Contracts for the Big-3
- Thread starter Coco-puffs
- Start date
- Status
Kin
New member
Bates said:
Well, there are a few reasons. But for starters, I mean, the idea that Nylander can't just leave isn't technically true. He can't leave for another NHL team, sure, but he could play in Europe.
Which feeds into the next thing. The Leafs are very badly served by just waiting around. Both in terms of just the actual loss of Nylander from the hockey team but also in terms of the distraction it would be for the club and the guys still around going forward. So just "waiting it out" isn't really in their interests. Nylander playing in Europe is much better for Nylander than it is for the Leafs.
Because of that, like I said, the reason offer sheets are rare is because I think the NHL has become so risk averse that teams would match them almost automatically. Teams are very unlikely to be in the situation Boston was with Kessel and now budget for valuable RFA's being a necessary sign because as I mentioned earlier, teams tend to need their impact RFA's more than those RFA's need that specific team.
As a result offer sheets only serve an inflationary purpose for RFA's around the league with no real chance of player movement. If that changed, if teams started thinking that a 1st and a 3rd round pick were more valuable than an RFA worth a 6 million dollar contract, I think you'd see far more offer sheets.
It's like buying anything valuable. If you have a painting that you value considerably more than what people are offering you than eventually offers are going to become rare because you're not selling at the price they're willing(or in the case of RFA compensation, able) to offer. If it becomes known that you're willing to sell, offers would become more common. NHL teams have effectively made it clear that valuable RFA's are not on the market, so teams aren't bothering to make offers.
So Nylander is left with 4 choices, sit out, find a team to sign offer sheet that rarely exists, accept Leafs offer, or go to Europe for probably half of Leaf's offer at best?? The Leaf's season does not depend on Nylander playing. I'm sure they want to sign him but it will be on their terms as the Leafs hold the leverage no matter how you slice it.
Kin
New member
Bates said:
Well, again, it's about the "rarely exists thing". It rarely exists because teams wouldn't hesitate to match them. If the Leafs let it be known they wouldn't match, I think that would change in a hurry. That's the key point here and, as we've already discussed, a team offer sheeting Nylander would put the Leafs in a bad situation where they would have a very tough decision to make.
It's like saying that because nobody tries to buy your house for 15 dollars nobody would want to buy your house for 15 dollars. The lack of offers isn't a reflection of a lack of interest, it's in knowing that the offer wouldn't be accepted.
And while the Leafs season doesn't entirely depend on Nylander, I think it's fair to say that as it stands right now they've got a tough road ahead of them to even get out of their division, let alone get any further than that even if Nylander signs. So significantly weakening your team over a relatively small amount of money probably isn't a decision they want to make either.
But even beyond that, as was discussed earlier in the thread, for all the talk about AAV it's just as likely that this is a disagreement about term.
You are seeming to be arguing with me about things I didn't say?? I don't care why there aren't offer sheets, it only matters to this discussion that it is extremely unlikely Nylander will get one. That leaves him with almost zero leverage to force the Leafs to a contract they aren't comfortable with. The Leafs however can play hockey this season without Nylander and the chance of him ever recovering the lost revenue is slim. The Leafs hold almost all of the leverage. It really is only an offer sheet that can change the leverage.
Nik the Trik said:
Kin
New member
Bates said:
Well, you should care why there aren't more offer sheets because the reason is a direct reflection on the actual power balance between teams and their RFA's. Like I keep saying, offer sheets are only unlikely on the condition that the Leafs would probably match them and so long as Nylander and his agents know that the Leafs would match just about any offer sheet they were to get, it does give them the upper hand in negotiations.
It's why so many players around the league are signing much bigger money second contracts than they used to. It's not because those teams aren't good at negotiating deals, it's because RFA's have that kind of leverage.
Otherwise how do you explain Jack Eichel getting 10 million dollars a year? Because Terry Pegula just loves giving money away? Draisaitl got 8.5 million because Darryl Katz is just such a generous soul?
No. It's because those RFA's had the leverage to negotiate those contracts. The lack of offer sheets is a reflection of the situation, not the cause of it.
Kin
New member
Bates said:
No. I genuinely don't know how much clearer I can make it. The lack of offer sheets is not the cause of the power balance between players and teams. The lack of offer sheets is itself caused by the fact that RFA compensation is so low that teams are effectively forced to match rather than "sell", for lack of a better term, an incredibly valuable asset at a very low price.
Salaries are going up for RFA's because teams recognize their value and the self-defeating nature of trying to nickel and dime them.
So teams are giving in to RFA's because they might have to match an offer sheet that is highly unlikely to happen?? I think I will stick with Buffalo and Edmonton being poorly run teams from the last example. And hopefully Dubas sticks to the number he is comfortable with as there is little Nylander can do about it with little leverage.
Kin
New member
Bates said:
Sweet christmas, no. OFFER SHEETS ARE NOT THE CAUSE. RFA's don't have leverage because of potential offer sheets, RFA's have leverage because they are very good hockey players and very good hockey players are in short supply and teams don't have easy avenues to replace them. Hockey teams also tend to be very risk-averse. What if Nylander sits out all season and, in addition to not signing Nylander being a constant topic of conversation both in the organization and in the media, the Leafs then narrowly lose to Boston or Tampa? Would that look good for Dubas? Would that make Marner or Matthews feel really excited about this management team? Most GMs are not going to choose to make their teams significantly worse to save small amounts of money.
Those are precisely the sorts of scenarios that most NHL GMs desperately want to avoid. That's why deals get signed, that's why the salary structure is what it is. There is no upside in being the team that let their relationship with a very good young player sour and hurt their team's chances as a result.
Zee
Active member
You can cite Draisaitl and Eichel all you want, but those are unique circumstances. Eichel is the only thing going in Buffalo and was the #2 pick overall I'm the McJesus year. Many people panned the Draisaitl contract saying that Chiarell overpayed.Nik the Trik said:
If this RFA leverage is so prevalent, how do you account for the reasonable cap hits of better Nylander comparables like Pastrnak, MacKinnon, Forsberg, Ehlers, Benn and even Gaudreau?
I woukd think it is better for the Management to stick to their plan and ensure they have money to remain competitive rather than giving in to a player who has no leverage. Think more Yzerman and less Chiarelli. The next players up to sign will maybe see the bigger picture and be less what about me. And what small amount?? Today's talk has Nylander asking for $8 million and Leaf's s offer around $6 million.
That's kinda big in a Cap world.
That's kinda big in a Cap world.
Nik the Trik said:
Zee
Active member
On the flip side wouldn't the player want to avoid missing an entire year of NHL money? Is he going to make more playing in Europe? He can try I guess but it'll be to no benefit to him playing against weaker competition and still coming back to the same RFA status in the NHL. The team can afford to go without him, can he afford to miss out on a few million?Nik the Trik said:
Kin
New member
Zee said:
A few things. With a list of guys that long, I'm not entirely sure all of them really work. For instance, take Mackinnon. 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 but above what most people already seem to comfortable with. So is Mackinnon an example of a more reasonable deal? It certainly looks that way after the season he just had but that was still just his first 60+ point season of his career.
Or take Gaudreau. Gaudreau signed for 9.6% of the cap but, fair goes, he had a 78 point season. But, that said, he got way more ice time than Nylander and especially way more PP time. An equivalent deal for Nylander would be 7.6 million.
Beyond that, just about everyone you mention were 60 or so point wingers when they signed their extensions. The Leafs are certainly welcome to try and use their decision to play Nylander on the wing as justification to try and pay him like a 60 point winger but I can't help but think that is a pretty big reason why camp's about to start and they haven't reached a deal.
But beyond that the answer to your question is relatively simple. It's a league with a cap and that cap puts a pressure on players to not maximize their money because it weakens their team. Not every player is going to use their leverage to it's absolute utmost for their own enrichment. We know that's true. We know that Tavares didn't sign for as much as he could have. But just like Tavares signing for 11 million didn't mean he couldn't have gotten more, some of those guys signing for what they did isn't a perfect snap shot of what they could have gotten.
Kin
New member
Zee said:
Well, it's the difference between that threat as brinksmanship and the reality of it. You say the team can afford to go without him but I think in the majority of cases while that's literally true, I think it's a situation that teams would desperately want to avoid and, as a result, a protracted hold out is far more likely to result in a team trading someone in that situation than they are going a whole year with that being an issue for the team.
I just really don't think the sorts of people who run NHL teams are the guys who are going to say "Yeah, our team could be a lot better and without a huge distraction but...man, I've really got to save that 1.2 million".
Kin
New member
Bates said:
Except as we've already noted, deals aren't always a perfect reflection of each other. If Nylander gets 7 instead of 6 it's no guarantee that Marner or Matthews are also going to want a similar adjustment. Tampa was able to talk Stamkos and Hedman into a discount they weren't able to with Kucherov. Not everyone works from the same playbook.
So, again, it's not a huge difference but no matter what Nylander gets the simple truth is that the Leafs are also going to have tough negotiations with Marner and Matthews. Getting them all signed is going to be tricky because they have a lot of leverage. The Leafs can't just go out and replace them.
- Status