Management Discussion | Just Have a Plan

[racerjoe]

Never forget that But Gillis! actually did this with Mason Raymond to get to a more accurate AAV. Imagine a guy knowing and actually using the tools provided in the CBA.


Because this management group is nearly as terrible as the last.

What has been suggest is that the problem is Brock would have had a strong case with 2 good production years in with his 1 bad year. I haven't looked into comparable, so maybe this is wrong, but that is what has been suggested.

 

[arttk]

Yeah, I pretty much disagree with this...I think club elected arbitration was the lesser of all evils with the lowest amount of risk without just giving up the asset...even if you get stuck with a $7m award for 1 year, just try to build him back up as best you can and trade him at the deadline as a rental with retention.

that’s just a difference in strategy, that’s all. There is nothing wrong with what you propose other than the fact you potentially nuke the locker room with a pissed off Boeser.

They took the approach where the upside is higher and the risk is higher. I mean there is also nothing inherently wrong with that considering we have little to no assets, you need to take risks to maximize.

I don’t think we are really stuck with Brock right now anyway. We can easily retain and make Brock a 5.5M guy and that I believe would get us a good return.

The thing is, as bad as he is now, i would say that the odds of him rebounding on a different team is really high. I would bet that he would be like a 60+ point guy if he finds a new team next year (as long as it’s not Arizona)

 

[arttk]

Never forget that But Gillis! actually did this with Mason Raymond to get to a more accurate AAV. Imagine a guy knowing and actually using the tools provided in the CBA.


Because this management group is nearly as terrible as the last.

Raymond had a bad year and even then the arbitrator only took it down like 10%. It’s unlikely that the arbitrator would cut Boeser’s QO down to like 6.3.

 

[Canucker]

that’s just a difference in strategy, that’s all. There is nothing wrong with what you propose other than the fact you potentially nuke the locker room with a pissed off Boeser.

They took the approach where the upside is higher and the risk is higher. I mean there is also nothing inherently wrong with that considering we have little to no assets, you need to take risks to maximize.

I don’t think we are really stuck with Brock right now anyway. We can easily retain and make Brock a 5.5M guy and that I believe would get us a good return.

The thing is, as bad as he is now, i would say that the odds of him rebounding on a different team is really high. I would bet that he would be like a 60+ point guy if he finds a new team next year (as long as it’s not Arizona)

I'd be interested to see what a "pissed off Boeser" can do on the ice...because I've pretty much had my fill of casual, jovial Boeser.

I do agree with you that I think he still has a good re-bound season in him...he's a smart, skilled guy...just put him with a couple of good skaters and he'll find some soft scoring positions to clean up from.

 

[arttk]

I'd be interested to see what a "pissed off Boeser" can do on the ice...because I've pretty much had my fill of casual, jovial Boeser.

I do agree with you that I think he still has a good re-bound season in him...he's a smart, skilled guy...just put him with a couple of good skaters and he'll find some soft scoring positions to clean up from.

I don’t think it’s the same kind of pissed off that Bo is experiencing.
They have to argue that he sucks and his dad dying being a distraction is immaterial to him sucking. The room is going to know that, wow dude’s dad die and you are going to toss that aside and argue that had no effect.
You can’t predict how that will affect the relationship between players and management.

Imagine if you loved one(somebody of that importance)died and your employer said well I don’t care, you underperformed during that time and you will be “punished” for that. All your colleagues are going to know it and see that as some super f***ed up shit. That’s just the reality of life. You might be right but the optics will never be in your favor and it will have an effect.

I should be clear here. With Bo, it’s oh we don’t think you are as good as a player you think you are. That allows for motivation.

With Brock, it’s like oh you suck and don’t try using your dad dying as an excuse. That is just offensive on a personal level.

 

[Canucker]

I don’t think it’s the same kind of pissed off that Bo is experiencing.
They have to argue that he sucks and his dad dying being a distraction is immaterial to him sucking. The room is going to know that, wow dude’s dad die and you are going to toss that aside and argue that had no effect.
You can’t predict how that will affect the relationship between players and management.

Imagine if you loved one(somebody of that importance)died and your employer said well I don’t care, you underperformed during that time and you will be “punished” for that. All your colleagues are going to know it and see that as some super f***ed up shit. That’s just the reality of life. You might be right but the optics will never be in your favor and it will have an effect.

I don't agree there...they don't have to say anything about his dad...they can just use his numbers, his injuries and use some comparables to make their case...you don't need to make arguments in poor taste, let Boeser use it as his defense, it doesn't mean it will affect anything decided by the arbitor.

 

[arttk]

I don't agree there...they don't have to say anything about his dad...they can just use his numbers, his injuries and use some comparables to make their case...you don't need to make arguments in poor taste, let Boeser use it as his defense, it doesn't mean it will affect anything decided by the arbitor.

That’s the thing, they will argue over it in front of the arb. Like you think Brock’s agent won’t bring it up? Like look at the 2 years prior to the dad thing. The club will be forced to refute that point.

 

[bossram]

Raymond had a bad year and even then the arbitrator only took it down like 10%. It’s unlikely that the arbitrator would cut Boeser’s QO down to like 6.3.

I actually do think the 3-year deal they got Boeser was a "best case" scenario given the poison pill contract Benning left behind.

But Boeser's raw totals in 21-22 were nowhere near as strong as the preceding seasons and I could see an arbitrator awarding something around $6M for one year.

My point was more that Gilis actually had a mind for maximizing the resources at his disposal (CBA, team resources like the sleep doctor, petitioning the league for fewer B2Bs, etc.).

What has been suggest is that the problem is Brock would have had a strong case with 2 good production years in with his 1 bad year. I haven't looked into comparable, so maybe this is wrong, but that is what has been suggested.

I think with the platform year in 21-22, an arbitrator would have awarded something lower.

 

[Canucker]

That’s the thing, they will argue over it in front of the arb. Like you think Brock’s agent won’t bring it up? Like look at the 2 years prior to the dad thing. The club will be forced to refute that point.

Why would they have to refute it? Just because his dad is no longer in the picture doesn't mean his game is going to do a complete 180, and it certainly doesn't mean he should be entitled to more money than comparable players. You don't need to play ugly in arbitration if you have facts to backup your positions.

 

[Raistlin]

I don’t think it’s the same kind of pissed off that Bo is experiencing.
They have to argue that he sucks and his dad dying being a distraction is immaterial to him sucking. The room is going to know that, wow dude’s dad die and you are going to toss that aside and argue that had no effect.
You can’t predict how that will affect the relationship between players and management.

Imagine if you loved one(somebody of that importance)died and your employer said well I don’t care, you underperformed during that time and you will be “punished” for that. All your colleagues are going to know it and see that as some super f***ed up shit. That’s just the reality of life. You might be right but the optics will never be in your favor and it will have an effect.

I should be clear here. With Bo, it’s oh we don’t think you are as good as a player you think you are. That allows for motivation.

With Brock, it’s like oh you suck and don’t try using your dad dying as an excuse. That is just offensive on a personal level.

of course it will 100% be leaked to our media from his agent to Dhali and we can add another headline to nuke the club's name to dirt. You cannot take Boeser to arb under the unique circumstance in modern age of media.

 

[arttk]

I actually do think the 3-year deal they got Boeser was a "best case" scenario given the poison pill contract Benning left behind.

But Boeser's raw totals in 21-22 were nowhere near as strong as the preceding seasons and I could see an arbitrator awarding something around $6M for one year.

My point was more that Gilis actually had a mind for maximizing the resources at his disposal (CBA, team resources like the sleep doctor, petitioning the league for fewer B2Bs, etc.).


I think with the platform year in 21-22, an arbitrator would have awarded something lower.

I think the arb will award something lower than 7.5 as well, the issue was always going to be, how would they argue there.

We always hear how arb cases are ugly even without involving extrondinary events like dad dying from cancer and having that be a thing. Add that to the mix it will take the arb hearing to a whole new level of bad.
Like can you imagine the team arguing oh Brock sucks and you can see the data reflect that bla bla bla and Brock’s aren’t not coming back with oh there were some extraordinary events and they should look at the numbers prior. The team will need to argue that dad dying doesn’t matter and last season is happened and that’s all it matters.

I think what Gillis did was logical but we have to recognize there is a reason why teams don’t do it.

 

[Breakers]

Man do these guys absolutely suck at their job

 

[arttk]

Why would they have to refute it? Just because his dad is no longer in the picture doesn't mean his game is going to do a complete 180, and it certainly doesn't mean he should be entitled to more money than comparable players. You don't need to play ugly in arbitration if you have facts to backup your positions.

from every report, salary arbitration in normal circumstances tends to get ugly because both sides need to make arguments to justify their positions.

I don’t think it’s simple as here are the stats and we are done here. I think there is a reason why arbitration hearings takes hours because there are active debates on everything.

 

[Canucker]

from every report, salary arbitration in normal circumstances tends to get ugly because both sides need to make arguments to justify their positions.

I don’t think it’s simple as here are the stats and we are done here. I think there is a reason why arbitration hearings takes hours because there are active debates on everything.

I think it depends on who is making the arguments...if you have GM Brian Burke vs. Player Agent Allan Walsh in an arbitration hearing I'm sure it could get acrimonious...I think if you have some even keeled people making their cases clearly, concisely and professionally, not personally...I don't think it needs to be ugly...thats just me.

 

[bossram]

I think the arb will award something lower than 7.5 as well, the issue was always going to be, how would they argue there.

We always hear how arb cases are ugly even without involving extrondinary events like dad dying from cancer and having that be a thing. Add that to the mix it will take the arb hearing to a whole new level of bad.
Like can you imagine the team arguing oh Brock sucks and you can see the data reflect that bla bla bla and Brock’s aren’t not coming back with oh there were some extraordinary events and they should look at the numbers prior. The team will need to argue that dad dying doesn’t matter and last season is happened and that’s all it matters.

I think what Gillis did was logical but we have to recognize there is a reason why teams don’t do it.

Re: bolded - It's a risk-averse OBC, mostly.

IIRC I'm pretty sure the arbitration setup has changed. The team no longer slags the player while he's in the room. Each camp presents their case separately. I get Brock had some very tough circumstances this year, but I don't think the "negative arbitration" narrative is really relevant here. They wouldn't be in the room saying "we don't care that your dad died" or something.

 

[arttk]

I think it depends on who is making the arguments...if you have GM Brian Burke vs. Player Agent Allan Walsh in an arbitration hearing I'm sure it could get acrimonious...I think if you have some even keeled people making their cases clearly, concisely and professionally, not personally...I don't think it needs to be ugly...thats just me.

I think it’s not like both sides goes in with the intent to get ugly. It’s just that when you are arguing somebody is not good and go through all the numbers to prove it, it will naturally tend toward that.

Like if your boss shows up and shows you a list of metrics saying you suck and you need to pay cut, you are going to argue, it’s natural. So imagine you have an agent whose job is to maximize your earning, that guy will and should argue against that and it takes a lot to ensure those exchanges don’t get heated and personal because making money and talking about how good you are is inherently personal. There is nothing not personal about it. Add in the circumstance around Brock’s dad and you have a recipe for a spicy debate.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Man do these guys absolutely suck at their job

I wouldnt be surprised if a number of the core players have their eyes on the exit doors right about now.

 

[arttk]

Re: bolded - It's a risk-averse OBC, mostly.

IIRC I'm pretty sure the arbitration setup has changed. The team no longer slags the player while he's in the room. Each camp presents their case separately. I get Brock had some very tough circumstances this year, but I don't think the "negative arbitration" narrative is really relevant here. They wouldn't be in the room saying "we don't care that your dad died" or something.

Not sure, but I do know teams and players tend to want to avoid it, that’s pretty much a fact.
Even if you think on the team side it’s due to OBC, well there is a reason why players want to avoid it too.

 

[bossram]

Not sure, but I do know teams and players tend to want to avoid it, that’s pretty much a fact.
Even if you think on the team side it’s due to OBC, well there is a reason why players want to avoid it too.

Again, I think the 3 year deal was the best realistic outcome here.

I'm just saying, for a President who constantly laments how hard it is to clear cap, he's been curiously unwilling to actually attempt to reduce the club's cap commitments (and instead added to them significantly).

I think the main reason both sides avoid it is uncertainty. No one really knows what you're gonna get. The player would rather negotiate for more money and a deal he can live with. The club doesn't want to get accidentally strapped with a big cap hit.

 

[Canucker]

I think it’s not like both sides goes in with the intent to get ugly. It’s just that when you are arguing somebody is not good and go through all the numbers to prove it, it will naturally tend toward that.

Like if your boss shows up and shows you a list of metrics saying you suck and you need to pay cut, you are going to argue, it’s natural. So imagine you have an agent whose job is to maximize your earning, that guy will and should argue against that and it takes a lot to ensure those exchanges don’t get heated and personal because making money and talking about how good you are is inherently personal. There is nothing not personal about it. Add in the circumstance around Brock’s dad and you have a recipe for a spicy debate.

It's entirely possible for things to go south, but I think its less likely with a guy like Boeser...just my opinion.

 

[arttk]

It's entirely possible for things to go south, but I think its less likely with a guy like Boeser...just my opinion.

It’s more than entirely possible, it’s more like that is the most likely outcome so it’s more like ok, if that is the outcome, was the end result, the lowering of his cap #, worth it. Or how much lower does it need to be to make burning that bridge and potentially nuking the room worth it.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

The offer was made prior to the season.

His scoring was already going up last season.

 

[Canucker]

It’s more than entirely possible, it’s more like that is the most likely outcome so it’s more like ok, if that is the outcome, was the end result, the lowering of his cap #, worth it. Or how much lower does it need to be to make burning that bridge and potentially nuking the room worth it.

Yeah, just don't agree that its the "likely" scenario...I think you've committed to the idea that its a doomsday scenario, which I think is highly unlikely. We can agree to disagree.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

His QO was like $7 or 7.5MM. So that was a Benning special. He signed for under that which was a small win in negotiation but the more prudent move was a trade.

Or even just letting him walk, that is an option too. It wouldn't be great but it is better than paying $6.6m over 3 years for a declining player, ESPECIALLY if creating cap flexibility was a high priority.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Boeser’s value is whack because of his 7.5M qualifier. If he took the qualifier and then enter UFA, based on his history and projection at that point, he would’ve gotten a 6.5M contract in the open market. So he probably would’ve gotten like 7M average per year for 2 years at the very least if he just took the qualifier. There is no reason for Boeser to sign anything lower unless you give him more years.

So the management can either sign him to a qualifier which will mess up their cap structure more and at the same time make him less valuable because we will only be able to sell him as a rental.
The other option is to trade him at that point but the 7.5M effectively killed any trade value he had so you would’ve gotten like a low pick + cap dump.
Another option is to let him walk which means we lose all value.
The remaining options are to sign him to a 2 year or 3 year deal. His cap would still stupid high for 2 year as stated above and his trade value would be crap. 3 years you can get it down to a number where you can project Boeser being worth it. 6.6M you would expect around 65pts. As the cap is projected to go up by his final year, he would only need to put up 60pt to justify it.
At the end of the day, the question they asked probably was, would Boeser bounce back. If he bounces back then the team have options. If they think he can’t then the best option is to let him go and get nothing really or to get a low pick and a cap dump.

They weight the risk vs return and went with 6.6Mx3.

All the options f***ing suck because of the qualifier Benning and Gear put in.

Also I don’t think her job was simply come up with contract to get Boeser signed. I think her job was probably, how the hell do we get the number lower so he can actually be worth the cap hit and he will actually be willing to sign it.

I think zero value is better than negative value. It is better to have no Boeser and $6.6m cap space now. Again, remember when JR comes in and one of the main thing he mention is creating cap flexibility. Well this deal is the opposite of that goal.

I think another creative way to approach the Boeser situation was just to not qualify him, let him test free agency. With so many teams capped out, it is possible, even likely perhaps, that he doesn't get an offer over $5m or an offer with any terms, as teams would be (and rightly so) hesitant to commit to him. The Nucks can circle back to him in August if they really want, and give him a lower offer on shorter term to prove himself. If he signs with another team, so be it, he isn't some irreplaceable piece to this sinking ship anyways. What I am trying to say is, there are other options (including trading him last season if possible), which are better than what we ended up with. It was never a "$7.5m QO or 3 yrs $6.6m" scenario, it just take some imaginations. I would've hoped management would explore them instead of locking everybody up on term.