Speculation: Russo on the status of Kaprizov’s contract negotiations

[mouser]

What is the max percentage of a player's salary that can be paid in (escrow exempt) signing bonuses? It counts against the cap from the team's perspective but from the players' they'd obviously want as much of their deal in bonuses as possible. So what might be the sticking point if that's one of the details they're trying to hammer out?

Also if you do give him a signing bonus and he decides to f*** off to russia after all you're just out that money, right? i mean i'd be awfully hesitant to give him that $ if I were Leipold after the way this has gone.

Signing Bonuses are subject to Escrow.

 

[rynryn]

Signing Bonuses are subject to Escrow.

idk man i literally googled "nhl are signing bonuses subject to escrow" right now. maybe something changed since May?

 

[rynryn]

That's just one link. As far as I remember Russo reported too that Fletcher didn't do a lot to convince Kaprizov to come to NA.

not saying they don't exist, but that's a typical MN blogger trying for sensational clicks. you'd think if he felt this strongly about it there'd be something more out there. as for that quote...lost in translation? Fletcher was pretty adamant about letting players decide what they wanted to do as far as development. he wasn't going to guarantee a 5th round pick fresh off the draft a spot on the nhl roster and you can't possibly tell me any other GM in the world would have either.

 

[mouser]

idk man i literally googled "nhl are signing bonuses subject to escrow" right now. maybe something changed since May?

Signing Bonuses have been subject to Escrow since the Salary Cap was instituted in 2005.

It's a commonly repeated misunderstanding.

 

[Kshahdoo]

not saying they don't exist, but that's a typical MN blogger trying for sensational clicks. you'd think if he felt this strongly about it there'd be something more out there. as for that quote...lost in translation? Fletcher was pretty adamant about letting players decide what they wanted to do as far as development. he wasn't going to guarantee a 5th round pick fresh off the draft a spot on the nhl roster and you can't possibly tell me any other GM in the world would have either.

I didn't read that blogger back to then though. I remember the situation because of HF discussion. And I remember Minnesota fans weren't too happy about it, blamed Fletcher and like.

 

[Digitalbooya]

I didn't read that blogger back to then though. I remember the situation because of HF discussion. And I remember Minnesota fans weren't too happy about it, blamed Fletcher and like.

I seemed to remember the Wild were unable to talk to Kaprizov during an international tournament due to some Russian political BS.

I think Wild fans were pissed when Kaprizov signed his new KHL deal because it meant he wasn’t coming over till the end of that deal and some blamed Fletcher for Kaprizov’s decision to stay. He maybe could have done more, but I don’t expect any GM to kiss ass just to get a player to come play in the NHL.

 

[Kshahdoo]

I seemed to remember the Wild were unable to talk to Kaprizov during an international tournament due to some Russian political BS.

I think Wild fans were pissed when Kaprizov signed his new KHL deal because it meant he wasn’t coming over till the end of that deal and some blamed Fletcher for Kaprizov’s decision to stay. He maybe could have done more, but I don’t expect any GM to kiss ass just to get a player to come play in the NHL.

They wanted to talk to Kaprizov at the WJC, but access to the team was restricted and it was a typical practice for any teams not political bs.

 

[Jugitsu]

As far as I remember Minnesota didn't care about him for first few years after the draft. He was just another 5th rounder for them. They didn't even bother to ask him to come, and now it's his fault.

False. They definitely cared. An argument can be made that Fletcher didn’t go out of his way to lure Kirill to come over but he was definitely on everyone’s radar after his D+1 year. There were more than whispers in the air for Kirill to be able to start his NHL career. It’s more like Kirill didn’t care about the NHL at the time. I mean lets be honest: Kirill wasn’t one phone call or face-to-face meet away from signing his ELC. Signing for 3 frigging years with a KHL team as a 20 year old speaks volumes and now he’s paying the price for it.

 

[JoemAvs]

The thing is, it's not about the money for the Wild. So offering way less money to get him to sign for three years doesn't help us at all.

I understand that. And I get that it sucks from a Wild POV. But if KK really doesn't want to stay longer in Minnesota than he really has to (and I think by now that assumption is somewhat fair even though I still could be wrong), the Wild simply have no right or real way to force him to sign for longer than 3.
You can force him to take a lot less money if he wants short term vs long term. But you can't just say 5+ years or nothing. Thats not negotiating in good faith here if you know that KK doesn't want to stay anylonger than he has to (which is 3 years according to the CBA).

I still think a rather cheap (nowhere near the 9m that KK is rumored to demand even on shorter term deals) 1 year deal is the "fair" solution here. With the obvious implication that he will get traded at the 2022 draft for a decent return.

The Wild only own his rights for 3 more years. If he has no intention of signing for longer than that in Minnesota, Guerin needs to accept that and act accordingly.

 

[TS Quint]

Sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. For one, no such thing as "just anouther 5th rounder". Every pick is carefully scouted, drafted, and monitored. Draft picks are long term investments and no NHL team would "not care", this is a real business with tons of money on the line with stakeholders and investors.

And like others mentioned, it was also my recollection that he wanted to develop in the KHL, at home, rather than in Iowa. He's get more pay, plays at home, and arguably equal/better competition. And the Wild were happy to oblige.

You don't make more money at the end of the day playing in Russia like he did.. If it was about money he would have been in North America years ago. It's also what is making it harder for him to get this contract done right now. I'm sure at the end of this he will take Guerin to the cleaners but he has cost himself a small fortune staying in Russia. But he has his reasons and good for him if he has done what is best for him.

 

[TS Quint]

Good faith goes both ways, you don't seem to grasp that.

By the definition of good faith the Wild need to offer him a RFA contract of some sort. Maybe Kaprizov doesn't like that contract for whatever reason. I seriously doubt the Wild are holding him hostage at a 5 year minimum

 

[LOFIN]

By the definition of good faith the Wild need to offer him a RFA contract of some sort. Maybe Kaprizov doesn't like that contract for whatever reason. I seriously doubt the Wild are holding him hostage at a 5 year minimum

I don't doubt that at all. They can't bridge him, and don't want to lose him straight to UFA. Where I thought they would meet is 4 years, buys 1 year of UFA and gives the Wild a legit chance to extend him when he gets to UFA.

 

[Fatass]

By the definition of good faith the Wild need to offer him a RFA contract of some sort. Maybe Kaprizov doesn't like that contract for whatever reason. I seriously doubt the Wild are holding him hostage at a 5 year minimum

I’m thinking both sides agree on total dollars (27-30 mil) but KK insists on three years.

 

[TS Quint]

idk man i literally googled "nhl are signing bonuses subject to escrow" right now. maybe something changed since May?

Maybe post what you read. But I doubt owners are leaving loopholes on the 50/50 revenue split.

 

[Chrisinroch]

The Wild should grasp that and stop demanding Kaprizov to sign for 5+ years.

That’s not what good faith means

 

[Bazeek]

I understand that. And I get that it sucks from a Wild POV. But if KK really doesn't want to stay longer in Minnesota than he really has to (and I think by now that assumption is somewhat fair even though I still could be wrong), the Wild simply have no right or real way to force him to sign for longer than 3.
You can force him to take a lot less money if he wants short term vs long term. But you can't just say 5+ years or nothing. Thats not negotiating in good faith here if you know that KK doesn't want to stay anylonger than he has to (which is 3 years according to the CBA).

I still think a rather cheap (nowhere near the 9m that KK is rumored to demand even on shorter term deals) 1 year deal is the "fair" solution here. With the obvious implication that he will get traded at the 2022 draft for a decent return.

The Wild only own his rights for 3 more years. If he has no intention of signing for longer than that in Minnesota, Guerin needs to accept that and act accordingly.

Not to be pedantic, but this isn't what "good faith" means. From what's been reported Minnesota has been exceedingly straightforward about its intentions: to sign Kaprizov for as much term as they can. A max term deal isn't acceptable to the player's camp, so they've gone down as far from there as they're willing to go. There's no hidden agenda or subtext there.

Both sides are doing the same thing: using whatever leverage they have to push negotiations in the direction they want. It's not incumbent upon the team to offer shorter term deals if they don't feel it's in their interests to do so, any more than it's incumbent upon Kaprizov to sign for longer or for less money than he's willing. The only thing that's come close to "bad faith" in this whole saga is the apparent attempt by Kaprizov's agent to make it look like a KHL contract was on the cusp of being signed.

And this isn't an attempt to carry water for Guerin because I don't think the team has handled this well either. But most of the criticism I see in this thread amounts to "they're being ridiculous for not capitulating," which is a finger that points in both directions.

 

[Jerzey Devil]

Man this summer had potential to be one of the most exciting off seasons in a while. It was pretty intense early on but then it just fizzled out.

Had Eichel been traded and Kap either signed a huge deal or bounced to the KHL this would have been one of the best off seasons ever.

 

[Ban Hammered]

That’s not what good faith means

He doesn't actually care about good faith...

 

[BuiumSaveUs]

It seems like the Wild really screwed up the Kirill Kaprizov situation

You realize that his agent at the time didn’t want him to play in North America, and wouldn’t even allow a sit-down between the team and player at the WJC, right? I’m sure from his end it seemed like we didn’t try, but it’s far from the truth.

 

[Sota Popinski]

I’m thinking both sides agree on total dollars (27-30 mil) but KK insists on three years.

There is absolutely no way Kaprizov gets $9M per on a 3 year deal.

 

[JoemAvs]

Not to be pedantic, but this isn't what "good faith" means. From what's been reported Minnesota has been exceedingly straightforward about its intentions: to sign Kaprizov for as much term as they can. A max term deal isn't acceptable to the player's camp, so they've gone down as far from there as they're willing to go. There's no hidden agenda or subtext there.

Both sides are doing the same thing: using whatever leverage they have to push negotiations in the direction they want. It's not incumbent upon the team to offer shorter term deals if they don't feel it's in their interests to do so, any more than it's incumbent upon Kaprizov to sign for longer or for less money than he's willing. The only thing that's come close to "bad faith" in this whole saga is the apparent attempt by Kaprizov's agent to make it look like a KHL contract was on the cusp of being signed.

And this isn't an attempt to carry water for Guerin because I don't think the team has handled this well either. But most of the criticism I see in this thread amounts to "they're being ridiculous for not capitulating," which is a finger that points in both directions.

I just disagree.

Good faith doesn't mean he has to meet in the middle on term if he doesn't want to (there are reports out there that he is willing to go 5 anyways so if the Wild don't get that over the line due to stupid stuff like signing bonus I have 0 sympathy for them).


KKs attempt to gain leverage with the KHL isn't really good faith either if he never even contemplated signing although its clearly a play to gain some sort of leverage as well.

The Wild can tell him to sign a 1 year 5m deal or shove it. That I would be on board with.
But if they are telling him to sign 5+ years or gtfo, I think that is bad faith. The CBA explicitly guarantees players the right to become UFAs at the age of 27 or after 7 years of service.
Players are locked into having to play for a certain franchise in a certain city they have 0 control over for a huge part of their careers.
Don't get me wrong. I like that system and think otherwise the league would be way worse off. But its still a pretty harsh system that forces a superstar talent like McDavid to go to Edmonton for a fraction of the money he could earn in a high demand city like NY or LA if everything would be left to the free market.
At some point it becomes too much IMO. 27 or 7 years in the league is in the CBA for a reason. At some point players should get to decide their own fate.

When you abuse the RFA system to bully a player into having to give up their UFA years even though he really doesn't want to, that is where I would draw the line.
Force him to take a cheap 1 year deal. Let him lose some money that way. But telling him to sign for 5 or not play in the NHL is very bad faith IMO.

 

[kp61c]

That’s not what good faith means

I know, good faith is to cave in to all Guerin's demands and take it like a man. Funny thing that Kaprizov has no leverage whatsoever and will do exactly that and then he will put on a happy face even though he will be crying inside.

 

[north21]

Negotiations should be conducted in good faith. Demanding a player to sign a deal for at least 5 years till he's almost 30 doesn't seem fair. The team here wants to buy all his prime years and then discard him like a worn out boot. It's hardly surprising that Kaprizov is not thrilled about such a prospect.

How do we want to discard him when we would prefer to sign him for 8 instead of 5 years for big money? Or are you trolling on both directions again? Last I heard both sides were close on a 5 by 9 deal, right in the middle and favoring Kap by a year. All that is left is pure speculation about kap wanting 2-3 years and running to ufa. I think many wild fans would be happy with 4 just to get this done, you cry wolf that we aren't paying him enough, then we are paying him too much, then we want to discard him, that we aren't walking him to ufa, that we don't want him, that we want him for too long. Have I covered everything?

Guessing everyone involved wants him playing hockey for good money this fall for a term that works for everyone where they all concede a little bit. Because that is generally how negotiations work right? What exactly has been reported that hasn't been in good faith?

 

[Ban Hammered]

I know, good faith is to cave in to all Guerin's demands and take it like a man. Funny thing that Kaprizov has no leverage whatsoever and will do exactly that and then he will put on a happy face even though he will be crying inside.

Won't someone think of poor little abused Kaprizov...

 

[Bazeek]

I just disagree.

Good faith doesn't mean he has to meet in the middle on term if he doesn't want to (there are reports out there that he is willing to go 5 anyways so if the Wild don't get that over the line due to stupid stuff like signing bonus I have 0 sympathy for them).


KKs attempt to gain leverage with the KHL isn't really good faith either if he never even contemplated signing although its clearly a play to gain some sort of leverage as well.

The Wild can tell him to sign a 1 year 5m deal or shove it. That I would be on board with.
But if they are telling him to sign 5+ years or gtfo, I think that is bad faith. The CBA explicitly guarantees players the right to become UFAs at the age of 27 or after 7 years of service.
Players are locked into having to play for a certain franchise in a certain city they have 0 control over for a huge part of their careers.
Don't get me wrong. I like that system and think otherwise the league would be way worse off. But its still a pretty harsh system that forces a superstar talent like McDavid to go to Edmonton for a fraction of the money he could earn in a high demand city like NY or LA if everything would be left to the free market.
At some point it becomes too much IMO. 27 or 7 years in the league is in the CBA for a reason. At some point players should get to decide their own fate.

When you abuse the RFA system to bully a player into having to give up their UFA years even though he really doesn't want to, that is where I would draw the line.
Force him to take a cheap 1 year deal. Let him lose some money that way. But telling him to sign for 5 or not play in the NHL is very bad faith IMO.

You can think it's a poor way to negotiate or think that insisting on longer term isn't necessarily in the team's interest, but that's just a difference of opinion. "Bad faith" is something else entirely and it's an unfair accusation to make here.

Frankly I don't see how any of this amounts to "abuse" or "force" either, unless one thinks the CBA itself is abusive. Realistically this isn't going to get to the point where Kaprizov is forced to sit out the season anyway, because at some point the team is going to wash their hands of it and look to trade him. There's no telling if that's a week from now, the first day of the regular season, or sometime in November, but it'll happen before they let an asset rot on the vine.