Contracts for the Big-3

[Kin]

We're getting caught up in hypotheticals here.

Again, the post you responded to was entirely predicated on that assumption. I really don't understand why you'd respond to a hypothetical preposition with "BUT THAT'S A HYPOTHETICAL" but, you know, you do you I guess.

But beyond that, now you just seem to be contradicting yourself. Earlier "the goal" of negotiations was to find a middle ground. Now it's about convincing one side or the other of an initial position. Those are two fundamentally different concepts. Truth is, Nylander(or his representatives) probably has a range of numbers he'd accept and a range of numbers he feels he can support. The same is true with Dubas. As we've beaten to death in this thread, there are all manner of ways to compare players and they're going to support arguments for a wide array of numbers. It makes sense for Nylander to initially put forth something on the higher end of what he'd want(and likewise for the Leafs to go in at the lower end) and the "middle ground" they hopefully find is where the upper end of what the Leafs would find acceptable and the lower end of what Nylander would want overlap. It makes very little sense for Nylander and his representatives to start at the lower end of what they'd want.

One of the things I pride myself on is being pretty clear about things I know and things I don't know. I don't negotiate hockey contracts for a living but, I'm guessing, neither do you. The guys doing this for Nylander do it all the time. Because you "don't want to get bogged down in hypotheticals" I think we can also say fairly plainly that whatever the number Nylander's representatives have put forth they're doing so either out of a genuine interest in getting that number or it's being done with what they feel is a valid strategic purpose. Short of "getting into the hypotheticals" about what that number is and whether or not it is reasonable I think we could probably all agree without it needing to be said that the respective parties are working in what they feel are their own ultimate best interests and that everyone involved probably has a general working knowledge of the business they're conducting.

Likewise, I think we can pretty clearly say without getting bogged down in hypotheticals, that the fact that this has gone on as long as it has indicates that it was a more difficult negotiation than some people might have hoped and that there's either been a failure on the part of both sides to bring the other over to their view of things or there's just a genuine distance between them on what an acceptable number should be.

 

[cabber24]

Mackinnon signed his extension after two seasons where he scored 38 and then 52 points. He signed for 6.3 million which represented 8.63% of the cap. A comparable cap hit for Nylander, coming off two straight 60+ point seasons, would work out to roughly 6.9 million which would be a nice deal for Nylander.

8)

Stolen cap hit percentages from Reddit so don't yell at me if they're not 100% correct.  But these are the percentages of cap hits for *similar* Nylander players when they signed their deals and what that would translate to Nylander today under the current $79.5M cap

Draisaitl 11.33%          ($9M for Nylander)
Gaudreau 10.27%   ($8.16M for Nylander)
Pastrnak 9.25%           ($7.35M for Nylander)
MacKinnon 8.89%   ($7.06M for Nylander)
Forsberg 8.63%           ($6.86M for Nylander)
Ehlers 8%   ($6.36M for Nylander)
Benn 8.16%           ($6.48M for Nylander)

Obviously from this list I'm sure Nylander and his agent would want to be at the very top although $9M is ridiculous, but the bottom end of $6.36 if probably where the Leafs want the number to be.  I say 8.5% of the cap should be fair on both sides so $6.75M

Great math... $6.5-$6.99

 

[Bill_Berg]

The term has to play a big role. Say they're agreed to 8 years, both sides. Nylander might argue that in 7 years 8 million will be 5% of the cap space. He may want an average of 8% cap space for the next 8 years. If the cap goes up at x % per year that means a yearly average of x million to hit that 8%.

Basically, pay me 11% this year, 10% next year....5 % in year 8, so that the average cap hit over 8 years is 8%.

Otherwise he'll say okay pay me 8% now, but only for 4 years so I can resign at 8% again in 8 years. It's great for the team to have guys with low cap hits later in contracts, but the players have to be getting wise.

Just throwing example numbers out there.

 

[Hobbes]

The term has to play a big role. Say they're agreed to 8 years, both sides. Nylander might argue that in 7 years 8 million will be 5% of the cap space. He may want an average of 8% cap space for the next 8 years. If the cap goes up at x % per year that means a yearly average of x million to hit that 8%.

Basically, pay me 11% this year, 10% next year....5 % in year 8, so that the average cap hit over 8 years is 8%.

Otherwise he'll say okay pay me 8% now, but only for 4 years so I can resign at 8% again in 8 years. It's great for the team to have guys with low cap hits later in contracts, but the players have to be getting wise.

Just throwing example numbers out there.

Except none of his comparables are getting 8% average over the 8-year term of their contracts (except perhaps for Draisaitl). For him to fall in line with them he'd have to be looking at more like 6% average over that term.

The Leafs would also never consider signing him to a deal that ends at his first available UFA year so 4 would be out. A bridge would be 2 or at most 3 years...anything else would have to be taking up at least a year or two of UFA eligibility to make it worth their while agreeing to.

Add to that the potential for a CBA lockout in a few years...

 

[Kin]

Except none of his comparables are getting 8% average over the 8-year term of their contracts (except perhaps for Draisaitl). For him to fall in line with them he'd have to be looking at more like 6% average over that term.

But I think that's sort of the point. The rest of those guys probably won't make the annual 8% but that's probably a factor in why all of them except Draisaitl signed for less than 8 years. 

 

[Hobbes]

Except none of his comparables are getting 8% average over the 8-year term of their contracts (except perhaps for Draisaitl). For him to fall in line with them he'd have to be looking at more like 6% average over that term.

But I think that's sort of the point. The rest of those guys probably won't make the annual 8% but that's probably a factor in why all of them except Draisaitl signed for less than 8 years.

Sure, as a player you'd want to sign for 4 years for as much as you possibly could. Your agent is going to have a tough time with that, though, and if you have NHL aspirations you're a bit behind the 8-ball at this juncture in your career. He could bet on himself, sign a bridge deal at around 5-5.5 and have somewhat more leverage next time around when he's arbitration eligible; or he can get the term and stability of a longer term contract in the 6-8 year range and be paid for giving up some UFA years, but not at the earning potential he *could* get *if* he's as good as he thinks he is.

The whole bridge/term equation is a bet by the player vs a bet by the team as to how good that player will be.

 

[Bill_Berg]

I just threw 4 out without checking RFA years remaining. Point was that other players signed for current cap hit % only, presumably, but maybe Nylander is taking longer because he's paying more attention to avg % over the course of the contract. And both sides want that 8-year deal.

If I were an agent/player I would definitely be saying, yeah if I sign for 8% now for 8 years, that's a bad deal for me in the last couple years. Look how much the cap is growing every year! I want that taken into consideration. Hence let's talk about avg % cap hit.

 

[Coco-puffs]

Interesting conversation here gentlemen.  One thing that sticks out is almost ALL of the conversation surrounds him re-signing on a long term deal.  (ie 6-8 yrs).

Mirtle posted this on twitter and at first I thought 4M was laughably low for a bridge deal:

https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/1040274244716904449

But upon further reflection, maybe it isn't entirely out of line.  If William Karlsson only got 5.25M on a one year deal, maybe Willie's 1 yr price starts with a 4.  However, 2-3 years at a 5M is equivalent to Kucherov's bridge deal.

If the options on the table are 2-3 years at say 5M or 6 years at 6.5M, I'm definitely leaning towards the long term deal even if the cap savings over the next two seasons will be helpful (mostly next year).  But man, it will probably come back to bite you when its time to sign his next deal.  And, if you are Nylander... maybe you just take the bridge deal when you see Kucherov getting 9.5M for the next 8 now? 

 

[Kin]

Sure, as a player you'd want to sign for 4 years for as much as you possibly could. Your agent is going to have a tough time with that, though, and if you have NHL aspirations you're a bit behind the 8-ball at this juncture in your career. He could bet on himself, sign a bridge deal at around 5-5.5 and have somewhat more leverage next time around when he's arbitration eligible; or he can get the term and stability of a longer term contract in the 6-8 year range and be paid for giving up some UFA years, but not at the earning potential he *could* get *if* he's as good as he thinks he is.

The whole bridge/term equation is a bet by the player vs a bet by the team as to how good that player will be.

No, I'm with you on that. What I think is sort of an interesting wrinkle in this situation is the cap situation the Leafs figure to be in next year specifically. Nylander may want a 8 year deal at a high AAV but the Leafs might be thinking that they're better off getting a smaller AAV sort of however they can while still keeping Nylander happy.

So that's where the Leafs might prefer a shorter term deal. Not because they have doubts about Nylander as a player long term but because it gives them some immediate breathing room and 4 or 5 years of Nylander at a decent cap hit while punting of the problem of giving him the deal he wants.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Sure, as a player you'd want to sign for 4 years for as much as you possibly could. Your agent is going to have a tough time with that, though, and if you have NHL aspirations you're a bit behind the 8-ball at this juncture in your career. He could bet on himself, sign a bridge deal at around 5-5.5 and have somewhat more leverage next time around when he's arbitration eligible; or he can get the term and stability of a longer term contract in the 6-8 year range and be paid for giving up some UFA years, but not at the earning potential he *could* get *if* he's as good as he thinks he is.

The whole bridge/term equation is a bet by the player vs a bet by the team as to how good that player will be.

No, I'm with you on that. What I think is sort of an interesting wrinkle in this situation is the cap situation the Leafs figure to be in next year specifically. Nylander may want a 8 year deal at a high AAV but the Leafs might be thinking that they're better off getting a smaller AAV sort of however they can while still keeping Nylander happy.

So that's where the Leafs might prefer a shorter term deal. Not because they have doubts about Nylander as a player long term but because it gives them some immediate breathing room and 4 or 5 years of Nylander at a decent cap hit while punting of the problem of giving him the deal he wants.

Next year is going to be a tough one cap wise. Getting Nylander with a low cap hit for next year specifically is definitely a factor.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Interesting conversation here gentlemen.  One thing that sticks out is almost ALL of the conversation surrounds him re-signing on a long term deal.  (ie 6-8 yrs).

Mirtle posted this on twitter and at first I thought 4M was laughably low for a bridge deal:

https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/1040274244716904449

But upon further reflection, maybe it isn't entirely out of line.  If William Karlsson only got 5.25M on a one year deal, maybe Willie's 1 yr price starts with a 4.  However, 2-3 years at a 5M is equivalent to Kucherov's bridge deal.

If the options on the table are 2-3 years at say 5M or 6 years at 6.5M, I'm definitely leaning towards the long term deal even if the cap savings over the next two seasons will be helpful (mostly next year).  But man, it will probably come back to bite you when its time to sign his next deal.  And, if you are Nylander... maybe you just take the bridge deal when you see Kucherov getting 9.5M for the next 8 now?

The bite after next year may not be as bad though.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Not Leafs-related, but talking about holdouts around the league...
https://twitter.com/SportsnetSpec/status/1040240025600851968

As I've seen pointed out, $300k for 2 years is the exact amount of Eric Gryba's buyout that didn't need to happen at all.

 

[disco]

We all know Willy's awesome and we want him here forever. And we all know it's all about that cap cheese. Only so much to go around. It's about more than points I'd argue, Willy was on Auston Matthews' right side almost the entire time he's been in the league. A fine place to be for amassing those points. I think Dubie's shrewd enough to make all the contracts work long-term. We shall see.

 

[Hobbes]

Sure, as a player you'd want to sign for 4 years for as much as you possibly could. Your agent is going to have a tough time with that, though, and if you have NHL aspirations you're a bit behind the 8-ball at this juncture in your career. He could bet on himself, sign a bridge deal at around 5-5.5 and have somewhat more leverage next time around when he's arbitration eligible; or he can get the term and stability of a longer term contract in the 6-8 year range and be paid for giving up some UFA years, but not at the earning potential he *could* get *if* he's as good as he thinks he is.

The whole bridge/term equation is a bet by the player vs a bet by the team as to how good that player will be.

No, I'm with you on that. What I think is sort of an interesting wrinkle in this situation is the cap situation the Leafs figure to be in next year specifically. Nylander may want a 8 year deal at a high AAV but the Leafs might be thinking that they're better off getting a smaller AAV sort of however they can while still keeping Nylander happy.

So that's where the Leafs might prefer a shorter term deal. Not because they have doubts about Nylander as a player long term but because it gives them some immediate breathing room and 4 or 5 years of Nylander at a decent cap hit while punting of the problem of giving him the deal he wants.

Dubas was just interviewed on Leafs Lunch and made it clear that the Leafs want Nylander signed long term rather than bridge so this suggests that either they're (so far) unable to agree upon a number or else Nylander wants to bet on himself by taking a short term deal in order to get to a higher dollar contract sooner. (I suppose the third alternative is Dubas BSing in the interview, though he could easily have said "not going to talk about it, period" instead.)

 

[Kin]

Dubas was just interviewed on Leafs Lunch and made it clear that the Leafs want Nylander signed long term rather than bridge so this suggests that either they're (so far) unable to agree upon a number or else Nylander wants to bet on himself by taking a short term deal in order to get to a higher dollar contract sooner. (I suppose the third alternative is Dubas BSing in the interview, though he could easily have said "not going to talk about it, period" instead.)

Well, that or the third alternative is that "long term" is kind of a vague term that can apply to a 4 or 5 year deal if short term just means a year or two.

 

[Hobbes]

Dubas was just interviewed on Leafs Lunch and made it clear that the Leafs want Nylander signed long term rather than bridge so this suggests that either they're (so far) unable to agree upon a number or else Nylander wants to bet on himself by taking a short term deal in order to get to a higher dollar contract sooner. (I suppose the third alternative is Dubas BSing in the interview, though he could easily have said "not going to talk about it, period" instead.)

Well, that or the third alternative is that "long term" is kind of a vague term that can apply to a 4 or 5 year deal if short term just means a year or two.

Sure, and perhaps that's the major sticking point...the exact number of years of term vs AAV...the longer the Leafs want that to be, the more it's likely to cost them.

 

[Frank E]

Indeed and an especially eagle-eyed observer might have somehow sussed that was the entire working premise of the post you were responding to:

Really, why wouldn't you ask for that?  This is a negotiation after all.  If you think you are worth 7 or 7.5M and you know the team is coming in at Ehlers/Pastrnak numbers (6M-6.6M), you'd probably start above 8M.

So the answer to why 8 and not 10 is because in the hypothetical it is equidistant on Nylander's part and the team's part to what Nylander thinks the deal ultimately should be.

This goes back to what I was saying in that you need to have some justification for your position, to show that you're being reasonable.  If they feel as though they can justify the $8, in this hypothetical, and they're being reasonable, then go for it.  Where I'm coming from is if they don't really have much evidence to ask for $8, and they're just asking $8 so that they can settle at $7ish, then the $8 ask won't likely be seen as reasonable, which can create issues for the other party...this might very well be what's going on, as I'm sure we can agree that not having Nylander at camp isn't ideal for Nylander or for the Leafs.

If he feels he's worth 8 and he asked for 8 then his ask wasn't just acceptable, it's leaving him no room to negotiate. I don't negotiate for a living but even I know you should probably start out a little higher than what you ultimately would agree to.

Not necessarily, often times negotiations are about sharing your justification for your position, and barring the other party sharing information that would entice you to lower your expectation, you hold firm.  I'd say since this is Dubas' first big deal of the big 3, he might very well be advised to follow this sort of strategy since he might want to be consistent with how he deals with the next 2.

Then, again, one might infer that at issue is a disagreement about what constitutes a "very high" number in this case, rather than the assumption that the people negotiating Nylander's contract aren't quite as savvy as you think they should be.

For the 3rd time, I don't really know what the problem is, and I can only assume that there's a significant distance between the 2.  So I'd say, in this case, that neither side has done a very good job of negotiating, since the current state of things is that Nylander is missing some valuable pre-season work with his teammates. 

Dubas has mentioned that he shared a vision with Tavares on where the team is going, and specifically said that they'd re-sign the big-3.  I'm wondering if maybe Dubas was a little over-confident in that he'd be able to get each of them to sign reasonable deals to keep the band together.  Like I said, the current situation isn't ideal for either party.

 

[Kin]

This goes back to what I was saying in that you need to have some justification for your position, to show that you're being reasonable.  If they feel as though they can justify the $8, in this hypothetical, and they're being reasonable, then go for it.  Where I'm coming from is if they don't really have much evidence to ask for $8, and they're just asking $8 so that they can settle at $7ish, then the $8 ask won't likely be seen as reasonable, which can create issues for the other party...this might very well be what's going on, as I'm sure we can agree that not having Nylander at camp isn't ideal for Nylander or for the Leafs.

See, this is why I tend to think that most agents, and indeed a lot of NHL front office types, tend to be from legal backgrounds rather than business backgrounds. "Justification" here or "reasonable" are floating points. A decent enough Lawyer would be able to find "justification" for anything short of outright lunacy. In these sorts of negotiations if you want to make a case for something, you probably can. That's why I think it's more about strategy than a "just the straight facts" sort of thing. Get enough Lawyers together and facts can be pretty malleable especially if "reasonable" really refers to a range of numbers rather than a specific target. 

Not necessarily, often times negotiations are about sharing your justification for your position, and barring the other party sharing information that would entice you to lower your expectation, you hold firm.  I'd say since this is Dubas' first big deal of the big 3, he might very well be advised to follow this sort of strategy since he might want to be consistent with how he deals with the next 2.

You're responding here to a post you've already responded to so in lieu of repeating my own response to you I'd say that from what I've read about pro sports negotiations in my life, which is a fair amount, I'd say it's very very rare for these negotiations to ever be conducted where the sides are unwilling to move at all from an initial position.

For the 3rd time, I don't really know what the problem is, and I can only assume that there's a significant distance between the 2.  So I'd say, in this case, that neither side has done a very good job of negotiating, since the current state of things is that Nylander is missing some valuable pre-season work with his teammates.

I think that's like watching a marathon at the 20 mile mark and thinking nobody's done a very good job because not a single runner has won the race yet. I'm not personally convinced that the time Nylander might miss is all that valuable and if the end result is that either Nylander or Dubas get something they otherwise might not have then the negotiation will still ultimately be successful in their eyes. 

 

[Frank E]

I think that's like watching a marathon at the 20 mile mark and thinking nobody's done a very good job because not a single runner has won the race yet. I'm not personally convinced that the time Nylander might miss is all that valuable and if the end result is that either Nylander or Dubas get something they otherwise might not have then the negotiation will still ultimately be successful in their eyes.

I don't agree.  I think since camp has started, and players are all contractually obligated to attend, that this is the end of the race. 

You may not feel that camp is very important, but obviously every NHL club feels as though it is, and they mandate attendance.  Will it have a bearing on the overall result of season?  Probably not, but it's certainly not the time to still be negotiating. 

I think the time to get something they might have otherwise not gotten was something that should have been accomplished a couple of days ago.  Today, I'd say these negotiations have been unsuccessful, given he's not at work when everyone else is.  Dubas hasn't been successful in convincing the Nylander camp that his offer of employment is a good one, in time for Nylander to be at work on-time.

 

[Coco-puffs]

Ian Tulloch posted a really good analysis of RFA's being signed after camp has begun. 

https://theathletic.com/524175/2018/09/14/as-an-rfa-william-nylanders-going-to-be-underpaid-but-the-longer-talks-go-on-the-more-undervalued-he-will-be/

TL;DR;  Typically, it always ends up working out in the teams favour.  Cases in point:  David Pastrnak, Johnny Gadreau, Richard Rakell, Hampus Lindholm

So, when Dubas said they were going to be patient in their negotiation strategy, its probably entirely to drive down the price knowing the best deals get signed late into September/October