Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Again you are missing the point.
It doesnt matter what I or anyone else "thinks he is worth".
The precedence has been set. Thats how contract negotiations work in the NHL now. Don Meehan is the best agent in the business...not because he gets his guys every last dollar but because he gets them a fair price and keeps both the player and the teams he deals with happy.
So now you have to look around at players of his age, experience, production, intangibles, who are/were RFA etc and see ...what is fair?
Do that and you can come to a number....but that number sure as hell isnt 6.9 a year nor is it 10M a year. Definately somewhere in the middle however....and guess whats in the middle?
8.5M per year
Now you have to figure out term. Well you arent going 4 as that takes him to UFA. He isnt going to 8 as he gives up years of UFA. So you land somewhere between 5-7 and guess whats in the middle?
6.
So 8.5M X 6 years is where, using all the tools available, we land with this guy....in a fair and palatable spot for both sides.
Oh and going hardball holdout/no signing is not good for either side. Make him sit out? How does that advance your team going forward? What did it do for the Leafs and Nylander? What does it say to other players and agents?
If you, personally, don't see MT as being a premier forward in the game moving forward, then yes i understand your position.
If you see him, as i believe the club sees him, as a guy that is on an ascension to among the best in the business, then without question you pay him fair market and get a couple years of UFA while you are at it....everyone is happy.
|
You suggest I am missing some point and then you believe it works like this:
1. settle on cap hit
2. Then settle on term
Not a chance.
Look, I laid out a scenario and asked, given that scenario, what the RFA does You could suspend your disbelief and think it through. I don’t think it was an entirely implausible situation (don’t nitpick about exact numbers, it is the principle)
If I was Tkachuk, and had to choose between a) zero dollars and not playing , or b) a bit less than I want, but playing, I would probably concede to some extent. Because my only other option is throwing away money plus a year of my career where I have a chance to win, by virtue of actually playing .
You can’t say it is an economic decision that affects him life long so he needs too dollar, and then ignore that threatening to hold out means he is threatening to give up many dollars. You can’t have that both ways
And I acknowledge that no, it’s not good for the team to have a holdout, but it is way more risky for the player. Especially on a team where right now Tkachuk is only among the top 5
We will see what happens.