Friedman: Gaudreau negotiations will be put on hold during World Cup

[jaikorven]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

In business deals that I'm negotiating, I don't just compromise and "meet in the middle" when negotiations come to a halt.

There's a reason that I'm at the position I am: because that's what my company can afford. In this instance, the Flames can't afford a higher cap hit because other players need to be signed. Meeting in the middle with Johnny would be dumb because the Flames hold all the leverage.

If the party I'm negotiating with doesn't meet me at my position, I walk away from the deal. I won't give things away cheaply. If Johnny wants something above and beyond market value, well you bridge him and then say goodbye.

I also do negotiations in my job and to suggest that you make your offer and don't do any compromise is the exact opposite. Negotiations are to compromise until a deal is reached. If no compromise is ever made on one side or both for that matter, then one party must cave and take the one and only offer made or the deal never comes to fruition. This usually turns into legal action or a nonstarter. The parties have no legal route to take, so you, in my opinion, would just have Johnny sitting, not playing and eventually moving on. This is where Johnny does have some leverage in the negotiation.

[Rick M.]

I too have done some negotiating. What employers and unions present as a 'final offer' often isn't as both sides tend to leave some wiggle room. Also, we don't know what the sticking point is. It could be something like bonus structure with the main deal already decided, for all we know.

[polak]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Small rumour I have come across. Not sure if I believe it but....was told the sticking point between signing a new contract is not so much the money but that Gaudreau's agent wants to negotiate a percentage or royalty fee for every jersey sold with Gaudreau on the back. There apparently is no real rule about this and I don't know if any players have this stipulation in their contract, but teams and players can negotiate merchandise royalties if they wish. Just a little Orange Julius on this fine morning!

I'm pretty sure this is part of the CBA and is an NHLPA matter. Not something to be negotiated on a player by player basis.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by jaikorven

I also do negotiations in my job and to suggest that you make your offer and don't do any compromise is the exact opposite. Negotiations are to compromise until a deal is reached. If no compromise is ever made on one side or both for that matter, then one party must cave and take the one and only offer made or the deal never comes to fruition. This usually turns into legal action or a nonstarter. The parties have no legal route to take, so you, in my opinion, would just have Johnny sitting, not playing and eventually moving on. This is where Johnny does have some leverage in the negotiation.

You negotiate up to your final position. Of course you compromise during negotiations, and you look for concessions from the other party.

But once you've reached your final position, and the negotiation has come to a stalemate (which this one kind of appears to have) then you don't just say screw it and meet in the middle. That means you still had more to give away and that wasn't your final position.

If the Flames have drawn a line in the sand, they should stand by it. All the concessions should have been made by this point in the negotiation.

If you value a home you are about to purchase at 500k and after a few rounds of offers the seller is insisting on 520k, do you just cave and offer 510k? You obviously value the house at 510k then and 500 wasn't your final position and you had an extra 10k kicking around. The seller will naturally think that you still have more to give, and if he's smart, he'll continue insisting on 520k, and not just cave.

Market conditions dictate who has the leverage in real estate, and the CBA dictates who has the leverage in the Flames-Johnny deal.

Flames have the leverage.

[442scotty]

Going to be interesting to see what he signs for... Some teams would be willing to give him stupid money like Kane and Toews but I'm sure he's realistic and knows that in the big scheme of things the Flames cannot do that nor should they... Nothing wrong with holding on till the last second hoping to get as much as you can get.. I doubt the Flames would be trying to lowball him and be disrespectful just because he has little leverage

[jaikorven]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

You negotiate up to your final position. Of course you compromise during negotiations, and you look for concessions from the other party.

But once you've reached your final position, and the negotiation has come to a stalemate (which this one kind of appears to have) then you don't just say screw it and meet in the middle. That means you still had more to give away and that wasn't your final position.

If the Flames have drawn a line in the sand, they should stand by it. All the concessions should have been made by this point in the negotiation.

If you value a home you are about to purchase at 500k and after a few rounds of offers the seller is insisting on 520k, do you just cave and offer 510k? You obviously value the house at 510k then and 500 wasn't your final position and you had an extra 10k kicking around. The seller will naturally think that you still have more to give, and if he's smart, he'll continue insisting on 520k, and not just cave.

Market conditions dictate who has the leverage in real estate, and the CBA dictates who has the leverage in the Flames-Johnny deal.

Flames have the leverage.

First I misunderstood your take on this and I agree with you on when you would final offer and that the compromises come during the negotiations to a point that you are comfortable with your side of the offer. I also get what you are saying regarding the Flames having the leverage in this, but I don't agree that they hold all the leverage. To have all the leverage they would have the power to force him to play. There is no contract and if Johnny feels strong enough on his stance the Flames could lose the ability to have him in the lineup.

[Strange Brew]

I think it's wrong to say Flames have ALL the leverage. Although they clearly have more options than the player does currently, if they want a long term deal them the player has some leverage.

Flames don't win if he leaves as a UFA at first opportunity. And it is difficult to get fair value in a trade involving g a star player.

[FlamesAddiction]

Just because a team has leverage, it doesn't mean that they should exert it as forcefully as possible. This team needs a happy Gaudreau playing at his best if they are going to succeed. The fact Gaudreau is arguably the best player on the team gives him a tonne of leverage.

We don't want to hurt that relationship to the point that he wants out and hurts his value as an asset. And we don't want to deter other college players from signing with the Flames knowing that the second contract is going to be hell.

Without knowing what each side wants, it's silly to say who should compromise.

[nik-]

But if the guy is pushing for a contract that is going to limit the team in the future when other people are going to have to get paid too, who's hurting the relationship?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by nik-

But if the guy is pushing for a contract that is going to limit the team in the future when other people are going to have to get paid too, who's hurting the relationship?

I think it's unrealistic to expect a player to take less than market value because of a particular ideal internal salary structure. Other teams are able to do it. It would be nice if they did, but if they don't, it shouldn't be taken personally. Pay them or trade them. It's easier to trade a player from your roster when the salary crunch happens than it is to have to trade one specific player because they are holding out or demanding a trade.

It's the curse of the salary cap era, but you have to live in the now. Teams like Chicago and LA always seem to be able to find away to wiggle through it when the time comes. If you keep worrying about contract negotiations that won't happen for a few more seasons, you will probably never build a team that can succeed in the moment.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by nik-

But if the guy is pushing for a contract that is going to limit the team in the future when other people are going to have to get paid too, who's hurting the relationship?

I was listening to the Marek podcast and they were talking about getting paid and how it can handcuff the team (they were talking about McDavid not Gaudreau, but same concept applies),

Marek was arguing that it shouldn't be of concern of the player if the GM can't build a winning team. Wyshnyski was arguing that its better to take a discount and have better players sign etc.

I don't know if there is a right answer to the question.

[nik-]

Well regardless if it's on the player or not, it's something the Flames need to adhere to to have a deep team. It's not hurting the relationship to manage a hockey team as if it's more than one player.

[saillias]

I keep circling back to this idea and I really think it needs to be discussed.

Are millenials to blame for Gaudreau still being unsigned?

[cam_wmh]

you forgot the green font

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I was listening to the Marek podcast and they were talking about getting paid and how it can handcuff the team (they were talking about McDavid not Gaudreau, but same concept applies),

Marek was arguing that it shouldn't be of concern of the player if the GM can't build a winning team. Wyshnyski was arguing that its better to take a discount and have better players sign etc.

I don't know if there is a right answer to the question.

It's a tough question to ask yourself as a star player. If you truly knew your team was going to play that way with everyone and try to build a contender with a bunch of "we're in it for each other!" players that sign reasonable deals, then it's great.

What if you're a superstar who signs for $7mil/yr instead of $8.5, then the next season your GM takes your savings and goes and pays a lesser player $8mil (which could be like $15-$20mil over the life of the deal) to try to push your team over the top?

In theory that's great because you have another star player you may not have had but players are still human and that could sting a little.

[jayswin]

I think the real life comparisons are pretty apt. If you were at work and your boss said "Man, you're a great employee, but the team would be so much better if you took $55k instead of $75k".

Then you did it, and next month Jim walks in and says "Yeah, they headhunted me from company X for $65k, any ways looks like you'll be my boss, nice to meet you".

Not a perfect comparison obviously, but the point is players are human and just because their salaries are beyond our comprehension doesn't me they're not prone/entitled to the same feelings and aspirations as us in terms of career earnings.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by jayswin

It's a tough question to ask yourself as a star player. If you truly knew your team was going to play that way with everyone and try to build a contender with a bunch of "we're in it for each other!" players that sign reasonable deals, then it's great.

Not to mention Gaudreau isn't eligible for a NTC for the first 5 years. Take a paycut, get traded...I mean it's a business afterall.

Gaudreau should do what's best for him. The Flames should do what's best for the Flames. You hope that overlaps enough for them to reach a deal.

But the idea of taking less so you can have players like Engelland making 3M on your bottom pairing instead of some 1M, similar quality player? Meh, not that appealing. Not to mention that 99.999% of people advocating for athletes to take less to help the team would never take less to help their company.

[FlamesAddiction]

Like every other team that has been successful since the Cap came in, you pay them now and then deal them for youth and picks when things need re-structuring.

No GM in the league will be able to set theoretical structure now that will still be the same in a few years when other contracts are up. Unless you have a crystal ball, you don't know what players will be doing by that time or who might get injured. Or what prospects will emerge.

Pay him now and worry about it later. Chicago, LA, and Pittburgh have all had to deal with it like that. The Flames will be the same if we are lucky.

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Not to mention Gaudreau isn't eligible for a NTC for the first 5 years. Take a paycut, get traded...I mean it's a business afterall.

Gaudreau should do what's best for him. The Flames should do what's best for the Flames. You hope that overlaps enough for them to reach a deal.

But the idea of taking less so you can have players like Engelland making 3M on your bottom pairing instead of some 1M, similar quality player? Meh, not that appealing. Not to mention that 99.999% of people advocating for athletes to take less to help the team would never take less to help their company.

That only applies if they signed Engelland to his deal AFTER Gaudreau makes his sacrifice. Remember, Engelland was signed at a time we wanted to make sure we reached the cap floor.

That being said, if they were to re-up with Engelland next year for the same $, then I would agree with you 100%.

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I think the real life comparisons are pretty apt. If you were at work and your boss said "Man, you're a great employee, but the team would be so much better if you took $55k instead of $75k".

Then you did it, and next month Jim walks in and says "Yeah, they headhunted me from company X for $65k, any ways looks like you'll be my boss, nice to meet you".

Not a perfect comparison obviously, but the point is players are human and just because their salaries are beyond our comprehension doesn't me they're not prone/entitled to the same feelings and aspirations as us in terms of career earnings.

The two biggest problems I have with that comparison is:
- going from 75k to 55k is almost a 33% discount. We are talking what for Johnny... 10%ish?
- and more significantly, at 55k/75k, you are dealing with numbers that are actually close to the numbers that families need to provide for themselves. Compare that to 7M, which is now just about ego and providing for your kid's kids'.