Likelihood Sens sign both Duchene and Stone

[GCK]

Trade protection is huge for the player absolutely. I have no problem with NMCs for Duchene and Stone.

 

[Ray Kinsella]

it appears like one yes.

it's quite possible though, if not probable, that Stone and Duchene have indicated a willingness to re-sign and the team is interested whereas with Karlsson that wasn't the case. That changes the risk

Perhaps I'm misreading your post. I don't really see a difference in either situation whereas Karlsson had indicated a willingness to stay and the team clearly expressed they wanted to offer him a contract so he would remain a Senator... albeit, the latter may not have been that truthful.

 

[Ray Kinsella]

They offered karlsson a large contract. Why do you all keep saying the same thing over and over even tho its not true?

The EK contract was "reportedly 88x8"...and it actually changed from being "reportedly 10.5x8".... No one has ever said that it was X amount as a "fact". If someone tells me "apparently it was this or that"... I don't take that as face value or as fact, unless it's "coming from this source, this is what it was"...reportedly with no source is not fact.

Also, I personally have been through that - I had a contract, a new owner came along and wanted to cut money. They couldn't afford me and weren't in a position to let me go. So when contract renewal came around, they made sure to offer me less hours and still requested that I'd be fully flexible from Monday to Friday. Obviously, they knew I wouldn't go for that and I didn't and left. What they did is the defenition of negotiating in bad faith.

 

[supsens]

The EK contract was "reportedly 88x8"...and it actually changed from being "reportedly 10.5x8".... No one has ever said that it was X amount as a "fact". If someone tells me "apparently it was this or that"... I don't take that as face value or as fact, unless it's "coming from this source, this is what it was"...reportedly with no source is not fact.

Also, I personally have been through that - I had a contract, a new owner came along and wanted to cut money. They couldn't afford me and weren't in a position to let me go. So when contract renewal came around, they made sure to offer me less hours and still requested that I'd be fully flexible from Monday to Friday. Obviously, they knew I wouldn't go for that and I didn't and left. What they did is the defenition of negotiating in bad faith.

Im fairly sure Karlsson has shown he would speak up if made up numbers were making him look bad. Besides that every negative thing about the sens management even if it is just the opinion from some random hf poster is taken as fact around here
Bad faith is offering you something and then not following thru. Not making an offer you can and did refuse. Thats jus business, and sorry to hear that cause it sucks

Like 99% of this thread.

 

[Ray Kinsella]

Im fairly sure Karlsson has shown he would speak up if made up numbers were making him look bad. Besides that every negative thing about the sens management even if it is just the opinion from some random hf poster is taken as fact around here

Like 99% of this thread.

Neither EK nor the organization have spoken about the contract negotiations aside from stating "we offered him a contract" and "they offered me a contract". In essence, I don't think we'll never really know the true numbers. But it is true that the "reportedly amount" was never sourced from anyone credible. It was never proven.

Personally, I don't take opinions of random posters on HF as fact whether it's about EK, Management, or anything else (unless proven). I agree that many do about Management (aka: exageration), but many also do about EK.

Since this is not an EK thread and at the risk of our exchange derailing to that, the point was about negotiating in good faith. I'm pretty certain you know what some of us mean when we refer to that. As I said, I personally experienced it; it's obvious, unless one is truly naïve. After that long stretch of trying to trade EK, it was obvious that they would try to save face by offering him something that wasn't adequate. The concern for some of us now it is whether they will do this with either Stone or Duchene or both... which we hope they don't.

 

[JD1]

Perhaps I'm misreading your post. I don't really see a difference in either situation whereas Karlsson had indicated a willingness to stay and the team clearly expressed they wanted to offer him a contract so he would remain a Senator... albeit, the latter may not have been that truthful.

I don't think either side was truthful in the Karlsson affair.

To me

EK didn't intend to stay but wanted it to appear as the teams fault

The team didn't want him going forward but wanted it to appear that he wanted to leave

 

[Micklebot]

Bad faith is offering you something and then not following thru. Not making an offer you can and did refuse. Thats jus business, and sorry to hear that cause it sucks

That's not what negotiating in bad faith means. that's reneging on an agreement. It's one form of negotiating in bad faith. Negotiating in bad faith is broader and refers to not ever having any intention of coming to an agreement that is acceptable for both parties. Stringing somebody along with subpar offers but making the other party think you will move to a reasonable deal is negotiating in bad faith, intentionally including loopholes to trick the other party would also be considered bad faith. Good faith negotiations are when both parties are attempting to come to a bipartisan agreement. Clearly Karlsson didn't believe the team was doing so, particularly when he let out that he thought they'd just trade him if he had accepted the deal.

 

[NyQuil]

The narrative that everyone gives out signing bonuses and that constitutes fair market value is bogus.

Multiple teams do not believe in structuring contracts that way.

For example Winnipeg has only done SBs in year 1 if a contract and Nashville doesn’t do them at all. McGuire was talking about this a while ago. I am too lazy to verify the others.

My understanding is that this is a special case of lockout earnings protection given the upcoming timing of the expiry of the CBA.

As a result, lot of contracts being signed right now are front-loaded.

 

[JD1]

That's not what negotiating in bad faith means. that's reneging on an agreement. It's one form of negotiating in bad faith. Negotiating in bad faith is broader and refers to not ever having any intention of coming to an agreement that is acceptable for both parties. Stringing somebody along with subpar offers but making the other party think you will move to a reasonable deal is negotiating in bad faith, intentionally including loopholes to trick the other party would also be considered bad faith. Good faith negotiations are when both parties are attempting to come to a bipartisan agreement. Clearly Karlsson didn't believe the team was doing so, particularly when he let out that he thought they'd just trade him if he had accepted the deal.

Ok so I'll buy in to your post here and for the moment let's say it's all accurate

if the Sens through up an offer, which is a fact cause we know a contract was offered, if there is no response from the other side then isn't that refusing to negotiate?

I can agree with your definition of bad faith but what we appear to have here is n unwillingness to enter negotiation.

of course I'm gonna get hammered for saying that because Karlsson "knew" what was going to happen had he negotiated

the point I'm driving home here is that what happened between the team and Eric Karlsson isn't solely the team's fault. it's quite evident that there is blame on both sides and I'd hypothesize both sides got what they wanted

 

[Ray Kinsella]

I don't think either side was truthful in the Karlsson affair.

To me

EK didn't intend to stay but wanted it to appear as the teams fault

The team didn't want him going forward but wanted it to appear that he wanted to leave

It’s possible. We’ll never know is my guess

 

[Ice-Tray]

I think most people feel as if it's not really close to market value, particularly with the apparent lack of front-loading and no NTC.

I feel, and a lot of other people feel similarly, that it was a token gesture meant to save face on the part of the organization, and that he did not fit in to their long-term plans.

The question is whether Ottawa routinely goes into these "negotiations" with a single offer which they know will not be accepted, only to turn around and say "we tried" when they really had no intention of it.

This applies to both the Turris and Karlsson situations.

I'm not sure why Spezza is even being brought up.

It was becoming evident that his injuries were catching up with him, he didn't want to be the Captain of a re-building team, and deliberately chose a location where he would be second fiddle to a younger #1 C as opposed to a better team like Nashville which was coveting a superstar centre.

Finances have nothing to do with Spezza, aside from the tangential argument where he knew that this team would never pay enough to be competitive so he pulled the chute. That to me is a bit more indirect.

I think that we can, and maybe even should, support, or at least understand, a team decision not to dole out the massive signing bonuses in contracts. They are not a good move, or even a possible move, for small market teams.

I think this issue will be a major one with the upcoming CBA negotiations, and I personally view it as circumvention rather than a 'bonus'. Some other teams refuse to give bonuses, and some teams insist that players take less if they want to fit in the team budget. Players can leave when able if they choose, but if they want to stay with said teams they have to abide by the rules set out.

As far as Turris goes, we could have kept him if he agreed to a lower number, but it's all about value. He was not valuable to us at 6X6, but he was valuable to us as an asset to net a better player. Would he have been more valuable to us for less money than he was as an asset to get Duchene? Maybe.

"tried" isn't the issue here (and ironically when dealing with other player people cry out for management to play hardball). We present a number and term that we can live with, if the player can live with it a deal can get done, if not, a deal can't. If one or both sides has a strong desire to make a fit the sides can negotiate, but if the will to give up more isn't there, then that's that. It's not about trying, it's about deciding where your max is and sticking with it. Both Turris and EK were offered deals that could have been accepted as fair money. Both players wanted more, and Turris was able to get more from another team, but that doesn't mean we wasted everyone's time with bad faith negotiations.

Really, it's just a weird way to slam management. People love gushing over TB, but they also have a firm salary structure that EK will have to bend and fit under, as will any other team that wants to fit him in. Only the bottom teams can offer unlimited contracts to singular players, and that's only because of how many cheap contracts they tend to have. EK would also have to identified as a big money long term player to build around, and does he even want that in his current stage of his career?

Personally I think we see EK accept a very similar deal that we offered wherever he ends up, he'll have to if he wants to fit into club that wants to win. Everyone uses JT's new bonus deal, but that contract along with the other big ones TML is due to give out have lead to a serious imbalance on the team.

In the end I would be supportive of our team if we refused to give out any NTC's, nor massive bonus structured contracts when we sign players. We'd miss out on most big UFA's, but we'd still be able to sign our guys, and in the end we'd end up with fewer bloated deals, and fewer untradeable guys.

 

[Ice-Tray]

As far as Stone and Duchene go, I think the team has taken a patient approach. We have a half season to decide whether we go full rebuild, or sign our two stars and go half rebuild. Keeping Duchene and Stone is going to be a large factor in keeping us from the top of the draft, but they may also be key parts in a quicker rebuild with the quality prospects and picks we already have.

For their parts the two will have to decide if they want to be a pert of what has been clearly labelled a rebuild, but would be more like an accelerated rebuild if they were to stay. It's being clear leaders and helping build a franchise vs leaving to join a team closer to winning. There are bonuses to each path and it will be up to both players to decide, if the organization decides not to go full rebuild.

They way the team is playing, and how happy everyone looks, and how the chemistry seems to be building, it looks like an atmosphere is being created which makes it seem quite possible that management sees value in an accelerated rebuild, and the two players see a bright and enjoyable future in staying.

I personally don't think money will be the huge stumbling block here.

 

[topshelf15]

They both need to be resigned,and they along with their agents know this....They wont be taking any discount,and EM can cry all he wants but this is entirely his fault

 

[Alex1234]

We need them

But is Euge shedding 16MM$ per year for 2 players? (Assuming they both get 8x8)

Better trade Ceci ,Ryan , Condon and Dzingle if we want that to happen
and still..

 

[CorrectOpinion]

We will keep both.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

Was there a segment during the intermission where Garrioch mentioned that someone had preliminary talks for an extension?

I didn't catch most of it and just heard bits and pieces. Was it referring to Duchene or Stone?

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

 

[coladin]

Am starting to realize that Duchene is a one dimensional player. Hmm

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Am starting to realize that Duchene is a one dimensional player. Hmm

This team makes people look worse than they are, that's how bad this team is.

We don't have much in terms of chemistry with Duchene since we had to dump Hoffman.

 

[coladin]

This team makes people look worse than they are, that's how bad this team is.

We don't have much in terms of chemistry with Duchene since we had to dump Hoffman.

He is not hard to play against and have seen many blow by him quite easily lately, just last night again.

His body language last night was not good either.

 

[Answer]

Duchene is anything but one-dimensional. Healthy was one-dimensional.

It's just that he isn't working hard lately. If he hustles and plays hard, he's a beast!

 

[Goodbahd]

Doouchene won’t be worth his asking price. He’ll probably ask for 9M/year.

 

[aragorn]

I think Duchene is a one dimensional player as well, with his speed he would probably do better on the wing, I don't think he has the vision or playmaking ability to play centre. He is pretty good at faceoffs though, so I would let him take faceoffs but I would move him to LW & put Tierny at centre, for now to see how it goes. IMO though Brown is the future #1 centre & the faster he can make it to the NHL the better for him & the team, in fact, I'd bring him up this yr & put him at centre on the 4th line to learn the NHL game. They should also promote Batherson, he seems NHL ready now, of course, that would deplete Belleville.

Duchene - Tierny - Stone
Dzingel - Chlapik - Ryan
Tkachuk - White - Boedker
Paul - Brown - Batherson

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Problem with Duchene, is he often plays with horse blinders on. He tries to be Mario Lemieux and do everything himself, but his skillset isn't really at that level to do it consistently. He needs to use his linemates a whole lot more to be effective.

 

[Stylizer1]

Problem with Duchene, is he often plays with horse blinders on. He tries to be Mario Lemieux and do everything himself, but his skillset isn't really at that level to do it consistently. He needs to use his linemates a whole lot more to be effective.

He needs better decoy's on the team to open up the ice for him.