susceptible to be lost during RFA years, for long term or he will be ran out of town for poor managment.

Quite frankly, none of us can see into the future so it's all just speculation and assumptions.

 

[Paisano*]

I hate to break this to you but;

1. the only thing I'm trying to provoke is intelligent dialogue

Well you have failed to come up with anything intelligent yourself.

 

[bizzz*]

<<41 goals on a team that finsihed last, had a +/- record in triple digits, had the worst road record in hockey and played with AHL linemates and you call that lucky!>>
Yes, that's exactly what it's called; LUCK.

I'm pretty sure that back in 1985 there was such a great hockey specialist who had been saying the same dumb things about another teenager. Like Nash, that kid was playing on the one of the worst NHL teams, he was minus-35 and scored almost same amount of goals. Yep, Mario was just lucky as well.

<<He was among the top scorers in the Swiss League>>
Playing with Joe Thornton and having Martin St. Louis as a teammate..

In Columbus Nash was just lucky, in Swiss league he was lucky to play with Joe Thornton. Rrrrrright. BTW in play-offs Thornton played with VonArx and Hagman. Nash played with Marha at center and Riesen on the right side. St.Louis spent in Davos a couple weeks and even didn't touch ice in play-offs. You're juging players only by stats and not bothering yourself to watch one game. Try to do it sometimes.

<<He was at the top in scoring for Team Canada was that luck too?>>>
Yep, and as well, playing with Joe Thornton.
It's great he scored a bunch of goals against Germany, Slovinia and Japan, but how many did he get in the Quarters, Semis, and Finals?

WOW, you got one team right - Slovenia! Actually he scored against USA, Sweden and Finland, but not against Germany or Japan. In Quarters, Semis, and Finals he had frikin 4 assists. And according some specs like you he still can't pass. BTW yours "great" Kovalsuck had 0 (none, nothing, zero) points in those 3 play-offs games.
You obviously haven't seen a minute from the last WC and have no idea that some real specs, who had never seen Nash till that championship, have named him "the ideal forward for modern hockey". You can still judge everyone by stats though...

 

[ClosetOilersFan]

Dion Mustard - Only time will tell whether the signing was a smart move, as usual.

For instance, if league revenues increase [the new 100 million dollar TV Contract would be an example], this salary will be all but a small part of their cap and the move will look brilliant if Nash turns out at all.

Nash may also emerge into the next Brett Hull, a franchise player, who would warrent this kind of income.

The odd thing is although I'm defending Nash, personally, I would not have made the signing. After all, the Oilers just signed a proven, MVP and Norris winning D-Man for 6.25 million for 5 years; which seems like a much better signing.

Just saying that I wouldn't bash them too much, but yes, I'd agree that the last year is paying Nash too much.. 7 mil for a guy who can only score goals is rather steap.

 

[JacketsFanWest]

Rick Nash made over 4 million in 2003-2004 with bonuses. He's making 3.5 million this year. That's a 15% decrease. The kid scored 41 goals. He deserved a bit extra.

 

[grapeshine]

Understood. Although I used the term "comparables", i was not intending to use it in the arbitration context. I was making a point that even in the new CBA, $4 million is not that big a number. It does not get you as much of a player as other posters seem to think it does. In my haste to make a bunch of separate points all at once, I appear to have jumbled up my points into a bit of a mess as far as my post goes.

I still stand by my original assertion which (more clearly stated now that the kids are asleep and i can put some thoughts together) is that paying a little more in this year of non-arbitration eligibility in order to (a) buy out 3 years of arbitration, (b) buy out one year of free agency, and (c) place the team in a better position to try to retain Nash after he has deeper roots in the city, is a reasonable business decision. Reasonable people may disagree, but some geniuses around here would suggest that it is sheer lunacy - LUNACY, I SAY! - when they are just regurgitating the same old refrain that they have heard from other similar geniuses ("GM's are stupid, dumb owners, blah blah blah").

Well put. I mean, this board is full of dilettantes who somehow think that they are smarter than most of the GMs in the league. Doug Maclean signed Nash to this contract for a reason. He didn't arbitrarily pick a number out of the air. There's an entire negotiating process that none of us witnessed, so who knows what took place behind the scenes while the contract intricacies were being worked out. Obviously Maclean thinks Nash deserves the salary. You're some kind of nut if you think Maclean didn't spend any time evaluating Nash, the specific financials and how those numbers relate to team budget.

I also want to add this little bit: salary is not always based on past performance. Nash isn't getting all this money because he had two great seasons, he's getting it in part for the 4 great seasons he's going to have.

 

[Pepper]

Well put. I mean, this board is full of dilettantes who somehow think that they are smarter than most of the GMs in the league. Doug Maclean signed Nash to this contract for a reason. He didn't arbitrarily pick a number out of the air. There's an entire negotiating process that none of us witnessed, so who knows what took place behind the scenes while the contract intricacies were being worked out. Obviously Maclean thinks Nash deserves the salary. You're some kind of nut if you think Maclean didn't spend any time evaluating Nash, the specific financials and how those numbers relate to team budget.

It doesn't work like that.

Nash's agent made a claim of some number for his clien't salary, my guess is that he asked pretty much the number he got (5.4 on average) and Maclean didn't fight back at all. Maclean had ALL the weapons, Nash had none.

Look at Minny; they told Gaborik to take the deal or sit-out. Gaborik took the deal because he had no choice. Maclean could have said the same, "Rick I'm offering you 3y deal with 2M per year plus 1M in bonuses if you play well. All young players go through these deals before getting the really big money. If you play really well, we can extend the deal after the 2nd year and give you more money but for now, this is what can offer".

And make no mistake, Nash would have taken that deal because he couldn't afford to sit out.

Now you say that "that would have made Nash a RFA after the new deal". That's true but even then Maclean would have had the chance of matching any deal offered by some other team or take the picks so he wouldn't have lost him if he didn't want to.

I also want to add this little bit: salary is not always based on past performance. Nash isn't getting all this money because he had two great seasons, he's getting it in part for the 4 great seasons he's going to have.

The problem is that if you score 41 goals one year doens't mean you're going to score the same or more the next 4 seasons. If you have 3 40+ seasons, then you might have a point but not now.

FACT is that Maclean overpaid heavily, there's no way around that FACT.

I have given Maclean the benefit of a doubt but along with the utterly stupid UFA deal given to Marchant I'm not so sure anymore. He's going to handcuff himself and cause lots of problems around the league with this contract. If you can't see this you're a BJ homer or otherwise ignorant.

 

[MojoJojo]

The NHL is full of players that were one year wonders. Given that he won the Richard sure he deserves a pay raise, but he is getting paid like an unrestricted free agent who is a established 100 point scorer with years of proven sucess under his belt. If he was a year or two away from free agency, I could see such a deal to try and lock him up long term, but this deal does nothing of the sort.

 

[grapeshine]

It doesn't work like that.

Nash's agent made a claim of some number for his clien't salary, my guess is that he asked pretty much the number he got (5.4 on average) and Maclean didn't fight back at all. Maclean had ALL the weapons, Nash had none.

This is total speculation on your part. You really don't know that this is how it worked. Obviously Maclean didn't think the figure was so egregious, as he agreed to it. You're just making far too many assumptions that can't be proven either way. My point is that we weren't a part of the process and are missing important details. We also aren't aware of the tools Maclean used to assess Nash.

FACT is that Maclean overpaid heavily, there's no way around that FACT.

Conjecture is hardly fact.

If you can't see this you're a BJ homer or otherwise ignorant.

Please, spare me the Ad Hominem.

Minnesota vs Gaborik isn't exactly an example of successful negotiation.

 

[CSKA]

I'm pretty sure that back in 1985 there was such a great hockey specialist who had been saying the same dumb things about another teenager. Like Nash, that kid was playing on the one of the worst NHL teams, he was minus-35 and scored almost same amount of goals. Yep, Mario was just lucky as well.


In Columbus Nash was just lucky, in Swiss league he was lucky to play with Joe Thornton. Rrrrrright. BTW in play-offs Thornton played with VonArx and Hagman. Nash played with Marha at center and Riesen on the right side. St.Louis spent in Davos a couple weeks and even didn't touch ice in play-offs. You're juging players only by stats and not bothering yourself to watch one game. Try to do it sometimes.

WOW, you got one team right - Slovenia! Actually he scored against USA, Sweden and Finland, but not against Germany or Japan. In Quarters, Semis, and Finals he had frikin 4 assists. And according some specs like you he still can't pass. BTW yours "great" Kovalsuck had 0 (none, nothing, zero) points in those 3 play-offs games.
You obviously haven't seen a minute from the last WC and have no idea that some real specs, who had never seen Nash till that championship, have named him "the ideal forward for modern hockey". You can still judge everyone by stats though...

O come on stop that Kovalchuk bashing ! Give him a player like Thorton as a center and you will see ! Nash did absolutly nothing in the semis and THE FINAL !!! Ovechkin totally outplayed him in the semis !
And i saw all this games - semi + final !

 

[mvalerio27]

I thought that the 24% rollback only applies to existing contracts only
therefore the rollback does not apply to Nash??????

 

[jacketracket*]

Again, whether you want to call it luck or not, Rick Nash scored 41 goals once. To be fair, he has only been in the league for two full seasons, but, breaking the bank to lock up a player they didn't need to sign for that much or that long, is stupid. And more importantly, it sends repercussions across the league. It's great MacLean could sign his one possible star. Now, Ottawa, Florida & Atlanta have to get deals done with their multiple stars.

How much is too much? How much is not enough? So ... you're suggesting that MacLean should have consulted with other GMs before making the deal w/Nash?

That's collusion.

 

[Pepper]

This is total speculation on your part. You really don't know that this is how it worked.

That's basic negotiating, happens all the time in all employee-employer salary discussions. You want X $ per year, employer is ready to give you Y $ per year.

Of course NHL players have some specialties (huge salary for example) but that how it works in PRINCIPLE.

Obviously Maclean didn't think the figure was so egregious, as he agreed to it.

That's the whole point!!!! Maclean didn't feel it was too much which is the very fundamental mistake he made!

You're just making far too many assumptions that can't be proven either way. My point is that we weren't a part of the process and are missing important details. We also aren't aware of the tools Maclean used to assess Nash.

I'm not making assumptions, the numbers are public! We know that Nash is a 2nd year pro with 1 40+ goal season behind him, we don't really need to know the process or the details to asses the contract he gave to Nash.

Conjecture is hardly fact.

No, based on all other deals in the NHL it is a de-facto fact.

Minnesota vs Gaborik isn't exactly an example of successful negotiation.

What do you mean?? Gaborik is signed for the next year at very affordable price despite having much more convincing resume than Nash.

 

[jacketracket*]

It doesn't work like that.

Nash's agent made a claim of some number for his clien't salary, my guess is that he asked pretty much the number he got (5.4 on average) and Maclean didn't fight back at all. Maclean had ALL the weapons, Nash had none.

Look at Minny; they told Gaborik to take the deal or sit-out. Gaborik took the deal because he had no choice. Maclean could have said the same, "Rick I'm offering you 3y deal with 2M per year plus 1M in bonuses if you play well. All young players go through these deals before getting the really big money. If you play really well, we can extend the deal after the 2nd year and give you more money but for now, this is what can offer".

And make no mistake, Nash would have taken that deal because he couldn't afford to sit out.

Now you say that "that would have made Nash a RFA after the new deal". That's true but even then Maclean would have had the chance of matching any deal offered by some other team or take the picks so he wouldn't have lost him if he didn't want to.

... and when Nash becomes a UFA (at a much earlier age than pre-new CBA), he looks back at how MacLean treated him following a season in which he won the Ricard trophy at 19 years old, and decides that he doesn't want to play for MacLean now that he holds all the cards.

Face it ... how GMs negotiate with young stars that will reach UFA much sooner now is a part of the new CBA landscape.

Protecting your assets.

FACT is that Maclean overpaid heavily, there's no way around that FACT.

No, it isn't "fact". It's merely your opinion (and it's BS, at that).

I have given Maclean the benefit of a doubt but along with the utterly stupid UFA deal given to Marchant I'm not so sure anymore. He's going to handcuff himself and cause lots of problems around the league with this contract. If you can't see this you're a BJ homer or otherwise ignorant.

Come see me when he "handcuffs" himself. Until then, you're no more correct than MacLean (and obviously less knowledgeable).

 

[Pepper]

See how mostly everybody else except BJs fans think that Nash was overpaid?? I wonder why that is...

Nash doesn't treat Maclean any differently when he's an UFA because he should have known that any sane GM wouldn't given him that much money as Maclean did. His agent is no idiot, he can look at several comparable cases and see that there's no way he should have earned that much.

If Maclean wants to guarantee Nash's services when he hits the UFA age, he can throw him a 3y 7.8M per year deal in january and Nash would most certainly take the deal.

Protecting assets? Yeah, that it is. It's like preserving your half-eaten pizza with cryogenics so that it doesn't go bad before you eat the rest in few hours. Horrible waste of assets to protect assets in other words.

 

[jacketracket*]

See how mostly everybody else except BJs fans think that Nash was overpaid?? I wonder why that is...

Perhaps because it isn't accurate.

I haven't tallied the responses, pro and con, but they seem to be running 50-50.

 

[GSC2k2*]

The NHL is full of players that were one year wonders. Given that he won the Richard sure he deserves a pay raise, but he is getting paid like an unrestricted free agent who is a established 100 point scorer with years of proven sucess under his belt. If he was a year or two away from free agency, I could see such a deal to try and lock him up long term, but this deal does nothing of the sort.

When you are a year or two away from free agency, you are getting max or close to max money when you are the top goal scorer in the league.

 

[GSC2k2*]

To add, you sure as hell are not making $3.5 mil, with escalator deals to $7 mil (at a point in time when the NHL max salary will be closer to $9.5 mil).