BamBamCam
Registered User
Yeah just like Malkin in Pittsburgh.
Player Discussion Jeremy Swayman II - still waiting
- Thread starter Gee Wally
- Start date
- Status
I hope Dr. Quincy doesn't mind my repurposing and reposting my reply from the Out of Town thread,
He is a long-term project who may or may not pan out. The Bruins should and likely will demonstrate the requisite patience to see what they have in this very intriguing young player.
As for Swayman, I am not one for predictions, but he will be signed.
A significant question is whether it will be a long-term deal or one which allows Swayman another crack at a huge payday.
The Bruins clearly believe they have their goaltender of the future (and the present).
But if they sign Swayman to a long-term contract, they will do so knowing he has never played more than 43 games in the regular season. He performed admirably, even brilliantly, in the playoffs. But, he will have to prove himself there, too.
For the record, I think he will be fine in that regard.
If it is a long-term deal with multiple millions and multiple years, don't be surprised if the price tag is a steep one. It's entirely possible that Jeremy could be signed for 9 million X eight years, or even more dough.
However, with the cap continuing to rise each season going forward, a deal like that may eventually prove a bargain, assuming Swayman lives up to his end of it. A contract like the one suggested above may well become the standard, not the exception, for elite (and not so elite) NHL goaltenders in future.
The other route, of course, is a relatively short-term deal that allows the Swayman camp to cash in on another hefty contract at the height of Jeremy's prime playing years.
My preference is for the former approach.
I would rather show Swayman faith in his abilities and leadership with a long-term contract. This would have the added benefit of locking up what we can reasonably assume will be one of the NHL's premiere goaltenders for the bulk of his career.
He's secure, and can concentrate on stopping the puck and becoming the leader and face of the team he is already growing into. The Bruins have their franchise goaltender, and don't have to worry about resigning Swayman for the foreseeable future.
Everyone, in theory, is happy.
Either way, the lad is going to get PAID.
Let's go.
They just drafted Dean Letourneau. I don't mean to be a jerk but they're not going to turn around and use him in a package to obtain goaltending help.
He is a long-term project who may or may not pan out. The Bruins should and likely will demonstrate the requisite patience to see what they have in this very intriguing young player.
As for Swayman, I am not one for predictions, but he will be signed.
A significant question is whether it will be a long-term deal or one which allows Swayman another crack at a huge payday.
The Bruins clearly believe they have their goaltender of the future (and the present).
But if they sign Swayman to a long-term contract, they will do so knowing he has never played more than 43 games in the regular season. He performed admirably, even brilliantly, in the playoffs. But, he will have to prove himself there, too.
For the record, I think he will be fine in that regard.
If it is a long-term deal with multiple millions and multiple years, don't be surprised if the price tag is a steep one. It's entirely possible that Jeremy could be signed for 9 million X eight years, or even more dough.
However, with the cap continuing to rise each season going forward, a deal like that may eventually prove a bargain, assuming Swayman lives up to his end of it. A contract like the one suggested above may well become the standard, not the exception, for elite (and not so elite) NHL goaltenders in future.
The other route, of course, is a relatively short-term deal that allows the Swayman camp to cash in on another hefty contract at the height of Jeremy's prime playing years.
My preference is for the former approach.
I would rather show Swayman faith in his abilities and leadership with a long-term contract. This would have the added benefit of locking up what we can reasonably assume will be one of the NHL's premiere goaltenders for the bulk of his career.
He's secure, and can concentrate on stopping the puck and becoming the leader and face of the team he is already growing into. The Bruins have their franchise goaltender, and don't have to worry about resigning Swayman for the foreseeable future.
Everyone, in theory, is happy.
Either way, the lad is going to get PAID.
Let's go.
BigGoalBrad
Registered User
- Jun 3, 2012
- 10,455
- 3,169
Malkin won a cup quickly there. Totally different. Got one later in his career to justify staying put. Worst pro market in North America and you’re going to stay there your entire career to be a bridesmaid? It’s bad for him and the NHL as well if he doesn’t leave.Yeah just like Malkin in Pittsburgh.
The current CBA expires September 15 2026. I wonder how much impact that may have upon negotiations. What type of changes could take place to contact structures, cap, and such. Lockout protection. The Bruins have been burned in the past with changes to the CBA and lockouts. Typically Boston doesn't like to give lockout protection. Maybe someone could give some speculative possibilities as to what could happen with the CBA and how it could be influencing negotiations between Swayman's camp and the Bruins?
AngryMilkcrates
End of an Era
- Jun 4, 2016
- 17,004
- 27,272
I am surprised I have not seen a thread on the main boards about the framework of a Draisaitl for Swayman deal. Two fanbases with dedicated groups of nervous nellies.
Absurdity
light switch connoisseur
- Jul 6, 2012
- 11,197
- 7,671
ODAAT
Registered User
AngryMilkcrates
End of an Era
- Jun 4, 2016
- 17,004
- 27,272
Well my take has always been that 7 is too little and 9 is too much, so pay him 8 and be done with it. The question is who says no to 8, Sweeney or Swayman?
If Swayman wants 8 and Sweeney wants to pay him 6 then Sweeney’s at fault, and if Sweeney wants to pay him 8 and Swayman wants 10 then Swayman is at fault, and the question becomes does Sweeney go to 9. Or, as is more likely, the reality of the situation is completely different from what I just suggested. Who knows? Certainly not us.
If Swayman wants 8 and Sweeney wants to pay him 6 then Sweeney’s at fault, and if Sweeney wants to pay him 8 and Swayman wants 10 then Swayman is at fault, and the question becomes does Sweeney go to 9. Or, as is more likely, the reality of the situation is completely different from what I just suggested. Who knows? Certainly not us.
Pia8988
Registered User
- May 26, 2014
- 14,492
- 8,995
They don't mention term. If the Bruins are pushing for 8 years, he absolutely should be asking for 10 with the cap rising again.
I think the $10m is BS. If that was the firm ask all along, it seems like we'd still have Ullmark and Sway would have been moved. Pay him that and you've got over 25% of the cap tied up in two guys, one of whom has not proved himself worthy of that kind of contract. Not to mention that Bruins don't have that space and would have to trade a roster player to make it without replacing said player. That is a fast track to Leafland. But, again, it's probably bullshit.
Pia8988
Registered User
- May 26, 2014
- 14,492
- 8,995
He has proved himself. If you want to point to hasn't had a starter load. Well he doesn't control playing time. If the Bruins want to point to that, Jeremy should call up the NHLPA for hte Bruins intentionally sabotaging his negotiations.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
Bingo, 10 was just the starting point knowing it would go down. Same way Im sure the team's first offer on the table started with a 6
The Hockey Tonk Man
Registered User
If the Bruins want him for 8 years, then why would he sign for less than 10 mil? You don't get term and discount. Now if he wants 4/40 yeah, not happening Sway.
RiverbottomChuck
Registered User
No not at all, he and his agent are smart. Ideally his contract is 8/8 in a perfect world for the B's long term but if he can keep a higher ask and end up at 8.6/8 that's an extra 5 million in his pocket for being stingy to the brass for one summer.
I will just have to disagree that he is deserving of being one of the highest paid goalies in the league at this point in his career.
I just think it's all about term. Smartly he should want a 4 year deal lke Shesterkin signed when he was 26, but I'm sure the Bruins don't want him to go right into UFA..If they want max years they are going to have to pay the piper. Why would he leave money on the table years 5-8?
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
Pia8988
Registered User
- May 26, 2014
- 14,492
- 8,995
Number8
Registered User
- Oct 31, 2007
- 18,630
- 18,638
He bought into the old way that players didn’t deserve fair money. He was one of the last holdout GM’s who followed his owner’s orders (fair enough, it’s his boss but you don’t HAVE to work for a given boss) while the rest of the League and GM’s moved on and got ahead. Pity, because we had some good teams then but never, it seems, the final pieces.
He also let his own personal bitterness get into negotiations. In fact he made it a personal battle with the players. And that hurt the team, as well as Harry’s legacy.
Good to great in the early days. Bitter and hurtful in the later days.
Agreed. I'm more interested in term to be honest. Would be great to get him 8/56 but I just think it won't be that easy.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Preliminary Final Port Adelaide Power vs Sydney Swans - SCG, SydneyWagers: 1Staked: $500.00Event closes - 2 days from now- Updated:
-
Preliminary Final Brisbane Lions vs Geelong Cats - MCG, MelbourneEvent closes - 3 days from now
- Updated: