[Signing] Wild sign Kaprizov (5yrs, $9mil AAV)

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm not calling him that but the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can be smart and read up on the COVID/quarantine protocols and still be capable of driving a hard bargain and using sharp tactics in negotiations. It probably helps.

Sharp tactics?

I've never heard leverage described as that before.

That's what good negotiators look for, leverage. There is nothing sharp about it.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

5 years? Why would they take 5 years?

If Calgary could get each for that contract, Trev is spectacular.

While that would be good term for both players, at the end of the day 18 mill for two wingers isn't a good idea.

Not many teams win cups with so much cap at left wing.

At that point, it would make sense to trade one of them.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Sharp tactics?

I've never heard leverage described as that before.

That's what good negotiators look for, leverage. There is nothing sharp about it.

Lawyers say sharp when it's technically legal, but not usually done in a civil negotiation. Like signing a deal with a rival league.

I do a ton of negotiating for a living - you know that right?

[robertsfanatic]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

5 years? Why would they take 5 years?

If Calgary could get each for that contract, Trev is spectacular.

exactly, win-win as long as they play close to their potential.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Lawyers say sharp when it's technically legal, but not usually done in a civil negotiation. Like signing a deal with a rival league.

I do a ton of negotiating for a living - you know that right?

As do I.

Using the KHL as leverage is not sharp practice in any form.

Is it sharp practice if Johnny uses the threat of UFA as leverage in getting a bigger contract? How about he doesn't approve a trade as a means of getting a larger contract?

Absolutely not. He's just using the leverage he has bargained for.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

As do I.

Using the KHL as leverage is not sharp practice in any form.

Is it sharp practice if Johnny uses the threat of UFA as leverage in getting a bigger contract? How about he doesn't approve a trade as a means of getting a larger contract?

Absolutely not. He's just using the leverage he has bargained for.

Well, it was pretty unique for a multi year pro who had no NHL leverage. No offer sheets, no UFA option.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

As do I.

Using the KHL as leverage is not sharp practice in any form.

Is it sharp practice if Johnny uses the threat of UFA as leverage in getting a bigger contract? How about he doesn't approve a trade as a means of getting a larger contract?

Absolutely not. He's just using the leverage he has bargained for.

Signing a contract elsewhere? Yeah.

People who don’t negotiate much have distorted ideas about how professional negotiators typically act. They don’t see it as a competition. They see it as a discussion. It’s about getting to yes, not bending someone over.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Signing a contract elsewhere? Yeah.

People who don’t negotiate much have distorted ideas about how professional negotiators typically act. They don’t see it as a competition. They see it as a discussion. It’s about getting to yes, not bending someone over.

That depends entirely on the circumstances of the negotiation. Sometimes there is no middle ground.

If Johnny uses his leverage of being a pending UFA with perhaps the ability to refuse and trade request to get a huge 8 year $10M contract with a full NMC, someone would suggest that he bent over the Flames. I'd say he simply used his leverage that he bargained for to get his best deal possible.

But I completely agree that negotiation is generally about reaching a consensus.

But in the Johnny case I've presented above (which is based on imaginary facts for discussion purposes), Johnny might believe that if he's to return to Calgary without testing UFA, that's what he needs. It's that or nothing. He doesn't have to negotiate if he strongly believes this is what he wants. For him (in this situation based on the assumed facts), it's this or nothing. It's not about reaching a consensus, it's about him getting his deal.

[Shazam]

So bad Kap hit?