1) All of those are pre-CBA contracts
Well, that is silly. Of course they are pre-CBA contracts. They are also after the 24% has been deducted. That makes them as valid as post-CBA contracts. Are you suggesting that the only contracts that are relevant are non-UFA post-CBA contracts? At a point in time prior to arbitration, prior to many RFA's signing?
You asked for actual comparables. I provided them.
What's next? They were not signed on a Tuesday?
2) All of them have EXCELLENT track records with several great seasons. Nash has exactly 1 great season (and not everyone consideres 57 points 'great' despite scoring 41 goals but I digress).
A more cogent point admittedly. As I said, however, each one of those players, and any elite player for that matter, starts with one excellent season. When you compound that with what many felt was an outstanding international showing playing against countries full of excellent players, you cannot say McLean had
no evidence on which to base a judgment. Maybe you would have demanded more, but that is a question of degree. I submit that to suggest something is as obvious and as factual as you suggest, a signing has to have no defence whatsoever.
3) Hedjuk's new contract (under the new CBA) calls for average 5.0M per year. This guy has 50+ goal seasons and ~100p season under his belt.
I had read that Hedjuk's contract was $19.5 for 5 years. Clearly, he is the precise example of a player staying somewhere because he has been made to feel comfortable in a city. Exactly what McLean is trying to accomplish.
They are not comparables! All of them have 5+ great seasons in the NHL, they are PROVEN not to be one-year wonders.
In the NHL arb process, they are comparables.
Sorry but I really fail to see how is giving a 5y 5.4M per year deal 'risk mitigation'?? He takes 2 huge gambles (revenues rising nearly 10% per year and Nash developing in to a 50g+ scorer).
They are not really all that big a gamble. As far as revenues are concerned, there are a number of people who think revenues will not be that hard hit. I think it is safe to say that, as far as Columbus is concerned, McLean has sitting on his desk revenue projections for his franchise. Season ticket sales. Sponsorships. League-wide projectiosn (which have not been shared with anyone, I think it is safe to say - it would be stupid for the NHL to suggest that there will be no hit, as they would alienate the fans by seeming to be arrogant). The whole 9 yards.
Even if the revenues rise, how can he tell that Nash will develope in to a REGULAR 40-50G scorer?
As for Nash developing into an elite scorer? Well, I did a little research into the leading NHL goal scorers over the years. It may or may not surprise you to know that the list is essentially full of players who have been nothing less than players with many many successful seaosn when all was said and done in their careers. Bure. Selanne. Bondra. Tkaczuk. Mogilny. Hull. Kurri. Bossy. Lafleur. Shutt. Leach. Esposito. Bobby Hull. And, of course, 99 and Lemieux. Of all the guys who have led the league in goals, the only guys who are not in the above category of players might arguably be Charlie Simmer, Danny Gare and Blaine Stoughton (who all, coincidentally lef the league the same year). Even at that, each of THOSE guys had several excellent years, including multiple 50-goal seasons, 40-goal seasons, etc. Leach might be in more their category as well, but I seem to recall his career being cut short by personal demons.
Go further back? Howe, Geoffrion, Beliveau, Moore, Richard, Ullman, etc. Superstars all.
As you can see, it is a very safe bet that a player who
leads the league in goals will be a star for several years. 100%? Nothing in life is 100% safe. But it is pretty close to a safe bet. You can pooh-pooh that achievement all you want, but it is a significant achievement, and an excellent indicator of future success (as you might logically guess). Rick Nash might be Danny Gare, sure. But the odds are very very good that he is not. Even if he is, Danny Gare scored over 50 twice, 40+ once, and 39 another year.
Sorry, in my books that's pretty far from risk mitigation. If he had wanted to mitigate risks, he would have given him a small base salary and lots of bonuses.
Reason #1 would be that bonuses are no longer legal in the NHL for guys like Nash. All that is allowed for him are what the league offers and pays (to awards winners, all-stars, etc).
EVEN IF such an arrangement were permissible, which it is NOT, that MIGHT be a fair point - if he would have taken it. Being only one year form arbitration, I fail to see how accepting such an offer is in Nash's interest in the long run. Why accept a contract of any length with bonuses when one more big year will get him a guaranteed pot of gold from an arbitrator? It does not matter anyway, of course, since those types of contracts are not available.
Well, all the current top stars who have remained in the organisation from the start. Brodeur, Sundin, Iginla, Leetch etc. all of them stuck with their teams despite getting the usual first-pro contract treatment i.e. didn't get the max amount of money.
Sundin has not been with one organization, of course, but let's put that factual inaccuracy aside. Back when they were earning their contracts, there was no such thing as "max money", which it is to be noted, Nash is also NOT receiving - significantly less, in fact. MUCH less, as he is making only $3.5 mil this year, and he does not get anywhere clsoe to what is now max money until 5 years form now, when the max money wil be far far greater. Eahc one of those guys were not lowballed by their teams in the manner you suggest the BJ's should have. Simple broad allusions to one-team players does not provide much persuasive evidence to your position.
Here's a counter-question: can you name any top players who bolted to other team at the first chance because they were low-balled after their ELC expired? I can't remember any such occasion (and I know it's hard to name them since they usually sugar-coat the farewell speeches, but I haven't even heard rumors of such, have you?)
I can suggest a few, but they are more guys who were clearly going to leave and were traded before they got to actual UFA and were signed by their new teams. As we both know, UFA action has been traditionally lowkey, since guys get trade beforehand by the team that could not afford them. Doug Weight comes to mind. As does Tkaczuk.
Another question: do you think it's a realistic scenario where Maclean gives Nash a 3y 7.5M offer (with possible bonuses for performance) and after than contract gives him a 5y 35M contract (assuming that Nash keeps performing)? Why wouldn't that work?
I am afraid i do not. First, as stated above, bonuses are not available to Nash. Secondly, as i stated above, Nash would have to have lost his mind to accept $2.5 per year for 3 years when he is close to arbitration and can win a bundle with one more big year. Then, when he has garnered a few more years of top-of-the-league goal scoring performances, the league max salary will be beckoning and it will be more than what it is now.
As i said before, it is risk management. The risk that he is mitigating is that (1) Nash will be able to command more than $27 mil over the next 5 years throught the arbitration process; (2) Nash will be disaffected with the franchise by refusing to give a long term contract when it was time.; (3) even if he is not disaffected, he will command a higher multi-year contract salary due to the ncrease in revenues (whatever such increase is).
The only real positon one can have is that Nash is going to be a bust. It is possible. But history strongly indicates otherwise.
