danielpalfredsson
youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
- Aug 14, 2013
- 16,575
- 9,269
For those that subscribe to the Athletic; How convincing is Stevenson's take that the major issue standing between Karlsson signing with the Sens or not is about bonus structure in the contract? How much of what he is saying is conjecture vs fact?
Is that the extent of what he knows? ie neighbourhood and potential wiggle room
The part everyone can see;
What I Know: While digging around in the days leading up to July 1 on what the Ottawa Senators might offer Karlsson in the way of a contract extension, I characterized it this way: “it would be in the neighbourhood of $10 million a season times eight seasons with some potential wiggle room.”
A source with knowledge of the offer said when all was said and done, the Senators’ did move north somewhat and the offer finally came in closer to $11 million than $10 million, bringing it pretty close to the extension Drew Doughty signed with the Los Angeles Kings, according to the source.
..
There really wasn't much said outside of what has already been re(reported) elsewhere.
Only that the Senators may have come up from their 10 million dollar offer to closer to the Doughty AAV, and that the source was from outside the Sens org', so it wasn't the Sens leaking stuff to make their organization look good. The offer the Sens made was close to Doughty's contract, but may not have been close at all to getting it done because it didn't have extensive signing bonuses.
Stevenson's take is that the lack of signing bonuses might be proof that the Senators are cash poor. There's no real talk about whether Karlsson would or wouldn't stay if the Senators ponied up a Tavares like contract structure.
My opinion, not the article=I don't think it's exactly a surprise that contract structure would be a big issue. I think I might have pointed it out in an earlier thread, that 10M AAV doesn't mean much because a 10M AAV contract can be drastically different depending on salary and bonus structure. I could see the Senators making a push to try and keep Karlsson after realizing how bad the offers are, especially since this article claims that he wasn't offered a full no trade clause in any new contract. That's something that sticks out to me. It makes it seem like the Senators might have been trying to get the best of both worlds, keep Karlsson for now, but leave open the option to trade him for what would then be a greater return since he'd be locked down. I doubt Karlsson signs a contract without a full NMC, so I guess it's possible the Senators might expect it to require a full NMC to re-sign him, but weren't offering it up as a negotiating tactic so that they could concede it in exchange for something else they would want in the contract.
(https://forums.redflagdeals.com/athletic-athletic-one-year-online-subscription-50-off-2170991/
There is a 50 percent off link for anybody wanting to subscribe. Maybe a bad time to subscribe with the lack of hockey news in the summer, but as someone who reads a lot of hockey content, I'd say it's worth it for 3 bucks a month.)