Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Jeremy Swayman III- still nothing

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
SwayHeyKid said:
Rask 26. Swayman 25. Both thought of as the future

Most starts in a season. Rask 39. Swayman 43

Rask Vezina placing 5, Swayman 7

Rask 3.5 mil one year deal was his deal before, Swayman 3,475.000 last year

Rask 67 career wins. Swayman 79
Rask 126 starts. Swayman 125 starts

Rask out of this world two rounds in the playoffs , Swayman 1

Rask played on a team that won the Stanley cup 2 springs earlier

Swayman played on a team that was a 7 seed 2 springs earlier

seems like a no brainer to give him the same type deal no? Especially considering Rask played on a serious cup contender and Swayman played on the “infamous HF bridge year”
Click to expand...

- Rask started the majority of the games as the #1 starter ( strike shortened season ). Swayman has not had the reigns as the #1 guy just yet

- Rask's 4th contract was his big one while Swayman is looking for his big payday in his 3rd. And this is probably where the point of contention is - Bruins want to see at least one year where he's the main guy and not part of a platoon and the main reason why I don't see these as comparable. I don't know how far back agents use contracts to drive home their points but it would seem to me going back 12 years seems like reaching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Therewolf31 and PlayMakers
BigBadBruins7708 said:
Using the 2013 season as a starter is a but disingenuous. It was a shortened season where his starter load was only 34 games (out of 48), same as Swayman's load.

Rask had a 5th place finish and Swayman has a 7th, the difference is a handful of votes at that point.
Click to expand...

How is it disingenuous? He was the #1 guy and started 71 percent of the available games. It being a 48 game season vs 82 game season looked like it was irrelevant in negotiations - either the agent convinced the Bruins or the Bruins had seen enough to think Rask could handle being the #1 guy. Rask's signing happened in early July as well, so it looks like there wasn't much convincing that needed to be done. Swayman has never had to work 71 percent of the workload.
 
PB37 said:
- Rask started the majority of the games as the #1 starter ( strike shortened season ). Swayman has not had the reigns as the #1 guy just yet

- Rask's 4th contract was his big one while Swayman is looking for his big payday in his 3rd. And this is probably where the point of contention is - Bruins want to see at least one year where he's the main guy and not part of a platoon and the main reason why I don't see these as comparable. I don't know how far back agents use contracts to drive home their points but it would seem to me going back 12 years seems like reaching.
Click to expand...
Rasks third contract was more than Swayman got paid last year and that was ten years ago

Bruins bet on Swayman being the guy when they traded Ullmark. They should have chosen two years in arbitration if they wanted to see him carry they load but they obviously know he would have played out next year and left

Swayman is and can be the guy and they know it they just want to pay him what they want to pay him
 
SwayHeyKid said:
Rasks third contract was more than Swayman got paid last year and that was ten years ago

Bruins bet on Swayman being the guy when they traded Ullmark. They should have chosen two years in arbitration if they wanted to see him carry they load but they obviously know he would have played out next year and left

Swayman is and can be the guy and they know it they just want to pay him what they want to pay him
Click to expand...

Rask signed that bridge contract with the intention he would be the #1 starter, seeing as Khudobin was inexperienced and unknown what he could do in the NHL at that point.
 
PB37 said:
- Rask started the majority of the games as the #1 starter ( strike shortened season ). Swayman has not had the reigns as the #1 guy just yet

- Rask's 4th contract was his big one while Swayman is looking for his big payday in his 3rd. And this is probably where the point of contention is - Bruins want to see at least one year where he's the main guy and not part of a platoon and the main reason why I don't see these as comparable. I don't know how far back agents use contracts to drive home their points but it would seem to me going back 12 years seems like reaching.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, but this is an argument for a short term 3rd deal, possibly 2 seasons. Then, I factor in the expected pay rate increase due to building additional value by playing well and by inflation of th cap. It seems clear that we are going to be near 12 million to sign this guy as a FA. I believe signing the long-term deal now, is the best value long term even at 8.5-9.5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roll 4 Lines
HustleB said:
I don't disagree, but this is an argument for a short term 3rd deal, possibly 2 seasons. Then, I factor in the expected pay rate increase due to building additional value by playing well and by inflation of th cap. It seems clear that we are going to be near 12 million to sign this guy as a FA. I believe signing the long-term deal now, is the best value long term even at 8.5-9.5.
Click to expand...

12 million... AAV?
 
analyser said:
This does not usually happen with 132 games experience. The only viable option might be to trade him, not ideal but it could happen.
Click to expand...
Happens all the time with RFAs. All over the place. And way more significantly than doubling - i.e. Brock Faber 9x his salary with 84 career games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleRico
PB37 said:
How is it disingenuous? He was the #1 guy and started 71 percent of the available games. It being a 48 game season vs 82 game season looked like it was irrelevant in negotiations - either the agent convinced the Bruins or the Bruins had seen enough to think Rask could handle being the #1 guy. Rask's signing happened in early July as well, so it looks like there wasn't much convincing that needed to be done. Swayman has never had to work 71 percent of the workload.
Click to expand...
IIRC, Rask also played 45 games in 2010. I think that's the year the Bruins upset Buffalo in the first round. Miro the hero?

And in 2013 Rask carried the Bruins to a Cup Final, posting an identical save percent as Tim Thomas (.940). So he had an upset series win and a Cup Final run under his belt when he signed his big deal in July. Rask was probably the comp Vasilevsky used for his deal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BMC, BBruins, Mr. Make-Believe and 2 others
Pastrnak and McAvoy had much more NHL experience when they signed their big contract. Maybe some teams will put out the big money with limited experience but that is not in the Bruins DNA.
 
analyser said:
Pastrnak and McAvoy had much more NHL experience when they signed their big contract. Maybe some teams will put out the big money with limited experience but that is not in the Bruins DNA.
Click to expand...

Pastrnak and McAvoy both played 3 season before they 4x or more their salary.

If the bruins were going to take the same route with swayman they should have given him a deal last year before swayman took them to arbitration
 
analyser said:
Pastrnak and McAvoy had much more NHL experience when they signed their big contract. Maybe some teams will put out the big money with limited experience but that is not in the Bruins DNA.
Click to expand...
Of course they had more games being a defenseman and forward since they play every game which a goalie does not. But the experience level is relatively the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwayHeyKid and HustleB
UncleRico said:
Pastrnak and McAvoy both played 3 season before they 4x or more their salary.

If the bruins were going to take the same route with swayman they should have given him a deal last year before swayman took them to arbitration
Click to expand...
That would of been a smart move.
 
LSCII said:
Are we still clinging to the belief that Sway should sign for $6.5 x 4? :biglaugh:
Click to expand...
Give us your number he signs at, just curious.

My guess is he would have signed already if it was going to be that low. I personally think that's in the ballpark. I say it will come in below the 8M mark per
 
analyser said:
Pastrnak and McAvoy had much more NHL experience when they signed their big contract. Maybe some teams will put out the big money with limited experience but that is not in the Bruins DNA.
Click to expand...

This management group has literally done it before
 
4ORRBRUIN said:
Give us your number he signs at, just curious.

My guess is he would have signed already if it was going to be that low. I personally think that's in the ballpark. I say it will come in below the 8M mark per
Click to expand...
8x9 or 2x7. The two year would have to come with a full NMC
 
BlackFrancis said:
It cannot, per the CBA. The 8 year contract could have 6 years worth of NMC clauses, but not the first two. Neither of the two year seasons would be eligible.
Click to expand...
Yep.

And any GM except maybe Grier (now that Chuck Fletcher is no longer a GM) would know to either give a 1 year or at least 4. A two year deal is a disaster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlackFrancis
4ORRBRUIN said:
Give us your number he signs at, just curious.

My guess is he would have signed already if it was going to be that low. I personally think that's in the ballpark. I say it will come in below the 8M mark per
Click to expand...
I'd be fine with an 8-8.5 x 4 if they could get that kind of deal done. It doesn't look like that's possible given the rumors of their low offers and his higher ask.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4ORRBRUIN
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom