Player Discussion Jeremy Swayman -V - all still silent

[KillerMillerTime]

Hey it wasn't Boston's idea to go to arbitration. Swayman needs to grow the f*** up.

I never saw any value in how Boston handled their end of the arb.

 

[Gee Wally]

Just an observation.

I sometimes wonder that the Salary Cap has produced these type of conversations. Perhaps a byproduct that was unintentionally genius.

Never in my lifetime did I ever think that a Bruins discussion could pivot so extreme from Ownership are cheap bastards to Players are greedy bastards.

Remarkable to me. Not right or wrong. Just interesting.

 

[Bruins4Lifer]

I mean the Bruins could have easily had Swayman at 3.5 this year. They could have taken the two year option and cost Swayman 3-5 million this year. I would say thats doing right by the player.

I believe the team has to tell the arbitrator they are picking a 1 or 2 year prior to award, and the arbitrator comes to a value based on that selection. The 1 year AAV wouldn't have been the same as the 2 year AAV.

 

[Gee Wally]

Three questions and if you answer them correctly you will find out why swayman went to arbitration

1) how much were the bruins offering swayman before arbitration

2) how much cap space did the bruins have to offer swayman

3) how much did the arbiter award swayman

Then tell me which number was higher between 1 and 3 and ask yourself why swayman would go to arbitration

Honestly your point number 2 isnt a valid stance in arbitration. Because teams still have months to get compliant post arbitration.

 

[UncleRico]

Honestly your point number 2 isnt a valid stance in arbitration. Because teams still have months to get compliant post arbitration.

point number 2 wasn’t meant to be relative to arbitration.

Edit: let me rephrase, I’m not talking about what is said in arbitration, I’m talking about what caused swayman to take them to arbitration.

 

[Absurdity]

What percentage of players that file for arbitration stay with their team long-term?

https://thehockeynews.com/news/how-often-do-nhl-teams-and-players-make-peace-following-arbitration

 

[KillerMillerTime]

Just an observation.

I sometimes wonder that the Salary Cap has produced these type of conversations. Perhaps a byproduct that was unintentionally genius.

Never in my lifetime did I ever think that a Bruins discussion could pivot so extreme from Ownership are cheap bastards to Players are greedy bastards.

Remarkable to me. Not right or wrong. Just interesting.

Absolutely, Billionaires fighting Millionaires, they all can appear greedy to Joe 6 pack.

 

[The Un4casted Storm]

Except that during those 4 years, after Shesterkin, Oettinger, Demko and maybe more get paid he'll be closer to 10th.

Ok, and..? All the goalies that would potentially be ahead of Swayman in four years are currently more accomplished than him right now in terms of establishing themselves as starters, playoff success and/or Vezina voting. Teams pay for potential, yes, but they also pay for the certainty that comes from past performance.

If Swayman is as good as he (and many on this board, including myself) thinks he is then he'll leap frog all of them on his next contract after he's established himself as a workhorse number one with (hopefully) a Vezina or two in his pocket and (even more hopefully!) a Stanley Cup and Conn Smythe. That's how the market works.

Personally, I'd rather they lock him up long-term but if they can't agree on the numbers for that sort of contract, I think a four year deal is a good compromise to minimize risk for both sides.

 

[Beesfan]

I never saw any value in how Boston handled their end of the arb.

We don't know what Sweeney said but honestly how bad could it have been? Does anyone believe he got personal with it? Surely not. It was professional critique. Probably cited issues with Swayman's rebound control, week-to-week consistency and the fact that he had no proven he can carry the load as a #1 starter in the NHL. All true. Professionals who make millions of dollars should be able to accept professional criticism.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Price hot even more than Bob.
Lunquist ?
Can give examples on both sides.

point was , not over paying a part time goalie who is 1- 1 in play off rounds is not exactly "poor managing"

Sure when you phrase it like that. But he's not going to be a "part time goalie" moving forward.

I could phrase it "Pissing off and cheaping out on 1 of your top 3 assets while overpaying for a C who is already hurt and who will be on the wrong side of 30 pretty soon, AND trading away a Vezina winning goalie for a poor return that included a bad goalie who makes stupid money for stupid term.IS poor managing."

Potatoes-Tomatoes.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

We don't know what Sweeney said but honestly how bad could it have been? Does anyone believe he got personal with it? Surely not. It was professional critique. Probably cited issues with Swayman's rebound control, week-to-week consistency and the fact that he had no proven he can carry the load as a #1 starter in the NHL. All true. Professionals who make millions of dollars should be able to accept professional criticism.

We agree to disagree.

 

[TD Charlie]

We don't know what Sweeney said but honestly how bad could it have been? Does anyone believe he got personal with it? Surely not. It was professional critique. Probably cited issues with Swayman's rebound control, week-to-week consistency and the fact that he had no proven he can carry the load as a #1 starter in the NHL. All true. Professionals who make millions of dollars should be able to accept professional criticism.

I bolded the important part of your post

Either way, it seems to have played a part in pissing off their goalie, who now seems to have zero interest in doing Sweeney any favors.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

We don't know what Sweeney said but honestly how bad could it have been? Does anyone believe he got personal with it? Surely not. It was professional critique. Probably cited issues with Swayman's rebound control, week-to-week consistency and the fact that he had no proven he can carry the load as a #1 starter in the NHL. All true. Professionals who make millions of dollars should be able to accept professional criticism.

We know it pissed Swayman off.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Except if you let Swayman "be the boss" then the next guy's the boss and the next guy and next thing you know you're in cap hell and can never put together a winning team. It's a downward spiral if you let any player be bigger than the team.

Don let Jimmy Hayes, Mike Reilly, Nick Ritchie, Derek Forbort, Elias Lindholm and Nikita Zadorov be the boss.

Talk about Downward Spirals. We should call him Don Reznor.

 

[Beyonder]

Just an observation.

I sometimes wonder that the Salary Cap has produced these type of conversations. Perhaps a byproduct that was unintentionally genius.

Never in my lifetime did I ever think that a Bruins discussion could pivot so extreme from Ownership are cheap bastards to Players are greedy bastards.

Remarkable to me. Not right or wrong. Just interesting.

Wally, I think one thing that is consistent between the "old days" and today is that Bruins are not looking to be the team that caters to "market setting" contracts.

They have almost always had expensive players making good money, even back to the Sinden/Bourqtue/Neely days. But they were notorious for having the "Ray Bourque cap" and so on. I never thought they were cheap but they were principled to a fault and to their detriment.

In more recent times, they made a lot of hay with all those "team friendly deals" that their top players signed. Since then, things have evolved to where they are now paying players like McAvoy and Pastrnak top dollar. But still only the going rate for star players. Not salaries that exceed what similar players are making.

Now you have Swayman who is talking about securing a salary that advances the cause of future goalies. And LeBrun talking about him not caring whether Saros and Hellyebuck signed for XYZ recently, he wants what he thinks he should get independent of that. So he is apparently looking to push past similar contracts, as LeBrun put it.

The conflict comes from the continuing reality where the Bruins may just not be inclined to do a contract that is beyond the comparables (and I know people are debating what Swayman's comparables are exactly). This looks to boil down to a conflict between the player's objectives and how the Bruins choose to operate, going back a long way.

I have no idea what really has been offered or what Swayman would really accept. But reading between the lines of the most recent reports, it sounds like Swayman would *not* necessarily quickly sign up for a very Saros-like deal, if that is even being offered... and the Bruins may not be eager to go further... and that's why the hold out continues. Question is, on Opening Night or before December 1st, will Swayman blink? Will the Bruins? I don't expect the latter unless "blinking" means they bring the AAV and term up to similar levels to other #1 goalies signed in the past couple years, assuming they are not there yet. Going well beyond that? It just doesn't sound like them.

But to your point Wally, it is easy to see this as the player being greedy if the above is largely true. Won't take a deal similar to what other top goalies are making? That's easy to put on the player. But it aso doesn't make him wrong for trying.

 

[Dr Quincy]

What do you mean never done right by him? I'm no shill for management but IMO this is nonsense. It wasn't Sweeney who took him to arbitration last year, that's all on Gross and his client.

So you think that Dan Vladar, who had played less games than Swayman with MUCH worse stats was a good comp for Swayman? You totally believe that was a 100% honest and fair comparison?

 

[KillerMillerTime]

Sure when you phrase it like that. But he's not going to be a "part time goalie" moving forward.

I could phrase it "Pissing off and cheaping out on 1 of your top 3 assets while overpaying for a C who is already hurt and who will be on the wrong side of 30 pretty soon, AND trading away a Vezina winning goalie for a poor return that included a bad goalie who makes stupid money for stupid term.IS poor managing."

Potatoes-Tomatoes.

He has a winning record in the PO against Carolina and Toronto at 7-5. A losing record at 2-5 against a Florida team that only LV has beaten in 2 years. His GSAE was elite last year. He is a risk worth paying 8.5\8.

 

[smithformeragent]

Just an observation.

I sometimes wonder that the Salary Cap has produced these type of conversations. Perhaps a byproduct that was unintentionally genius.

Never in my lifetime did I ever think that a Bruins discussion could pivot so extreme from Ownership are cheap bastards to Players are greedy bastards.

Remarkable to me. Not right or wrong. Just interesting.

You read my mind.

I started typing something out earlier and got sidetracked.

I don’t think either party is to blame. I think the timing of the situation is awkward. Both the team and the player are sort of beholden to where this contract situation lands in the player’s timeline with regards to the CBA.

What the player is “worth” does not necessarily line up with where he’ll land.

There’s risk/reward on both sides.

At the end of the day, it’s a business. Management’s job is to ice the best team possible. The cap is real in hockey, and every extra dollar spent against the cap has ramifications.

For both the player and the club, there are comparables, but it’s not always apples to apples.

It’s clear that this issue has divided the fanbase into camps.

Hence I’ve pretty much steered clear of offering my two cents which, rubbed together, aren’t worth a penny.

Where this lands? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

So you think that Dan Vladar, who had played less games than Swayman with MUCH worse stats was a good comp for Swayman? You totally believe that was a 100% honest and fair comparison?

It was lame and poisoned the well from the get go.

 

[Blowfish]

Wally, I think one thing that is consistent between the "old days" and today is that Bruins are not looking to be the team that caters to "market setting" contracts.

They have almost always had expensive players making good money, even back to the Sinden/Bourqtue/Neely days. But they were notorious for having the "Ray Bourque cap" and so on. I never thought they were cheap but they were principled to a fault and to their detriment.

In more recent times, they made a lot of hay with all those "team friendly deals" that their top players signed. Since then, things have evolved to where they are now paying players like McAvoy and Pastrnak top dollar. But still only the going rate for star players. Not salaries that exceed what similar players are making.

Now you have Swayman who is talking about securing a salary that advances the cause of future goalies. And LeBrun talking about him not caring whether Saros and Hellyebuck signed for XYZ recently, he wants what he thinks he should get independent of that. So he is apparently looking to push past similar contracts, as LeBrun put it.

The conflict comes from the continuing reality where the Bruins may just not be inclined to do a contract that is beyond the comparables (and I know people are debating what Swayman's comparables are exactly). This looks to boil down to a conflict between the player's objectives and how the Bruins choose to operate, going back a long way.

I have no idea what really has been offered or what Swayman would really accept. But reading between the lines of the most recent reports, it sounds like Swayman would *not* necessarily quickly sign up for a very Saros-like deal, if that is even being offered... and the Bruins may not be eager to go further... and that's why the hold out continues. Question is, on Opening Night or before December 1st, will Swayman blink? Will the Bruins? I don't expect the latter unless "blinking" means they bring the AAV and term up to similar levels to other #1 goalies signed in the past couple years, assuming they are not there yet. Going well beyond that? It just doesn't sound like them.

But to your point Wally, it is easy to see this as the player being greedy if the above is largely true. Won't take a deal similar to what other top goalies are making? That's easy to put on the player. But it aso doesn't make him wrong for trying.

Great post. After all is said and done the spinsters will be out to dampen the damage and all will be forgotten. The thing that bothers me is should the bruins want to move Swayman there is no team out there that is in desperate need of a goalie plus pay Swayman the money he is most likely looking for.

 

[Chevalier du Clavier]

NHL Videos - Highlights and Analysis from the National Hockey League

Watch highlights and analysis video from the National Hockey League. TSN's NHL Insiders and analysts deliver video content, betting information, and fantasy hockey advice.

www.tsn.ca

https://x.com/i/web/status/1838645022863839567

 

[Hookslide]

We know it pissed Swayman off.

Sway never should have gone to arbitration, his agent should have prepared him better for it or not taken the Bruins to arbitration, he should have understood his client better, the kid is obviously thin skinned, sensitive or too emotional for those type of proceedings. Say what you want about Sweeney and I have said many things about him and not often was I kind, but he did his job it is not his place to be pumping Sways, tires, that job should have been done by his agent. I feel the animosity is to strong and this will not be a good relationship going forward, and a suggest a trade is a must. I suggest Sway get a little tougher in the sensitivity department, and if is to be signed, he must take into account that his one time very solid popularity as shrunk and when he goes through the rough streaks, and they will happen, he will hear about it, the question then will be is he mentally tough enough to get through it, I would say after the past year with what we have seen how he has handled this whole process I would say probably not.

 

[shelbysdad]

You read my mind.

I started typing something out earlier and got sidetracked.

I don’t think either party is to blame. I think the timing of the situation is awkward. Both the team and the player are sort of beholden to where this contract situation lands in the player’s timeline with regards to the CBA.

What the player is “worth” does not necessarily line up with where he’ll land.

There’s risk/reward on both sides.

At the end of the day, it’s a business. Management’s job is to ice the best team possible. The cap is real in hockey, and every extra dollar spent against the cap has ramifications.

For both the player and the club, there are comparables, but it’s not always apples to apples.

It’s clear that this issue has divided the fanbase into camps.

Hence I’ve pretty much steered clear of offering my two cents which, rubbed together, aren’t worth a penny.

Where this lands? Your guess is as good as mine.

It's hard to "pick a side" when all we have are rumors and speculation for information

 

[smithformeragent]

It's hard to "pick a side" when all we have are rumors and speculation for information

Alas, here we are.

 

[Dr Hook]

You mean like their arbitration offer which probably still plays a role with Swayman??

Those are part and parcel of arbitrations, though, so it is not the same thing to me. The issue was lowball in this current negotiation anyway and whether Swayman is still sore about it is irrelevant to the Bruins offer.