Toggle sidebar

Rumor: In-season Proposals, Rumors, Free Agents & Roster Moves (related topics) LXVI

Status
Not open for further replies.
tigervixxxen

tigervixxxen

Optimism=Delusional
Jul 7, 2013
53,065
6,161
Denver
burgundy-review.com
Lonewolfe2015 said:
Duchy's deal was lower than it should have been, you really can't compare him with Johansen. One was coming off an injury plagued season and the other hit career highs.

Despite the offersheet, somewhere a little south of ROR's bridge deal should be market value.
Click to expand...

If Duchene's was so low why hasn't anyone surpassed it yet? I agree expecting 3.5 to hold forever isn't smart but that's not even the ballpark they are in. If this was a tussle over 4 vs 4.5 it would be much different. The reason why it matters is that's what you have to qualify him at and essentially "start" the negotiations at for the next contract. Plus it sets the bar for every single other RFA going forward plus your own. Once you pass a threshold you can't go back.
 

StayAtHomeAv

Registered User
May 20, 2014
6,681
127
tigervixxxen said:
Who has come even close to a 4.5m bridge deal in his position? Forwards haven't recieved anywhere close to that. Is he worth that and more, yes but then you are talking a long term deal. Columbus certainly has to get up to 3.5 and probably 4 but them stating their position of 3 is just negotiation just like why Johansen started at 6 was to meet at 4.5.
Click to expand...

This stance makes No sense to me. If the kid has shown to be worth that much, and the only problem seems to be if he can continue that level of play, shouldn't short term deals be worth more? The whole point of these bridge deals are so that the players can prove themselves (at least that's what we are told), but they get more money on long term deals. What do these players need to prove if their team is willing to pay more long term? It just seems very contradictory. Why pay someone 6 mil long term but only 4 mil short term if you are afraid they will not stay at their current level? These guys are basically saying, "no, we won't give you 6 right now. You showed last year that you can be a 6mil player, but we need you to prove you can do it consistently. We will give you 3mil right now while you show us last year wasn't a fluke. But if you really insist on 6, we will do that for 5+ years. We don't trust you enough to give you 6 for 2 years, but we do trust you enough to give you 6 at 5+ years."
 
tigervixxxen

tigervixxxen

Optimism=Delusional
Jul 7, 2013
53,065
6,161
Denver
burgundy-review.com
Because the player is giving up the freedom of negotiating better in those subsequent years. It's a risk and reward both the player and team take. The player gets guaranteed money for the future and the team gets cost certainty. It's not really about performance IMO, that's just the excuse. It's about control especially in these high level players. They know the talent was there when they drafted him, it's not like some 4th rounder that exploded for a year, then I could see it becoming more of a sustainability issue.

Let's say Columbus is willing to pay 6 long term now but will pay 7 after two more good years or 8 after three more good years. It's about performance but the cap and comparables going up. So the player has a choice does he take the 6 long term now because he could get injured or his performance for whatever reason could falter. Maybe he's put in a different role where it's hard to replicate his numbers or they luck into McDavid and he's not a priority anymore. Or the cap could crash for whatever financial reasons. My point is there is risk by waiting but there is reward. I don't have a problem with players choosing either way. My issue is players wanting to get paid now for the future assuming the best case scenario (7-8 mil) in the future. You have to get there first, it doesn't work both ways.
 
Last edited:
cgf

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
60,613
19,415
w/ Renly's Peach
henchman24 said:
How about Couture's then? A more similar path, but Couture had 2 years of production (2 30 goal seasons vs 1). His deal's AAV was 2.85 and would only lower those numbers. IMO Duchene was a better player coming off his ELC (his 2nd year showed big potential) than Johansen is now.

Because ROR's was an offersheet it isn't applicable IMO. It was designed to have the Avs not match. If Johansen can find a willing partner he can do the same thing as ROR did. He won't have much luck finding a partner though.



That is part of the risk they take, but I doubt that Johansen would treat them any differently on the next go round. Much like ROR won't for his. Those types of players are going to go after every cent they can.
Click to expand...

There's a guy who wants the most he can get out of you and a guy who doesn't trust you to negotiate in good faith anymore. Those are two massively different situations and makes a long term deal that keeps RJ in Columbus, which is what everyone wants, much more difficult and unlikely. That to me is idiotic, especially because rj's not the only player who's going to have a tough time trusting management in negotiations. And on a young team building towards the future that is a bad position to out yourself in.

ROR is also looking to maximize his earning potential and that creates difficulties but at least the parties still trust each other and that is big deal in negotiations.
 
Freudian

Freudian

Clearly deranged
Jul 3, 2003
50,521
17,494
There hasn't really been many big name players on bridge deals since Duchene (unless you count O'Reilly's offer sheet as one). Most of the good young players were signed to long term deals (Landeskog, Skinner, Hall, Eberle, RNH, Tavares). The only ones are Couture and Stepan. Sather is always bullying guys coming out of ELCs so it's not surprising he didn't get more.

Johansen and Schwartz are the best players since Duchene to get a bridge deal and it seems to me they are trying to reset the market at a point above the Duchene contract.
 

StayAtHomeAv

Registered User
May 20, 2014
6,681
127
tigervixxxen said:
It's not really about performance IMO, that's just the excuse. It's about control especially in these high level players.
Click to expand...

That was pretty much the point I was trying to make in my soap box rambling. If a team was really worried about someone regressing they wouldn't offer more money long term. Probably wouldn't even offer a long term deal.
 
Freudian

Freudian

Clearly deranged
Jul 3, 2003
50,521
17,494
Friedman

"At a season-ticket holder event last week, GM Peter Chiarelli was asked about unsigned free agents Torey Krug and Reilly Smith. “It’s my intention to have these players playing for the Bruins,†Chiarelli said. “They’re not going anywhere.†The team’s cap issues are well-documented, which is why it’s believed the Bruins have offered both players a one-year deal in the $1.25 million range. For Krug, that’s a pay cut, especially when you factor in his bonuses. Boston is undoubtedly trying to convince the two this is a one-year thing, but, to this point, that has not worked."

Good luck with that, Boston.
 
TheStranger

TheStranger

Registered User
Jan 21, 2010
18,400
0
Ottawa, Ontario
Freudian said:
Friedman

"At a season-ticket holder event last week, GM Peter Chiarelli was asked about unsigned free agents Torey Krug and Reilly Smith. “It’s my intention to have these players playing for the Bruins,†Chiarelli said. “They’re not going anywhere.†The team’s cap issues are well-documented, which is why it’s believed the Bruins have offered both players a one-year deal in the $1.25 million range. For Krug, that’s a pay cut, especially when you factor in his bonuses. Boston is undoubtedly trying to convince the two this is a one-year thing, but, to this point, that has not worked."

Good luck with that, Boston.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Foote and Forsberg
 
tigervixxxen

tigervixxxen

Optimism=Delusional
Jul 7, 2013
53,065
6,161
Denver
burgundy-review.com
That's not right at all. Boston needs to suck it up and make the proper moves. I know some teams think the cap doesn't apply to them and they find a way out. Maybe they are hoping for a camp injury so they can throw someone in LTIR.
 
henchman21

henchman21

Mr. Meeseeks
Feb 24, 2012
63,773
48,686
tigervixxxen said:
That's not right at all. Boston needs to suck it up and make the proper moves. I know some teams think the cap doesn't apply to them and they find a way out. Maybe they are hoping for a camp injury so they can throw someone in LTIR.
Click to expand...

That has been my opinion for a while now.
 
tigervixxxen

tigervixxxen

Optimism=Delusional
Jul 7, 2013
53,065
6,161
Denver
burgundy-review.com
I think the issue is they need even more money than moving Savard provides. I think they can move him prior otherwise the teams that are banking on LTIR savings would never be cap compliant.
 
Foppa2118

Foppa2118

Registered User
Oct 3, 2003
52,450
31,756
Avs_19

Avs_19

Registered User
Jun 28, 2007
84,978
33,257
CapGeek @capgeek
We're working on technical issues you may be experiencing with our site. Please bear with us as we investigate.

:phew:
 
agentblack

agentblack

Registered User
Apr 11, 2011
13,224
756
New York City
I think teams are waiting BOS and CHI out more than them waiting for the right deal. I mean you know they have to make a trade so why give up any real assets if you dont have to. At the end of the day id rather get a Leddy, Oduya, Boychuk, even a Kelly for a pick than give up a player. No GM is going to help out these clubs
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom