Confirmed with Link: Oilers sign Connor Brown to 1-year incentive laden deal ($775K caphit, potentially $3.25M in bonuses)

[Canovin]

Regardless of how badly this signing has and might well go in the future, there was no chance that Holland or any other GM in the league was going to bail on Brown before the bonus was earned. Everyone in the business would have seen the deal as a $4M contract with a structure that allowed for cap deferral. The amount can be criticized, and I think it was excessive, but the only way this was not going to be fully paid was if he reinjured himself and could not play 10 games.

Vegas and Tampa would have easily sent him down before his bonus kicked in. Sadly that's how championship teams are built

 

[brentashton]

The clause was simply a loop-hole to defer the cap. Everyone in the NHL would have treated it the same way. Franky I doubt any other team would have sent him down after 9 games.

Brown's play will actually cost him money if it continues. Seravalli and Friedman both stated that he had multi-year offers in the $3-4M range from several teams. If he does not turn it around those will not be there next year.

Both arguments that Vegas would or wouldn’t are simply conjecture.
However, I think the theme though is that GMKH has publicly stated “you can’t squeeze people“ and has built a resume of being a soft negotiator and light touch on making hard personnel decisions.

George McPhee (and by direct connection Kelly McCrimmon) have kicked contracts and players to the curb in the pursuit of a championship team.

Extrapolated to how people anticipate how Vegas would have handled the situation vis a vis Ken Holland‘s demonstrated response, Vegas burying Browne seems very plausible.

 

[Fourier]

Both arguments that Vegas would or wouldn’t are simply conjecture.
However, I think the theme though is that GMKH has publicly stated “you can’t squeeze people“ and has built a resume of being a soft negotiator and light touch on making hard personnel decisions.

George McPhee (and by direct connection Kelly McCrimmon) have kicked contracts and players to the curb in the pursuit of a championship team.

Extrapolated to how people anticipate how Vegas would have handled the situation vis a vis Ken Holland‘s demonstrated response, Vegas burying Browne seems very plausible.

There is no doubt that Vegas is cutthroat in how they handle players. But they have never done anything like what is being proposed.

Vegas and Tampa would have easily sent him down before his bonus kicked in. Sadly that's how championship teams are built

When has Tampa ever done anything remotely like this? This is nothing like having players go on LTIR for longer then need be. Vegas has been cutthroat in trading players but they have never done anything that would cost a player $3.25M in a contract that was signed by both teams in good faith.

 

[brentashton]

Vegas and Tampa would have easily sent him down before his bonus kicked in. Sadly that's how championship teams are built

It’s not sad. It’s reality. It’s business. It’s been happening forever.

As an example, Sather traded for notable trouble maker (but also highly talented) Don Murdoch in March 1980. After less than one full season, he was first sent to Wichita in the minors and then was dumped to the North Stars for Don Jackson who was an important part of championship years’ defence corps. If you look at the Oiler history of trades, Sather made many of this type of move, he didn’t wait around if it wasn’t working.

 

[guymez]

There is no doubt that Vegas is cutthroat in how they handle players. But they have never done anything like what is being proposed.


When has Tampa ever done anything remotely like this? This is nothing like having players go on LTIR for longer then need be. Vegas has been cutthroat in trading players but they have never done anything that would cost a player $3.25M in a contract that was signed by both teams in good faith.

100%
The reailty is that there is no precident for doing that. None at all.
To suggest that it was a slam dunk and that the Oilers should have done it is misplaced to say the least.

 

[brentashton]

There is no doubt that Vegas is cutthroat in how they handle players. But they have never done anything like what is being proposed.

Probably because they aren’t stupid enough to craft a performance bonus like this in the first place.

I think we both agree it’s a shitty situation the team finds itself in, that is probably only salvaged now if CB can now find even a part of his game on an ever improving level, now to the seasons end.

 

[brentashton]

100%
The reailty is that there is no precident for doing that. None at all.
To suggest that it was a slam dunk and that the Oilers should have done it is misplaced to say the least.

This statement proves nothing towards why it didn’t happen.

If no one ever did anything that was allowable or silent in a contract because there is no precedent, nothing would ever occur for a first time.

 

[Davo Ikinzom]

There is no doubt that Vegas is cutthroat in how they handle players. But they have never done anything like what is being proposed.

Does Shipachyov not ring a bell?

Signed for 4.5Mx2, played 3 games, got sent down to the AHL by Vegas, refused to report and got his contract terminated.

 

[guymez]

This statement proves nothing towards why it didn’t happen.

If no one ever did anything that was allowable or silent in a contract because there is no precedent, nothing would ever occur for a first time.

Well...have a contract that was signed in good faith and signed after a season ending injury...the team is not going to exercise a clause which essentially terminates the contract prior to 10 games.
There is a reason that there is no precedent for it.
Just look at things from this persepctive alone...is it a reasonable expectation that you will be able to properly evaulate a player (after a season ending injury) in less than 10 games?

 

[Fourier]

Does Shipachyov not ring a bell?

Signed for 4.5Mx2, played 3 games, got sent down to the AHL by Vegas, refused to report and got his contract terminated.

He was not losing any money if he went to the minors. In fact had he gone he would have actually made more than he would in the NHL since AHL contracts don't get hit with escrow. He ended up losing the money because he refused the demotion.

Shipachyov was an issue from the start. He never made the team out of camp and was going to be sent down until Vegas could move him. Brown on the other hand actually had a solid preseason. 2 goals and 3 points in 4 games and was on the ice for 5 GF and 0 against at ES. The wheels fell off for both him and the team to start the season. But 9 games in Brown was at a 64.13% CF and 57.22% xGF% 5 vs 5 and was one of few players having any success on the pk so while he was not playing well and was not producing it would have been reasonable to think that it could turn around. It did for the team but not for him.

If the Oilers sent Brown down today that would be the equivalent, not sending him down to avoid paying his bonus. If the Oilers sent Brown to BAK today and he refused to go they could terminate his deal as well without repercussions since it would be the player that initiated the breach.

 

[Fourier]

Probably because they aren’t stupid enough to craft a performance bonus like this in the first place.

I think we both agree it’s a shitty situation the team finds itself in, that is probably only salvaged now if CB can now find even a part of his game on an ever improving level, now to the seasons end.

The clause is actually pretty much standard fare right now. Talbot and Pacioretty both have 10 game clauses. Halak signed with both Boston and Vacouver with 10 game clauses. The Canucks had a chance to do exactly what is being proposed here but did not do so as it was not considered to be in good faith. Boston gave both Bergeron a 10 game clauses, though for Krejci they made it $1M at 10 games and another $500K for 20.

And yes I agree that the only way this does not backfire is is his game improves. That is also the best thing for both the team and the player.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

The Brown deal was always going to be a stretch to deliver any value once the $3.225 performance bonus was announced and tied to a superficial 10 game appearance condition versus production. It would be interesting to know what the team management's expectations were/are for the player with their mixed public messages of celebration at getting a top 6 player but also tempering public expectation saying they expected it to take time returning from injury before this guy would get his game back.

No one imagined true worst case of a third line player on a $4 million guaranteed deal delivering 1 point and a team worse -10 while predominantly skating with Draisaitl or McDavid. The sell job of 'Hyman light' never seemed realistic for a guy thirty pounds and several inches shorter than the elite power forward. Hard truth is that Brown was never being waived after 9 games.

Not a true comparable but Oilers did waive free agent signing Janmark last year exposing him to waivers to start the season. That's the type of true value deal for middle line forward utility players.

Shipachyov was an interesting case: Vadim Shipachyov Describes His Time In Vegas "Like A Terrible Dream" - SinBin.vegas.
Despite happening in their inaugural year, his situation hasn't diminished Vegas as a prime destination for free agents despite at times hard lining moving out marginal guys to pursue better players. Maybe a production of winning culture, favourable destination, and no tax state regime.

Edmonton paid full freight on Brown. The Brick no payment till 2024 performance bonus was going to be a poison pill to be bitterly swallowed based upon team results at end of year. We'll see where Brown and the team end up but in both cases the season to date has been an unmitigated disaster.

 

[Sra1974]

The clause is actually pretty much standard fare right now. Talbot and Pacioretty both have 10 game clauses. Halak signed with both Boston and Vacouver with 10 game clauses. The Canucks had a chance to do exactly what is being proposed here but did not do so as it was not considered to be in good faith. Boston gave both Bergeron a 10 game clauses, though for Krejci they made it $1M at 10 games and another $500K for 20.

And yes I agree that the only way this does not backfire is is his game improves. That is also the best thing for both the team and the player.

Curious if the goalie clause is 10 appearances in the game or just 10 games including those in the bench? Massive difference between the two.

Whether the clause is common or not isn’t really the issue. Without a turnaround this is a terrible bet by the Oilers.

 

[Fourier]

Curious if the goalie clause is 10 appearances in the game or just 10 games including those in the bench? Massive difference between the two.

Whether the clause is common or not isn’t really the issue. Without a turnaround this is a terrible bet by the Oilers.

10 games dressed.

If things don't turn around the Oilers certainly lose this bet.

 

[brentashton]

The clause is actually pretty much standard fare right now. Talbot and Pacioretty both have 10 game clauses. Halak signed with both Boston and Vacouver with 10 game clauses. The Canucks had a chance to do exactly what is being proposed here but did not do so as it was not considered to be in good faith. Boston gave both Bergeron a 10 game clauses, though for Krejci they made it $1M at 10 games and another $500K for 20.

And yes I agree that the only way this does not backfire is is his game improves. That is also the best thing for both the team and the player.

Thanks for the additional information. Yes the clause is used sparingly where appropriate. I can’t recall it ever being used with a player on Vegas by McPhee et al.

And Talbot with a reborn-like .920 save avg and Patches still on IR since the start (so the clause hasn’t even kicked in yet) hasn’t played a game. Their situations, to me, aren’t really similar to how Brown’s situation was handled given his lack of performance to date, which is what the discussion is about

Anyway we won’t agree on the application of the exit possibility and it’s a moot issue as well. Moving on. Cheers.

 

[Lacaar]

I don't think most Canadian fans have accepted that we can't run our franchises like American ones do. Especially the Darling destination Franchises.

Would Vegas have dumped Brown to the minors. Quite possibly. the difference is there's 10-20. Well in all honestly. Pretty much every player in the league ready and willing to take his place on Vegas.

I don't really blame the players. Hell if I'm being honest I'd rather be STINKING rich in Vegas than Edmonton.

The sad part is I don't think a Canadian franchise will ever be able to truly compete because of it. We can't motivate players to come here. and we can't motivate players to play well here. It's why everything a Canadian franchise touches eventually turns to shit. Oh we have our one off cinderalla stories and that's about it.

Vancouver is having their resurgence. It will last a year and next year they'll be crap again. Because their players just won't be at the same motivational level as their American counterparts. Then they'll suck again for a bit.

The players will deny it, the media will do it's best to ignore it. The NHL wants it this way.. America is where the money and growth is. Canadians just watch not knowing or accepting the odds are drastically stacked against them.

So yes has Holland blown some shit.. yup. But the brown move is the price and risk we have to make in order to compete. And we can't afford to miss... which unfortunately looks to have happend. There's no room for mistakes when running a Canadian franchise. They're just too crippling when the odds are so much against us to begin with.

 

[Stoneman89]

That was an option. But he was always going to get his 10 games unless he was hurt.


Not a chance.

The AHL SHOULD have been the option. Not seeing if he could somehow get himself up to speed here. And the idea would be, if he can't find his game in the AHL after 20 or so games, then why are we proceeding with him for the 10th NHL game and beyond?

 

[ThePhoenixx]

Not a chance.

So now you speak for 32 teams?

Did you email each of them and ask?

What did Vegas tell you?

 

[McDNicks17]

This is what I was kind of talking about in my other post in here. Brown is playing the highest percentage of ice time against elite competition for forwards on the team. He's doing that with a heavy slant toward defensive zone starts too.

PuckIQ | Woodmoney

Hockey Analytics

puckiq.com

I don't know why the coaches are using him as some defensive zone matchup winger. It's clearly not working. Give him some easy offensive minutes on the third line or something and see if that helps.

 

[AM]

I get a kick out of posters crying over spilt milk. Brown went out every time drai did. The drai line was ineffective. A good thing they have have a season to make it better.

 

[Fourier]

So now you speak for 32 teams?

Did you email each of them and ask?

What did Vegas tell you?

I must have missed your post where you asked the same thing of the poster who made an equally definitive statement in the posts I quoted. Or do you only object to people expressing opinions you disagree with?

Vegas would have buried him in the AHL and kicked his dog.

Vegas and Tampa would have easily sent him down before his bonus kicked in. Sadly that's how championship teams are built

This is a hockey discussion board. I expressed my opinion based on years of following how teams operate under the cap. Neither Vegas or Tampa have ever done anything remotely like this. Nor has any other team. But in the end others disagree. I have seen no evidence to support their side to compel me to change my opinion and I probably did not change theirs. One side is right, the other is wrong. But we will probably never actually know which is which.

 

[Davo Ikinzom]

I think it's crazy to see how you could be following the sport for so long and suggest never in the history of the league has a team tried to save themselves from the cap hit of an underperforming player by sending them down to the AHL.

And to be so rattled that some of us disagreed with you that you're still quoting me a day later is funny, not to mention the doubling down of "actually I'm right, and they're wrong" is the icing on the cake after pointing out it's a discussion board.

 

[Fourier]

I think it's crazy to see how you could be following the sport for so long and suggest never in the history of the league has a team tried to save themselves from the cap hit of an underperforming player by sending them down to the AHL.

And to be so rattled that some of us disagreed with you that you're still quoting me a day later is funny, not to mention the doubling down of "actually I'm right, and they're wrong" is the icing on the cake after pointing out it's a discussion board.

This is hardly the same as simply sending down a player to save the cap hit something that happens all the time. At least if the point was to send him down so as not to pay the bonus. If you don't see that I am not sure what I can say to convince you. But if you do have an example anywhere close to this case I'd genuinely like to see it and will be happy to acknowledge it.

You may want to read why I quoted you. In the end, we are both expressing an opinion. Neither one of us can actually prove we are right in this case.

 

[Davo Ikinzom]

This is hardly the same as simply sending down a player to save the cap hit something that happens all the time. At least if the point was to send him down so as not to pay the bonus. If you don't see that I am not sure what I can say to convince you. But if you do have an example anywhere close to this case I'd genuinely like to see it and will be happy to acknowledge it.

You may want to read why I quoted you. In the end, we are both expressing an opinion. Neither one of us can actually prove we are right in this case.

If they always intended on paying him that bonus, why even have a 10 games played cause instead of say 1 game?

 

[harpoon]

I like how all that ‘good faith’ onus seems to be placed on the Oilers. When a player signs a deal in ‘good faith’ and then turns in the kind of performance we’ve seen from Brown what are the options available to the team? Usually nothing, as we see with the Campbell situation. Teams have to pay up regardless of how badly a player performs. Brown was in a different situation because for various reasons he was seen as a greater risk than your average free agent signing. Why even bother having this type of performance clause in NHL contracts if they are merely a formality? If there was really ‘good faith’ on the part of the player in this case he would have been more than willing to go down to the AHL, collect the salary due him this season with no deductions, and work his ass of to be worthy of a spot on the big roster and achieve the games played clause (and his bonus) at a later point in the season. By simply sending him down at the nine game mark I don’t see any way that the Oilers could be accused of abusing the spirit of the contract. Player wants his money. Team wants to get value for their precious cap dollars. Going to the AHL and getting his game up to expectations would have been a way for both parties to achieve satisfaction while observing the letter and the spirit of the deal.