[Signing] Avs sign O'Reilly (2yrs, $6mil AAV)

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by Stanley

Maybe I missed something, but what's O'Reilly's beef with playing in Colorado? Why all the holding out? I mean, I realize the team was a mess and basically tanking it a while back but seems like a fairly desirable place to play with an up and coming young talented team, no?

I think he just has a good agent?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

Note the bold. He's as good as gone, IMO, after all the contract squabbles. Wouldn't be surprised if he was traded before that contract expires.

I bet he plays out the 2 years in CO. That big contract is going to be tough to move for cap teams, and I doubt young teams are going to want to deal for a pending UFA; even if they pre-agree on an extention, it probably depresses ROR's value. These days, you only see big contract for big contract deals... I think the writing on the wall here is ROR plays out his 2 years in CO then leaves via UFA.

[Bandwagon Surfer]

Originally Posted by Stanley

Maybe I missed something, but what's O'Reilly's beef with playing in Colorado? Why all the holding out? I mean, I realize the team was a mess and basically tanking it a while back but seems like a fairly desirable place to play with an up and coming young talented team, no?

Why does holding out have to be about not wanting to work there? It seems perfectly valid to me that it could just be a negotiating strategy to get a better wage.

As an employee it is pretty stupid to leave money on the table when negotiating your compensation. In the end it is business, when is comes down to it your employer will make a decision based on what is right for the business regardless or what is best for you. Employees need to realize that and treat their employers the same way, looking out for themselves first.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

I think he just has a good agent?

He should be cutting 10% to Feaster as well as his agent

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by Lanny'sDaMan

Finally. Now all the "ROR as a Flame" talk can be put to rest.

Until he becomes a UFA in two years.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Stanley

Maybe I missed something, but what's O'Reilly's beef with playing in Colorado? Why all the holding out? I mean, I realize the team was a mess and basically tanking it a while back but seems like a fairly desirable place to play with an up and coming young talented team, no?

My guess is that he thought he was worth more than Colorado did prior to 2012-13 and took it personally when they didn't agree. Neither side moved at all during that holdout. This time around, it looks like both sides are resigned to the fact that the Avs have his rights for two years at most. The contract reflects that.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

Why does holding out have to be about not wanting to work there? It seems perfectly valid to me that it could just be a negotiating strategy to get a better wage.

As an employee it is pretty stupid to leave money on the table when negotiating your compensation. In the end it is business, when is comes down to it your employer will make a decision based on what is right for the business regardless or what is best for you. Employees need to realize that and treat their employers the same way, looking out for themselves first.

In my opinion it should be give and take. A deal that is fair for both parties. Hockey is a bit different than a regular job. Taking more money for yourself leaves less money for the team and ultimately the success of the team on the ice should be the priority for everyone. Players should get what they deserve but at the same time I think there should be a strong consideration for the team. $6 million seems fair but it seems like O'Reilly wanted 7+ which to me seems a bit greedy. Just my take.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yeah I was going to say the fact that they got him to sign a two year deal makes him a much more attractive trade target. As for the Flames I don't see the point in trading for him at this stage of their rebuild as he's not going to help get the Flames in the playoffs over the next two years and he would be more valuable to the team when they are starting to turn the corner which will likely be after this contract expires.

I don't get that logic. The flames should be collecting good young talent any time they can. It's not like he's a vet that you want as the final piece of the puzzle. Get him now while his value is relatively low - big contract, bad blood. Will need to give up a good prospect or two e.g. Baertschi + Granlund but good/great player > good prospect(s). There's enough depth in the Flames base to do a few upgrades line this.

(Note I don't think Baertschi + Granlund is the right deal, just picking a couple of names that people would think are overpayment when in fact rafts what it takes to get the next tier of player. Assuming you believe I'really is the next tier)

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I don't get that logic. The flames should be collecting good young talent any time they can. It's not like he's a vet that you want as the final piece of the puzzle. Get him now while his value is relatively low - big contract, bad blood. Will need to give up a good prospect or two e.g. Baertschi + Granlund but good/great player > good prospect(s). There's enough depth in the Flames base to do a few upgrades line this.

(Note I don't think Baertschi + Granlund is the right deal, just picking a couple of names that people would think are overpayment when in fact rafts what it takes to get the next tier of player. Assuming you believe I'really is the next tier)

I'd have to agree that trading for him at this point doesn't make sense. We would have him for two years where were likely not going to make the playoffs and then we risk losing him after that for nothing. I also think it would take quite a bit more than Baertschi and Granlund.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Hackey

In my opinion it should be give and take. A deal that is fair for both parties. Hockey is a bit different than a regular job. Taking more money for yourself leaves less money for the team and ultimately the success of the team on the ice should be the priority for everyone. Players should get what they deserve but at the same time I think there should be a strong consideration for the team. $6 million seems fair but it seems like O'Reilly wanted 7+ which to me seems a bit greedy. Just my take.

Sure, in theory.

But who decides what is fair and what is 'leaving some for the team'?

Maybe $7m is fair and he did just that.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Hackey

I'd have to agree that trading for him at this point doesn't make sense. We would have him for two years where were likely not going to make the playoffs and then we risk losing him after that for nothing. I also think it would take quite a bit more than Baertschi and Granlund.

The GM should be trying to upgrade talent on the team every single day. If they get a chance take it they might not get it again. Two years is a long time. Team moves in the right direction, he gets a great role, likes the city and his teammates maybe he stays. If not sell him at the deadline. Risk yes but I want the GM to take risks. Holding on to prospects is also a risk. Proven talent/best player in the deal is the better path

Edit: obviously you don't take a truly stupid deal to do this

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Sure, in theory.

But who decides what is fair and what is 'leaving some for the team'?

Maybe $7m is fair and he did just that.

I think 7 is steep for O'Reilly at this point and it seems the Avs did too based on the contract and Sakics comments. Seeing as he's had contract disputes twice now I think he's more concerned with maximizing his money than he is with giving a discount. Both contracts he got paid pretty nicely so that's how I read it.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The GM should be trying to upgrade talent on the team every single day. If they get a chance take it they might not get it again. Two years is a long time. Team moves in the right direction, he gets a great role, likes the city and his teammates maybe he stays. If not sell him at the deadline. Risk yes but I want the GM to take risks. Holding on to prospects is also a risk. Proven talent/best player in the deal is the better path

Edit: obviously you don't take a truly stupid deal to do this

He should be trying to upgrade the team but not at the expense of the future. The goal is to win the cup. That's almost guaranteed to not happen over the next two years. The return you'd get at the deadline would be nothing compared to what you'd have to give up now. Vanek deal comes to mind. If you can land him without giving up Monahan, Bennett, Gaudreau, 2015 1st sure but I doubt Colorado even starts negotiating without one of those pieces included. Gio could probably get it done but if were trading Gio Id want much more guarnatee than 2 years of service.

[edslunch]

I agree with the last part - you only do it if you trade quantity plus cap to get better quality. But why are we so sure every player will bolt the minute they get to UFA? A risk sure but the GM should be confident about building a team players want to be on

[cowtown75]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yeah I was going to say the fact that they got him to sign a two year deal makes him a much more attractive trade target. As for the Flames I don't see the point in trading for him at this stage of their rebuild as he's not going to help get the Flames in the playoffs over the next two years and he would be more valuable to the team when they are starting to turn the corner which will likely be after this contract expires.

Erick, the guy is 23 ! Not even close to his prime. In 2 years he's only 25. This guy is a heart and soul player who is gonna put up points, be a leader. Not help the rebuild at this time ??? Anytime you get a chance to get a guy like this- no matter what stage your team is at, you go for it ! Even the Oilers would be a better team with him. Yikes !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Hackey

I think 7 is steep for O'Reilly at this point and it seems the Avs did too based on the contract and Sakics comments. Seeing as he's had contract disputes twice now I think he's more concerned with maximizing his money than he is with giving a discount. Both contracts he got paid pretty nicely so that's how I read it.

Based on some recent contracts, I don't think $6.5m is at all unreasonable for him.

As for the bold, the exact opposite could also be said: based on two contract disputes, it looks like the Avs don't appreciate him and are unwilling to treat him fairly.

Not trying to start an argument here, just pointing out that there are two sides and judging O'Reilly simply because they can't agree is pre-mature, IMO.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Based on some recent contracts, I don't think $6.5m is at all unreasonable for him.

As for the bold, the exact opposite could also be said: based on two contract disputes, it looks like the Avs don't appreciate him and are unwilling to treat him fairly.

Not trying to start an argument here, just pointing out that there are two sides and judging O'Reilly simply because they can't agree is pre-mature, IMO.

Just seems odd that if the issue is with the Avs why is O'Reilly the only player having these disputes?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Just seems odd that if the issue is with the Avs why is O'Reilly the only player having these disputes?

yeah, fair enough

edit: Stastny

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I agree with the last part - you only do it if you trade quantity plus cap to get better quality. But why are we so sure every player will bolt the minute they get to UFA? A risk sure but the GM should be confident about building a team players want to be on

It's not a guarantee but you can't just be blind to it either. It's a very realistic possibility. Looks like he will be bolting Colorado first chance he gets and that's a quality young team. He will have 30 teams and cities to choose from. That's a very enticing situation. I just think it's not worth it at this stage of the rebuild to make such a risky move.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Just seems odd that if the issue is with the Avs why is O'Reilly the only player having these disputes?

The owner of the Avs, Stan Kroenke, has a reputation of being cheap:
http://angryofislington.com/2013/05/...-sports-clubs/

“The Avalanche roster had been gutted of some of its top players because of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement which forced cutbacks in contracts. Subsequently, the team dropped into mediocrity for the next few years, bottoming out in 2008-09. The management essentially blew up the team and went with young players who were on entry-level contracts and journeymen who didn’t command high salaries. At that time, ‘Kroenke is cheap and that’s why the team is losing’ became a common theme among fans.” I’m a novice when it comes to the finer points of the NHL’s structure, but Cheryl goes on to explain that Kroenke played safe by not paying big wages after the lockout and the team hasn’t really recovered since. Next I asked her whether she thought he put the team before his own business interests. “No I don’t,” she scoffed. “He took over the team to make money and build his sports business portfolio. He is not, nor ever has been a hockey guy.”

So where did it all go wrong? “One of the franchise’s biggest weaknesses is in renegotiating contracts. They do little of it. Instead they say, ‘This is our offer. Take it or leave it.’ If players push for more money they are either not re-signed or traded. There was a time when the Avalanche didn’t need to negotiate with players; the team was so successful that players vied for an opportunity to play in Colorado. Despite the allure of the Avalanche wearing off, management still approach contracts in the same way. It’s hurting the team, even if some of the choices they’ve made may have been the right ones.”