Confirmed with Link: Schultz signs 1yr/3.9M

[Oilfan2]

We couldnt walk away after filing for arbitration.. We wouldve had to wait til July24 and there was no guarantee that any good UFA dman would be available by then..

Whats better ...Keeping Schultz at 3.9M and getting rid of Nikitin and 2.25M of his caphit.
or walking away from Schultz and keeping Nikitin @ 4.5M ?

Schultz is RFA after the year.. Nikitin UFA.. Schultz at 50% would still have good value and can be part of a bigger package.. Nikitin @50% retained would still hold negative value.

I assume you're talking about retaining with NN? If we buy him out, it saves $3m this season but adds $1.5 to next year's cap..

 

[McShogun99]

People tend to forget that during his rookie season under Nelson in the AHL he was on pace for 115 points and under Kruger in the NHL he was on pace for 46 points. Those are amazing numbers for a rookie defenseman. I'm not expecting much defensively from him next season but it wouldn't surprise me if he gets over 50 points. You have to look at Schultz as a 4th forward.

 

[CupofOil]

This is a MacT deal!! It reeks of his love affair with the golden boys!

A 1 year deal reeks of a love affair with the player? I don't get where you're coming from.

It was either settle before arbitration at $3.6+ or walk away from the player altogether. Walking away from a developing young player or selling low would have been a MacT trait. You can't walk away from a talented 25 year old defenseman who puts up points and suffered under the Eakins regime. They need to see how he can do under a real coach, this is around the age where a lot of defensemen break out.

This is the perfect deal for him to prove his worth to the team and for the team to evaluate if he's part of a solution going forward. The money doesn't preclude them from making other moves because they can now proceed with a buy out to free up the necessary money to bring in a Dman if they so choose. If he doesn't progress this season then you cut your losses and move on.

 

[Oilfan2]

A 1 year deal reeks of a love affair with the player? I don't get where you're coming from.

It was either settle before arbitration at $3.6+ or walk away from the player altogether. Walking away from a developing young player or selling low would have been a MacT trait. You can't walk away from a talented 25 year old defenseman who puts up points and suffered under the Eakins regime. They need to see how he can do under a real coach, this is around the age where a lot of defensemen break out.

This is the perfect deal for him to prove his worth to the team and for the team to evaluate if he's part of a solution going forward. The money doesn't preclude them from making other moves because they can now proceed with a buy out to free up the necessary money to bring in a Dman if they so choose. If he doesn't progress this season then you cut your losses and move on.

Yeah, this....

 

[mouser]

Also to the haters of the deal.

If we didn't give him a raise, we would not have a buyout window. Us giving him a slight raise for 1 year allows us to buyout a player.

I rather have Schultz then Nikitin and this allows us to do that.

Even if he was somehow signed to league minimum the second buyout window still opens. The second buyout window has no requirements on how much the arbitration players are paid.

 

[FunkyChicken]

Too much. On the open UFA market, I think he'd only get around $2.5M. Would rather sign Franson to that and let Schultz walk.

 

[McDeathbyCheerios*]

Even if he was somehow signed to league minimum the second buyout window still opens. The second buyout window has no requirements on how much the arbitration players are paid.

False.
Explained below

 

[ChaoticOrange]

We have 5 players for the bottom 2 spots and only 2 are rookies

So stuff Nikitin in the minors for a year. Problem solved.

 

[McDeathbyCheerios*]

Phone won't let me paste.

Two types of arbitration. The first is to lower salary and you need more then one of those to open a buyout.

The second kind is to prevent a holdout and force a player to actually sign a contract and not just wait all summer. Which means they have to pay the same or more. You only need one of these to open the buyout window

 

[NedPlimpton]

eh. too much, but for only one year, it doesn't bother me at all.

Time to put up or get out.

 

[Oilfan2]

So stuff Nikitin in the minors for a year. Problem solved.

Limits any moves you want to make this off-season and throughout the season. It would still cost 3.6m on the cap to put him in the AHL..Buy him out and save $3m for 'moves'...

 

[mouser]

False.
if the team takes the player to arbitration there has to be a pay increase. If the player does it opens either way.

Please re-read what I said.

Adding more info:
(a) The second window opens regardless of whether the arbitration player is paid more or less then their last contract.
(b) The arbitrator cannot award less then 100% of the prior year's contract--unless the player was a 12.3(a) Club-Elected arbitration like Toronto did with Bernier. Schultz was a 12.3(b) Club-Elected though, so the arbitrator would have to award 100%.
(c) The player and team can however sign a new contract for less then the qualifying offer amount if they choose to do so.
(d) Why might a player ever accept less then their qualifying offer?
- (i) Perhaps the team is offering more term, e.g. the Oilers hypothetically sign Schultz to a multi-year deal at $3.5m/year.
- (ii) The player has the possibility of being awarded a 2-way deal by the arbitrator, chooses instead to take a lower 1-way deal with the team. Obviously not the case with Schultz, but there have been other arbitration cases where that may have happened.

Phone won't let me paste.

Two types of arbitration. The first is to lower salary and you need more then one of those to open a buyout.

The second kind is to prevent a holdout and force a player to actually sign a contract and not just wait all summer. Which means they have to pay the same or more. You only need one of these to open the buyout window

Those restrictions are on what the arbitrator can award. They're not restrictions on what the team and player can agree to in a new contract to avoid arbitration.

 

[sepHF]

No idea how Schultz is worth more than a million dollars a year but at least its only for one season.

 

[frag2]

Too much. On the open UFA market, I think he'd only get around $2.5M. Would rather sign Franson to that and let Schultz walk.

Not sure about the 2.5. With the way money is thrown around for RHD, who are seemingly at a premium regardless of ability, teams will go overkill anyway.

I mean, Petry got same as Hamilton and you don't have many who wouldn't prefer the latter. Granted, Hamilton's case was an odd one.

Regardless, RHD are gonna get paid regardless of skill-they appear to be rare breed nowadays.

 

[sepHF]

I don't like Schultz but it's funny how many people give other players (Yak) a free pass...bcuz "Eakins", but Schultz doesn't despite being in an even worse position.

At least Yakupov actually tries out on the ice, at least he competes.

Plus he's like 4 years younger than Schultz

 

[McDraekke]

Please re-read what I said.

Adding more info:
(a) The second window opens regardless of whether the arbitration player is paid more or less then their last contract.
(b) The arbitrator cannot award less then 100% of the prior year's contract--unless the player was a 12.3(a) Club-Elected arbitration like Toronto did with Bernier. Schultz was a 12.3(b) Club-Elected though, so the arbitrator would have to award 100%.
(c) The player and team can however sign a new contract for less then the qualifying offer amount if they choose to do so.
(d) Why might a player ever accept less then their qualifying offer?
- (i) Perhaps the team is offering more term, e.g. the Oilers hypothetically sign Schultz to a multi-year deal at $3.5m/year.
- (ii) The player has the possibility of being awarded a 2-way deal by the arbitrator, chooses instead to take a lower 1-way deal with the team. Obviously not the case with Schultz, but there have been other arbitration cases where that may have happened.




Those restrictions are on what the arbitrator can award. They're not restrictions on what the team and player can agree to in a new contract to avoid arbitration.

When the oilers put Schultz into arbitration, what incentive would Schultz then have to sign a contract for lower than his previous salary?

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Letting him walk is awful asset management.

It's a one year deal, which is more important than cap hit.

 

[McDeathbyCheerios*]

When the oilers put Schultz into arbitration, what incentive would Schultz then have to sign a contract for lower than his previous salary?

Exactly. The bit extra money might of been to get him to sign sooner then later to open the buyout window, sooner rather then later.

 

[Replacement*]

I'm not sure I'd even like this as a bridge deal because why the bridge, and what are we building it for.

This is not a young D.

This is not a D that looks even remotely ready, or wanting, to do what is required to play NHL WC D.

This is not a D that has any inkling of comfort in playing a physical position in a physical pro sport that requires it.

This is always going to be someone hoping somebody else has that guy covered, trying to look busy, backing away from players that are physical, and trying to stay away from the bad hilite zone by being as far from critical action as possible given the time and space parameters of his position.

This in short is Magnus Paajarvi as an NHL D. The same damned guy.

 

[Oilfan2]

Please re-read what I said.

Adding more info:
(a) The second window opens regardless of whether the arbitration player is paid more or less then their last contract.
(b) The arbitrator cannot award less then 100% of the prior year's contract--unless the player was a 12.3(a) Club-Elected arbitration like Toronto did with Bernier. Schultz was a 12.3(b) Club-Elected though, so the arbitrator would have to award 100%.
(c) The player and team can however sign a new contract for less then the qualifying offer amount if they choose to do so.
(d) Why might a player ever accept less then their qualifying offer?
- (i) Perhaps the team is offering more term, e.g. the Oilers hypothetically sign Schultz to a multi-year deal at $3.5m/year.
- (ii) The player has the possibility of being awarded a 2-way deal by the arbitrator, chooses instead to take a lower 1-way deal with the team. Obviously not the case with Schultz, but there have been other arbitration cases where that may have happened.




Those restrictions are on what the arbitrator can award. They're not restrictions on what the team and player can agree to in a new contract to avoid arbitration.

When the oilers put Schultz into arbitration, what incentive would Schultz then have to sign a contract for lower than his previous salary?

Re-read 'd'.....

 

[mouser]

When the oilers put Schultz into arbitration, what incentive would Schultz then have to sign a contract for lower than his previous salary?

As I said in my hypothetical example: term. Either way, I'm not predicting what Shultz would or wouldn't have accepted on a longer term contract. The topic my responses were directed at was the false statement that the arbitration window doesn't open unless the arbitration player gets a raise.

 

[The Bored Man]

Not sure about the 2.5. With the way money is thrown around for RHD, who are seemingly at a premium regardless of ability, teams will go overkill anyway.

I mean, Petry got same as Hamilton and you don't have many who wouldn't prefer the latter. Granted, Hamilton's case was an odd one.

Regardless, RHD are gonna get paid regardless of skill-they appear to be rare breed nowadays.

Petry was UFA, Hamilton was RFA.

 

[McDeathbyCheerios*]

I'm not sure I'd even like this as a bridge deal because why the bridge, and what are we building it for.

This is not a young D.

This is not a D that looks even remotely ready, or wanting, to do what is required to play NHL WC D.

This is always going to be someone hoping somebody else has that guy covered, trying to look busy, backing away from players that are physical, and trying to stay away from the bad hilite zone by being as far from critical action as possible given the time and space parameters of his position.

This in short is Magnus Paajarvi as a NHL D. The same damned guy.

Better then letting him walk and it opens a buyout window

 

[McGoMcD]

I shake my head at most of the posts on the board. People just totally under value offensive dmen. I think he will put up big numbers this year and we will regret not locking him up longterm now. He has always had to play above his position here and has never had a great d partner. This year he will finally be behind Sekara and will hopefully play all year with Klefbom. Let him find his groove and he will put up 60+ points.

 

[McDraekke]

Re-read 'd'.....

Ya no... the arbitrator is not going to award Schultz a 2-way deal, and the Oilers clearly don't want to give Schultz a multi year deal... they want him to prove his worth.

There's no real reasonable way this doesn't play out like this.