HNIC: Nylander officially on the trade block

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I thought he gave Gaudreau bad advice, which cost Gaudreau a decent start to his year after missing camp, and I think the same about his aadvice to Nylander, which will at a minimum result in a trade and might lose him millions of dollars that won't be recouped if he misses a season.

He misread Treliving and I think he's done the same now with Dubas.

I disagree. His job is to get his client the max contract possible in this situation. I don't think he cared about how it would affect the start because that would be after the contract had been signed. That's just collateral damage and year one of a long term deal. The players performance really doesn't matter after the contract is signed, at least not until later in the contract when the player is being showcased for the next contract.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

He's already cost Nylander close to $2.5M this season - will his hardball negotiating recoupe that over the term of this contract?

He's also about to get Nylander traded off of what appears to be a perennial Cup contender for the next decade.

You think the agent is responsible for all this? The player and his father have no part?

OK then.

And no, Gross is not the reason he will be traded. That is simply a by-product of the salary cap and having Marner, Matthews and Tavares all part of the team.

[sureLoss]

Just 1 more day, and we can stop talking about this for a while.

Frank Seravalli @frank_seravalli
#Flyers are believed to be among the teams Kyle Dubas has connected with in recent days as he makes the rounds for “last call” on William Nylander. Not sure there is a fit, or how involved they were prior to regime change, but Dubas and Holmgren did chat.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

I disagree. His job is to get his client the max contract possible in this situation. I don't think he cared about how it would affect the start because that would be after the contract had been signed. That's just collateral damage and year one of a long term deal. The players performance really doesn't matter after the contract is signed, at least not until later in the contract when the player is being showcased for the next contract.

That's a very narrow view of the agent's job and also a failure of basic math. A loss of $6-7M for a year, when his rights will still be held by Toronto and his next contract negotiation will be harder after that is not "getting the max contract".

Agents advise players on every aspect of their career, not just signing a contract. They advise players of the long term consequences of a particular contract (bridge versus medium term versus max). There are examples of players getting rid of agents because the advice wasn't good, even though they got a contract that superficially looked good.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Percentage of the cap didn't mean as much back then, the true superstars on cup contenders made the money, Lecavalier($10m) Crosby($9) Malkin($9) Ovechkin($9)..etc. the rest got scraps.

Toews and Kane's 2nd contracts were signed mid way thru the 09-10 season, they both got off to a great starts and the team was in first place. they finished with 88 points(Kane-9th) and 76 points (Toews 35th) Not only did the eye test show these two drove the team after winning the cup it proved a great move locking them up for $6.3 a few months before the cup win.

Maybe it's just me being biased but the eye test on Draisaitl is such that he should hand McDavid half of his salary. He's truly a 50 point player on his own.

They were signed December 2, 2009. Kane was a point-per-game player but still 25th in scoring at the time. Toews had missed time already that year and had 15 points in 20 games. And it's reasonable to assume the bulk of the contract was discussed in the off-season or prior, it wasn't like 15 points got him a significant jump. The Hawks were also 6th in the league at the time. So it wasn't like Toews was killing it and obviously going to be leading them to a Cup.

But even forgetting Toews and Kane then, we still have players like Vanek and Phaneuf and a whole lot of others.

I'd also disagree about your "scraps" argument. In 2009 the Flames included, it just looks like that because the cap has increased over 40%:

Iginla 7M (9.9M)
Jokinen 5.25M (7.4M)
Langkow 4.5M (6.35M)
Cammalleri 3.5M (4.9M)
Bertuzzi 1.95M (2.7M)
Phaneuf 6.5M (9.17M)
Regehr 4M (5.64M)
Aucoin 4M (5.64M)
Sarich 3.6M (5.08M)
Warrener 2.35M (3.31M)
Vandermeer 2.3M (3.24M)

[Geeoff]

I just don't see how it behooves a developing player to miss a whole year and yet here we are.

[Samonadreau]

I know its been mentioned already, but is the deadline midnight tonight or sometime like noon tomorrow? (assuming ET)

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

I know its been mentioned already, but is the deadline midnight tonight or sometime like noon tomorrow? (assuming ET)

5pm ET December 1

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by transplant99

JG didn't lose a dollar and in fact may have gotten the most from the Flames that he could have.


As for WN you can be sure his father is a factor in all this and possibly the biggest.

We will see if he lost JG a dollar. He didn't get max term. If, god forbid, Johnny blows a knee in this contract, or suffers a sever downturn in play, he loses a couple years that could have made him more money. Or maybe Johnny gets to an even higher level without the missed camp - he did go at less than the PPG he had the year before and the year after. That 61 point year is kind of a sore thumb halfway through his contract.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That's a very narrow view of the agent's job and also a failure of basic math. A loss of $6-7M for a year, when his rights will still be held by Toronto and his next contract negotiation will be harder after that is not "getting the max contract".

Agents advise players on every aspect of their career, not just signing a contract. They advise players of the long term consequences of a particular contract (bridge versus medium term versus max). There are examples of players getting rid of agents because the advice wasn't good, even though they got a contract that superficially looked good.

I never said that's his only responsibility as an agent. But in a contract negotiation, how many goals a player scores in year one is not important because the next 5 years after will have much more to do with the valuation on the next deal. The scoring in year one is collateral damage of the holdout.

The reference to failure at basic math, if you're referencing the lost salary due to the holdout, can be cured in salary structure on the new contract. The lost salary due to the holdout can easily be recouped with a low annual salary with the remainder coming in the form of signing bonus in year one.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

I just don't see how it behooves a developing player to miss a whole year and yet here we are.

Do you know what he's been offered (honest question)?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

I never said that's his only responsibility as an agent. But in a contract negotiation, how many goals a player scores in year one is not important because the next 5 years after will have much more to do with the valuation on the next deal. The scoring in year one is collateral damage of the holdout.

The reference to failure at basic math, if you're referencing the lost salary due to the holdout, can be cured in salary structure on the new contract. The lost salary due to the holdout can easily be recouped with a low annual salary with the remainder coming in the form of signing bonus in year one.

You said that the agents' job was to get max salary in this situation. I say it's to maximize the player's career earnings. But, yeah, we'll see if the "new contract" can cure a $6-7M hole. I doubt it. If he's traded he can't get 8 years. And signing bonuses count towards the cap, so the answer's not there. He has to achieve a $7M+ increase on whatever he gets in his next contract over and above what he was offered this year. He also runs the risk of going and getting hurt in Russia.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You said that the agents' job was to get max salary in this situation. I say it's to maximize the player's career earnings. But, yeah, we'll see if the "new contract" can cure a $6-7M hole. I doubt it. If he's traded he can't get 8 years. And signing bonuses count towards the cap, so the answer's not there. He has to achieve a $7M+ increase on whatever he gets in his next contract over and above what he was offered this year. He also runs the risk of going and getting hurt in Russia.

If he is traded...why cant the receiving team sign him to 8 years? I haven't heard that.

As for the bolded...cap room for the Leafs is not an issue this year, so in theory he can sign a 7 million dollar a year deal today and still receive the full amount for this season if 3 million of the salary is written in as a signing bonus.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Do you know what he's been offered (honest question)?

You can sort of figure it out through the report that they are $300K apart, plus what Pasternak and Gaudreau got (let's leave Leon out of this). I'd think the offer is around $7M.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You said that the agents' job was to get max salary in this situation. I say it's to maximize the player's career earnings. But, yeah, we'll see if the "new contract" can cure a $6-7M hole. I doubt it. If he's traded he can't get 8 years. And signing bonuses count towards the cap, so the answer's not there. He has to achieve a $7M+ increase on whatever he gets in his next contract over and above what he was offered this year. He also runs the risk of going and getting hurt in Russia.

I agree that losing a year sitting out is not recoupable and quite stupid. But sitting out for a part of the season shouldn't cost Nylander anything due to structuring the contract strategically.

I also thing that most players who are 21-22 want a deal that is 6 years instead of the 8. It's strategic to hit UFA at 27-28 instead of 30. This maximizes career earnings because they should be able to land a massive deal like Tavares did. Those two years younger seem to massively inflate that final contract.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

I agree that losing a year sitting out is not recoupable and quite stupid. But sitting out for a part of the season shouldn't cost Nylander anything due to structuring the contract strategically.

I also thing that most players who are 21-22 want a deal that is 6 years instead of the 8. It's strategic to hit UFA at 27-28 instead of 30. This maximizes career earnings because they should be able to land a massive deal like Tavares did. Those two years younger seem to massively inflate that final contract.

And i doubt Nylander cares about cap hit. He should only be worried about actual dollars, so signing bonus is exactly how to remove the lost wages from the holdout.

[CroFlames]

The player unequivocally loses in this situation two-fold.


He's already lost a decent chunk of change by sitting out almost 1/3 of the season, so anywhere between $2MM and $2.5MM. He stands to lose a total of $6-8MM depending on what the eventual contract is if he doesn't sign in the next 24hrs.



He's lost out on 1/3 of the season worth of development, practice and coaching. He stands to lose a whole season of development because of this contract dispute.


I do not see the upside for the player to hold out over the reported $300k per season, when he stands to lose much more. Does his old man not realize the NHL is a salary cap league now?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The player unequivocally loses in this situation two-fold.


He's already lost a decent chunk of change by sitting out almost 1/3 of the season, so anywhere between $2MM and $2.5MM. He stands to lose a total of $6-8MM depending on what the eventual contract is if he doesn't sign in the next 24hrs.



He's lost out on 1/3 of the season worth of development, practice and coaching. He stands to lose a whole season of development because of this contract dispute.


I do not see the upside for the player to hold out over the reported $300k per season, when he stands to lose much more. Does his old man not realize the NHL is a salary cap league now?

Again that can easily be covered with a signing bonus as part of the salary....but only this year (as far as the Leafs go anyhow)

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by transplant99

If he is traded...why cant the receiving team sign him to 8 years? I haven't heard that.

As for the bolded...cap room for the Leafs is not an issue this year, so in theory he can sign a 7 million dollar a year deal today and still receive the full amount for this season if 3 million of the salary is written in as a signing bonus.

Only the team re-signing can do 8, a free agent signing is 7, so I guess it depends on whether the team trades him and the new team signs him or signs him first and then trades him. I think that's how it would work.

I know cap room isn't an issue this year. But I'm assuming no one is talking about a one year deal. And the Leafs would be crazy to give him that much on a one year deal and pay him a huge signing bonus for not playing over 1/4 of the season. My assumption on the lost income is that he loses this year and signs a contract next year. So he loses, say, $7M that he has to somehow make up over the next contract term. That would require a huge increase.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Only the team re-signing can do 8, a free agent signing is 7, so I guess it depends on whether the team trades him and the new team signs him or signs him first and then trades him. I think that's how it would work.

I know cap room isn't an issue this year. But I'm assuming no one is talking about a one year deal. And the Leafs would be crazy to give him that much on a one year deal and pay him a huge signing bonus for not playing over 1/4 of the season. My assumption on the lost income is that he loses this year and signs a contract next year. So he loses, say, $7M that he has to somehow make up over the next contract term. That would require a huge increase.

I assumed that if he is traded as a RFA, the team he goes to IS the re-signing team. I think your scenario only applies to UFA but i could be completely wrong.

And i understand, and agree, that if he doesnt sign today, he is giving up a bunch of money he cant get back. Depending what he can get in the KHL/where ever, it could be 4 or 5 million.