[Rumour] Bruins having contract problems with Pastrnak

[FireGilbert]

A right winger like Pastrnak would be the missing piece in the Flames forward group and if it turned out his contract demands are, like Hamilton's, a ploy to get out of Boston I would be okay with a package featuring Bennett and Fox.

I don't think Boston would go for it though. If they are once again going to trade another young start over contract demands they will want an established player included in the return such as Duchene or Faulk.

[Itse]

Even though it's Boston, I really don't see a trade happening here.

[Cheese]

I wonder if this exact article is playing in Boston with Bennet's name on it?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by SebC

Re: Bennett vs. Pastrnak



21-year old RFA coming off his ELC vs. 21-year old RFA coming off his ELC

Both are young and cost-controlled. One is just anticipated to be more expensive because he's better. Heck, the value of the discout you get on an RFA should increase as the player's value increases because the value of the discout should be the value of the draft picks required to make an offer sheet.

Save

We'll just have to disagree on who is better, because I think this book is not yet fully written. Points is not the best measure of the efficacy of players as opportunity is not always the same. We are quite uncertain what Bennett is right now because the Flames made a commitment, a very painful commitment to the fans, to turning Bennett into a center. It could have been easy to shift Bennett to the wing and let him gain the benefit of his linemates' play. But the Flames recognized they drafted one of the best centers in his draft class and that is what they believe he will be - a center ice man. They have made this commitment because they see long term benefit to the investment of letting him develop at the toughest position on the ice, rather than riding shotgun with the two best players on the forward lines and racking up points. You win with depth, and you win with depth up the middle.

People fall in love with guys who put up points way too quickly. Draisaitl is the best example, but Pastrnak is a close second. Both were cast in exceptionally beneficial roles when it comes to scoring points. Both were played on the top lines of their respective team, and both played with top centers in the game. Neither had any worries of playing a two way game and could focus on one thing - scoring points. Now both are expecting big paydays, when it is uncertain if this performance is their own or a result of their situation. Are they really all they are cracked up to be, or are they more Devin Setoguchi or Tomas Hertl? We may not find out immediately with Pastrnak, but the Oilers are expected to move Draisaitl to the second line. I wonder what people are going to say when his production plummets and he's still a defensive liability out there? He's going to have to learn the game the way Bennett has, or he's going to be a long term disaster, like so many overrated Oilers.

I like the guy, but I'm still extremely skeptical of Pastrnak. I would not want to be paying him the kind of scratch he is demanding without a little more certainty about the player he is going to be. If I'm paying $6M+ I want a guy that can a helluva lot more than ride shotgun with the team's best players. I want a guy that can drive the play and not be more of a passenger who succeeds because of the talent of his linemates. If Pastrnak can do that, then I have no problem paying that money and comfortable losing one of my other players. Without that confidence, I think you run the possibility of buying high on a player who may not maintain that level of play, and selling low on a guy who has better days ahead of him.

One last thing to consider about the acquisition of Pastrnak is the immediate impact and long term he is going to have on the cap situation and salary structure. You bring in Pastrnak, the acquisition cost is going to be high. You're losing players to bring him in. People accept that. What is missing is the loss the team is going to feel when it comes to future contracts. With Pastrnak on the books for $6M+ that guarantees Backlund is unsignable. That is another player gone within the year, and the guy you hope to backfill that loss was traded to get Pastrnak. All of a sudden you're down another player from the roster and that depth you hoped to build was cut out from under you in one acquisition and contract extension. Just another angle to think about when you consider trading for someone with a big salary. I suspect this is why Treliving has stayed away from deals like that.

[IgiTang]

If Bennett could put it all together, he would be a force.

But the Gilmour comparison I still don't quite see, but you can see the determination and desire, just not the will, yet.

I cringe at the thought of moving a Fox or a Dube, but reality is that Bennett, Fox and Dube aren't the player that Pasternak is, today.

They may become that quality of player but they are not yet, obviously.

But if Boston is Gavin. Troubles signing him and the acquisition cost is that of a Bennett and Fox or Dube, or all 3 for example, Boston considers it.

This is not a case of mortgaging the future either. The Flames have some great prospects in the system and to add a top flight RW who is proven, is a huge add.

Reality is, the Flames are set on D for a few years and Fox may consider this a huge obstacle for his path to the NHL, especially if Andersson or Kylington or both make the jump to the NHL in the next 2-3 years.

Instead of looking at it as a today trade, how would it impact the big picture.

I don't think moving a Bennett + Fox( who may go UFA when all is said and done, and if I were him I would strongly consider it) hurts the Flames future.

Janko becomes the next up and coming Center and in 3-5 years Ruzicka or someone else may step up.

I think Brad has to seriously consider trying to make a move for Pastrnak.

[dissentowner]

This is no different than the Gaudreau situation we had last year. The Bruins are going to sign him, it is just a question of when. Chia is not the GM anymore.

[Captaincanada80]

Pasternak doesn't really seem logical for couple of reasons.

Acusition cost: At minimum it costs you 3 blue chip pieces. He is a sure bet #1RW starting his career. If I'm Boston my ask is Bennett, Fox/Killington/Valmski plus 1st maybe more.

Salary: if the rumours of him being in the neighbourhood of LD's ask. Your looking at an AAV of 7+ Calgary can't fit that in unless you find a taker for Brouwer and have to move Bennett.

I'd rather see the flames make a mid-year move

Perhaps Winnipeg falls off, goes in a different leadership direction and trades Wheeler who has 2 years left. Cap hit is more manageable in the 5-6 range and accusition cost is more reasonable.

[MissTeeks]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/d...ontract-talks/

As quickly as it popped up, Monday’s David Pastrnak trade rumour is being shot down by both sides.

“Not trading Pastrnak,” Boston Bruins general manager Don Sweeney emailed the Boston Globe Monday night.

J.P. Barry, Pastrnak’s agent, also addressed his client’s contract situation with the Globe Tuesday.

“We will continue to negotiate — we still have lots of time,” Barry wrote in an email to the newspaper. “David prefers to sign a longer-term deal with the Bruins.

“The negotiations between myself and Don have been very open and both sides understand each other’s positions. Hopefully we can agree on an overall structure that is amenable to both sides in the next month.”

[SebC]

Originally Posted by New Era

With Pastrnak on the books for $6M+ that guarantees Backlund is unsignable.

I don't think it does. We have 6M cap space and Bennett unsigned. If we moved Bennett+ for Pastrnak and fit him in this year, next year Stajan and Raymond come of the books and that could be enough for Backlund's raise.

If our cap situation is as dire as you suggest, then should Bennett become a 6M player (after signing a one-year, for instance) then our cap structure would be broken anyways. The way I see it our cap is structured with a bit of dead space that is projected to go to a Bennett raise (so that he doesn't outgrow our cap room) but the effect is that Bennett's effectively blocking off more cap space than his current performance warrants. As such, someone who might be closer to his ceiling could be a better fit.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/d...ontract-talks/

Am I imagining things, or is it always JP Barry's clients that end up sitting out all the time because of contract negotiations?

[activeStick]

After his injury, I believe Pastrnak was playing on a line away from Marchand and Bergeron and continued to produce. This is my recollection anecdotally though and seeing the actual stats would provide a better view, so I'm not sure we can suggest he was a passenger on that top line...

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't think it does. We have 6M cap space and Bennett unsigned.

Our cap space is a little tighter than that. We have $6M in cap space with three players to account for, with Bennett, Kulak, and Wotherspoon left to sign. While two of those players may not be on the roster, two salaries will be, so each of those players matters as what they sign for could count toward the cap hit and affect the budget. As it is, the numbers in question are including Hamilton on a $612K contract. If he gets beat those numbers will shift as well. All of the salaries are in play right now.

If we moved Bennett+ for Pastrnak and fit him in this year, next year Stajan and Raymond come of the books and that could be enough for Backlund's raise.

Okay, so you trade for and sign Pastrnak and are lucky enough to sign him for the Gaudreau contract, or $6.75M over seven years. That means we go into 2018-19 with $62M spent on 14 players. So you go and spend another $6M over five years to sign Backlund. That's $68M spent on 15 players. So now you have $6M to spend on 8 players to fill out the roster. Pretty tight budget. But things get really ugly after that. You go into 2019-20 with just under $59M spent on 11 players, and you now have Ferland, Tkachuk, and Lazar to resign upfront, and no goaltenders signed. So that leaves $15M to sign a dozen players, including Tkachuk. He isn't going to sign or peanuts unless he completely shats the bed the next two seasons.

Budgets are complex and you can't start handing out $6M contracts to every guy that comes along, no matter how much you like them. There's some 3D chess involved in making them work, and young cost controlled players that can contribute throughout the lineup are crucial to the success of the team.

If our cap situation is as dire as you suggest, then should Bennett become a 6M player (after signing a one-year, for instance) then our cap structure would be broken anyways.

Nope, just means that Backlund is traded for futures this season or an up and coming player at a position of need. We'll need the younger cost controlled player moving forward. If Bennett becomes that $6M player, that is a great thing.

The way I see it our cap is structured with a bit of dead space that is projected to go to a Bennett raise (so that he doesn't outgrow our cap room) but the effect is that Bennett's effectively blocking off more cap space than his current performance warrants. As such, someone who might be closer to his ceiling could be a better fit.

Except you have to take into consideration succession planning. What does the depth chart look like and when do players step into given roles. Who are the guys you are investing in long term, and who are the guys you roll out of the system when the time comes. I see Bennett and Jankowski as the long term replacements for Backlund and Stajan. Lazar is a wild card as he could slide into one of those roles as well, depending on his performance. These are the guys that will step in and eat up the ice time of those older guys who price themselves off the team, or just start to fade away.

I don't see a trade for another expensive player because of the way the salary structure looks to be headed. The Flames have some excellent talent they are going to have to pay for in the very near future. You can't keep spending knowing your balloon mortgage is coming due. You need to budget right and prepare. I think Tkachuk and Bennett are core players in the Flames future and they will be treated as such. Treliving will have the budget laid out as to what it will likely cost to get them signed, and he will act on that. I just don't see how another $6M salary fits into the equation.

One last thing in acquiring Pastrnak, the system takes a pretty big hit. Treliving has already sold the next two drafts down the river. That is going to leave a fairly big hole in the pipeline and leave a gap in players that can step in and fill those cost control roles. Also leaves gaps in the depth chart that need to be addressed. You are going to lose two or three major future pieces to get Pastrnak, and then a roster player to cover salary before the end of the season. How is that all going to shake out? Do we have the players/prospects to make up for that gap? Or are we just begging Peter to pay Paul until the summer of 2020 and then beginning a very painful rebuild? We really need to continue developing our own top end young players or we will run into a situation where we can't back fill positions and crush our own longevity as a team.

I don't see the Flames being in on any big contract. If anything I see them dumping a player during the season, looking for a big contract, for a good young guy that will help keep the budget in control while contributing to the cause. Just the way I see it shaking out based on Treliving's work to date and his comments about our own players.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by New Era

If Bennett becomes that $6M player, that is a great thing.

[...]

I just don't see how another $6M salary fits into the equation.

Based on your first statement, trading Bennett for "that $6M player", if not a pipe dream, should also be a great thing. Your second statement largely contradicts your first.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by robaur

I guess you don't watchba lot of Pastrnak so I'll excuse you comparing him to 2 flawed players. Eberle and Kane have the hockey IQ of gummy bears.

Pastrnak is the real deal. If the Bruins trade him away, they would be trading a player capable of putting up Seguin type numbers. He's that good. Think about that.

The Bruins have literally already done this before. In the form of ... Tyler Seguin.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by SebC

Based on your first statement, trading Bennett for "that $6M player", if not a pipe dream, should also be a great thing. Your second statement largely contradicts your first.

Taken out of context it does. Recognizing that there will be two more high salaries on the team in short order as a result of Tkachuk and Bennett achieving their potential, adding yet another $6M+ salary is not sustainable in the salary structure.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't think it does. We have 6M cap space and Bennett unsigned. If we moved Bennett+ for Pastrnak and fit him in this year, next year Stajan and Raymond come of the books and that could be enough for Backlund's raise.

If our cap situation is as dire as you suggest, then should Bennett become a 6M player (after signing a one-year, for instance) then our cap structure would be broken anyways. The way I see it our cap is structured with a bit of dead space that is projected to go to a Bennett raise (so that he doesn't outgrow our cap room) but the effect is that Bennett's effectively blocking off more cap space than his current performance warrants. As such, someone who might be closer to his ceiling could be a better fit.

Bennett's a center so if he warranted $6 million a season it would be logical that he would replace Backlund. Pastrnak isn't a replacement for the 2nd line center and in that scenario we would have to hope Jankowski can make that jump or it's back to the days of poor center depth. I believe a skilled RW is the organization's biggest need (outside of nailing that starting goaltender) but if it costs Bennett in a trade and makes Backlund nearly impossible to re-sign there's no way you can convince me that it would be making the team better especially given that Pastrnak is no lock to repeat last season's goal/point totals.

[Husky]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Bennett's a center so if he warranted $6 million a season it would be logical that he would replace Backlund. Pastrnak isn't a replacement for the 2nd line center and in that scenario we would have to hope Jankowski can make that jump or it's back to the days of poor center depth. I believe a skilled RW is the organization's biggest need (outside of nailing that starting goaltender) but if it costs Bennett in a trade and makes Backlund nearly impossible to re-sign there's no way you can convince me that it would be making the team better especially given that Pastrnak is no lock to repeat last season's goal/point totals.

You say pastrnak is not a lock to repeat last years total. Bennett hasnt even show he is a capable #2 center yet.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by New Era

Taken out of context it does. Recognizing that there will be two more high salaries on the team in short order as a result of Tkachuk and Bennett achieving their potential, adding yet another $6M+ salary is not sustainable in the salary structure.

Considering a Bennett for Pastrnak trade, with the assumption that Bennett grows to that level (such that it's a fair trade, and not one the Flames win), it would soon be two such salaries either way. But I guess we can hope that wizard powers are invoked and we get Bennett long and low, right before his game takes off.

[Wyguy]

Now that Drysaddle has been signed, how long until this guy gets signed and for how much?

[Yrebmi]

Why would Drysaddle signing have influence on Bennett contract?

Edit - ahh you were referring to Pastrnak - who would be a comparable to Dry