Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
I can understand taking the money, I can understand taking a discount to play at home. But this doesn't seem to be either. I have to think that Gaudreau's camp completely misplayed the whole situation, because absolutely nothing about this seems optimal for a guy who was in a spot to at least get the best from something.
Left a lot of money on the table. Moved closer to home but not close to home. But on top of all that if the structure of the deal is as reported, it makes even less sense. Take a discount and you should be able to dictate about as many parts you want. Front loaded, signing bonuses, better trade/movement clauses to ensure as much control as possible, getting as much money early as possible to make any decisions down the line easier but also making any trades near the end more manageable for teams when it comes to dealing with the money aspect. So giving up money and flexibility while seemingly having to settle on location leaves me thinking that they just messed up. How could this be the best deal for a player like this?
I have to think that they thought offers would be higher by walking away from the Flames and their 8 year deal. That somebody was going to be offering in the $10.5-11M range as well, but the offer and/or location never came. That the best that was left was the Columbus deal (and at that point it's 'only $750K for seven year deals as the difference between a Calgary offer, in which case the discount for location makes more sense, but only because the gamble for money didn't pay out).
It seems like a case study in failing to maximize your value during a negotiation.
|
Seems like the decision was based on lifestyle.
One year of his salary and realistically he wouldn’t have to work again.