O'Reilly needs an O'Rolex Watch - Summer 2014 - Arbitration Date: 7/23/14
- Thread starter AslanRH
- Start date
- Status
UncleRisto
Not Great, Bob!
That really is a matter of what player(s) comes back.
Would I prefer in a 1 for 1:
E. Kane or M. Staal? = Staal probably
E. Kane or D. Kulikov = Kane a bit more talent and potential IMO but could be a headache too
What I think the Avs will be faced with is that the best value offers likely would be sent by teams like Edmonton, Calgary, Buffalo, and maybe even Arizona or Ottawa, but those offers would be a package of futures more than current impact players.
Picks, young NHL players with untested potential, and high quality prospects would likely be where the Avs could get the best value, but it won't be the impact player that will help this season or maybe even next.
With the additions of Briere, Stuart, Iginla, etc I think they Avs FO may have taken a bit of a win soon approach more than a win now approach though, so a package of high end potential may be what they target/prefer anyway.
The Shermanator
HFBoards Legend
Can't wait to see the numbers. Probably something like ROR asking for $10M and Avs asking for 2-way 850K.
foppagirl21
Registered User
a mangy Meowth
Ross Colton Fan
Both played with the Flyers for a while after signing their deals and before being traded, so not really sign and trades
- Jul 25, 2006
- 31,558
- 22,116
This whole O'Reilly situation is gonna be a destruction for the team, they should really trade him. Not only after the arbitration all it's gonna be is a one or two year contract, but they gonna go over this same thing after that one or two year contract expires.
Just not healthy for the organization. Trade him, get good player / players in return and get it over with.
Just not healthy for the organization. Trade him, get good player / players in return and get it over with.
The question is can O'reilly use his synergies to convince the arbitrator to give him 6 million or more.
a mangy Meowth
Ross Colton Fan
Drij
Registered User
- Mar 5, 2007
- 7,335
- 346
Coloradorov
Registered User
I'm fairly sure it has been mentioned before, but all conventional rules don't apply with ROR anymore. Sign and trades would normally make management look bad, but I can't see anyone holding it against the avs front office in this case.
agentblack
Registered User
I agree, but unless a great deal comes their way I would want them to wait until the draft. Get a good, hopefully youngish roster player, ala B.Sutter and a top 10 pick ala Olli Maata for ROR.
Would be nice consolation prize for a team in the bottom ten that miss out on the big 2 in the 15 draft.
UncleRisto
Not Great, Bob!
dahrougem2
Registered User
If ever news came out that the Avs were offered Marc Staal for O'Reilly and also offered Evander Kane for O'Reilly, Sakic and Roy would need to be delusional to accept the Staal trade. Why would you prefer Staal? He's 27 going on 28, not exactly old but he'll be hitting that "slow-down" stage that defenseman hit sooner rather than later, and has a history of concussion issues. Not that his play has fallen off a cliff or anything, but he certainly is not as good as he used to be.
Then there's Kane, 22 going on 23 in August, already has a 30 goal season under his belt, was on pace for 30 in a lockout shortened season, is big and skates like the wind. He may have some off-ice issues, but something tells me that has more to do with the Jets organization being inept with everything they do rather than Kane himself. Add in the fact that Kane is almost literally a clone of Jarome Iginla 15 years younger, and there's potential for Iginla to mentor Kane and turn him into what he was. It's definitely more risk with Kane because who knows, he could be another O'Reilly with the headaches, but I'm willing to take that risk because he brings more value than Staal does.
First thing I do in the morning is grab my phone and open up the TSN app. If I'm busy or something, a friend will text me when the Avs have done something.
It's still possible, but as you said optimism is at an all time low.
There is a thought in the back of my mind, and this is extremely unlikely.
What IF? What if they mutually agreed that using an arbitrator to settle the contract dispute was the way to go?
The Avs could say, ok we'll agree to extend you long term at the arbitration amount with the appropriate inflation rates built into the contract over the long term?
Say the arbitrator comes back with 5.8M, and the Avs could tack on 3.5-6% per year over the life of the contract?
If O'Reilly really believe he has a case for his demands. Theoretically he shouldn't have a problem with this. It settles the contract dispute through a third party, and removes the personal feeling involved in the dispute.
Also for all the talk that the arbitration hearing is going to be nothing but Colorado dragging O'Reilly through the mud. I don't really agree... This is a rare case where Colorado can actually talk up O'Reilly and compare him to some very good players. However with the caveat that "Look at what these star players are making", "We value O'Reilly greatly as a core part of our team, but feel that these contract values are a good bar for the current market".
They really don't have to do much, it's on O'Reilly to convince the arbitrator that he should make more than some players that are widely viewed as being superior.
As I said, it's not really a realistic scenario based on history. However the candid way that the team and player are treating the idea of going to arbitration makes me wonder a bit.
Your not seeing the 'silence' from the team that you usually would prior to arbitration. You're seeing the team talk up the player and his value to the team, and the player say things like 'They were smart' to go to arbitration.
O'Reilly could actually take a one year deal and then sign an extension immediately afterwards.
This would also be assuming that both the player and the team want a long term relationship as they both are saying publicly.
Just a thought, and I wouldn't put anything past Roy and Sakic.
Edit : A 6 year deal would look something like : 5.8 / 6.09 (5%) / 6.3945 (5%) / 6.65028 (4%) / 6.9162912 (4%) / 7.1791102 (3.8%) = 39.03M (6.5M AAV)
If you remove the first year (Probably should have done this), it's 33.2302M which is an AAV of 6.64M over 5 years
Last edited:
Another thing, does Colorado have to sign the arbitration award? Or could both parties sign a long term contract based on the arbitration amount?
I'd imagine if both parties wanted it, there is some sort of grey area that would allow it.
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,385
- 31,642
I wonder if they could have a nice open conversation at the last minute if final offers fall through?
Sakic could say something like, "look, we both know where we stand in relation to $6M being the max. We have a disagreement on whether it's fair to use $6.5m as a starting point, and that's ok. You can elect for a one year deal, and if the arbitrator comes back at $6M or under, we'll match that on a medium length contract when you can re-sign in January."
"This will allow you to have UFA rights while you're still relatively young in 4-5 years. If they come back and offer closer to $5.5M, we'll still give you the $6M AAV on our final offer."
"If they come back and determine your salary should be north of the $6M, we'll find a team that is willing to accommodate your long term salary requests."
Sounds relatively fair, and open and honest to me. Just put all the cards on the table.
Sakic could say something like, "look, we both know where we stand in relation to $6M being the max. We have a disagreement on whether it's fair to use $6.5m as a starting point, and that's ok. You can elect for a one year deal, and if the arbitrator comes back at $6M or under, we'll match that on a medium length contract when you can re-sign in January."
"This will allow you to have UFA rights while you're still relatively young in 4-5 years. If they come back and offer closer to $5.5M, we'll still give you the $6M AAV on our final offer."
"If they come back and determine your salary should be north of the $6M, we'll find a team that is willing to accommodate your long term salary requests."
Sounds relatively fair, and open and honest to me. Just put all the cards on the table.
- Status
