|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 12, 2019 17:32:56 GMT
I don't know what it was that he turned down. I need to know before I can decide if he's greedy or not. Yeah. I think the bruins likely offered him between 7-8 m long term. I hope the Bruins lock him up. The offer happened last off-season and the story Kel posted more or less suggests it would be in Pastrnak territory - so under $7M. Hard to imagine he'd get less than $7M on a long term deal now. |
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Aug 12, 2019 17:41:29 GMT
No, but a player can take out an insurance policy on his career. I’ve got a buddy that got 3 million bucks because he got hurt in the a Thanks for replying, the question really boils down to what does each team offer a player for injury insurace according to the CBA? Your answer is no, which I have no problem as an answer for I have no understanding of the player disabilty or loss of value insurance. I look at Hossa's retirement, did he receive injury insurance from the team (NHL CBA)? or NHLPA? or his own? If Backes was to retire due to concussions, it would depend on if the NHL documenting medical approval of his concussion having happened after he signed the insurance policy. Disabilty insurance would compensate some of the remaining $ of his salary in the next two years. If all this remotely true, will the Bs move to place Backes on permanent disabilty? McAvoy then would be able to be signed. Any clarity would help. well the team pays the contract. So, Arizona is paying Hossa, but most contracts in the NHL are insured at around 80%, so the insurance company pays the contract. For example, the leafs have two guys on their roster that aren't playing, Horton and Clarkson. Horton's contract is uninsured, the leafs pay him. Clarkson's contract is 80% insured, the leafs pay 20% and the insurance company pays 80%. The players always get paid though. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 12, 2019 17:41:45 GMT
I don't think these negotiations go very smooth, I hope I'm wrong. Hate the fact the reportedly already turned down a deal. I think all of this, all of it, comes down to Marner. None of the big UFAs will sign until he does because the expectation is that he's the benchmark (even though Rantanen had more points). He's got the best situation to set that benchmark because the Laffs a) are a huge market team and can't exactly cry po'; b) he led them in scoring for the second year in a row despite the fact they had two other guys on that team with contracts for $11M+; c) they may have a "Matthews salary Cap" in the same way the Bruins once had a Ray Bourque Cap, but that Cap is over $11M; d) having squandered a year where the odd-makers thought they were the nuts, and squandered the advantage of having multiple point/game scorers on the roster on ELCs, the Laffs are going to feel the pressure of that market get Marner in the fold on time and break the 60+ year drought. In other words, his negotiating position is better than anyone else's including Rantanen's (smaller market, Mac makes reasonable dough, just emerging as a contenter...). Once he gets $10.684921M per for five years, the others will decide if what they teams have been offering is still in the ballpark or if they think the market needs to adjust. And they totally expect an adjustment. Once Marner signs, McAvoy will sign within a week. |
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Aug 12, 2019 21:00:54 GMT
Thanks for replying, the question really boils down to what does each team offer a player for injury insurace according to the CBA? Your answer is no, which I have no problem as an answer for I have no understanding of the player disabilty or loss of value insurance. I look at Hossa's retirement, did he receive injury insurance from the team (NHL CBA)? or NHLPA? or his own? If Backes was to retire due to concussions, it would depend on if the NHL documenting medical approval of his concussion having happened after he signed the insurance policy. Disabilty insurance would compensate some of the remaining $ of his salary in the next two years. If all this remotely true, will the Bs move to place Backes on permanent disabilty? McAvoy then would be able to be signed. Any clarity would help. well the team pays the contract. So, Arizona is paying Hossa, but most contracts in the NHL are insured at around 80%, so the insurance company pays the contract. For example, the leafs have two guys on their roster that aren't playing, Horton and Clarkson. Horton's contract is uninsured, the leafs pay him. Clarkson's contract is 80% insured, the leafs pay 20% and the insurance company pays 80%. The players always get paid though. Ok, so i guess i was not getting the clarity. Once on disability the contract remains, if they retire with the disability then the contract has ended. The disability payout is still intact, correct? If not then I can understand trading a player for cap space. Otherwise retiring with the disability should cover Backes if he claimed disability from concussions. The up close details of the policy are necessary to understand completely, |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 12, 2019 22:18:44 GMT
well the team pays the contract. So, Arizona is paying Hossa, but most contracts in the NHL are insured at around 80%, so the insurance company pays the contract. For example, the leafs have two guys on their roster that aren't playing, Horton and Clarkson. Horton's contract is uninsured, the leafs pay him. Clarkson's contract is 80% insured, the leafs pay 20% and the insurance company pays 80%. The players always get paid though. Ok, so i guess i was not getting the clarity. Once on disability the contract remains, if they retire with the disability then the contract has ended. The disability payout is still intact, correct? If not then I can understand trading a player for cap space. Otherwise retiring with the disability should cover Backes if he claimed disability from concussions. The up close details of the policy are necessary to understand completely, I think I understand this but now you're confusing me.... If a player flat out retires, he walks away from his contract. Players almost never do this when they have a valid contract because ... money. And even if you're not good enough to play and sit in the press box...money. Or a buyout, which is free money. If a player is medically unable to play because of injury/disability, then he is due the full value of his contract just like a player who misses time with a concussion but comes back to play gets paid during his recovery (Vowels got paid nearly $350K for last season because he was injured while in the NHL, so his recovery took place while he was in the NHL getting paid his NHL day rate). THE TEAM takes out insurance ON THE CONTRACT - on the eventuality that the player is unable to fulfill the terms based on injury. The insurance protects the team from the financial loss of paying a guy who can't play. NHL contracts are fully guaranteed except under the buyout. So those players go on LTIR and ride out the remaining years of the contract until they come off the books. Injured players can't be moved or bought out. Backes COULD retire and the money would come off the books for the Bruins, but he's owed another $5M over the next two years (after collecting a $3M signing bonus for this year, his salary is just $1M; next year, the bonus is $1M and the salary is $3M - I'm not sure if the $3M they paid him would still count as a Cap Hit if he retired tomorrow). Backes isn't going to leave $5M on the table and just walk even though Cap Friendly estimates that his career earnings top $54M. I mean, that's before tax, so.... Now, you can't confuse that with PLAYERS taking out insurance. Fatavoy, for example, might have finished that first playoff vs Ottawa and thought Geez, if I get injured, my contract will pay me nearly $2M, but if I don't get injured, my next contract could be $64M, and then when I sign again at 27 or 28, it could be another $100M! I need a policy that insures me against the loss of my career and all that fat cash. I doubt many players would want to use half their annual salary to pay the premium on that policy, though, but I can see something like a $20M payout if he blows out a knee or is forced to retire with head injuries etc.. If Backes has a policy he could cash in that says "if head injuries shorten my career, I get $3M for every year between 33-38 that I miss...", then maybe he retires, but I doubt that. |
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Aug 13, 2019 5:45:02 GMT
well the team pays the contract. So, Arizona is paying Hossa, but most contracts in the NHL are insured at around 80%, so the insurance company pays the contract. For example, the leafs have two guys on their roster that aren't playing, Horton and Clarkson. Horton's contract is uninsured, the leafs pay him. Clarkson's contract is 80% insured, the leafs pay 20% and the insurance company pays 80%. The players always get paid though. Ok, so i guess i was not getting the clarity. Once on disability the contract remains, if they retire with the disability then the contract has ended. The disability payout is still intact, correct? If not then I can understand trading a player for cap space. Otherwise retiring with the disability should cover Backes if he claimed disability from concussions. The up close details of the policy are necessary to understand completely, You get ltir relief if the player goes on ltir. They aren’t technically retired. If they retire they forfeit the money |
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Aug 13, 2019 5:46:37 GMT
Ok, so i guess i was not getting the clarity. Once on disability the contract remains, if they retire with the disability then the contract has ended. The disability payout is still intact, correct? If not then I can understand trading a player for cap space. Otherwise retiring with the disability should cover Backes if he claimed disability from concussions. The up close details of the policy are necessary to understand completely, I think I understand this but now you're confusing me.... If a player flat out retires, he walks away from his contract. Players almost never do this when they have a valid contract because ... money. And even if you're not good enough to play and sit in the press box...money. Or a buyout, which is free money. If a player is medically unable to play because of injury/disability, then he is due the full value of his contract just like a player who misses time with a concussion but comes back to play gets paid during his recovery (Vowels got paid nearly $350K for last season because he was injured while in the NHL, so his recovery took place while he was in the NHL getting paid his NHL day rate). THE TEAM takes out insurance ON THE CONTRACT - on the eventuality that the player is unable to fulfill the terms based on injury. The insurance protects the team from the financial loss of paying a guy who can't play. NHL contracts are fully guaranteed except under the buyout. So those players go on LTIR and ride out the remaining years of the contract until they come off the books. Injured players can't be moved or bought out. Backes COULD retire and the money would come off the books for the Bruins, but he's owed another $5M over the next two years (after collecting a $3M signing bonus for this year, his salary is just $1M; next year, the bonus is $1M and the salary is $3M - I'm not sure if the $3M they paid him would still count as a Cap Hit if he retired tomorrow). Backes isn't going to leave $5M on the table and just walk even though Cap Friendly estimates that his career earnings top $54M. I mean, that's before tax, so.... Now, you can't confuse that with PLAYERS taking out insurance. Fatavoy, for example, might have finished that first playoff vs Ottawa and thought Geez, if I get injured, my contract will pay me nearly $2M, but if I don't get injured, my next contract could be $64M, and then when I sign again at 27 or 28, it could be another $100M! I need a policy that insures me against the loss of my career and all that fat cash. I doubt many players would want to use half their annual salary to pay the premium on that policy, though, but I can see something like a $20M payout if he blows out a knee or is forced to retire with head injuries etc.. If Backes has a policy he could cash in that says "if head injuries shorten my career, I get $3M for every year between 33-38 that I miss...", then maybe he retires, but I doubt that. The signing bonus wouldn’t count against the cap, but there would be a recapture penalty |
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Aug 13, 2019 13:00:25 GMT
Ok, so i guess i was not getting the clarity. Once on disability the contract remains, if they retire with the disability then the contract has ended. The disability payout is still intact, correct? If not then I can understand trading a player for cap space. Otherwise retiring with the disability should cover Backes if he claimed disability from concussions. The up close details of the policy are necessary to understand completely, I think I understand this but now you're confusing me.... If a player flat out retires, he walks away from his contract. Players almost never do this when they have a valid contract because ... money. And even if you're not good enough to play and sit in the press box...money. Or a buyout, which is free money. If a player is medically unable to play because of injury/disability, then he is due the full value of his contract just like a player who misses time with a concussion but comes back to play gets paid during his recovery (Vowels got paid nearly $350K for last season because he was injured while in the NHL, so his recovery took place while he was in the NHL getting paid his NHL day rate). THE TEAM takes out insurance ON THE CONTRACT - on the eventuality that the player is unable to fulfill the terms based on injury. The insurance protects the team from the financial loss of paying a guy who can't play. NHL contracts are fully guaranteed except under the buyout. So those players go on LTIR and ride out the remaining years of the contract until they come off the books. Injured players can't be moved or bought out. Backes COULD retire and the money would come off the books for the Bruins, but he's owed another $5M over the next two years (after collecting a $3M signing bonus for this year, his salary is just $1M; next year, the bonus is $1M and the salary is $3M - I'm not sure if the $3M they paid him would still count as a Cap Hit if he retired tomorrow). Backes isn't going to leave $5M on the table and just walk even though Cap Friendly estimates that his career earnings top $54M. I mean, that's before tax, so.... Now, you can't confuse that with PLAYERS taking out insurance. Fatavoy, for example, might have finished that first playoff vs Ottawa and thought Geez, if I get injured, my contract will pay me nearly $2M, but if I don't get injured, my next contract could be $64M, and then when I sign again at 27 or 28, it could be another $100M! I need a policy that insures me against the loss of my career and all that fat cash. I doubt many players would want to use half their annual salary to pay the premium on that policy, though, but I can see something like a $20M payout if he blows out a knee or is forced to retire with head injuries etc.. If Backes has a policy he could cash in that says "if head injuries shorten my career, I get $3M for every year between 33-38 that I miss...", then maybe he retires, but I doubt that. In essence, McAvoy could be signed if Backes retires almost immediately. I agree with another post you made that Marner is a key block for these RFAs to sign. I understand that if Backes retires he is foregoes 5m in salary in the next two years. If in fact he has disability insurance either through his own planning, NHLPA or the NHL his income would be recovered probably in the tune of 60%. I am sure the NHL would not challenge his concussion history as the reason for retiring. Why is this connected to McAvoy? Outside of the above fore mentioned, McAvoy could sign a insurance policy to cover the chance of injury during the "bridge" years then he might sign for less ie. 5.5m for instance. I doubt he could afford the insurance from Lloyd's of London. But i am not knowlegeable of the NHL or NHLPAs disabilty coverage. On a separte note, if Backes does have disability insurance, he is only playing because he still thinks he can continue to play hockey in the NHL. He would be selfish though imo, for the Bs will have to trade away KMiller or someone else to accomodate his desire to play. If he does not have disabilty insurance then I can understand his point of view, although it still will mean the Bs would have to sacrifice Cap space to retain his contract or lose a productive prospect or draft pick to trade his "desire to play" somewhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 13, 2019 14:59:27 GMT
I think I understand this but now you're confusing me.... If a player flat out retires, he walks away from his contract. Players almost never do this when they have a valid contract because ... money. And even if you're not good enough to play and sit in the press box...money. Or a buyout, which is free money. If a player is medically unable to play because of injury/disability, then he is due the full value of his contract just like a player who misses time with a concussion but comes back to play gets paid during his recovery (Vowels got paid nearly $350K for last season because he was injured while in the NHL, so his recovery took place while he was in the NHL getting paid his NHL day rate). THE TEAM takes out insurance ON THE CONTRACT - on the eventuality that the player is unable to fulfill the terms based on injury. The insurance protects the team from the financial loss of paying a guy who can't play. NHL contracts are fully guaranteed except under the buyout. So those players go on LTIR and ride out the remaining years of the contract until they come off the books. Injured players can't be moved or bought out. Backes COULD retire and the money would come off the books for the Bruins, but he's owed another $5M over the next two years (after collecting a $3M signing bonus for this year, his salary is just $1M; next year, the bonus is $1M and the salary is $3M - I'm not sure if the $3M they paid him would still count as a Cap Hit if he retired tomorrow). Backes isn't going to leave $5M on the table and just walk even though Cap Friendly estimates that his career earnings top $54M. I mean, that's before tax, so.... Now, you can't confuse that with PLAYERS taking out insurance. Fatavoy, for example, might have finished that first playoff vs Ottawa and thought Geez, if I get injured, my contract will pay me nearly $2M, but if I don't get injured, my next contract could be $64M, and then when I sign again at 27 or 28, it could be another $100M! I need a policy that insures me against the loss of my career and all that fat cash. I doubt many players would want to use half their annual salary to pay the premium on that policy, though, but I can see something like a $20M payout if he blows out a knee or is forced to retire with head injuries etc.. If Backes has a policy he could cash in that says "if head injuries shorten my career, I get $3M for every year between 33-38 that I miss...", then maybe he retires, but I doubt that. The signing bonus wouldn’t count against the cap, but there would be a recapture penalty $2M per season for the next two years even if he retires. |
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Aug 13, 2019 15:57:53 GMT
The signing bonus wouldn’t count against the cap, but there would be a recapture penalty $2M per season for the next two years even if he retires. I think that's still best case scenario though. I guess LTIR is better in some ways, but 4 million in cap room can be more valuable than LTIR room in some instances. One of those instances would be if a team were trying to add at the deadline. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 13, 2019 16:27:06 GMT
$2M per season for the next two years even if he retires. I think that's still best case scenario though. I guess LTIR is better in some ways, but 4 million in cap room can be more valuable than LTIR room in some instances. One of those instances would be if a team were trying to add at the deadline. I don't mind LTIRetirement in this case. It's only for two years, which is less onerous than the Savard situation, and the Bruins need the Cap room up front. I'm sure they'll wish they had it at the deadline, but things still have to break right for them to get to a place where they want to add rentals. Let's see...$7.3M available right now, plus Backes retiring gives you $11.3. Say that gets you both Charlie and Carlo for opening night, you then put Miller and Moore on LTIR and then trade them once they're ready to return. Then you can bank a pro-rated portion of that $5.25M for rentals...but then you have to wonder if maybe you should "own rental" Miller if he comes back healthy. Realistically, though, I fear Miller's done and he'll ride out the year on LTIR and then be in a difficult position going out as a UFA. I could even see a scenario where he plays for Boston next year on a cheaper one-year deal just to show he's back to what he was, or close enough. |
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Aug 14, 2019 16:10:56 GMT
I think that's still best case scenario though. I guess LTIR is better in some ways, but 4 million in cap room can be more valuable than LTIR room in some instances. One of those instances would be if a team were trying to add at the deadline. I don't mind LTIRetirement in this case. It's only for two years, which is less onerous than the Savard situation, and the Bruins need the Cap room up front. I'm sure they'll wish they had it at the deadline, but things still have to break right for them to get to a place where they want to add rentals. Let's see...$7.3M available right now, plus Backes retiring gives you $11.3. Say that gets you both Charlie and Carlo for opening night, you then put Miller and Moore on LTIR and then trade them once they're ready to return. Then you can bank a pro-rated portion of that $5.25M for rentals...but then you have to wonder if maybe you should "own rental" Miller if he comes back healthy. Realistically, though, I fear Miller's done and he'll ride out the year on LTIR and then be in a difficult position going out as a UFA. I could even see a scenario where he plays for Boston next year on a cheaper one-year deal just to show he's back to what he was, or close enough. If the Bs place Shen and Kampfer in Providence another 1.8 is available. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 14, 2019 16:47:01 GMT
I don't mind LTIRetirement in this case. It's only for two years, which is less onerous than the Savard situation, and the Bruins need the Cap room up front. I'm sure they'll wish they had it at the deadline, but things still have to break right for them to get to a place where they want to add rentals. Let's see...$7.3M available right now, plus Backes retiring gives you $11.3. Say that gets you both Charlie and Carlo for opening night, you then put Miller and Moore on LTIR and then trade them once they're ready to return. Then you can bank a pro-rated portion of that $5.25M for rentals...but then you have to wonder if maybe you should "own rental" Miller if he comes back healthy. Realistically, though, I fear Miller's done and he'll ride out the year on LTIR and then be in a difficult position going out as a UFA. I could even see a scenario where he plays for Boston next year on a cheaper one-year deal just to show he's back to what he was, or close enough. If the Bs place Shen and Kampfer in Providence another 1.8 is available. That would give them $13M for the two RFA D, but it would also leave them with just 20 roster players. I don't know if that's kosher - might need 21 to be considered compliant. I would also expect that they would send Clifton because he's Waivers exempt and the intent would be to send him down, LTIR Moore and Miller, then call him back in a purely paper transaction. |
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Aug 14, 2019 17:31:31 GMT
I think that's still best case scenario though. I guess LTIR is better in some ways, but 4 million in cap room can be more valuable than LTIR room in some instances. One of those instances would be if a team were trying to add at the deadline. I don't mind LTIRetirement in this case. It's only for two years, which is less onerous than the Savard situation, and the Bruins need the Cap room up front. I'm sure they'll wish they had it at the deadline, but things still have to break right for them to get to a place where they want to add rentals. Let's see...$7.3M available right now, plus Backes retiring gives you $11.3. Say that gets you both Charlie and Carlo for opening night, you then put Miller and Moore on LTIR and then trade them once they're ready to return. Then you can bank a pro-rated portion of that $5.25M for rentals...but then you have to wonder if maybe you should "own rental" Miller if he comes back healthy. Realistically, though, I fear Miller's done and he'll ride out the year on LTIR and then be in a difficult position going out as a UFA. I could even see a scenario where he plays for Boston next year on a cheaper one-year deal just to show he's back to what he was, or close enough. If Miller doesn’t play this season there is no reason whatsoever to bring him back with Clifton and Lauzon looking for minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 14, 2019 18:07:59 GMT
I don't mind LTIRetirement in this case. It's only for two years, which is less onerous than the Savard situation, and the Bruins need the Cap room up front. I'm sure they'll wish they had it at the deadline, but things still have to break right for them to get to a place where they want to add rentals. Let's see...$7.3M available right now, plus Backes retiring gives you $11.3. Say that gets you both Charlie and Carlo for opening night, you then put Miller and Moore on LTIR and then trade them once they're ready to return. Then you can bank a pro-rated portion of that $5.25M for rentals...but then you have to wonder if maybe you should "own rental" Miller if he comes back healthy. Realistically, though, I fear Miller's done and he'll ride out the year on LTIR and then be in a difficult position going out as a UFA. I could even see a scenario where he plays for Boston next year on a cheaper one-year deal just to show he's back to what he was, or close enough. If Miller doesn’t play this season there is no reason whatsoever to bring him back with Clifton and Lauzon looking for minutes. I didn't say it was plan A. I said I could see a scenario where they bring him in on a PTO and end up signing him as a depth D. If Krug is dealt and Chara retires, your D is Charlie, Carlo, Moore, Clifton, Grz, Lauzon with Vowels and Zboril as reasonable options but not experienced ones. There are some big hitters in that group but not a lot of really physical players. Maybe you sign Miller to a one year deal similar to Kampfer's deal and say hey, look...you're insurance if we get injured or if we feel the kids are getting pushed around too much by the Caps or the Blues. You may spend some time in Providence, and that means you may get picked up on waivers.... |
|
|
|
McAvoy $
Aug 14, 2019 19:54:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by sandogbrewin on Aug 14, 2019 19:54:32 GMT
If Miller spends a year on LTIR from injuries then there would be better, less injured veteran dmen on the market for one year.
|
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 15, 2019 16:47:11 GMT
If Miller spends a year on LTIR from injuries then there would be better, less injured veteran dmen on the market for one year. Probably, but I'm thinking they give him a PTO on the good soldier fund. "Millzy, you were a good soldier for us, and we're sorry we're not able to sign you so you can show the world you're healthy again, but howzabout you come to camp and maybe someone else will see you're able to help them out?" Then he has one good fight and Kampfer has two bad days and Sweeney gets to thinking.... |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 21, 2019 16:45:03 GMT
Two relevant signing notes:
Werenski wants a bridge - 3 years at $5M+ (https://www.tsn.ca/report-columbus-blue-jackets-rfa-zach-werenski-is-looking-for-three-year-deal-1.1353943)
Apparently Provorov wants $10M, believed to be on an 8 year deal. That was in the same link. Other RFA D-men looking at these two the same way forwards are looking at Marner.
And Ottawa signs Colin White at 6x$4.75 - $28.5M. Clearly he isn't in the class of the group waiting on Marner - exactly a 0.5 points/game scorer over his career to date, but really only one legit season so far with 41 points last year. But I still find it odd that he would sign now given that it's a six year deal. On the one hand, if that group of Rantanen, Marner, Tkachuk, Boeser, Connor, Laine etc. all sign for Aho and above money, you could say very simply that he scores at about half the rate of those top guys so he gets about half the cash. But with Duchene gone, I think he might get a lot more opportunity in Ottawa over the next couple of years. Right now, their most productive experienced centre is...Chris Tierney? So in theory, White could seize the opportunity to boost his numbers to 55-60, and in 3-4 years, he'll look like a real bargain.
On the other hand, Logan Brown, Filip Chlapik, Josh Norris are supposed to get their chance in the rebuild, and all three are more conventional "skill" players than White, who is skilled but his upside is more in his complete game and hockey sense. It's entirely possible that Ottawa came to him and said listen...you're not going to be the #1C here, so we're not paying you like one...not now and not in the future. It's possible that you could drop down the depth chart pretty quickly depending on how things go - if Brown or Norris grab a top 6 spot out of camp, you'll be in a group with Tierney and Pageau and maybe even Spezza for that other top six C role. And over time, we want both Brown and Norris to do more than they've seen from you so far. That means hey, you could continue to improve and compete for those spots and opportunities, but it could also mean you need to go elsewhere to have the career you want. In either of those cases, you're a lot better off with $28.5M in the bank and a chance to go back to the wicket at 30 than if you push for a bigger number or a shorter bridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Aug 21, 2019 22:06:30 GMT
Two relevant signing notes: Werenski wants a bridge - 3 years at $5M+ (https://www.tsn.ca/report-columbus-blue-jackets-rfa-zach-werenski-is-looking-for-three-year-deal-1.1353943) Apparently Provorov wants $10M, believed to be on an 8 year deal. That was in the same link. Other RFA D-men looking at these two the same way forwards are looking at Marner. And Ottawa signs Colin White at 6x$4.75 - $28.5M. Clearly he isn't in the class of the group waiting on Marner - exactly a 0.5 points/game scorer over his career to date, but really only one legit season so far with 41 points last year. But I still find it odd that he would sign now given that it's a six year deal. On the one hand, if that group of Rantanen, Marner, Tkachuk, Boeser, Connor, Laine etc. all sign for Aho and above money, you could say very simply that he scores at about half the rate of those top guys so he gets about half the cash. But with Duchene gone, I think he might get a lot more opportunity in Ottawa over the next couple of years. Right now, their most productive experienced centre is...Chris Tierney? So in theory, White could seize the opportunity to boost his numbers to 55-60, and in 3-4 years, he'll look like a real bargain. On the other hand, Logan Brown, Filip Chlapik, Josh Norris are supposed to get their chance in the rebuild, and all three are more conventional "skill" players than White, who is skilled but his upside is more in his complete game and hockey sense. It's entirely possible that Ottawa came to him and said listen...you're not going to be the #1C here, so we're not paying you like one...not now and not in the future. It's possible that you could drop down the depth chart pretty quickly depending on how things go - if Brown or Norris grab a top 6 spot out of camp, you'll be in a group with Tierney and Pageau and maybe even Spezza for that other top six C role. And over time, we want both Brown and Norris to do more than they've seen from you so far. That means hey, you could continue to improve and compete for those spots and opportunities, but it could also mean you need to go elsewhere to have the career you want. In either of those cases, you're a lot better off with $28.5M in the bank and a chance to go back to the wicket at 30 than if you push for a bigger number or a shorter bridge. $10mill for Provolone is fucking crazy.....just sayin. Sit his vodka-soaked ass until he comes to his senses. |
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Aug 21, 2019 23:51:13 GMT
I made a long post about this, but it didn't save. Not typing it again. But suffice to say, Mac isn't coming cheap, long-term, or on a bridge.
|
|
|
|
McAvoy $
Aug 22, 2019 4:07:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 22, 2019 4:07:25 GMT
I made a long post about this, but it didn't save. Not typing it again. But suffice to say, Mac isn't coming cheap, long-term, or on a bridge. I fucking hate...HATE when that happens. And yeah. The only way Fatavoy is cheap next year is if the Bruins put the screws to him to treat it like an extension of his ELC. Bridge in the 5s and long term over 9 is about what I assumed would be the range. |
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Sept 9, 2019 15:13:57 GMT
Thank you Columbus.
|
|
|
|
Post by davinator on Sept 9, 2019 15:20:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Sept 9, 2019 16:49:16 GMT
Will now be hard for him to sit out for more on a similar offer. Not impossible, but hard.
Carlo too. He aint no Werenski.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Sept 9, 2019 16:52:29 GMT
Will now be hard for him to sit out for more on a similar offer. Not impossible, but hard. Carlo too. He aint no Werenski. Better 5v5 defender than Werenski. But should not expect more mula. |
|
