I've noticed something that many on here keep saying regarding barzals production, and how it will effect his upcoming contract negotiations. True, Barzal's production has not been in the 90-100 point range like many originally thought it could be the last 2 years (counting this one). However, the primary reason for this has not been due to underperformance on his part. Rather, it has been due to the defensive first system we play. Coach Trotz has been very candid about the fact that playing this system requires the players to make sacrifices, one of which being their individual point production. If Barzal was spending less time marking his man in his own zone, constantly flying out of our own zone early, or rarely back-checking hard and instead cherry picking up the ice, then yeah, he'd probably be a 90-100 point player. But, (and I admit I've been critical of him at times because I still feel he isn't disciplined enough in his own zone and needs to further improve), he has made a concerted effort to play the way Coach Trotz wants him too, and thus, has probably left many individual points on the table. Therefore, that needs to be kept in mind when trying to use his "lack of production" against him into getting him to take less AAV on his next contract. Why? If you keep asking him to make sacrifices in the way he plays for the good of the team, knowing that it will result in him accumulating less points, but then try use his lack of production against him in contract negotiations, that's how you're going to develop a rift with him. In other words, you'll cause Barzal to say to himself "I should play the way they want me to play, only to score less points, only to then have them want to pay me less because I didn't score enough for them? Nah, I ain't doing that, I'm going to make sure I do what I have to do on the ice to score points, system be darned, so that they then have to pay me come contract time". And then, on top of how it will effect him, don't think for a second that the rest of the players wouldn't notice that as well. "Hey, management is using matty's lack of production against him, when its really managements fault for making us play the way we do, they'll probably do that to me to next time around as well, so I need to do what I need to do alsoo to make sure I don't hurt my next negotiation". For a team that requires such a high level of "buy-in" from the players like the Islanders, that is a very risky negotiation strategy to take. So, rather than pay the players based on production, I feel they need to make it known that they will be making decisions based on "impact". So, pertaining to Barzal, it should go something like "Look Matt, we know you would be a 90-100 point guy in a more free flowing style of hockey, but you're buying in to the way we want you to play, and you have a huge positive impact toward our success. So, we're still going to pay you like a player we feel is a very good player, because that's what you are, a very good player". And with that, you would continue to get Barzal to buy-in to the way you want him to play, along with the rest of the players on the team. Now, I am not saying break the bank, or spend recklessly. But, what I am saying, is say he was that 90 point guy, and we would strive to sign him for 8 mil AAV, then let's still give him that money, and not try to lowball him over his numbers, especially considering that traditional statistics aren't what win hockey games for our organization. And deal with the other players accordingly as well. Pulock, has become a very solid defenseman. Most guys in his situation would probably get 5 mil AAV, so strive to pay him that, don't low ball him either and try to get away with 3 mil AAV by using his stats. I am not implying that we shouldn't try to get these guys to take discounts, but be honest with them. As opposed to telling Barzal he is worth 6-7 million based on his stats, tell him "look Matt, we think you are worth 8 mil AAV, but if you could take 6-7 mil, it would help us put those savings back into the rest of the team, and make us better overall". Maybe you would get some guys to bite on that. I just feel overall that we can't try to use traditional "production" as our basis for negotiating contracts with our to be free agents moving forward. It would be contrary to the defense first, sacrificial culture that we are asking the players to buy into. I just felt the need to touch on this a little, given how many on here have alluded to this issue as of late.
