Reminder - contracts with new agent are under review - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

JiriHrdina · 12-16-2006, 11:25 AM

Just a reminder that as with new GMs, the league does review contracts with our new agent, and will reject them if they are not fair.

Whats not fair?

- A front line player taking a pay cut and less years on a new contract for no reason
- A pending UFA taking a pay cut

Please do not try to take advantage of a new agent, because it won't happen. The contracts will get rejected and you will have wasted your time.

Be fair with your negotiations and it will pay off long-term.

Antithesis · 12-16-2006, 11:59 AM

Grant, out of curiousity, is this saying that some GMs have been sending in unfair offers or just a pre-emptive kind of thing?

If it's the former ...

Kipper3256 · 12-16-2006, 12:01 PM

Yes, they have been sending unfair offers. They should now be aware that the price of those guys is going way up as they have taken advantage of me. One person even lied about that if a Player gets a NT clause the price should go down a lot.

Antithesis · 12-16-2006, 12:09 PM

Well, that happened with one of my players (Stumpel) .. I think its more a situational thing. That being said, I can't believe some of the GMs in the league here are short-sighted enough to send in crap offers ... er ... well .. then again, maybe I can ...

Hanna Sniper · 12-16-2006, 12:19 PM

I happen to think that Dany Heatley 3yr for 0.50M is a fair deal if I accept the NT 1way part of the deal

JiriHrdina · 12-16-2006, 02:05 PM

There are specific situations where a contract decrease maybe warranted. When we see these contracts we typically ask the agent to clarify why they are accepting the pay cut. If they can explain the reasons and they make sense we process them.

But in the case of a new agent, that doesn't understand the ins and outs of the league or hasn't been through an off-season to see what type of contractgs are awarded, we will more than likely reject any contract that includes a pay decrease.

OILFAN #81 · 12-16-2006, 02:23 PM

I'm assuming some of this has to do with the contract offers I sent in. Bates is signed for 3.12 M this year and is going to be a UFA. His production has gone way down in the NHL so I proposed a 2.8 M per year extension. I don't think that's unfair. Bates was a 50 pt player, then dropped to 40 pts, then 30 pts, and now he will be lucky if he hits that. If someone is dumb enough to pay 4+ M for him then that's their perogative but I don't think that contract was unfair in the slightest.

The Forsberg one I didn't see a problem with that one either considering what other offers around the league get processed for getting a pay cut for no reason. He is signed for 9.9 M and I offered 7.9 M with a NT clause (same years). I've seen alot of GM's do the same things on contracts and in one case a pay cut happened where there wasn't any benefit (not a no trade clause, no difference in years, etc and a whole bunch of people wanted to b*tch about it but didn't want people's feelings to be hurt. I wish those people would say something now and back me up on this because to go from 9.9 to 8 M and add a NT clause isn't unfair.)

EDIT: "One person even lied about that if a Player gets a NT clause the price should go down a lot".

Noone lied to you. I said adding a NT clause could make up for going from 9.9 to 8 M, same years. I don't have a problem with you, or with you calling me out but if you are going to call me out, atleast get the facts right.

Mango · 12-16-2006, 02:47 PM

I was just wondering if agent Kipper3256 can be contacted through MSN?

Noops · 12-16-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kipper3256

...if a Player gets a NT clause the price should go down a lot.

In essence a NTC should be straight forward in that a player is taking a reduction in salary to make sure they get to stay where they are for the remainder of the contract. From what i've seen over the past year, adding a NTC to a deal on average warrants a price deduction in salary. 2M seems about right to me.

OILFAN #81 · 12-16-2006, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noops

In essence a MTC should be straight forward in that a player is taking a reduction in salary to make sure they get to stay where they are for the remainder of the contract. From what i've seen over the past year, adding a NTC to a deal on average warrants a price deduction in salary, 1.5M - 2M seems about right to me.

Thank you!

That's what I was saying! (thanks for backing me up!)

MJK · 12-16-2006, 03:02 PM

I say it is up to the agent to decide what they want to do and the league should stay out of it. If not, it could easily get out of hand.

The league is stepping in and watching new deals with Kipper but when will it stop? Will it ever stop? Is this the beginning of the league stepping in more and more with other agents as well?

I am not sure I like where this is going at all.

OILFAN #81 · 12-16-2006, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJK

I say it is up to the agent to decide what they want to do and the league should stay out of it. If not, it could easily get out of hand.

The league is stepping in and watching new deals with Kipper but when will it stop? Will it ever stop? Is this the beginning of the league stepping in more and more with other agents as well?

I am not sure I like where this is going at all.

Exactly!

Very good point. Thanks for backing me up.

MJK · 12-16-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

Exactly!

Very good point. Thanks for backing me up.

Well I ran into a problem a few months ago. Martin and I agreed on a contract for Doug Weight that took a month or more. The contract was based on certain stipulations that martin and I agreeed on. At that time there was no rule saying we couldn't do it yet the league veto's the deal and wouldn't let the new contract go through. I am pretty sure that was the first contract that was ever rejected. Since then and in only a few months we are seeing the league stepping in more and more.

I know a lot more GM's agree with me when I say the league should really let the agents do what they want becuase they need to play the game too!

OILFAN #81 · 12-16-2006, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJK

Well I ran into a problem a few months ago. Martin and I agreed on a contract for Doug Weight that took a month or more. The contract was based on certain stipulations that martin and I agreeed on. At that time there was no rule saying we couldn't do it yet the league veto's the deal and wouldn't let the new contract go through. I am pretty sure that was the first contract that was ever rejected. Since then and in only a few months we are seeing the league stepping in more and more.

I know a lot more GM's agree with me when I say the league should really let the agents do what they want becuase they need to play the game too!

Yeah I couldn't agree with you more. But it's ok the deal is off the table from my end. I just wanted the other gm's to hear my side of it bc it made me look like I was the "bad guy" in all of this when I was making a totally fair deal. It seems all the ones who i've talked to agree with me on the matter. The deal is void from this end now anyways.

Beerfund · 12-16-2006, 03:24 PM

The league always reviews deals when new GMs are involved. This is the same situation. I applaud the commishes in their efforts to help maintain the integrity of the agent process. I'd be more concerned if the league did not monitor a new agent. I for one do not understand the agents motivation to add a NT clause. Unless we have changed the way agents compete, its ultimately about the money.

MJK · 12-16-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beerfund

The league always reviews deals when new GMs are involved. This is the same situation. I applaud the commishes in their efforts to help maintain the integrity of the agent process. I'd be more concerned if the league did not monitor a new agent. I for one do not understand the agents motivation to add a NT clause. Unless we have changed the way agents compete, its ultimately about the money.

The problem here is that this is the first time an agent has been watched and his contracts reviewed. I can't remember this happening before.

We need consistency or a set of guidlines to follow. As it stands right now, it is all over the place and unrealistic.

OILFAN #81 · 12-16-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beerfund

The league always reviews deals when new GMs are involved. This is the same situation. I applaud the commishes in their efforts to help maintain the integrity of the agent process. I'd be more concerned if the league did not monitor a new agent. I for one do not understand the agents motivation to add a NT clause. Unless we have changed the way agents compete, its ultimately about the money.

Oh I definately appreciate everything the commish's do for the league in terms of trying to get everything fair and running smoothly. I think Grant, Kris, Jeff, etc do an amazing job, that's never been an issue and never will be. But if NT clause's can't be brought into a contract to ensure the player stays with the team for their remaining contract (and in turn bring the contract down by a little), what's the point of having them in the first place?

Noops · 12-16-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJK

We need consistency or a set of guidlines to follow.

I think what Grant said at the beginning of the post, are the only guidelines we need other than possibly changing the way Agents make money.

Antithesis · 12-16-2006, 03:50 PM

I definitely understand wanting to protect new GMs and agents from bad deals, but after reading the details, I'm not sure it's super unfair. That being said, Grant's original posting didn't place any statement about deals being rip-offs, maybe just decisions made without all the needed information.

Neil, I hardly believe the offers you made make you out to be a rip-off artist; while I understand the situations are different, on reflection, I gave Stumpel a 2 year extension with a NTC that took 3.5 million off his deal. You've been great for the league, my 2006 offeason mate, and I think we all know that your offers to both fellow GMs and agents are balanced and fair.

OILFAN #81 · 12-16-2006, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antithesis

I definitely understand wanting to protect new GMs and agents from bad deals, but after reading the details, I'm not sure it's super unfair. That being said, Grant's original posting didn't place any statement about deals being rip-offs, maybe just decisions made without all the needed information.

Neil, I hardly believe the offers you made make you out to be a rip-off artist; while I understand the situations are different, on reflection, I gave Stumpel a 2 year extension with a NTC that took 3.5 million off his deal. You've been great for the league, my 2006 offeason mate, and I think we all know that your offers to both fellow GMs and agents are balanced and fair.

Thank you very much for your thoughts on the matter and backing me up!