Why is it taking so long to extend Chabot?

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Sure they can, and at the end of the day it’s a business. But if you sing a deal designed to be something your current team can’t match, you’re making a statement. I mean if your team is trying to leverage you into a super cheap deal like Carolina was doing to Aho, sure, but if the team is offering comparable money, more term, and some, but less bonus money, it eventually comes down to if you want to leverage the team, or force a move, or not.

Almost every player in the later situation opts not to, especially when the offersheet is designed such that the offering team isn’t even paying appropriate compensation for the player.

I agree, it’s a mess! Thankfully it’s only really come to a head a year before the expiry.

This sounds like a roundabout way of saying that Chabot should take a discount from what is potentially available to him on the RFA market, simply because of the Senators' financial situation.

If the Senators can't match an offer sheet that another team is willing and able to pay him, it's still just an Ottawa Senators problem and Chabot is merely leveraging his options, similar to how the team has done for their own good in past years in order to keep RFA's term short and salary low.

Chabot should get paid in Ottawa what he would get anywhere else based on what's being offered (UFA, RFA offer sheet, shouldn't make a difference) and that includes bonuses and trade protection. If he takes anything less, he's doing the organization a favor, and favors are now the rare exception in pro sports over the old days of home town discounts.

My unsolicited opinion is that this one is really going to be simple, because the leverage is there for Chabot to not even have to consider any kind of bridging or discount. The organization either bucks up and he's offered what he could likely get on an offer sheet in all aspects and likely signs, or he's dealt in advance of the offer sheet date knowing the reality. There is no other plausible scenario like expecting a discount or bridge deal imo.

 

[Ice-Tray]

IMO you're just making too many assumptions about Chabot's connection/relationship to the team. "Assuming" he will do things in a team friendly manner is just foolish. The market is what the market is, and that's big signing bonus laden contracts that bring RFA's to UFA.

Chabot and his agent will seek market value, and assuming a financially challenged team like the Sens won't try to save every penny they can on a Chabot deal also makes no sense to me (a la Aho with Carolina). What in the world would make you think the Sens won't try to save money on this contract, when virtually every single transaction they've completed since the Duchene trade has been about saving money?

I get you're optimistic, but there's a little too much blind faith happening from your stance for me. You simply cannot say Chabot will turn down an offersheet like Point did like they are direct comparisons. Point is playing for a world class franchise that's going to compete for cups for the duration of any contract he signs, of course he doesn't want to go anywhere. Chabot has to play for Eugene Melnyk and his historic cap floor circumvention exercise. Apples to oranges.

I'm not suggesting he won't sign, but these assumptions that he's going to act like this good old boy and give us preferential treatment is nutty. He's going to want to be paid, and be paid according to market. If the Sens don't give he the proverbial blank cheque, with lots of SB money, then yes, I would fully expect him to sign an offersheet. I sure as **** would sign it, wouldn't you?

If the overall dollars are similar enough then yeah, I’d probably start considering other considerations like the team, loyalty, etc.... if they were way off and I felt like i was being disrespected then yeah. If I wanted to play in a different city, sure that’s a good way as well.

I’m not playing up too much or making any grand assumptions. The proof is in the fact that there have been exactly 4 offersheets signed in the last 10 years. I wonder why that is? And while Aho signed one this year, his particular situation was a special case of leverage, and it should be considered that Point turned down the very same team’s offer.

We’ll see what happens, we all want the same outcome.

 

[Micklebot]

I don't think you can definitively say that it was best to trade him at the TDL. You may be right, but your also using hindsight knowing Stone didn't drop off or get injured. Could have gone the other way.

I just don't see what was going to change in the negotiation between the summer and the TDL other than Stone's price going up...but whatever, what's done is done and the return was fine.

I think the idea that the best return would be at the TD is unfounded. Strictly from a cost benefit perspective, there is far more value in acquiring a player with term so a team should logically be willing to give up more for a player a year before they hit UFA rather than 2 months.

I mean, it seems obvious, if it were the case that TDL returns are better you would see teams able to acquire a guy in the offseason and flip the at the deadline for a profit... It just doesn't make any logical sense that on average returns would improve by waiting till the deadline.

Edit: imo teams should wait till the deadline if they a) thought they couldn re-sign the player but were mistaken or b) are in the playoff hunt but circumstances result in them falling short by the TDL.

In our situation, presumably we thought we fell into category a) but imo that's a misreading of the situation by Dorion

 

[GrantLemons]

These are all excuses, and poor ones.

It is Pierre Dorion's job to maximize the value of his assets.

When Erik Karlsson said, in February 2018, that he was going to get his worth,"no matter where that was", that was a clear indicator of where he stood. And I could only assume that Dorion and Melnyk had an agreement about the max they'd be willing to spend, both from an AAV and bonus standpoint. If they hadn't had that conversation, well, that's another miss.

At that point, there should have been a clear ask from the Senators. Are you staying or testing the market? If Karlsson showed an "unwilligness to negotiate" or didn't respond, that was your answer. At that point, he should have been traded. Trying to convince him otherwise was foolhardy.

If the Hoffman trade was to "appease" EK, again, that was a terrible decision. Dorion could have simply gone to Karlsson and asked, "Will you re-sign if I guarantee you that Hoffman will not be here in training camp?" If Karlsson said no, or did not respond, Dorion should not have rushed into the Hoffman trade. He should have got as much as he possibly could have, even if it meant waiting and trading Karlsson first.

Same goes for Stone and Duchene.

Stone taking that 1 year deal was a clear sign. If he was not willing to buy in that summer, he should have been traded as early as possible. A player with term is far more valuable than a potential deadline rental.

Basically what you're saying is that Dorion is letting the players dictate the moves he makes. That's a horrible, horrible strategy.

He could have set firm deadlines for negotiations, and cut bait when they didn't commit. The onus is on him to uncover what a player really wants, and make the best decision for the organization, as soon as possible.

Hoping that a player changes his mind at the last minute is just awful planning.

This is spot on. I really don't understand how you could surmise anything else from this whole situation.

How it all shook down just screams a team with no plan. It was terribly mismanaged and terribly communicated. I would have loved to have known the return for EK at the 2018 TDL had they not insisted on stapling Bobby's contract to EK. The fact that some teams were even entertaining offers with Bobby attached speaks to the value EK had at that point.

Did they honestly think EK would sign after his agent had told him multiple times to pack his shit? If they seriously thought that then that's f***ing pathetic, and indefensible.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Except Stone has to sign in the dotted line.

Look at it this way, if Stone wanted to become a UFA, there was no way the Sens could stop him. The Sens can’t make him sign a long term deal, they had two options, 1) go to arbitration and deal with all of the negativity that goes along with it; the outcome is a one year deal. 2) offer him a one year deal without the negativity.

If you were responsible which on would you choose?

Option 3 was to trade him.

Despite what you say, a Mark Stone with a full year at ~7 million dollars left on his deal (or in RFA status) has significantly more value than Mark Stone at the deadline as a pending UFA, even if he was willing to sign an extension with a couple of teams. For a few reasons:

• Teams in the offseason have much more roster flexibility than they do mid-season, so they're able to make bigger transactions.
• At the deadline, only 3-5 teams are looking to make a big splash, those who think they have a legitimate shot at the Stanley Cup. In the offseason, way more teams would be in the mix.

So because of the nature of the deadline, Ottawa was probably was dealing with 2-3 teams who were really interested. In the offseason, it would have been (most likely) 10-12 teams.

The second scenario allows you to create a much bigger bidding war.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

From what I have read paying out in Bonus would have no Tax benefit.

Well you heard wrong, as signing bonuses are taxed at a lower rate, than a players regular (throughout the season) salary.


How Much Do NHL Players Really Make?

How Much Do NHL Players Really Make? Part 2: Taxes

 

[Ice-Tray]

This sounds like a roundabout way of saying that Chabot should take a discount from what is potentially available to him on the RFA market, simply because of the Senators' financial situation.

If the Senators can't match an offer sheet that another team is willing and able to pay him, it's still just an Ottawa Senators problem and Chabot is merely leveraging his options, similar to how the team has done for their own good in past years in order to keep RFA's term short and salary low.

Chabot should get paid in Ottawa what he would get anywhere else based on what's being offered (UFA, RFA offer sheet, shouldn't make a difference) and that includes bonuses and trade protection. If he takes anything less, he's doing the organization a favor, and favors are now the rare exception in pro sports over the old days of home town discounts.

My unsolicited opinion is that this one is really going to be simple, because the leverage is there for Chabot to not even have to consider any kind of bridging or discount. The organization either bucks up and he's offered what he could likely get on an offer sheet in all aspects, or he's dealt. There is no other plausible scenario like expecting a discount or bridge deal imo.

Players make considerations all the time if they want to stay in the situation they are in, and will turn down more money and better deals to stay if needs be. Do you think TB will be offering the same deal as MTL’s offersheet? Of course not.

The reality is that a regular contract is not a discount. The Sens can offer an 8 year deal in return for short term massive bonus incentives to leave the team.

If another team offers him a sheet, he gets to decide if he wants to sign it, and then the team decides if they want to match. It is what it is.

The problem I see is that people in here seem to think that Ahos offersheet is somehow now a regular contract. It isn’t. It was an enormous deal designed to be so over the top that it screwed over the other team. You won’t see teams offer those deals to their players as regular deals, nor should we expect it.

The reality is that top UFAs can command this kind of thing because they are open to the full league, at team’s own rfa’s arent.

I don’t personally understand how you can see that offersheets, UFA, and RFA all have different values in terms of the players ability leverage a bigger deal. There is no set pay scale, salary negotiations are all about comparisons and leverage, followed by personal and team considerations.

Again, there is no such this a single going rate dollar and contract structure. In here we take the outlying overpayment, present its the norm, and then proceed to fear it. Even to the point of completely ignoring the fundamental differences between impending UFAs vs guys coming off ELCs.

Anyways, thanks for the discussion folks, I’m out for the day!

 

[GrantLemons]

Option 3 was to trade him.

Despite what you say, a Mark Stone with a full year at ~7 million dollars left on his deal (or in RFA status) has significantly more value than Mark Stone at the deadline as a pending UFA, even if he was willing to sign an extension with a couple of teams. For a few reasons:

• Teams in the offseason have much more roster flexibility than they do mid-season, so they're able to make bigger transactions.
• At the deadline, only 3-5 teams are looking to make a big splash, those who think they have a legitimate shot at the Stanley Cup. In the offseason, way more teams would be in the mix.

So because of the nature of the deadline, Ottawa was probably was dealing with 2-3 teams who were really interested. In the offseason, it would have been (most likely) 10-12 teams.

The second scenario allows you to create a much bigger bidding war.

You may also be dealing with teams that are looking to make a big splash, but struck out on UFA's, and hence would be more desperate and willing to sweeten the pot to get their guy. Much like the Sens were when they acquired Bobby Ryan.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Option 3 was to trade him.

Despite what you say, a Mark Stone with a full year at ~7 million dollars left on his deal (or in RFA status) has significantly more value than Mark Stone at the deadline as a pending UFA, even if he was willing to sign an extension with a couple of teams. For a few reasons:

• Teams in the offseason have much more roster flexibility than they do mid-season, so they're able to make bigger transactions.
• At the deadline, only 3-5 teams are looking to make a big splash, those who think they have a legitimate shot at the Stanley Cup. In the offseason, way more teams would be in the mix.

So because of the nature of the deadline, Ottawa was probably was dealing with 2-3 teams who were really interested. In the offseason, it would have been (most likely) 10-12 teams.

The second scenario allows you to create a much bigger bidding war.

Right, you wanted to have the team actively shop him throughout that season and going into the offseason, eventhough they were simultaneously trying to see if they could keep EK, actively trying to woo Duchene into staying, and also trying to keep Stone in the fold.

This is all like leaves in a breeze. What’s a bad move is suddenly a good live when convenient, then bad again. It’s like the kids can’t opposite situation as EKs.

Anyways, when people are determined to believe that each trade could have netted better returns, based on zero inside evidence, or really any supporting comparable around the league, there is really not much room for discussion.

 

[DaveMatthew]

You may also be dealing with teams that are looking to make a big splash, but struck out on UFA's, and hence would be more desperate and willing to sweeten the pot to get their guy. Much like the Sens were when they acquired Bobby Ryan.

Exactly, and you could prioritize offers with teams that have a higher 1st round pick. Getting a first rounder at the deadline is often a crapshoot, who knows where it'll be. But at the draft? You know exactly where it is.

What would Edmonton have offered for Stone at the draft last summer? Could you have gotten the 10th overall + more assets? Probably.

 

[GrantLemons]

The reality is that a regular contract is not a discount. The Sens can offer an 8 year deal in return for short term massive bonus incentives to leave the team.

But again, that's not an advantage for a guy like Chabot. He's trending to be so good that 5 years to UFA, and he can sign an even bigger deal when he's smack dab in his prime, instead of 30, and bordering on exiting it.

Why didn't Matthews sign an 8 year deal?

 

[GrantLemons]

Exactly, and you could prioritize offers with teams that have a higher 1st round pick. Getting a first rounder at the deadline is often a crapshoot, who knows where it'll be. But at the draft? You know exactly where it is.

What would Edmonton have offered for Stone at the draft last summer? Could you have gotten the 10th overall + more assets? Probably.

Especially if we took back a contract from them as well. We probably could have basically had our pick of anything in their system.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Right, you wanted to have the team actively shop him throughout that season and going into the offseason, eventhough they were simultaneously trying to see if they could keep EK, actively trying to woo Duchene into staying, and also trying to keep Stone in the fold.

This is all like leaves in a breeze. What’s a bad move is suddenly a good live when convenient, then bad again. It’s like the kids can’t opposite situation as EKs.

Anyways, when people are determined to believe that each trade could have netted better returns, based on zero inside evidence, or really any supporting comparable around the league, there is really not much room for discussion.

"Trying" means nothing. Karlsson and Stone made it crystal clear what they were thinking.

Karlsson, by saying what he did in the media in February, and in his own words "not talking to those people in months" after he was traded, was pretty up front the whole time. If Dorion didn't get the message? That's his own fault.

Same with Stone. Trying to sign him last offseason was fine. But when he didn't agree to a long-term deal before arbitration? He absolutely should have been shopped.

If Pierre Dorion didn't see the writing on the wall with these guys, he's even worse at his job that we thought.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Players make considerations all the time if they want to stay in the situation they are in, and will turn down more money and better deals to stay if needs be. Do you think TB will be offering the same deal as MTL’s offersheet? Of course not.

The reality is that a regular contract is not a discount. The Sens can offer an 8 year deal in return for short term massive bonus incentives to leave the team.

If another team offers him a sheet, he gets to decide if he wants to sign it, and then the team decides if they want to match. It is what it is.

The problem I see is that people in here seem to think that Ahos offersheet is somehow now a regular contract. It isn’t. It was an enormous deal designed to be so over the top that it screwed over the other team. You won’t see teams offer those deals to their players as regular deals, nor should we expect it.

The reality is that top UFAs can command this kind of thing because they are open to the full league, at team’s own rfa’s arent.

I don’t personally understand how you can see that offersheets, UFA, and RFA all have different values in terms of the players ability leverage a bigger deal. There is no set pay scale, salary negotiations are all about comparisons and leverage, followed by personal and team considerations.

Again, there is no such this a single going rate dollar and contract structure. In here we take the outlying overpayment, present its the norm, and then proceed to fear it. Even to the point of completely ignoring the fundamental differences between impending UFAs vs guys coming off ELCs.

Anyways, thanks for the discussion folks, I’m out for the day!

I think in the past you would have been right, but after this summer, it's obvious that star RFA's have gained all the leverage while teams have lost the leverage they seemed to always have over them previously.

The existence of offer sheets and the increased market impact is more of the issue than the actual offer sheets being signed. Just the threat of them is being used to define market value on RFA's around the league. I expect Chabot to be similar to the other RFA's this summer where they expect massive deals comparable to what would be available on offer sheets and is a big reason so many remain unsigned. Maybe they aren't going the offer sheet route because they want to stay if contract terms are equal, but they're holding out knowing they have that option and their team can either pay up comparably or they won't sign.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

I have a feeling that Melnyk wants almost zero signing bonuses going in to a potential lockout year. Chabot and White both want lockout protection and Melnyk will not offer it like the other 30 teams in the league. Fairly simple

No one knows. Everyone may assume what they like. I get it. But it is only an assumption based on the last few fish that got away.

I am hoping that the big three get signed. Going to 'fence-sit' for now, and not get all hyped up for nothing.

 

[Crosside]

I think Stone sign a one year deal in regard of a ownership change. Dorion probably think that too, It s why he don t trade Karlsson in the summer and I guess Duchene would be stay if he see we want to win now. Now we move on and maybe it s a good thing.

 

[GrantLemons]

No one knows. Everyone may assume what they like. I get it. But it is only an assumption based on the last few fish that got away.

I am hoping that the big three get signed. Going to 'fence-sit' for now, and not get all hyped up for nothing.

To be fair, it's not much of a stretch to assume that Eugene wants as little signing bonuses as possible (especially facing a potential lockout).

That's one thing we can likely all agree on.

 

[NorthCoast]

Well you heard wrong, as signing bonuses are taxed at a lower rate, than a players regular (throughout the season) salary.


How Much Do NHL Players Really Make?

How Much Do NHL Players Really Make? Part 2: Taxes

First, that's a great resource that I hadn't seen before. Thanks you!

Second, my comment is still correct because I was answering specifically to the question of players that have to pay Canadian taxes...where bonus payments are considered the same as other income and taxed the same. I believe your resource confirms that.

Third, even in the US, Federally it doesn't make much of a difference because above 1 mil the tax rate on Bonuses jumps from 22% to 37%...which may still be a slight benefit over income tax rates and there may be some additional accounting tricks you can pull in some states, but my point is really more to dispel the common thought (not saying this is your opinion) that bonus money gets taxed at 15% vs income tax rates.

Tax Rates on Bonuses and Supplemental Wages

https://ca.rbcwealthmanagement.com/...nals.pdf/0920cb5a-2adf-4666-a451-3659710eece8


Regardless, we're arguing from the same side here. There is obviously a financial benefit to doing it, and that financial benefit requires more up-front cash from the team, which makes it an advantage for the bigger markets...whatever the size of the advantage is.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

No one knows. Everyone may assume what they like. I get it. But it is only an assumption based on the last few fish that got away.

I am hoping that the big three get signed. Going to 'fence-sit' for now, and not get all hyped up for nothing.

Well, lets not pretend it's that simple. There's been so many red flags money wise for many years now and the hysteria is not exclusively from the big UFA exodus.

 

[2CHAINZ]

Well, lets not pretend it's that simple. There's been so many red flags money wise for many years now and the hysteria is not exclusively from the big UFA exodus.

We let Daniel f***ing Alfredsson walk away from this team over money. That man should've been given a blank check to play one more year after his 1 million dollar season.

 

[harrisb]

No one knows. Everyone may assume what they like. I get it. But it is only an assumption based on the last few fish that got away.

I am hoping that the big three get signed. Going to 'fence-sit' for now, and not get all hyped up for nothing.

Lol, a little late for that, Stone, Duchene and Karlsson are already gone (that was the big 3, we HOPE Tkachuk, White and Chabot sniff their success). Outside of this years picks we had every other player that was already on the team too.

 

[Cosmix]

"Trying" means nothing. Karlsson and Stone made it crystal clear what they were thinking.

Karlsson, by saying what he did in the media in February, and in his own words "not talking to those people in months" after he was traded, was pretty up front the whole time. If Dorion didn't get the message? That's his own fault.

Same with Stone. Trying to sign him last offseason was fine. But when he didn't agree to a long-term deal before arbitration? He absolutely should have been shopped.

If Pierre Dorion didn't see the writing on the wall with these guys, he's even worse at his job that we thought.

Dorion is a yes-man to Melnyk. He disassembles as required to keep his job. He could probably do better under a different owner, but I have no confidence that is sufficiently competent to be a GM in the NHL. He will be gone after Melnyk is gone, and quite possibly before Melnyk is gone.

 

[Cosmix]

We let Daniel ****ing Alfredsson walk away from this team over money. That man should've been given a blank check to play one more year after his 1 million dollar season.

Alfredsson was done. Blank cheque’s for old over-the-hill UFAs at $5-$7M make no sense.

 

[Micklebot]

First, that's a great resource that I hadn't seen before. Thanks you!

Second, my comment is still correct because I was answering specifically to the question of players that have to pay Canadian taxes...where bonus payments are considered the same as other income and taxed the same. I believe your resource confirms that.

Third, even in the US, Federally it doesn't make much of a difference because above 1 mil the tax rate on Bonuses jumps from 22% to 37%...which may still be a slight benefit over income tax rates and there may be some additional accounting tricks you can pull in some states, but my point is really more to dispel the common thought (not saying this is your opinion) that bonus money gets taxed at 15% vs income tax rates.

Tax Rates on Bonuses and Supplemental Wages

https://ca.rbcwealthmanagement.com/...nals.pdf/0920cb5a-2adf-4666-a451-3659710eece8


Regardless, we're arguing from the same side here. There is obviously a financial benefit to doing it, and that financial benefit requires more up-front cash from the team, which makes it an advantage for the bigger markets...whatever the size of the advantage is.

There are tax treaties btw Can and US that authorize bonuses to be taxed at a lower rate when for example an american is being paid in Canada but still resides in the states. Tavares and Matthews both had articles come out after signing their deals describing how it created a tax savings. You can google them. I don't believe there is any savings for a Canadian playing and living in Canada though, which was why i questioned JD1 on it.

 

[Sens]

Alfredsson was done. Blank cheque’s for old over-the-hill UFAs at $5-$7M make no sense.

Seeing how the team is stingy as f***... 20 million below the cap floor... would have an extra couple million back then really have been a blow to this franchise

In all honesty this franchise over the last decade has shown no loyalty... even fan favourite grinders like Chris Kelly have jumped ship