Player Discussion Jeremy Swayman -V - all still silent

[NeelyDan]

I am not only listening to the arguments, I've validated them again and again. What I'm f***ing sick of are people lying about what he said, lying about his talent, and calling him a POS personally.



You disagree with the fact he NEVER SAID he wants to "set" the market even though he quite literally never said that?

I’m of the opinion that “not ruining the market” is in effect setting it to a degree

 

[Midship]

Swayman thinks he's Hasek 2.0 when he hasn't proven shit. Can't wait for him to be traded.

 

[yazmybaby]

I hope DS and company do not get talked into giving JS a NMC with no possiblity of trading him.
I want the flexibility to move him if the price is right down the road.
A 16 team trade list would work for me.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I hope DS and company do not get talked into giving JS a NMC with no possiblity of trading him.
I want the flexibility to move him if the price is right down the road.
A 16 team trade list would work for me.

For all we know that may be the one thing holding up everything.

 

[TD Charlie]

I hope DS and company do not get talked into giving JS a NMC with no possiblity of trading him.
I want the flexibility to move him if the price is right down the road.
A 16 team trade list would work for me.

Obviously I'd prefer nobody had one, but I've accepted it as fact that he's getting one. Probably some lockout protection too.

 

[Dr Quincy]

that's definitely not a selling point for for bruins to overpay him bc swayman has his own agenda

What should his agenda be?

 

[Dr Quincy]

This is my issue.

We have no idea how he/his body will respond to a #1 load. We have no idea what, if any, effect trading ullmark will have on him mentally. We have no idea how he will handle the mental load and responsibility of being a #1.

Its hard to want to affect the market when you’re looking to affect it for guys who are in a different situation than you, having been proven effective as The Guy.

I love swayman, want him here long term, and don’t begrudge him trying to get his, but logically it’s a tough-ish pill to swallow. Be the #1 for a year or two and then get paid.

I completely agree. Hope the B's offer him a 2 year deal. Perfect, prove it.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

I completely agree. Hope the B's offer him a 2 year deal. Perfect, prove it.

If you’re rooting for the team as a whole, I don’t know how you could be hoping for a two year deal. That would be horribly detrimental to the organization.

 

[EverettMike]

I’m of the opinion that “not ruining the market” is in effect setting it to a degree

Why? That's such a dramatically different thing to say.

 

[TD Charlie]

I completely agree. Hope the B's offer him a 2 year deal. Perfect, prove it.

They gotta go long term on this one IMO

2 years and he's most certainly taking off the day he becomes a free agent. Unless he gets offered f*** you money from Boston at that point, which I really don't like the idea of. Just pay him now, take the calculated risk, and watch the deal age.

 

[Kate08]

If you’re rooting for the team as a whole, I don’t know how you could be hoping for a two year deal. That would be horribly detrimental to the organization.

More horribly detrimental than a potential long-term overpayment for a talented goalie who has yet to prove he can handle a full season as a #1?

It's a gamble either way; bridge deal and you run the risk of paying more or losing him at the end of it, or locking him up and crossing your fingers his success translates to a full season (after full season, after full season).

IMO, it's a risk proposition. We don't have enough data. I lean towards being more comfortable with a short term deal knowing I may need to pay more if he proves it over the next two years, v potentially being handcuffed by a big contract on a guy that peters out over the long haul.

I think the chances are more likely than not that he succeeds in a traditional #1 role and workload, but we just don't have enough data to be able to say that with a level of certainty yet.

 

[NeelyDan]

Why? That's such a dramatically different thing to say.

He is, in part, insisting on a certain number to effectually allow himself to be (if opted to by others) used as a comparable for the negotiation of other salaries

It’s about more than simply rejecting the notion of a hometown discount

 

[UConn126]

Swayman for Gibson and a high end pick/prospect would be a solid move if they'd go for it. We get a solid starter that doesn't break the bank and an asset to help out prospect pool. Ducks get a younger goalie to build around and they have the cap space to pay him.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

More horribly detrimental than a potential long-term overpayment for a talented goalie who has yet to prove he can handle a full season as a #1?

It's a gamble either way; bridge deal and you run the risk of paying more or losing him at the end of it, or locking him up and crossing your fingers his success translates to a full season (after full season, after full season).

IMO, it's a risk proposition. We don't have enough data. I lean towards being more comfortable with a short term deal knowing I may need to pay more if he proves it over the next two years, v potentially being handcuffed by a big contract on a guy that peters out over the long haul.

I think the chances are more likely than not that he succeeds in a traditional #1 role and workload, but we just don't have enough data to be able to say that with a level of certainty yet.

Yes absolutely. 100%. Handing a RFA a contract that walks him to free agency in two years is a disaster. You’d be right back here next summer, and if terms can’t be reached you have to trade him. There’s a reason why no top tier RFAs (or even mid tier) get this kind of treatment.

A short term deal is 4 years in this situation.

 

[NeelyDan]

More horribly detrimental than a potential long-term overpayment for a talented goalie who has yet to prove he can handle a full season as a #1?

It's a gamble either way; bridge deal and you run the risk of paying more or losing him at the end of it, or locking him up and crossing your fingers his success translates to a full season (after full season, after full season).

IMO, it's a risk proposition. We don't have enough data. I lean towards being more comfortable with a short term deal knowing I may need to pay more if he proves it over the next two years, v potentially being handcuffed by a big contract on a guy that peters out over the long haul.

I think the chances are more likely than not that he succeeds in a traditional #1 role and workload, but we just don't have enough data to be able to say that with a level of certainty yet.

Couldn’t possibly agree more with this - particularly characterizing this as a risk proposition

 

[Kate08]

Yes absolutely. 100%. Handing a RFA a contract that walks him to free agency in two years is a disaster. You’d be right back here next summer, and if terms can’t be reached you have to trade him. There’s a reason why no top tier RFAs (or even mid tier) get this kind of treatment.

A short term deal is 4 years in this situation.

How many top tier RFAs haven't shouldered the burden of being a starter for a full season, but want to be paid as if they have?

You're trying to apply general logic to a unique situation.

Again, I think more likely than not he steps up and is fine shouldering the load, but I absolutely understand the hesitancy. IMO, this is on Sweeney for completely f***ing up asset management with the goalies. I can't wrap my brain around how he'd trade Ullmark before having Swayman locked in.

 

[EverettMike]

He is, in part, insisting on a certain number to effectually allow himself to be (if opted to by others) used as a comparable for the negotiation of other salaries

It’s about more than simply rejecting the notion of a hometown discount

He's going to be used as a comparable no matter what. "not ruining" the goalie market means not doing anything that would bring it down. Obviously he'd like to bring it up, but he clearly refuses to do anything that would allow other teams to say "look Swayman took this so you can't ask for that much."

That's beyond fair IMO if you care about your fellow union members.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

How many top tier RFAs haven't shouldered the burden of being a starter for a full season, but want to be paid as if they have?

You're trying to apply general logic to a unique situation.

Again, I think more likely than not he steps up and is fine shouldering the load, but I absolutely understand the hesitancy. IMO, this is on Sweeney for completely f***ing up asset management with the goalies. I can't wrap my brain around how he'd trade Ullmark before having Swayman locked in.

But again you don’t walk him to free agency. That’s a fireable offense in and of itself.

 

[Kate08]

But again you don’t walk him to free agency. That’s a fireable offense in and of itself.

So you're completely comfortable with the idea of a long-term, sizable deal without proof he can handle it? You really can't understand the opposing point of view at all?

 

[NeelyDan]

He's going to be used as a comparable no matter what. "not ruining" the goalie market means not doing anything that would bring it down. Obviously he'd like to bring it up, but he clearly refuses to do anything that would allow other teams to say "look Swayman took this so you can't ask for that much."

That's beyond fair IMO if you care about your fellow union members.

Fair enough

 

[TD Charlie]

More horribly detrimental than a potential long-term overpayment for a talented goalie who has yet to prove he can handle a full season as a #1?

It's a gamble either way; bridge deal and you run the risk of paying more or losing him at the end of it, or locking him up and crossing your fingers his success translates to a full season (after full season, after full season).

IMO, it's a risk proposition. We don't have enough data. I lean towards being more comfortable with a short term deal knowing I may need to pay more if he proves it over the next two years, v potentially being handcuffed by a big contract on a guy that peters out over the long haul.

I think the chances are more likely than not that he succeeds in a traditional #1 role and workload, but we just don't have enough data to be able to say that with a level of certainty yet.

Yep. It's a fun game of which risk do ya wanna take?

I will admit that it's a little harder for me to really make an honest assessment because I have no idea what sort of figures have been thrown around. Without knowing much of the details, I have to say I'm less uneasy about a long term/fairly high dollar contract than I am with another bridge deal. To me, bridge deal is just going to be a drawn out farewell tour, cuz he's gonna bounce as soon as he can.

 

[UncleRico]

There have been rumors and leaks.

Are you referencing Swaymans ask of McAvoy money? And Sweeneys offer of 6mil for 4 years? I think both of those offers sound like first contact, and I assume both parties have some give. As I’ve mentioned before you never take the first deal offered and you never give your best offer first. I’m definitely not in sales, but isn’t this sales 101?

Both the 4years/$6m and the $9.5 McAvoy rumor came from Elliot Friedman when he said that’s what he heard, but he hasn’t been able to confirm it nor has he heard anyone disputed it.

So even the source of that rumor was questioning the validity of it and couldn’t confirm it themselves.

 

[TD Charlie]

Both the 4years/$6m and the $9.5 McAvoy rumor came from Elliot Friedman when he said that’s what he heard, but he hasn’t been able to confirm it nor has he heard anyone disputed it.

So even the source of that rumor was questioning the validity of it and couldn’t confirm it themselves.

And if anyone is being fair when discussing this, no matter where you stand you can't really blame either side for their offer.

I can see why Sweeney would make that offer, although it seems low
I can see why Swayman/Gross would make their offer, although it seems high

You gotta start somewhere right?

 

[NeelyDan]

Yep. It's a fun game of which risk do ya wanna take?

I will admit that it's a little harder for me to really make an honest assessment because I have no idea what sort of figures have been thrown around. Without knowing much of the details, I have to say I'm less uneasy about a long term/fairly high dollar contract than I am with another bridge deal. To me, bridge deal is just going to be a drawn out farewell tour, cuz he's gonna bounce as soon as he can.

Yeah, actually - I think I’m a sign long term or trade guy

 

[UncleRico]

Swayman for Gibson and a high end pick/prospect would be a solid move if they'd go for it. We get a solid starter that doesn't break the bank and an asset to help out prospect pool. Ducks get a younger goalie to build around and they have the cap space to pay him.

Ducks arent going to pay swayman.

Also Gibson is 31. Should have just kept Ullmark for cheaper at that point.