You'd be better off emotionally arguing Eichel wants to play for Boston, because your other logic is tenuous at best.
I think I argued that already. I also said Eichel wanted to protect his *brand* so he could get sponsors & endorsement deals before he was even drafted. My logic with Jack has been consistent since his draft year, he wants to be perceived as the best & wants to be paid that way. He is a star player and has been treated as such most of this decade, he has made calculated moves in the recent past and this is more similar that you are willing to admit.
Max term possible is synonymous with 8 years for a player already under contract with the same club.
You know that .
There are instances of star players not getting 8 years, like Subban; who then cashed in 2 years later after winning the Norris. Both sides have interests, you know that.
If Botterill had said 8 years, would you have avoided the tailspin below?
If he said 8 years would I assume he meant 8 years? Obviously. 8 years and *max term possible* (with or without your inserted ELC qualifier) are not synonymous.
We don't know what Sabres have offered or what Jack has asked for
This contradicts you saying max term & 8 years are the same thing, because you are assuming to know the Sabres offered 8 years (which I don't dispute) and that Jack is willing to sign for 8 years at the salary offered. The contention is the money offered isn't enough to get the 8 year commitment but would be enough for a bridge deal that affords the Sabres another RFA negotiation.
but it seems likely the salary cap & salary available to Jack with rise over the next 2-5 years (after Mathews, Marner & Laine extend). Then why does anyone sign long-term? Are they all dumber than Jack Eichel?
And in 5 years there could be another lockout that lowers the cap (like every other CBA negotiation). Thing is, everyone doesn't sign long term with the team that drafted them, which is why I mentioned ROR. Doesn't matter if they are dumb, what matters is their perceived market value; every player doesn't have Jack's value as a commodity.
???? Eichel probably did backflips when Bylsma was fired. If anything, it would make him more committed to BUF.
Since Pegula arrived. You were on point until you bent what I said about this. Sure Jack is ecstatic Bylsma is gone, has absolutely no bearing on Pegula running through GMs, VP's and coaches since he became owner. Would you recommend to your client (because I did mention his agent being the one to notice) to sign long term knowing how often the chain of command has changed? How much leverage would that hold as a negotiating tactic, and how long will it last before Jack is seen as less than the solution? Salary increase would make him a paraiah if the Sabres miss the playoffs the next 2 or 3 seasons, no different from Hall or Kessel (in receiving blame, not comparing them as players)
Do you really believe your logic?
It is consistent logic, without the need to be snide.
*simple economics*
The 2017-18 season is the same in any contract scenarios, so exclude from comparisons.
Scenario A: Let's assume an 8 yr extension nets Eichel $64-80M total, average of $72M.
8m, 8.8m, 10m
Scneario B: Let's assume your purported bridge is 2-3 years at $8-16M total, average of $12M.
2y: 4m-8m, 3y: 5.1m is the limit.
Your mistake is implying a bridge deal is that much less annually. You just deducted 3m annually on your own, when Jack could get the same 8m-10m+.
Can't average 12m for multiple years when 16m x 3y is the cap you stated.
Scenario B: Let's assume a 3rd contract is 8 years at $88-120M total, average of $104M
8y x 120m would be 15m a season in 2 or 3 seasons, after the lowball bridge offer you used in scenario B.
$72M minus $12M is $60M. That's Eichel's opportunity cost of signing a bridge deal either now or next season instead of the 8 year deal now.
$104M minus $60M is $44M. That's Eichel's upside opportunity of signing a bridge deal now or next season.
In your capped example, yes. His bridge could be 2y 20m, that is 1.2m more annually than your scenario A & 4.9m more annually than your lowball scenario B. So the real simple economics should be 6years at 8.8m (scenario A after bridge equivalent season) vs 8years at 15m (scenario C after bridge equivalent season). Your bridge topped out at 5.1m, I can't imagine Jack accepting less than 9m on any deal.
But the prospective $44M must be risk-adjusted further downwards.
We will assume the injury risk (career ending or severely performance limiting) is ~1% (1 NHL player per ~3 NHL teams) per year. Cumulatively, in 2-3 years of a bridge deal, it would be between 1-5%. So we assume the $44M opportunity cost is only 100-5%=95% of $44M, or <$42M when risk-adjusted for injury.
That's acceptable to assume, it is a rare occurrence and both sides need to be aware of that risk. Don't want a Savard, Clarkson, Horton anchor long term.
Assuming the contract is level-loaded there's also a few single digit million in opportunity cost of the investment return of the money from the longer deal signed now as compared to the bridge deal, at least during the duration of the bridge deal. (It flips in favor of the Scenario B during the 3rd contract, but that can't be considered, because we're evaluating the merits of 8 year extension now vs. bridge now.) So now were down below $40M differential opportunity.
You are below, but you also lowballed the bridge at 5.1m annually. That is a recurring issue with your logic, but your assumptions are consistent with the logic of a lowball bridge deal.
Examining from a cash flow perspective, Scenario B - the bridge deal plus 3rd contract - doesn't become cash-flow positive relative to Scenario A (an extension now) until early in 2023. The incremental investment return possible during Scenario A most likely delays the positive relative cash flow of Scenario B until 2025.
If you pay Jack 5.1m for 2 seasons (ELC 17/18, bridge 18/19, bridge 19/20) then he gets your previously assumed scenario 3 (15m a year) in 20/21. It also seems you have set a secret benchmark to determine when the cash flow is positive. Is that around 8.8m? It's an honest question, need to know the median you are measuring positive & negative cash flow from.
We ignore / reject any arguments that future salary dollars will be worth less than today's salary dollars in terms of purchasing power by assuming Eichel's potential salary inflates proportional to the Cap, and that both his salary / the Cap inflate higher than the general inflation rate we working peons are subject to outside of the NHL. (in essence, that rejection effectively agrees with your second to last paragraph, but for different reasons)
Can't assume the CBA will be smooth negotiations in 5 years or how the CBA affects cap growth, but willing to go along on the rest for the seasons until then.
So if we assume Eichel is injured at some point during the 8-year contract in either of the A or B scenarios and does not sign a high-dollar 3rd contract after the 8-year Scenario A deal, the question becomes why would Eichel forego $60M guaranteed from 2018-2025 for the prospect of making an incremental $35-$40M from 2021-2028, with the bridge-now scenario not yielding a 3rd contract gain until ~2025 or later?
Absolutely not. You cannot compare the full 8 years vs the bridge; you can only count the years parallel to the bridge deal because his 3rd contract would cover those 6 years from scenario A. If he remains healthy & productive thru the bridge deal then his cash flow positive drops from the 15m in your senario C to the 8.8 in your scenario A. If he gets injured during years 1 or 2 of scenario A, fine, but that is a very distinct demarkation that went unnoticed. Getting injured in season 3 of 8 doesn't matter in this comparison.
Simple economics, 8.8m x 8y is less than 10mx2y + 15mx8y, but using your secret benchmark and 5.1m bridge deal, sure.
The NHLPA and agents know all this stuff, and have spreadsheets on it, which is why, given the option, players sign the longer-term deal whenever possible.
Except when they don't, like Subban, ROR, RyJo, Seguin, Hamilton. Even Tavares signed for 6 years not 8, Hall went 7 years, Eberle 6, Barkov 6 years. Max possible term.
