Player Discussion Jeremy Swayman: VII - agreed to 8 x 8.25 aav

How does this saga end?

  • Bridge deal

    Votes: 58 19.7%
  • Long term deal

    Votes: 89 30.3%
  • Trade

    Votes: 147 50.0%

  • Total voters
    294
Status
Not open for further replies.

smithformeragent

Moderator
Sep 22, 2005
34,382
28,257
Milford, NH
One could make the argument that we're beating a dead horse here.

So be it. Discuss, if you so choose. We'll keep all the Swayman talk contained to this thread.

If you have nothing meaningful to contribute to the conversation, move along.

We will not have this devolve into thread hijacking and flaming of other posters.

@Gee Wally

We have numerous deletions and more in here. We know tension and emotions are high.
But you folks must simply stop taking personal shots at each. Stay to topic.

If not we will be left with no choice other than adding thread bans.
 
Last edited:

Chevalier du Clavier

Écrivain de ferrage
Jul 20, 2005
4,835
3,727
Ah ok, so some fans are cool with what Neely did, simply because he didn't do it first. The eye for an eye mentality.


I'm still waiting on those sources of him going into a ton of detail. I'm still looking all over the internet and can't seem to find much


Where did I say anything about Gross is my post? How do we know that Gross leaked anything? Just seems like more and more speculation by fans to try and justify what side of the argument they are on.
Again, Neely speaking publicly is an anomaly. It aptly demonstrates his frustration with Swayman and Gross. Most fans (and yes, it's most fans), on the other hand, are tired of the act. They appreciate that Pasta, McAvoy, Bergeron, Marchand, Rask, etc., kept their negotiations quiet and didn't feed the fire. This is a classroom in how not to run talks.
 

Absurdity

light switch connoisseur
Jul 6, 2012
11,611
8,427
Where did I say anything about Gross is my post? How do we know that Gross leaked anything? Just seems like more and more speculation by fans to try and justify what side of the argument they are on.
So all of these podcasts and media sites just made something up? It had to be someone in Swayman's camp or a correction made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordoff and PaulD

Chevalier du Clavier

Écrivain de ferrage
Jul 20, 2005
4,835
3,727
I’m going with a bridge. Somewhere 2 to 3 years. Still no more than 8M AAV.
Always for cool down and each side to show why they think they are nearer to their value.
That would be sensible, although that seems to be seriously lacking in these talks.
 

NeelyDan

Owned by Alicat, Ladyfan and caz16
Jun 28, 2010
8,023
16,667
Dundas, Ontario
Jeremy watching the conference

IMG_6956.jpeg
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
25,715
25,222
Bingo.

Many will look at 8 x 8 and side with management over the player here, but the club is definitely getting a bargain here medium to long terms if he plays at the level many feel he will (Call it top 5).

I've been lurking all summer staying out of the debate. But the No.1 thing that is being ignored (or not considered strongly enough) here is how much the cap is expected to rise over the next 8 years. 88 million today. 5 years out are we over 100 million? Possibly.
It's one thing for GMs to use the early long-term deals on unproven young players based on very small sample sizes projecting out they will at the very least meet those contract expectations, and most likely exceed them. See recent deals like Dylan Gunthier, Slafkovsky, Jake Sanderson, etc. The higher the cap goes up, the bigger bargains they become.

But those guys will be up for new deals at 28 years old and able to get a 2nd massive deal. That tactic doesn't work so well to sign guys to max term at age 25/26 knowing that this will likely be the most important contract of their careers.

I think he's traded or they work out a bridge deal as has been suggested. I'd be floored if they two parties agree to a max term deal at this point.
 

NeelyDan

Owned by Alicat, Ladyfan and caz16
Jun 28, 2010
8,023
16,667
Dundas, Ontario
I've been lurking all summer staying out of the debate. But the No.1 thing that is being ignored (or not considered strongly enough) here is how much the cap is expected to rise over the next 8 years. 88 million today. 5 years out are we over 100 million? Possibly.
It's one thing for GMs to use the early long-term deals on unproven young players based on very small sample sizes projecting out they will at the very least meet those contract expectations, and most likely exceed them. See recent deals like Dylan Gunthier, Slafkovsky, Jake Sanderson, etc. The higher the cap goes up, the bigger bargains they become.

But those guys will be up for new deals at 28 years old and able to get a 2nd massive deal. That tactic doesn't work so well to sign guys to max term at age 25/26 knowing that this will likely be the most important contract of their careers.

I think he's traded or they work out a bridge deal as has been suggested. I'd be floored if they two parties agree to a max term deal at this point.
You always add something new to any conversation you contribute to
 

smithformeragent

Moderator
Sep 22, 2005
34,382
28,257
Milford, NH
I've been lurking all summer staying out of the debate. But the No.1 thing that is being ignored (or not considered strongly enough) here is how much the cap is expected to rise over the next 8 years. 88 million today. 5 years out are we over 100 million? Possibly.
It's one thing for GMs to use the early long-term deals on unproven young players based on very small sample sizes projecting out they will at the very least meet those contract expectations, and most likely exceed them. See recent deals like Dylan Gunthier, Slafkovsky, Jake Sanderson, etc. The higher the cap goes up, the bigger bargains they become.

But those guys will be up for new deals at 28 years old and able to get a 2nd massive deal. That tactic doesn't work so well to sign guys to max term at age 25/26 knowing that this will likely be the most important contract of their careers.

I think he's traded or they work out a bridge deal as has been suggested. I'd be floored if they two parties agree to a max term deal at this point.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if the club says something along the lines that the $8aav only applies at max term and the value on a bridge deal is closer yo$6.5-7m.

Can’t have your cake and eat it too.
 

Bruins4Lifer

Registered User
Jun 28, 2006
8,952
1,061
Regina, SK
Maybe just wishful thinking, but I think this gets resolved fairly soon now, within a week.
Bruins turned up the heat today and I think it's in Swayman's camp to come to the table with a more reasonable ask.

8yr x $8.5M ask and then settle at $8.25M leaves both sides saving face and looking good.
 

ON3M4N

Ignores/60 = Elite
Dec 13, 2015
13,918
19,501
Connecticut
Again, Neely speaking publicly is an anomaly. It aptly demonstrates his frustration with Swayman and Gross. Most fans (and yes, it's most fans), on the other hand, are tired of the act. They appreciate that Pasta, McAvoy, Bergeron, Marchand, Rask, etc., kept their negotiations quiet and didn't feed the fire. This is a classroom in how not to run talks.

Here's the thing though.....Swayman really hasn't said anything about negotiations. If you're referring to his podcast appearance, he didn't divulge anything of detail. It was more about how he was more prepared for negotiations this time.
So all of these podcasts and media sites just made something up? It had to be someone in Swayman's camp or a correction made.

I mean I don't put anything past the media. They care more about being the first to report something and generating clicks and views. They don't care if its 100% true or not. For all we know the source of the info is someone who knows someone who knows Gross. Its a game of telephone where Gross could have said things with the Bruins are moving slower than he'd like and 2-3 people later that wording turns into "Swayman & his agent haven't heard from the Bruins in 3 weeks"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Horton Hears A Woo

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
25,715
25,222
I also wouldn’t be surprised if the club says something along the lines that the $8aav only applies at max term and the value on a bridge deal is closer yo$6.5-7m.

Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Agree that is where the value of a bridge deal would be. 6-7ish. Like you said, that's the trade off not signing for long-term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lopey and Ladyfan

JRull86

Registered User
Jan 28, 2009
27,816
15,908
South Shore
I also wouldn’t be surprised if the club says something along the lines that the $8aav only applies at max term and the value on a bridge deal is closer yo$6.5-7m.

Can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I think they've already tried this approach with that supposed 4 year 26 mil offer that the Spitting Chiclets clowns lambasted them over as a "low ball".

You don't get to earn 8+ mil and become UFA in 3/4 years. If that's your desired path, you make less for short term ability to rest the market quicker.
 

Bruins4Lifer

Registered User
Jun 28, 2006
8,952
1,061
Regina, SK
I also wouldn’t be surprised if the club says something along the lines that the $8aav only applies at max term and the value on a bridge deal is closer yo$6.5-7m.

Can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Yeah, I honestly couldn't see them going over $7M on a 4yr deal. Don't think Swayman should be too upset with type of offer either. Sets him up pretty nicely for a 7 or 8 year deal at 29 years old when the cap is over $100M.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad