League News: NHL Talk - (News n' Scores n' Stuff) | 2024-25 Summer Edition

[qc14]

FWIW, I do think GMs are looking at percentage. They may not care what a guy was 5 years ago, but they may say "hey, that's 15% of our cap. if we give you that, we can't keep the guys who score goals at the other end." or something of that sort. And THEN, yeah, his agent might say, "well, you gave Panarin 15% when he signed..." But I don't think it's a key part of the negotiations.

My guess is GMs and agents alternate between raw $ value and % of the cap based off of whichever makes their side look better ...

 

[Kazer]

Nope, disagree, but we can move on. Their franchise was in a different position 5 years ago.

If I was the Rangers GM and they said we want 13.7mil, because you gave Panarin 14.9% 5 years ago, I’d tell him to take a hike and I’d look to move him.

It’s an absurd negotiating tactic.

Tell you what, when he signs for 14.9% of the cap next year, I’ll come back and admit I was wrong.

From the Rangers perspective, you are absolutely right. They are going to try to tie Shesterkin to the goalie comparables to keep his cap number low.

By the same token, Shesterkin's agent (and Shesterkin) are going to push for the highest number possible, regardless of how they get there (highest paid goalie/highest paid Ranger/whatever it takes to get him the most money). It's also worth pointing out that the highest paid goalie contract by AAV (Price) was signed in 2018. It feels like the goalie market has reset with the high numbers that have been given out recently to Swayman and Ullmark (and I would pay Shesterkin more than either of those two).

It's not absurd. It's how the process works. They will either agree on a number, or Shesterkin will find himself on a different team.

 

[Jags]

But the player submitted was from 5 years ago, will be 6 by the time this guy draws a penny from his new deal, and it’s a different position.

I agree with you in principle, but I think all they're really saying is that it affects the conversation, which is literally what a contract negotiation is. So of course it matters. It clearly helps establish the local market and is a key reference for each side setting their price.

I get it. But that's precisely what makes percentages relevant--they transcend the real numbers. My point is, the team has demonstrated a willingness to spend 15% of the cap--whatever that cap may be--on just one player.

Sure, but like you pointed out, that's just one argument in the conversation. The logical counter is "Sure, Panarin got that percentage, 5 years ago when we weren't the odds-on favorite to win stuff. Now that we ARE that team, we'd like to REMAIN that caliber of team because we all want a fist full of Cup rings. We can't do that if we get too top-heavy on contracts.

"Panarin got that money at that time because it takes that kind of investment to prove to the team and the league that we want to build a winner. Your client contributes mightily to our success and we're grateful, but here's a mountain of historical stats versus contract dollars and term that proves pretty conclusively that goalies don't have the shelf life that wings do. We can't build that winner pretending that your client will defy that trend."

I think CCR is right that ultimately the cap percentage of other, wildly different positions isn't likely to land Shesterkin that kind of money. It's absolutely a factor in the negotiation that may raise what he gets a bit, but he shouldn't get that kind of money for max term unless the Rags are dumb.

 

[HTFN]

I agree with you in principle, but I think all they're really saying is that it affects the conversation, which is literally what a contract negotiation is. So of course it matters. It clearly helps establish the local market and is a key reference for each side setting their price.



Sure, but like you pointed out, that's just one argument in the conversation. The logical counter is "Sure, Panarin got that percentage, 5 years ago when we weren't the odds-on favorite to win stuff. Now that we ARE that team, we'd like to REMAIN that caliber of team because we all want a fist full of Cup rings. We can't do that if we get too top-heavy on contracts.

"Panarin got that money at that time because it takes that kind of investment to prove to the team and the league that we want to build a winner. Your client contributes mightily to our success and we're grateful, but here's a mountain of historical stats versus contract dollars and term that proves pretty conclusively that goalies don't have the shelf life that wings do. We can't build that winner pretending that your client will defy that trend."

I think CCR is right that ultimately the cap percentage of other, wildly different positions isn't likely to land Shesterkin that kind of money. It's absolutely a factor in the negotiation that may raise what he gets a bit, but he shouldn't get that kind of money for max term unless the Rags are dumb.

On paragraph 2, any player worth it says “that’s not my problem”

 

[Ridley Simon]

You can’t dismiss any aspect of salaries and negotiations. Any good agent will use all available data/information/comparables to get the most money for their client.

So of course Panarins 15% will be quantified.

But I also firmly agree that timing matters to the team. A shitty team can waste 15% on a winger. A really good team usually cannot.

 

[Jags]

On paragraph 2, any player worth it says “that’s not my problem”

Sure, which is the next argument in the conversation.

And then they counter with the reality of the situation; that the only teams that can afford to pay him that kind of cash are ones he won't want to play for. Either that or he can take the big cash for significantly less term. If the problem is insurmountable, they'll trade him for real value they can use and take on one of the many keepers eager to be in that situation.

Pro sports fans often seem to think that these types of things boil down to the team having to kiss the best player's ass. While they certainly aren't out to offend him, they're playing hardball, too. If Shesterkin's camp is in "You can't win without my client" mode, they're overplaying their hand. Huge goalie contracts have almost universally been disasters.

Yes, they'll use the "Panarin got X% of the cap" argument. Of course they will. But they won't give him that kind of money, and if they do they're morons. They have a talented team that can play well in front of any goalie. If they can't keep him, they can get a suitable replacement.