Setoguchi benched, press boxed, rejects Contract extension

[MatthewFlames]

Calgary (CP): The headline says it all. Devin Setoguchi has rejected the Calgary Flames long term contract offer and the GM has now ended all negotiations, stating in very plain terms that Setoguchi is free to leave the Flames in the off-season, via RFA offer sheet if necessary.

The Flames and Setoguchi have not seen eye to eye this season. Former coach Brent Sutter scratched Setoguchi for over ten games earlier in the season and when the Flames 1st round draft pick returned his performance has only been marginally better than his performance prior to his benching. Despite over 30 games on the 2nd line and PP minutes, Setoguchi only has 15 points in his 49 games.

"This isn't about his performance this season. This is about his potential. We feel that as a player coming out of his entry level contract then he should be paid a value of 2nd contract. Unless his performance thus far merits a larger gain. This is not the case with Setoguchi," said GM Kershaw.

When asked if Setoguchi, who was injured in the most recent game against the Flyers, would return to the line-up this season, the GM was again honest. "We have nothing to play for and we have players making half or less his contract who have performed. So yes, as he doesn't have to go through waivers, there is a good chance he will be sent down and may never play for the Flames again."

Sent down? Never play for the Flames again? Yes. So you might ask, what is the big difference in the contract that it couldn't get signed? Rumour has it that the agents wanted a 3 million deal over 2 years. The contract offer the Flames tendered? 1.5 million maybe? 2 maybe? Nope. 2.7 million over 4 years. Rejected. The Flames argument that his contract should match his NHL deals. So that's it? He wasn't offered his auto sign? But he was, 1.8 in the first year, 3 in the next 3, matching exactly Setoguchi's 2nd and 3rd contracts with the San Jose Sharks (both signed prior to his trade to the Wild.) But, under a technicality, the agents refused. (apparently I'm not as good a negotiator as Sean K and others as pointed out in another thread.)

Click to read more...

 

[Dryden]

Going to side with Kershaw on this one. The system is flawed and needs fixing. Our cap is one year behind the NHL's yet we payout current year contracts that are fora cap that we don't have yet.

Also we sign rookies only when they can only possibly have a rating no matter what year their NHL contract is. In other words I could sign a guy in his 2nd or 3rd year of his rookie contract and then get screwed when the contract is over because his NHL salary is now $4,000,000. There's no logical progression that his contract took. Straight from ELC to $4,000,000 no matter what route he took to get there salary wise.

I'm just making an example not an actual case.

If the cap is a year behind shouldn't salaries be also?

 

[kasper11]

The system is very flawed. Rather than test GMs skill in negotiating contracts, the system rewards the GMs that are lucky to have their NHL counterpart make a shrewd deal.

Any system whereby the Sedins, Zetterberg, Datsyuk, etc demand less money than Lecavalier, Vanek etc needs fixing.

There are many contracts that NHL GMs regret. We shouldn't be bound to those contracts. Likewise, we shouldn't get bargains just because a player locked into an NHL contract before improving dramatically, like Frans Nielsen. There was no reason for me (and now Douglas) to have gotten the benefit of his NHL deal. He was worth much more by the time I re-signed him.

Don't forget about a couple of other issues....we average our ratings over 3 years, meaning that a player who has a great year and signs an NHL deal based on that is guaranteed to not perform up to the contract in our league. Look at PA Parenteau...he could sign a $5M deal in the offseason. Based on his 3 year average, there is no way he will earn that in our league next year. But if he gets that much in the NHL, his price is set.

Then there is the issue of long-term deals. NHL players take more/less to sign long-term depending on their age. But in our league, we only sign players for 4 years max, thus the situation is inherently different.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Its' a systemic flaw. Not an agent one. Let me make that clear first of all. Hasnain has explained the system and its a problem with the system not with my negotiations with Hasnain. In many ways his hands are tied.

I look at it like this. If I auto-sign (the options given to me, other than RFA or trade) - then I sign Setoguchi at 2 years x 3 million. In and of itself; not a bad deal. However, in two years, he will get 4 million. Or more. I will then get him at two years at that rate.

So he will have, for his first six years of HFNHL contract, 3 years @ ELC, 2 @ 3 million and 2 @ 4 million.

But for his NHL contract, he will have 3 years @ ELC, 1 @ 1.8, 3 @ 3.

I will end up paying him almost 4 million more for his first six years than his NHL teams will have too. Thats where, especially given my financial climate, I object.

I must end up with hope that he gets an offer of 3 million x 4 years as an RFA. That way over the first six years I will end up paying a lot more but over 8 years I will actually come out even (or 200,000 ahead).


Or I hope that he gets an offer of over 4 million as an RFA. I will take the draft picks, a 1st and 3rd I believe. Unless of course someone offers me something better in trade.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Likewise, we shouldn't get bargains just because a player locked into an NHL contract before improving dramatically, like Frans Nielsen. There was no reason for me (and now Martin) to have gotten the benefit of his NHL deal. He was worth much more by the time I re-signed him.

Fixed that for you.

Introducing the idea of contract matching has been a godsend for our player agents, who have a largely unappreciated and time consuming job. But it has also introduced a reluctance to set our own price as a league, taking many of the considerations you guys have mentioned into account. There has developed instead a reflexive attitude on the part of the agents to have the NHL set the market, and then just have the GM choose to match or not. I understand the value of this approach from the standpoint of time savings, but it seems to me to run counter to the purpose of the league.

Contract negotiation is a thorny but fascinating and even exciting process, whereby GMs and administrators get to cross swords over their respective knowledge of players and the game. That can be a good thing, but can also place a real strain on the GMs who volunteer as Player Agents on top of their team responsibilities. The auto-sign option avoids some of that for a great many players, so that teams and agents can focus their talks on those players where the NHL hasn't set a contract yet, or where (as in the examples you cited, Rich) the NHL contract does not accurately reflect the player's value.

At the end of the day, however it comes about, a mediocre player on a great contract can be a real gem for a team, and a very good player on a terrible contract can be an albatross (or even end up in the AHL!). All of which just underscores how much we really do have in common with the NHL.

 

[Wildman]

Fixed that for you.

Introducing the idea of contract matching has been a godsend for our player agents, who have a largely unappreciated and time consuming job. But it has also introduced a reluctance to set our own price as a league, taking many of the considerations you guys have mentioned into account. There has developed instead a reflexive attitude on the part of the agents to have the NHL set the market, and then just have the GM choose to match or not. I understand the value of this approach from the standpoint of time savings, but it seems to me to run counter to the purpose of the league.

Contract negotiation is a thorny but fascinating and even exciting process, whereby GMs and administrators get to cross swords over their respective knowledge of players and the game. That can be a good thing, but can also place a real strain on the GMs who volunteer as Player Agents on top of their team responsibilities. The auto-sign option avoids some of that for a great many players, so that teams and agents can focus their talks on those players where the NHL hasn't set a contract yet, or where (as in the examples you cited, Rich) the NHL contract does not accurately reflect the player's value.

At the end of the day, however it comes about, a mediocre player on a great contract can be a real gem for a team, and a very good player on a terrible contract can be an albatross (or even end up in the AHL!). All of which just underscores how much we really do have in common with the NHL.

Doug, I have no issue with contract negotiation and yes I have pretty good idea how much a player is worth or and how much he can fetch in the open market. The auto sign has made things easier for us in some instances but in other it has tied our hands by agreeing to a contract that we know it is not in the best interest of the player.

If you want the agent to act more deligently than the agent should have the right to refuse an auto sign when we feel that the player is worth a lot more. Yes, we do frustrate some GM but I think I have been very fair with my dealings.

 

[Dryden]

I think you guys are missing the point.

Rating - 1 year behind

Cap - 1 year behind

Salaries - current NHL year.

Doesn't work.

 

[MatthewFlames]

I think you guys are missing the point.

Rating - 1 year behind

Cap - 1 year behind

Salaries - current NHL year.

And with rookie contracts, you can be 2 years behind like I am with Setoguchi if you decide not to sign the rookie in his 2nd NHL season - moral of the tale is sign your rookie right away, even though the ratings aren't there yet...

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I think you guys are missing the point.

Rating - 1 year behind

Cap - 1 year behind

Salaries - current NHL year.

Doesn't work.

You're over simplifying it though, Dry.

In our league, there is no pressure to sign a player. The owner of RNH or Landeskog can part him in his prospect pool for another year or two, wait until they are truly an elite player, and then sign them for only $900k per year for 3 years when they KNOW how they are going to be rated - which no NHL teams don't get to do (plus, they pay significant signing bonuses, which we don't). Our GM's have the benefit of 20/20 vision on ratings, which is a bit maddening too.

As to the auto-sign, it's a win some, you lose some. As you noted, you get screwed on certain NHL deals when a GM overpays. Everyone does. But as Hasnain points out, the agents end up agreeing to a ton of deals they know are way below market value, based on where the player is at. You also get some steals.

Plus, we allow RFA's right up the age of 28 regardless. In the NHL, some guys are UFA's three year's earlier.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the system that much. I just think it's better than any other system we have at our disposal. One thing is for certain - if you allow agents to use their judgement, there will firestorms weekly over the position agents take. Everyone will be a victim, and they will hold certain people accountable for it and take it very personally. And least now we can all blame "the system" and no one wants to kill an agent on a weekly basis.

One idea I have contemplated suggesting would be to build the previous year's contract value into the next year, so that would account for a bit of the year behind, but it complicates things too.

 

[Dryden]

I must be an idiot. *Could have sworn saying if ratings and the cap are one year behind why are salaries not?

And why am I the only person in the league whoosh name gets shortened?

It's DRYDEN

 

[kasper11]

You're over simplifying it though, Dry.

In our league, there is no pressure to sign a player. The owner of RNH or Landeskog can part him in his prospect pool for another year or two, wait until they are truly an elite player, and then sign them for only $900k per year for 3 years when they KNOW how they are going to be rated - which no NHL teams don't get to do (plus, they pay significant signing bonuses, which we don't). Our GM's have the benefit of 20/20 vision on ratings, which is a bit maddening too.

As to the auto-sign, it's a win some, you lose some. As you noted, you get screwed on certain NHL deals when a GM overpays. Everyone does. But as Hasnain points out, the agents end up agreeing to a ton of deals they know are way below market value, based on where the player is at. You also get some steals.

Plus, we allow RFA's right up the age of 28 regardless. In the NHL, some guys are UFA's three year's earlier.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the system that much. I just think it's better than any other system we have at our disposal. One thing is for certain - if you allow agents to use their judgement, there will firestorms weekly over the position agents take. Everyone will be a victim, and they will hold certain people accountable for it and take it very personally. And least now we can all blame "the system" and no one wants to kill an agent on a weekly basis.

One idea I have contemplated suggesting would be to build the previous year's contract value into the next year, so that would account for a bit of the year behind, but it complicates things too.

One thing to note...the UFA age may be higher in our league, but that only comes into play if the player doesn't have an HFNHL deal...if they do, 90% of the time we are forced to match it.

And I really don't know that this system is better just because people get mad at the system and not the agent. First of all, I was the agent for a couple of years, and I never really felt that I was taking too much heat. Maybe I was just too generous/lenient, or maybe we have bigger whiners now. But regardless, it seems like everyone constantly hates the system, so all we have really done is transferred the ire of the GMs in a new direction. I fail to see how it helps. Taking NHL salaries into account as a major factor, but retaining flexibility seems like a better system to me.

And I don't think Dryden oversimplified anything. Like Dry said, we are basing our salaries on a cap structure that doesn't fit and performances that players haven't yet achieved. D is right, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Dryden]

Thank You!

And you used all 3 forms of my nicknames. Nice one Dick!

The UFA / RFA extra years should be because we don't sign rookies until they have decent ratings. But using 12/13 salaries in our 12/13 season makes no sense when we will be using the 11/12 cap. It should 11/12 salaries.

 

[Wildman]

Couple of things I would like to Share here. I don't have a problem handling the heat and I do get from time to by few GM when things don't go their way.
Rich, when you were an agent was at different era where cap was not a factor.

We also need to remember that our max salary is $8M which does give advantage to some teams.

All our contracts are two ways so you can bury a player in the minors and pay 10 percent of the salary.

Not all long term contract are good for the team, a typical example is Dipietro who has not worked out for NYI but are stuck with him.

Finally, we have an out clause where you can buy a player out for one year salary and does not impact your cap.

 

[Ohio Jones]

All good points, Hasnain. There are ways in which we have an advantage over NHL GMs.

Not sure they make up for what I think is the greatest frustration and disadvantage, as Dryden "don't call me Dry" and Matthew laid out, with the lag of useful ratings, and how they fail to keep pace with salaries.

I'll give Kulemin as an example since he's top of mind for at the moment. As a Columbus draft pick, he signed with me once he had an NHL season under his belt. At that point his ELC was two years because of his age, although he had only one year left on his NHL deal. Great: advantage me... Except that his ratings were not useable in the HFNHL. Coming out of his NHL ELC, he signed a two-year deal for $2.35m. In the first year of that deal he scored 30 goals - great! When his HFNHL contract ran out, he had one year left on his NHL deal, so that's what I was able to match for this current HFNHL season.

At least he'd have good ratings, right? You'd think so, but because of the three year averages, I have a 30-goal scorer with third-liner ratings, whose agents are now asking for $4 million despite the fact that he's having a terrible year in the NHL with the sad sack Leafs.

So for a player who by all accounts has been a useful NHL player for a few seasons, I've been able to get one season of useful (but far from exciting) HFNHL ratings at $2.35 million, followed by a demand for $4 million for a season where his ratings will go down, not up.

This is why the current-contract-lagging-ratings situation is so frustrating. But it's equally frustrating for other GMs, so at least it's equitable.

 

[Wildman]

I am in a same shoes with players like Tyutin and Stoll if I decide to sign them. Both of these players are making more than they should based on ratings. At least with Kulemin you have a right to match any RFA offers if you decide to go the direction that Matt is thinking. The $4M ask was based on a long term deal and not on a shorter one. As an agent we would like to bring the salary as close as possible to real NHL and we felt that Kulemin signing for $3M on a long term deal was not in his best interest and suggested that we wait to see what he is fetching with the Leafs.

The rating we have does work both ways as players like Kulemin will not be penalized and be rated with 7 goals. The 30 goals he had last does factor into the ratings.

Doug, I have no issue with how the Admin team wants to do this and as I said to you earlier I am more than willing to step down if you and the other Admin team members feel that we need new blood to take over.

For all those GM who look at the salary and think we gave some GM a lucrative deal, many of these deals has been re nogiated prior to expiry of contract so what you see under salary is not what we gave to the GM.


I think I have been very fair with all the contracts and maybe some of the GM may have got lucrative deal from me but i can assure you that it wasn't intentional.

 

[Dryden]

Hasnain I have no problem with what you guys do. Just the system. Just that salaries should also be one year behind to fall in line with the cap

 

[kasper11]

I am in a same shoes with players like Tyutin and Stoll if I decide to sign them. Both of these players are making more than they should based on ratings. At least with Kulemin you have a right to match any RFA offers if you decide to go the direction that Matt is thinking. The $4M ask was based on a long term deal and not on a shorter one. As an agent we would like to bring the salary as close as possible to real NHL and we felt that Kulemin signing for $3M on a long term deal was not in his best interest and suggested that we wait to see what he is fetching with the Leafs.

The rating we have does work both ways as players like Kulemin will not be penalized and be rated with 7 goals. The 30 goals he had last does factor into the ratings.

Doug, I have no issue with how the Admin team wants to do this and as I said to you earlier I am more than willing to step down if you and the other Admin team members feel that we need new blood to take over.

For all those GM who look at the salary and think we gave some GM a lucrative deal, many of these deals has been re nogiated prior to expiry of contract so what you see under salary is not what we gave to the GM.


I think I have been very fair with all the contracts and maybe some of the GM may have got lucrative deal from me but i can assure you that it wasn't intentional.

Hasnain....

I don't think anybody ants you to step down. Our issues are with the system, not the people.

 

[Ohio Jones]

I did raise the question of whether you wanted to step down, Hasnain, because your responses to me suggested you didn't want to negotiate a contract for a couple of players but rather wait for the NHL to set the price. Now that you are engaging more actively in the negotiation process, I have no concern with your continued participation.

I provided Kulemin's situation not as a complaint against you or the figure you quoted, but as concrete indication of how the lag Dryden is talking about negatively impacts HFNHL teams. That's all.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I'll give Kulemin as an example since he's top of mind for at the moment. As a Columbus draft pick, he signed with me once he had an NHL season under his belt. At that point his ELC was two years because of his age, although he had only one year left on his NHL deal. Great: advantage me... Except that his ratings were not useable in the HFNHL. Coming out of his NHL ELC, he signed a two-year deal for $2.35m. In the first year of that deal he scored 30 goals - great! When his HFNHL contract ran out, he had one year left on his NHL deal, so that's what I was able to match for this current HFNHL season.

At least he'd have good ratings, right? You'd think so, but because of the three year averages, I have a 30-goal scorer with third-liner ratings, whose agents are now asking for $4 million despite the fact that he's having a terrible year in the NHL with the sad sack Leafs.

So for a player who by all accounts has been a useful NHL player for a few seasons, I've been able to get one season of useful (but far from exciting) HFNHL ratings at $2.35 million, followed by a demand for $4 million for a season where his ratings will go down, not up.

This is why the current-contract-lagging-ratings situation is so frustrating. But it's equally frustrating for other GMs, so at least it's equitable.

Sorry Doug, this just doesn't jibe.

On one hand, you complain about Kulemin's "usefulness" after a 30 goal season because his rating isn't completely that of a 30 goal scorer, but now you complain that you have to pay more after he isn't a 30 goal scorer the following year, even though his 30 goal season will now be part of his three year average for - wait for it -three years.

Straight up, if you are trying to negotiate a long-term deal with Kulemin right now, and more specifically trying to negotiate his NHL deal downwards from the auto-sign rate, you are wasting both yours, and the agents time. Seriously, man, NHL teams just don't do this. Why are you?

Here's what you SHOULD be doing...wait.

He is 25, and just had a brutal year. If you are trying to lock him up long-term, you are not acting like an NHL general manager. You're acting like the real Columbus GM. You'd probably be fired the moment ownership got wind you were locking up your "7 goal scorer" long-term on a multi-mill deal because he was above all else, a supposed goal scorer. You would either cut your ties, or give him another year.

All you have to do is qualify him at $2.5M. If an offer sheet comes in at over $3M, you get a 1st and 3rd round draft pick - or you can match. Doesn't sound like all that bad a deal either way. Would you deal Kulemin for that now? I doubt a 3rd would be required. Maybe not even the 1st ;-)

Next step, after the offer sheet DOESN'T arrive, you can low ball Kulemin to take the QO rate at $2.5M for a year. Even his agent will have to acknowledge that $2.5M for another year for a 7 goal scorer isn't half bad, plus he has the opportunity to earn his real NHL deal next year. Either way, you're still in the driver's seat. If he is great, then the auto-sign might all of a sudden look like good value, and you will have got him at a discount for a year. If not, you can do the same next year.

This is exactly how I paid Campoli 60% of his NHL deal this year, even though he was a UFA in the NHL, and a RFA in the HFNHL.

I'm also in a similar situation with Michael Frolik. Brutal year in Chicago. Dude is a healthy scratch on a team that isn't even deep in the scoring department. After consecutive 20 goal seasons in Florida, he as 5 goals this year. Hardly a player I want to match his current $3M NHL deal. And I won't. He will get a QO and float in RFA never-neverland. And unless someone goes offer sheet, I'll re-sign him for less than $3M, as is my right, as long as my offer is equal or greater than his QO. The market will have spoken.

The main issue with you and others seems to be the continued reluctance of GM's to simply sign their players to 1 year deal. Yes, there is risk to this, but so is matching NHL deals. At least NHL GM's seem to have the sense to let certain RFA's walk. We asset mongers in the HFNHL seem to cling to young NHLers in their middle 20's like they are just "finding themselves" and are destined to ultimately realize thier potential. I just don't get how the rules have put you in a tough spot with Kulemin. You are totally in the drivers seat, at least so much as the $2.5M per year you already committed affords you to be. But again, that was a deal you took on, so hardly something to complain about.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

BTW, what the heck does all this have to do with the fact Setoguchi will be in a Blues uniform next season?

 

[Ohio Jones]

Technically, I'm only on the hook for a $2.35m QO, so that much is even more favorable for me.

Am I disappointed that Kulemin's 30 goal season only led to his current rather lackluster ratings, in the season when those goals have the greatest (50%) weight? Of course I am, as would be any GM. I don't fault the agents for that at all, as they have nothing to do with it. I raised him only as an example of the lag between contract and ratings.

But since you brought it up, why try to lock up a young player long-term? Fair question.

Simply put, it's a gamble: the GM is betting that the player's long-term performance will make his salary net out favorably over the course of the deal, even if the short-term performance looks ugly. Mikhail Grabovski is a perfect example: the three year deal he is finishing looked atrocious in the first season. But he came along and was well worth the contract by the end.

As an RFA, I recognize I have leverage - as I was able to use last summer to match a modest $1.5m 2year deal for David Clarkson. But the trade off is cost certainty: if I can retain Kulemin long term at a reasonable salary, I'd prefer to do that rather than return a late 1st and 3rd. Given the cost on the FA market to replace Kulemin - even with his very average ratings - this provides the team with the greatest cost certainty, which is critical in a cap world to be able to plan for and project our payroll.

(We all have our personal quirks. Robb doesn't like to bet, as a general rule: just not in his nature. I don't like uncertainty, which is why my roster for the next season is almost always 99% locked up by the deadline of the season before.)

The Blue Jackets ownership understands these considerations, and while they recognize that this is a gamble, they have faith that my gambles will pay off more often than not.

That, some playoffs and a trip to the finals are why I still have a job. But hey, we can't all point to 5 consecutive President's Trophies as job security!

 

[kasper11]

Sorry, but you are not addressing the issue. You blame the GMs for not wanting to let their RFAs go to market, but you still don't give any justification for demanding that the HFNHL salary match the NHL salary.

Kulemin signed an NHL deal after scoring 30 goals. He is not a 30 goal scorer in our league. Nor will he be next year. And while that 30 goal season will be averaged in for 3 years, that won't make him a 30 goal scorer. Yet that is what it will take to sign him long term. Why? Because Brian Burke signed him to an overpriced deal Douglas can't have cost certainty moving forward?

Sorry Doug, this just doesn't jibe.

On one hand, you complain about Kulemin's "usefulness" after a 30 goal season because his rating isn't completely that of a 30 goal scorer, but now you complain that you have to pay more after he isn't a 30 goal scorer the following year, even though his 30 goal season will now be part of his three year average for - wait for it -three years.

Straight up, if you are trying to negotiate a long-term deal with Kulemin right now, and more specifically trying to negotiate his NHL deal downwards from the auto-sign rate, you are wasting both yours, and the agents time. Seriously, man, NHL teams just don't do this. Why are you?

Here's what you SHOULD be doing...wait.

He is 25, and just had a brutal year. If you are trying to lock him up long-term, you are not acting like an NHL general manager. You're acting like the real Columbus GM. You'd probably be fired the moment ownership got wind you were locking up your "7 goal scorer" long-term on a multi-mill deal because he was above all else, a supposed goal scorer. You would either cut your ties, or give him another year.

All you have to do is qualify him at $2.5M. If an offer sheet comes in at over $3M, you get a 1st and 3rd round draft pick - or you can match. Doesn't sound like all that bad a deal either way. Would you deal Kulemin for that now? I doubt a 3rd would be required. Maybe not even the 1st ;-)

Next step, after the offer sheet DOESN'T arrive, you can low ball Kulemin to take the QO rate at $2.5M for a year. Even his agent will have to acknowledge that $2.5M for another year for a 7 goal scorer isn't half bad, plus he has the opportunity to earn his real NHL deal next year. Either way, you're still in the driver's seat. If he is great, then the auto-sign might all of a sudden look like good value, and you will have got him at a discount for a year. If not, you can do the same next year.

This is exactly how I paid Campoli 60% of his NHL deal this year, even though he was a UFA in the NHL, and a RFA in the HFNHL.

I'm also in a similar situation with Michael Frolik. Brutal year in Chicago. Dude is a healthy scratch on a team that isn't even deep in the scoring department. After consecutive 20 goal seasons in Florida, he as 5 goals this year. Hardly a player I want to match his current $3M NHL deal. And I won't. He will get a QO and float in RFA never-neverland. And unless someone goes offer sheet, I'll re-sign him for less than $3M, as is my right, as long as my offer is equal or greater than his QO. The market will have spoken.

The main issue with you and others seems to be the continued reluctance of GM's to simply sign their players to 1 year deal. Yes, there is risk to this, but so is matching NHL deals. At least NHL GM's seem to have the sense to let certain RFA's walk. We asset mongers in the HFNHL seem to cling to young NHLers in their middle 20's like they are just "finding themselves" and are destined to ultimately realize thier potential. I just don't get how the rules have put you in a tough spot with Kulemin. You are totally in the drivers seat, at least so much as the $2.5M per year you already committed affords you to be. But again, that was a deal you took on, so hardly something to complain about.

 

[Ohio Jones]

One more point for clarity: Kulemin has no deal next season in the NHL, so there is no autosign option available to me. I can make a qualifying Offer, but that should not be confused with autosign.

It is in situations like this that the agents are all the more important - to negotiate a real value for a player independent of a pre-existing NHL contract. Hasnain and Abbas are working together to do that with me, and I appreciate it.

And Nick: one could argue that paying Campoli at 60% of his NHL deal still represents a significant overpayment. BAZINGA!


(EDIT: Almost forgot - one other reason I don't particularly want to sign Kulemin or Dubnyk to 1-year deals if I can avoid it: 12 of my top 21 players have contracts that expire in 2013... I'd rather not make it an even two thirds of my roster.)

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

One more point for clarity: Kulemin has no deal next season in the NHL, so there is no autosign option available to me. I can make a qualifying Offer, but that should not be confused with autosign.

It is in situations like this that the agents are all the more important - to negotiate a real value for a player independent of a pre-existing NHL contract. Hasnain and Abbas are working together to do that with me, and I appreciate it.

And Nick: one could argue that paying Campoli at 60% of his NHL deal still represents a significant overpayment. BAZINGA!


(EDIT: Almost forgot - one other reason I don't particularly want to sign Kulemin or Dubnyk to 1-year deals if I can avoid it: 12 of my top 21 players have contracts that expire in 2013... I'd rather not make it an even two thirds of my roster.)

The problem Doug, is that Hasnain and Abbas have to negotiate in the neighbourhood of 150 contracts per year. You - and many others - like to engage in lengthy discussions about the justification of one deal over another. You enjoy it, which is fine. So do I, when it comes to my players. But for the agent, it is torture and just doesn't work.

And let’s be clear on something else. If Kulemin does sign less than his auto-sign, the system breaks. Because every GM in the league – and you know they will – will immediately point to the “discount” you got with Kulemin, and demand it themselves. And why shouldn’t they? I’m sure there are dozens of other players out there. I know for certain that if Kulemin does get a cheaper deal, I’m going to be sending the Swingsteins right away. Not to complain, but rather to demand the same discount for a couple of my guys.

This is precisely why we have put a system of rules in place, because no one wants to be an agent if they have to read pages of justification on why some guy should accept a few $100k less. And trust me, not all of these long rambles are filled with as much beautiful prose as yours

So for guys who are signed for a year or two in the NHL - whether it's a good deal or bad deal by the NHL GM - this gives us a quick signing option (and a quick turn-down option) to lean on in terms of market value. This expedites things dramatically. After all, one of the agents could easily believe that Kulemin IS worth more than you are willing to pay, which in turn, will create even more angst on your end.

But it doesn't stop there.

You then won't get to sign Carl Gunnarsson for $1.4M either. Because the agent might think he has come into his own, and wants $2.5M. So where auto-sign was to your benefit to re-sign a d-man just coming into his own and becoming really valuable, with an agent's discretion, you and the agent will go through this all over again. And trust me, you will have to pay more than the NHL guys make in a number of instances. And again. And again. In the end, you will have trimmed a few $’s off the Kulemin’s, but will have had to pony up on the Gunnarsson’s. You won’t be any further ahead (on average), and will have spent a good deal more time (as will have the agents).

It just doesn't work. Not only from a time perspective (after all, the agents are forced to keep track of all of these signings, offers too), but as I've seen countless times, it becomes very personal. People start to seriously resent the agents and e-mails and the tone of the discussions get pretty nasty. We need to insulate the agents from this to save time and to keep heads cool.

So while we might all agree that Brian Burke made a bad deal on Kulemin and acknowledge, yeah, you got a bit screwed there, as we've gone through, it's not all that bad given you have a QO option. You want to sign him long-term - I get it. You think he'll bounce back and you want to take advantage of the fact he's had an "off year". It's smart. But the agents just don't have the time to do this dance with you, and rightly or wrongly, you get forced to play a different hand because we have an established “NHL value” for the player.

So here's a thing I will challenge all of you on. What is the average salary in the HFNHL? And what is the average salary in the NHL? I suspect our salary is quite a bit lower, which is clear evidence our system doesn't force GM's to "Overpay" on "Average" but rather when it all nets out, we can ice the same team in the HFNHL for less, than we would be able to in the NHL. And if that's the case, the system might be wonky, but it's clearly not broken.

I'm totally open to ideas, but if all you are suggesting is "Let ME negotiate deals better than the NHL deals" then I'm saying that simply doesn't work from a time perspective. Because as soon as you get to do it, everyone does, and then it’s really broken (and you won’t save any money when it nets out). If you have other systemic suggestions to fast tracks things and make them more fair, I think it's fair to say we're all open to that.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

And Nick: one could argue that paying Campoli at 60% of his NHL deal still represents a significant overpayment. BAZINGA!

Too true . The really bad part is I have to QO him to keep his rights, which will likely be for more than he will make somewhere next year.

See, we all get screwed!