Ottawa Sun "You Be The Boss Survey"

[Tnuoc Alucard]

If you're trying to establish what Karlsson is worth on the open market, there are a few interesting contracts out the to look at.

Subban currently has the highest Dman contract in terms of Average salary at 9 mil. His deal was worth 13.04% of the cap at the time it was signed. He was re-signed by his team, so not on the open market

Weber currently has the highest outright salary for a Dman. He was signed before additional restrictions to contract length were put in place, and via a matched offer sheet, so with an open market setting the price, but with penalties associated (draft picks to be sent if not matched). He currently makes 12 mil this year, but with an average salary of 7.857. His deal was 13.10% of the cap at the time it was signed, but include 8 years out of the total 14 on the tail end designed to drop down the cap hit. Dropping off the last 4 years which were obvious cap circumvention years, you get an AAV of 10.4 mil, which would have been 17.33% of the cap at the time of signing. I don't think market value for a player equivalent to Weber signed to day would be the actual deal signed (taking into account inflation) or the hypothetical cap % of a deal had there been none of the cap circumventing years, so market value probably falls somewhere in the middle.

Now, it's worth pointing out that unlike Weber and Subban, Karlsson's name gets floated around with the absolute best players in the game; guys like Crosby and McDavid. Perhaps he's a not behind them, but the fact remains his value to a team likely comfortably exceeds that of either Weber or Subban at the time they signed their deals.

So;

Weber: 7.857 mi, 13.10% of the cap
Weber (sans cap circumventing years or CC yrs): 10.4 mil, 17.33%
Subban: 9 mil, 13.04% of the cap

Looking at what some of the top players in the league got:

McDavid: 12.5 mil, 16.67% of the cap
Kane/Toews: 10.5 mil, 15.22% of the cap
Kopitar: 10 mil, 13.70% of the cap
Ovechkin*: 9.538 mil, 16.82% of the cap
Malkin: 9.5 mil, 14.77% of the cap
Crosby**: 8.7 mil, 14.5% of the cap
Crosby (sans CC yrs): 10.6 mil, 17.66% of the cap

* Ovechkin's deal was signed before term restrictions, but did not attempt to circumvent the cap with extra years at a drastically reduced salary
** Like Weber, Crosby's deal was signed before term restrictions and includes cap circumventing years. It would have been ~17.66% of the cap without the final 3 years.

Based on the above contracts, if you buy into the concept that forwards get more than Dmen (I'd argue pts producers get more, and as a result, dmen typically get less, but since Karlsson produces like elite forwards, his market value won't be typical) my guess is that Karlsson's market value is probably around 14-16% of the cap. I think I'd equate Subban's contract to Kopitar's; I think both guys would garner similar levels of interest. Karlsson to me is clearly a tier above them in terms of league interest, more in the Malkin and Kane range, but maybe not the Ovechkin, McDavid, Crosby (adjusted for cap circumvention) range.

A deal at 14-16% of the cap would be 11.2 to 12.8 mil of an 80 mil cap or 10.92 to 12.48 of a 78 mil cap. So, while I don't know if I'd call 10.5-11 well below market value, I would say it's below the lower end of my expectation for market value. Basically, if we get Karlsson in that range, I'll consider it a home town discount. If we get him below 10, it's a veritable steal for the team.

Great analysis of this issue.

I've maintained that Ottawa will not go over an 11 Million AAV for Karlsson........... and clearly you've explained that between 10 Million and 11 Million is not "well below market value" as far as I'm concerned.

The Questions remaining, are will Ottawa actually go to 11 Million, if that's what it takes? And is EK65 looking for more, and willing to risk a trade to get it?

 

[Micklebot]

Great analysis of this issue.

I've maintained that Ottawa will not go over an 11 Million AAV for Karlsson........... and clearly you've explained that between 10 Million and 11 Million is not "well below market value" as far as I'm concerned.

The Questions remaining, are will Ottawa actually go to 11 Million, if that's what it takes? And is EK65 looking for more, and willing to risk a trade to get it?

I just realized the % I used should have been for a 78 mil to 82 not 80, so 11.48 to 13.12 rather than 11.2 to 12.8 mil on the high end if the players exercise the full escalator. The 80 mil numbers are still good though in that they split the difference.

To me, 11 mil as the line in the sand is a little low. Put it this way; Anaheim, another budget team, found room for both Perry (13.41%) and Getzlaf (12.83%) roughly the equivalent of 10+ mil deals if signed today. This is a team with similar revenues to ours. I get that they don't have anchors like Ryan and Gaborik, but you make sacrifices elsewhere to fit a guy like Karlsson in, ditch Smith for an ELC, buy out Gaborik and Burrows.

 

[Heady Topper]

Your comrade in arms, Sensung stated that an offer (to EK65) of 10-11 Million, would be "well below market value" ............ are you seriously backing him up in that claim?

So you're saying you're okay with lowballing one of the top 5 players in the game? Wow, ok.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I just realized the % I used should have been for a 78 mil to 82 not 80, so 11.48 to 13.12 rather than 11.2 to 12.8 mil on the high end if the players exercise the full escalator. The 80 mil numbers are still good though in that they split the difference.

To me, 11 mil as the line in the sand is a little low. Put it this way; Anaheim, another budget team, found room for both Perry (13.41%) and Getzlaf (12.83%) roughly the equivalent of 10+ mil deals if signed today. This is a team with similar revenues to ours. I get that they don't have anchors like Ryan and Gaborik, but you make sacrifices elsewhere to fit a guy like Karlsson in, ditch Smith for an ELC, buy out Gaborik and Burrows.

But they weren't signed today, and they aren't 10 million dollar deals in real money. You have to manage cap, internal budget and real dollars.

To a team with a budget 9 million isn't 11 million with cap inflation, it's 2 million dollars less a year. There's a lot of clever math going on to explain giving EK huge dollars, but when you consider that we're a team with a budget, the cap going up really doesn't matter. The cap increase doesn't equal an increase in ticket sales, nor does it equal a better season for the team in order increase revenues.

We're in a place where the dollars matter per year no matter what the cap (not that we can't front load to the max to reflect decline years) so most of the inflation stuff is moot.

We can't have a single player eating up too much of the budget, and if we dole out a huge contract on a guy we have to make sure that he's not going to burn us the moment he turns 30. Ryan at 7 is heavy, a broken down EK at 12+ is murder.

EK could get more than we're willing to offer , and i get what EM was saying. PD may offer 11 million, a fair deal in my opinion, and EK can opt not to sign because he thinks he can get 13. I'd understand a trade at that point, as that's a huge portion of our yearly budget, and after this year I'm pretty leery of his abilities to get back to all world play, and in his commitment to this team long term (for whatever reason, and I don't care or judge).

 

[Engineer]

But they weren't signed today, and they aren't 10 million dollar deals in real money.

They were signed when the cap was lower, that is why we are analyzing percentages, it puts the contracts on an equal playing field.

There's a lot of clever math going on to explain giving EK huge dollars,

Percentages are clever now?

This is simple and straight forward stuff. Players agents factor in the current salary cap since that is what teams are permitted to work with, are you unaware of this reality?

so most of the inflation stuff is moot.

el oh el.

 

[Micklebot]

But they weren't signed today, and they aren't 10 million dollar deals in real money. You have to manage cap, internal budget and real dollars.

To a team with a budget 9 million isn't 11 million with cap inflation, it's 2 million dollars less a year. There's a lot of clever math going on to explain giving EK huge dollars, but when you consider that we're a team with a budget, the cap going up really doesn't matter. The cap increase doesn't equal an increase in ticket sales, nor does it equal a better season for the team in order increase revenues.

We're in a place where the dollars matter per year no matter what the cap (not that we can't front load to the max to reflect decline years) so most of the inflation stuff is moot.

We can't have a single player eating up too much of the budget, and if we dole out a huge contract on a guy we have to make sure that he's not going to burn us the moment he turns 30. Ryan at 7 is heavy, a broken down EK at 12+ is murder.

EK could get more than we're willing to offer , and i get what EM was saying. PD may offer 11 million, a fair deal in my opinion, and EK can opt not to sign because he thinks he can get 13. I'd understand a trade at that point, as that's a huge portion of our yearly budget, and after this year I'm pretty leery of his abilities to get back to all world play, and in his commitment to this team long term (for whatever reason, and I don't care or judge).

The thing is cap inflation means league revenue inflation. The team may have a budget, but the teams revenues have risen since those deals were signed too, but the real issue is that that's what other teams will be willing to pay him, that's all that matters here.

If we decide we can be more competitve without putting that much on him, fine, but what he's worth is just a refelection of what any player is worth, all players cost is going up, not just his.

If you're satisfied with the team budget not rising with cap inflation, that's fine, just know that the team won't likely be competitive if it doesn't. It's that simple. If the team decides it's too risky to pay him that much, fine, but they better get a real haul back and invest what they don't spend on him back into the team, otherwise it will be a long time before this team sees a deep playoff run again.

 

[Ice-Tray]

The thing is cap inflation means league revenue inflation. The team may have a budget, but the teams revenues have risen since those deals were signed too, but the real issue is that that's what other teams will be willing to pay him, that's all that matters here.

If we decide we can be more competitve without putting that much on him, fine, but what he's worth is just a refelection of what any player is worth, all players cost is going up, not just his.

If you're satisfied with the team budget not rising with cap inflation, that's fine, just know that the team won't likely be competitive if it doesn't. It's that simple. If the team decides it's too risky to pay him that much, fine, but they better get a real haul back and invest what they don't spend on him back into the team, otherwise it will be a long time before this team sees a deep playoff run again.

I don't think it's as simple as you think. team's internal budgets don't just go up as a percentage of the cap. The internal budgets are tied whatever they are tied to according to the need and wants of the owner. It could be revenues for example.

My understanding is also that the players keep using the escalator to raise the cap, meanwhile league revenues have apparently failed to meet the target for the last decade meaning that the owners get to keep their share.

I won't claim to have the league's finances mastered, but it's a lot more nuanced than cap goes up so everyone gets more money.

I noticed that you didn't address my dollars point at all, which i think for teams that actually have a budget is important. If a team has a financial budget, a 9 million dollar salary doesn't equal 10 million the next year because the cap went up. If a team uses a percentage of the cap as their budget then sure, it may view every thing in terms of a percentage.

Folks around here act as though we're at the floor, when we're not, we're the same small market budget team we've always been, outside of a few cap years when EM was doing better. We have to be smart with our moves an contracts, with little room to make mistakes as many have noted. 12 + million on a single player taking them into the back half of their 30's definitely deserved due diligence on seeing what's out there.

As for being satisfied, it a funny thing with these boards that you can't make a point without someone trying to make it a 'you're with us or against us' type deal. I'm not satisfied with the budget obviously, but give the fact that we have one, I'm satisfied that the GM is going to consider all options before potentially crippling the franchise one way or another.

They were signed when the cap was lower, that is why we are analyzing percentages, it puts the contracts on an equal playing field.


Percentages are clever now?

This is simple and straight forward stuff. Players agents factor in the current salary cap since that is what teams are permitted to work with, are you unaware of this reality?

el oh el.

I gotta keep it civil

 

[Engineer]

Deleted

You deleted your insults, so I'll delete mine.

team's internal budgets don't just go up as a percentage of the cap

Which is 100% irrelevant to the value of a players contract, which you are purposefully ignoring.

but it's a lot more nuanced than cap goes up so everyone gets more money.

Actually, the cap goes up as the league revenues increase, with an optional escalator that the players can vote for each year.

a 9 million dollar salary doesn't equal 10 million the next year because the cap went up. If a team uses a percentage of the cap as their budget then sure, it may view every thing in terms of a percentage.

Irrelevant to agents and players.
The salary cap increased because the league revenues increased. The reason the cap is projected to increase this year by $5M is because the league's revenues have increased.

A team's internal budget is irrelevant to a players value.

 

[Sensung]

What the Sens are willing to pay EK has zero bearing on his market value. The owner is already on record stating that the Sens are outgunned and won't offer him market value. If he takes what the Sens offer, he will have given them a hometown discount.

 

[Ice-Tray]

You deleted your insults, so I'll delete mine.



Which is 100% irrelevant to the value of a players contract, which you are purposefully ignoring.



Actually, the cap goes up as the league revenues increase, with an optional escalator that the players can vote for each year.


Irrelevant to agents and players.
The salary cap increased because the league revenues increased. The reason the cap is projected to increase this year by $5M is because the league's revenues have increased.

A team's internal budget is irrelevant to a players value.

Honestly man I'm going to make a pointed effort to be kinder to you. I do see that you try and make a point and we clearly rub each other the wrong way, so I'll work on my end for whatever that's worth.

I want to be clear that I'm not arguing that the percentage angle is wrong, it isn't, or that it isn't valid, it is. All I'm saying is that for a team that runs on a budget, actually dollars are important, and 9 million dollars is better than 10 million dollars.

EK's agent will undoubtably make a very solid percentage argument like you guys have done, and I imagine that PD will have a dollar amount, even if it's front loaded, that the team can actually pay going forward. I can understand, not like, but understand, that as a small market team we have dollar restraints, and that the cap going up isn't a bonus like it is for other teams.

The silver lining is that we have always been like this so at least I'm conditioned. If EK was in his low 20's I'd be all over getting McDavid money, but he's not. He's going to be 37 when his deal expires and that gives me some pause when considering going really high with an 8 year deal.

Players have voted for the escalator each year, which makes the cap go up even if the revenues don't support it. The players pay into escrow to offset any shortages, and from what I gather the revenues haven't met that target in the last decade, so the owners have collected from the escrow.

If I remember correctly last year it was a big deal as the cap wasn't set to go up until the players used the escalator.

 

[Ice-Tray]

What the Sens are willing to pay EK has zero bearing on his market value. The owner is already on record stating that the Sens are outgunned and won't offer him market value. If he takes what the Sens offer, he will have given them a hometown discount.

I don't really care about what his market value is. We can theorize all day about it, but until he hits the open market we'll never know. I only car what our team is able to realistically offer him, versus what he is willing to take in exchange for his services.

I'm also tired of you turning every single post into an ownership bash. Get over it and move on, I'm getting to the point where putting you on ignore is starting to look better in terms of my HF experience in general.

 

[Sensung]

I don't really care about what his market value is. We can theorize all day about it, but until he hits the open market we'll never know. I only car what our team is able to realistically offer him, versus what he is willing to take in exchange for his services.

I'm also tired of you turning every single post into an ownership bash. Get over it and move on, I'm getting to the point where putting you on ignore is starting to look better in terms of my HF experience in general.

Knock yourself out.

Our owner went out of his way to make it clear he feels he is "outgunned" and would not pay EK what other teams would (aka market value).

Sorry that you have an issue with me putting the spotlight on the person responsible for budget. I'm going to continue to do so in the future, so if can't handle the truth, then ignore may be your best choice.

 

[JD1]

Knock yourself out.

Our owner went out of his way to make it clear he feels he is "outgunned" and would not pay EK what other teams would (aka market value).

Sorry that you have an issue with me putting the spotlight on the person responsible for budget. I'm going to continue to do so in the future, so if can't handle the truth, then ignore may be your best choice.

we do have a budget Sensung and I struggle to understand guys that don't get that or won't acknowledge that. The interesting thing about our budget is that it isn't out of whack with teams in comparable revenue situations.

I get the feeling that if EK signed an 8 by 10M deal we'd have a ton of guys on here celebrating and you'd be on your island angry that he didn't get what he is worth.

 

[Sensung]

we do have a budget Sensung and I struggle to understand guys that don't get that or won't acknowledge that. The interesting thing about our budget is that it isn't out of whack with teams in comparable revenue situations.

I get the feeling that if EK signed an 8 by 10M deal we'd have a ton of guys on here celebrating and you'd be on your island angry that he didn't get what he is worth.

Then perhaps you should actually read my posts.

I've stated on multiple occassions that i will be ecstatic if EK signs a hometown discount deal.

The current on-going argument with the Melnyk fan club is because I had the audacity to suggest we should acknowledge the sacrifice EK would be making.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

So you're saying you're okay with lowballing one of the top 5 players in the game? Wow, ok.

Saying you need to compare apples with apples.

Comparing a 21 year Connor McDavid, with a 29 year old EK65 (when his extension would kick in) is to me , not a fair "comparable".

Are you suggesting that either EK65 or the Senators would bring Connor McDavid up as a"comparable", in their negotiations, over a PK Subban?

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

What the Sens are willing to pay EK has zero bearing on his market value. The owner is already on record stating that the Sens are outgunned and won't offer him market value. If he takes what the Sens offer, he will have given them a hometown discount.

"If it's a question of dollars, there are teams who can out gun us. The cap gives us a fighting chance. There's only so far you can go and we're going to go as far as we can."
Eugene Melnyk

"At the end of the day, it will be his choice. If we offer him a fair contract and he doesn't want to sign here, then we will have to look at other options. The ball will be in his court."
Pierre Dorion


The Senators cannot get "out gunned" as they're the only one allowed to negotiate with EK65.

So the "out gunned" reference might be alluding to what EK65 might be thinking, in terms if he weighs his options of either signing an extension with Ottawa, or becoming an UFA.

Ottawa would surely trade him before allowing him to walk for nothing and become an UFA

 

[pzeeman]

When did he say that?

Is it possible you're conflating two different scenarios?

Was the owner referencing what EK65 might command IF he were to become an UFA on July 1 2019 ......... and not talking about the extension offer the Senators will offer on July 1 2018?

You would not be trying to put words in the mouth of the owner that he did not say, are you?

He’s saying that in the town halls, Melnyk implied that if Karlsson believes he can get a McDavid comparable contract - and will only accept - that then OTT won’t be able to compete.

It’s the truth, and anyone with half a brain can see that reality, but Melnyk really didn’t need to bring it up that way. Just gives more ammunition to the pessimists/realists.

 

[Micklebot]

I don't think it's as simple as you think. team's internal budgets don't just go up as a percentage of the cap. The internal budgets are tied whatever they are tied to according to the need and wants of the owner. It could be revenues for example.

My understanding is also that the players keep using the escalator to raise the cap, meanwhile league revenues have apparently failed to meet the target for the last decade meaning that the owners get to keep their share.

I won't claim to have the league's finances mastered, but it's a lot more nuanced than cap goes up so everyone gets more money.

I noticed that you didn't address my dollars point at all, which i think for teams that actually have a budget is important. If a team has a financial budget, a 9 million dollar salary doesn't equal 10 million the next year because the cap went up. If a team uses a percentage of the cap as their budget then sure, it may view every thing in terms of a percentage.

Folks around here act as though we're at the floor, when we're not, we're the same small market budget team we've always been, outside of a few cap years when EM was doing better. We have to be smart with our moves an contracts, with little room to make mistakes as many have noted. 12 + million on a single player taking them into the back half of their 30's definitely deserved due diligence on seeing what's out there.

As for being satisfied, it a funny thing with these boards that you can't make a point without someone trying to make it a 'you're with us or against us' type deal. I'm not satisfied with the budget obviously, but give the fact that we have one, I'm satisfied that the GM is going to consider all options before potentially crippling the franchise one way or another.




I gotta keep it civil

Players are worth what they are worth on the market. If the team can't afford to spend what it takes to have a generational player on the team, that's a big red flag. If a teams budget can't keep pace with a growing cap, their team progressively become less competitive.

The escalator being used year after year doesn't mean the cap is getting away from revenues, because the escalator is based off the previous years revenues. Aside from that, escrow corrects for any overshooting, so it they use the escalator, and fail to meet revenue targets for that cap, the players just don't get their escrow (or as much) back. Using the escalator year after year is meaningless. Only the current year matters. Beyond that, the escalator and escrow means that if the league revenues fail to meet the target, that 10 mil deal is actually a little less, as escrow takes away about 1.5 mil and then only a portion of that 1.5 gets given back to the player when the final numbers are crunched.

Having a dollar budget is certainly important, but if you're unwilling to pay your best player and one of the best in the league what he's worth because you have a budget, well, you probably have a budget too low to compete, or you're prioritizing the wrong players on the roster. Either way, it's a really bad look.

 

[Heady Topper]

Saying you need to compare apples with apples.

Comparing a 21 year Connor McDavid, with a 29 year old EK65 (when his extension would kick in) is to me , not a fair "comparable".

Are you suggesting that either EK65 or the Senators would bring Connor McDavid up as a"comparable", in their negotiations, over a PK Subban?

So you're saying you don't think he should make more or equal percentage of the cap than Kopitar? Wow...

 

[Micklebot]

Saying you need to compare apples with apples.

Comparing a 21 year Connor McDavid, with a 29 year old EK65 (when his extension would kick in) is to me , not a fair "comparable".

Are you suggesting that either EK65 or the Senators would bring Connor McDavid up as a"comparable", in their negotiations, over a PK Subban?

Typically, guys on their second contract take less than guys signing UFA deals. McDavid could be a little different as you could argue he got a UFA deal because any team would have no issues making an offer sheet, so there was no downward force on his deal, but reports are that McDavid could have gotten more from edm.

At the end of the day, there is no exact comparable out there. Other contracts, be it Subban or McDavid, will need to be viewed within their individual context. As far as forwards go, Toews or Kane might be worth bringing up. 15.22% of the cap, UFA deal, not typically seen as any more valuable than Karlsson. It would be hard to justify not approaching their deals, other than relying on "but he's a forward".

Using Subban as a comparable would probably be a losing battle for the sens imo. His cap% would equate to about a 10.4 mil deal, but Subban had nowhere near the resume imo. At the time of signing a 1 time norris finalist (winning it) vs 2 time winner 4 time finalist. To me, that suggests a significant advantage for Karlsson, not the same deal recognizing inflation,.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Players are worth what they are worth on the market. If the team can't afford to spend what it takes to have a generational player on the team, that's a big red flag. If a teams budget can't keep pace with a growing cap, their team progressively become less competitive.

The escalator being used year after year doesn't mean the cap is getting away from revenues, because the escalator is based off the previous years revenues. Aside from that, escrow corrects for any overshooting, so it they use the escalator, and fail to meet revenue targets for that cap, the players just don't get their escrow (or as much) back. Using the escalator year after year is meaningless. Only the current year matters. Beyond that, the escalator and escrow means that if the league revenues fail to meet the target, that 10 mil deal is actually a little less, as escrow takes away about 1.5 mil and then only a portion of that 1.5 gets given back to the player when the final numbers are crunched.

Having a dollar budget is certainly important, but if you're unwilling to pay your best player and one of the best in the league what he's worth because you have a budget, well, you probably have a budget too low to compete, or you're prioritizing the wrong players on the roster. Either way, it's a really bad look.

Well I guess we've circled back again. I don't think it's a can't afford situation as obviously the dollars are there, but more of a what is the max we should spend on this player. This isn't a red flag, I bet very few teams would be willing to offer EK a max money max term deal, though as a UFA all it would take is one. I wouldn't;t want that one team to be us.

This is where people disagree. This team has already made two key moves after deciding how much they wanted to spend on a player on a long term deal, and how much they didn't want to spend. Trading both Zib and Turris were a result of the team not wanting to commit big money and term to these two players, while we'll see them commit to Duchene and Stone. I whole heartedly agree with this financial decision making as I would not want either Turris or Zib at their current deals.

EK is a little different as I think the team wants to keep him, but don't want to commit dollars near a max money deal. Given his age, his injury history, and the fact that a max year deal would take him to 37, and I think the team has a right to be worried, and absolutely should be exploring all options in order to make the best decision for the club going forward.

Fans will get over an EK trade a lot faster than they would get over 3 or 4 years of an 12 + contract if it becomes an albatros in a few years.

The heart wants him signed no matter what, and I get that, but this has top be a head decision.

As for the escalator, if it wasn't used last year the cap wouldn't have gone up. That's huge for a player arguing a cap percentage deal last summer no? The fact that targets weren't met means that while there is escrow payments made to make the owners whole after the fact, it creates an artificially hight cap numbers for contract negotiations for that year, and every year after that so far. Keep in mind that the escalator has been used every year, and the targets have not been made for the last decade.

 

[Sensung]

Well I guess we've circled back again. I don't think it's a can't afford situation as obviously the dollars are there, but more of a what is the max we should spend on this player. This isn't a red flag, I bet very few teams would be willing to offer EK a max money max term deal, though as a UFA all it would take is one. I wouldn't;t want that one team to be us.

This is where people disagree. This team has already made two key moves after deciding how much they wanted to spend on a player on a long term deal, and how much they didn't want to spend. Trading both Zib and Turris were a result of the team not wanting to commit big money and term to these two players, while we'll see them commit to Duchene and Stone. I whole heartedly agree with this financial decision making as I would not want either Turris or Zib at their current deals.

EK is a little different as I think the team wants to keep him, but don't want to commit dollars near a max money deal. Given his age, his injury history, and the fact that a max year deal would take him to 37, and I think the team has a right to be worried, and absolutely should be exploring all options in order to make the best decision for the club going forward.

Fans will get over an EK trade a lot faster than they would get over 3 or 4 years of an 12 + contract if it becomes an albatros in a few years.

The heart wants him signed no matter what, and I get that, but this has top be a head decision.

As for the escalator, if it wasn't used last year the cap wouldn't have gone up. That's huge for a player arguing a cap percentage deal last summer no? The fact that targets weren't met means that while there is escrow payments made to make the owners whole after the fact, it creates an artificially hight cap numbers for contract negotiations for that year, and every year after that so far. Keep in mind that the escalator has been used every year, and the targets have not been made for the last decade.

Please stop implying that people who favour a trade instead of market value are being "rational" and those who disagree are basing their opinion on "emotion".

There is a rational case to be made for both points of view.

 

[Sensung]

"If it's a question of dollars, there are teams who can out gun us. The cap gives us a fighting chance. There's only so far you can go and we're going to go as far as we can."
Eugene Melnyk

"At the end of the day, it will be his choice. If we offer him a fair contract and he doesn't want to sign here, then we will have to look at other options. The ball will be in his court."
Pierre Dorion


The Senators cannot get "out gunned" as they're the only one allowed to negotiate with EK65.

So the "out gunned" reference might be alluding to what EK65 might be thinking, in terms if he weighs his options of either signing an extension with Ottawa, or becoming an UFA.

Ottawa would surely trade him before allowing him to walk for nothing and become an UFA

Outgunned if he were to get to UFA, ie WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR FOR EK. Your hero can grasp this simple concept...why can't you?

So I say again, if Karlsson signs between 10-11M I will be thrilled he took a hometown discount well below his market value. Sens fans should praise him accordingly.

 

[Engineer]

Honestly man I'm going to make a pointed effort to be kinder to you. I do see that you try and make a point and we clearly rub each other the wrong way, so I'll work on my end for whatever that's worth.

Okay, I can appreciate that, and I will return the favour.

I want to be clear that I'm not arguing that the percentage angle is wrong, it isn't, or that it isn't valid, it is. All I'm saying is that for a team that runs on a budget, actually dollars are important, and 9 million dollars is better than 10 million dollars.

EK's agent will undoubtably make a very solid percentage argument like you guys have done, and I imagine that PD will have a dollar amount, even if it's front loaded, that the team can actually pay going forward. I can understand, not like, but understand, that as a small market team we have dollar restraints, and that the cap going up isn't a bonus like it is for other teams.

We're all aware of the dollar constraints that the team is under, but just because the team has a budget, that doesn't have an influence on a players value. It may have an influence on the value that the team itself is willing to offer, but the players actual value is dictated by the market, especially when the player is on UFA years.

Structuring contracts in specific manners can be beneficial for the team, but the team generally benefits from front-loaded contracts when players are traded for, since their most expensive years are already paid for. When it comes to signing a player like Karlsson, the breakdown will have no effect on the team in the sense that he will have a full-NMC and isn't going to be traded so the team will pay for his contract from start to finish. If they think there is a chance he will be traded/request a trade in the future, they should rear-load the contract; however, the player/agent may be less interested in that structure.

Players have voted for the escalator each year, which makes the cap go up even if the revenues don't support it. The players pay into escrow to offset any shortages, and from what I gather the revenues haven't met that target in the last decade, so the owners have collected from the escrow.

If I remember correctly last year it was a big deal as the cap wasn't set to go up until the players used the escalator.

Micklebot already replied to this stuff so I won't as I would have said nearly the same thing

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

So you're saying you don't think he should make more or equal percentage of the cap than Kopitar? Wow...

Again, you're comparing a First Line center, to a top pairing D man.

So you're suggesting that in addition to McDavid, EK65 and his agent will also use Kopitar as a "comparable" during the extension negotiations.

Would there be a D man that they might also use?