Player Discussion Jeremy Swayman -V - all still silent

[PaulD]

should we all put imo in front of our replies for ya ?

 

[Hookslide]

Swayman played his best hockey from game 45 - 56 of his starts last year (last 12 in playoffs). So he has played enough to prove he can handle it.

That is a little miss leading, if he played 56 plus games in the regular season, that does not answer if he will hold up in the playoffs.

 

[TD Charlie]

I just can't believe we're in a place where 8/8 for Jeremy Swayman is a great deal. Why do we think he's a top notch goalie long term and why do we think having a top notch goalie is essential to winning? He may be marginally better than Korp or they may be pretty much the same. It's remarkable that people get hung up on short term goalie success when they play for sound defensive teams. To me they traded the wrong goalie-- the cheaper one who's just as good. They can still trade him and I hope they do if good value can be had. But not a lot of teams are going to line up to give up real assets in order to pay JS a ton with big term

We don't know if he's a top notch goalie long term, that's the risk. It's all in how risky you find a long term deal to be. I think he's played well enough in his time here, improved in areas that I thought he was struggling (taking 10 minutes to dial in to games is no longer a concern), and he's shown a very strong ability to bounce back after less than stellar outings.

I don't think having a top notch goalie is essential to winning, but I think it's really freaking important. I also think you are being slick by saying Swayman is "marginally" better than Korpisalo OR THAT THEY ARE THE SAME?! I think the difference between the two is...large.

 

[Bodit9]

He said “I stand by what I was told, (Sweeney) is going to call me a liar, I think he’s fudging the truth. Now who knows, idk, maybe it’s somewhere in the middle, but I know the offer and it was a lowball, slap in the face offer”

So seems like he admits there may be some gray area in the reported 3 weeks no talking, but he is sure of it being a “slap in the face offer”

Again take it with a grain of salt.

How is a starting offer in the low $6M's a slap in the face? It puts him in the top 6 or 7 of goalie salaries in the league. He's been good but never managed a full #1 workload. Seems to be right in line with other goalie salaries at that age.

 

[PlayMakers]

$wayman

 

[McGarnagle]

I hope he's successful as the Bruins' goalie for many years. But I'm starting to not like this guy. Do I blame him for wanting to get his money during his prime? Of course not. But everything he's done and said show a guy who is putting himself above the team and his allegiance to the other goalies in the league (by not ruining the goalie market or whatever) over his own teammates in Boston.

 

[KrejciWinger]

6.2 million x 4 years is completely believable. Bruins should be targeting the 7 million range so that's a normal lowball

 

[Dr Hook]

6.2 million x 4 years is completely believable. Bruins should be targeting the 7 million range so that's a normal lowball

Is it a lowball or just a normal starting negotiating spot? Lowball implies a really poor offer, and Swayman being initially offered something that puts him in the top third of goalie pay is not poor or ridiculous. Lowball would have been 4 or 4.5 or something insulting like that.

 

[Grimey]

Don’t most negotiations start low from the GM’s side and high from the player/agent? Unless I’m missing something? I’d ask Whitdog and Biz Nasty but they are too busy splitting atoms.

 

[TD Charlie]

Is it a lowball or just a normal starting negotiating spot? Lowball implies a really poor offer, and Swayman being initially offered something that puts him in the top third of goalie pay is not poor or ridiculous. Lowball would have been 4 or 4.5 or something insulting like that.

Semantics.

I think 6+ is a reasonable first offer to slip across the table. You know he's not gonna take it, but you gotta start somewhere. Same goes for Swayman/Gross starting at 9+

 

[Boston Bruno]

Keep him for two years unsigned.


Lay waste to his career.

 

[TD Charlie]

Keep him for two years unsigned.


Lay waste to his career.

I'm sure it's a scenario that Sweeney has already brought up in negotiations. Maybe not in those exact words though lol

 

[UConn126]

Keep him for two years unsigned.


Lay waste to his career.

I thought he'd be a UFA after this year. Does sitting out push that a year?

 

[TD Charlie]

I thought he'd be a UFA after this year. Does sitting out push that a year?

He doesn't accrue any years played, he does get a year older though, so he has that.

 

[Pia8988]

Huh? He and Swayman are the same age and Oettinger has only 1 year left on his deal

That wasn't the question. The question is would you take another goalie over Swayman. The answer for me is only Oettinger.

 

[Bruins4Lifer]

I thought he'd be a UFA after this year. Does sitting out push that a year?

Doesn't push anything, he's not a UFA until he's 27 so it's 2 more years.

 

[Boston Bruno]

I thought he'd be a UFA after this year. Does sitting out push that a year

I am fairly certain he isn't Ufa for two
But I have been so very wrong about so many other things that I would take info with a case of Costco salt.


#korpisalo4vezina
#bussikorpi4jennings

 

[SwayHeyKid]

https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/~2999410

 

[UncleRico]

How is a starting offer in the low $6M's a slap in the face? It puts him in the top 6 or 7 of goalie salaries in the league. He's been good but never managed a full #1 workload. Seems to be right in line with other goalie salaries at that age.

It’s right in line with goalies his age who had pending arbitration hearings where a 3rd party was going to determine his worth.

Find a goalie comparable for swaymans age who played out a 1 year arbitration deal and then the following year neither the goalie or the team elected for arbitration.

The time to give swayman a bridge deal was before his arbitration hearing last year.

That the 1 year arbitration deal was basically his “bridge deal”.

 

[Dr Hook]

Semantics.

I think 6+ is a reasonable first offer to slip across the table. You know he's not gonna take it, but you gotta start somewhere. Same goes for Swayman/Gross starting at 9+

I guess it is semantics, but then again, words mean things. Calling an offer lowball is a bit aggressive and implies a bad faith offer when we don't really have any evidence of that. $6m+ AAV as reported, whether true or not, is not lowball. It is, as you said, a starting point and a not unreasonable one.

 

[Dr Quincy]

If not wanting to over pay for a goaltender is a "really bad job" ................... just look at some other teams who just opened the vault on their tough negotiations. Leafs being primo example.

Exactly, what does Bill Zito know about winning. The guy overpaid on a $10m goalie.

 

[Bodit9]

It’s right in line with goalies his age who had pending arbitration hearings where a 3rd party was going to determine his worth.

Find a goalie comparable for swaymans age who played out a 1 year arbitration deal and then the following year neither the goalie or the team elected for arbitration.

The time to give swayman a bridge deal was before his arbitration hearing last year.

That the 1 year arbitration deal was basically his “bridge deal”.

It's right in line with goalies his age who are RFAs. Which is what matters. My sense is he's getting his head inflated by his agent and setting himself up for disappointment or escorted out of Boston.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

Can we go back and chose aribitration?

 

[Jorgolyte]

We don't know if he's a top notch goalie long term, that's the risk. It's all in how risky you find a long term deal to be. I think he's played well enough in his time here, improved in areas that I thought he was struggling (taking 10 minutes to dial in to games is no longer a concern), and he's shown a very strong ability to bounce back after less than stellar outings.

I don't think having a top notch goalie is essential to winning, but I think it's really freaking important. I also think you are being slick by saying Swayman is "marginally" better than Korpisalo OR THAT THEY ARE THE SAME?! I think the difference between the two is...large.

Fair enough, thanks for the reply. I just strongly feel if the two were on each other's team the last couple years we'd all see them both in a completely different light. Sway in Ottawa for the last couple could be perceived as a low end starter in the league. I certainly don't think it's a given he's top ten or even 15 in the league. He could be, it's impossible to say. He's good, that's all I can say for sure

 

[Eddie Munson]

It’s right in line with goalies his age who had pending arbitration hearings where a 3rd party was going to determine his worth.

Find a goalie comparable for swaymans age who played out a 1 year arbitration deal and then the following year neither the goalie or the team elected for arbitration.

The time to give swayman a bridge deal was before his arbitration hearing last year.

That the 1 year arbitration deal was basically his “bridge deal”.

If you make finding a comp that specific then neither party is going to be able to. There needs to be some nuance when talking about comps as not many goalies went through what Swayman did. That's not a pro or a con for Swayman, but something I do think Sweeney needs to acknowledge is that they did get him at an arbitrated rate that got him one year closer to UFA and now they're back at the table. I honestly think that Sweeney is too analytical in this case. I think many of us agree that Swayman deserves a bump from what Sweeney thinks is fair for taking a cut due to arbitration last year. Whereas I think Sweeney says, the arbiter comes up with a fair price, so he doesn't owe Swayman anything.

Also, Isn't the idea of a bridge contract that it's signed while the person is an RFA and gets them to UFA at a rate that isn't market because the team has more control. The whole goal is the team gets a reduced price and the player gets to their first UFA contract faster in signing long term. That's always been my interpretation of them. But I can see Swayman's camp making your argument and again Sweeney thinking "nope, the arbiter was more than fair and this is a fair deal."

The more and more I talk this out, the more and more I think they'll end up having to move Swayman. I see both of them having painted themselves in a corner and either they never agree or Swayman finally cracks but will only take a 2 year deal walking him to free agency. I hope I'm wrong but I don't see Cam and Sweeney going over what Rask got regardless of the cap increase. Boston, like it or not has a way of doing business and the brass may have botched this one starting a year ago.