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

[Habs Halifax]

Making my point for me I see, I would imagine both sides are working on a trade off right now correct? It isn't like other RFA have done this very same thing many many times before. Why all the hostage situation talk when this is normal?

Not that normal. The kid put up good numbers in 55 games and is exiting his ELC deal after one year. This Habs fan has zero bias into this situation and I feel he's being greedy and wants to cash in on a good shorten season.

If I'm the Wild, I go with the 2 year bridge. Figure out the tax difference between Tampa and Minnesota and prorate the Point bridge over 2 years. Then the Wild have 1 RFA year left to either trade him or give them the proven contract over a large term. At least then you have 3 years of sample.

Even 2 years at $7M might be too much. What happens if he slides down to 0.75 pts/game? Does everyone feel he is a sure shot 0.93 pts/game or better moving forward? That's a big gamble to take for the Wild IMO.

 

[TS Quint]

In what way do you think the Wild have been dishonest or unfair?

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of "good faith" as it applies to legal matters is that it means neither side is negotiating a contract/settlement/whatever with the intention of violating the spirit of the agreement: e.g. negotiating in a loophole that they intend to exploit. That's clearly not what's happening here.

Edit: nevermind, I jumped the gun in my reply and I think I see what you're saying. They're not preventing him from using his rights as outlined by the CBA though. Kaprizov himself shot himself in the foot there, not the team.

I agree, that Kaprizov set himself up for a difficult negotiation.

I don’t know how many times I have to say that I don’t think the Wild are doing anything wrong. Neither is Kaprizov. I think the view some fans are taking is incorrect and not even possible.

Good faith isn’t just being honest.

 

[JoemAvs]

If he didn't like the idea of playing in Minnesota but he still wanted to play in the NHL while maximizing both salary and autonomy, he did so in pretty much the worst possible way. So either he's foolish or it's not actually that big a deal and this is mostly grandstanding on the part of his agent.

I think the plan was to spend as little time in Minnesota as possible while going the Panarin route as quickly as possible (cashing in huge in UFA at a prefered destination).
For that to happen he had to go to Minny at some point and prove himself in the NHL or nobody would offer him the big bucks once he turns 27 or 28 via UFA (or even before that if he can orchestrate a trade to the right team).

But yeah. At this point that is probably too much speculation. I just think if he had any interest in signing a longterm deal and staying longterm with the Wild, this offseason would have gone way different. Considering the name of his agent and what so far has transpired, the writing is probably on the wall for KK and Minny. Even if he signs the mysterious 5 year deal Russo keeps talking about for weeks now, he probably won't see the end of it in Minnesota.
Given the recapture penalties, its probably best for all parties involved to settle this quickly and then work on the terms of a divorce in the not so distant future.

 

[north21]

The Wild offering Kaprizov more money than any player with his amount of experience = bad faith
Kaprizov demanding to be paid Panarin's UFA contract = good faith

This seems to be where we are at.

 

[AKL]

Not that normal. The kid put up good numbers in 55 games and is exiting his ELC deal after one year. This Habs fan has zero bias into this situation and I feel he's being greedy and wants to cash in on a good shorten season.

If I'm the Wild, I go with the 2 year bridge. Figure out the tax difference between Tampa and Minnesota and prorate the Point bridge over 2 years. Then the Wild have 1 RFA year left to either trade him or give them the proven contract over a large term. At least then you have 3 years of sample.

The issue isn't him asking for more money than the Wild want to give him. The issue is term. And even on a short term deal it's reported he wants the same 9-10M AAV, so your solution doesn't actually solve anything.

 

[Habs Halifax]

The issue isn't him asking for more money than the Wild want to give him. The issue is term.

If term is a problem, the Wild should go with 2 years and then still have 1 RFA year left. If the Wild want 3+ years and to buy UFA years, they opened a can of worms.

Wild own the RFA years and Kaprizov owns his UFA years. They need to respect each other's leverage. If it's only 55 NHL games, I believe the Wild are not so smart to try to buy UFA years at a rate of 0.93 pts/game. That's massive risk.

 

[TS Quint]

Not that normal. The kid put up good numbers in 55 games and is exiting his ELC deal after one year. This Habs fan has zero bias into this situation and I feel he's being greedy and wants to cash in on a good shorten season.

If I'm the Wild, I go with the 2 year bridge. Figure out the tax difference between Tampa and Minnesota and prorate the Point bridge over 2 years. Then the Wild have 1 RFA year left to either trade him or give them the proven contract over a large term. At least then you have 3 years of sample.

Even 2 years at $7M might be too much. What happens if he slides down to 0.75 pts/game? Does everyone feel he is a sure shot 0.93 pts/game or better moving forward?

I think this is the best way to go. At this point it is nearly impossible to find a comparable player to base a contract around. Give him 2 years, get some more information and give him a fair contract based on that. I think if the Wild want him there long term this would be the most fair for both.

 

[JoemAvs]

Making my point for me I see, I would imagine both sides are working on a trade off right now correct? It isn't like other RFA have done this very same thing many many times before. Why all the hostage situation talk when this is normal?

Because that trade-off only comes into play if both parties have an interest in making that trade-off. If KK has no interest in staying anylonger than he has to in Minnesota then obviously that trade-off makes no sense.

KK is a fool if he believes he can get short term and max money. That doesn't work. But he certainly can opt for short term less money and should be allowed to do so here.
And so far it seems like Guerin is not willing to go short-term under any circumstance. Thats my gripe I have so far. The moment I hear about KK rejecting a reasonable short term deal (say 1 yr ~ 5m), I am switching sides to Team Guerin.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I think this is the best way to go. At this point it is nearly impossible to find a comparable player to base a contract around. Give him 2 years, get some more information and give him a fair contract based on that. I think if the Wild want him there long term this would be the most fair for both.

It's obvious to me. 55 games is too much to gamble on giving a long term high AAV.

2 years at $7M. Even if he falls back to 0.75 pts/game, it's still 60 pts prorated.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

Good faith also applies to intent. If one party comes to the negotiation with no intent of working toward a mutually beneficial result, that is bad faith. That doesn't mean fair down the middle, but at least a reasonable intent to compromise. If Kaprizov is at a 3 year and the Wild won't budge off 5 and neither party is even interested in discussing 4 then you could make the case that both sides have descended into at least some "bad faith".

 

[Digitalbooya]

K.

But that isn’t his only option. That’s just a silly comment.

No, what's silly is thinking the Wild should be forced to offer a 1-3 year deal. The one year option was there.

Personally, I'd offer 2 years $3M AAV, 5 years $8.5M AAV, and 8 years $9.5M. If he wants the short term deal, then his pay expectations should take a nose dive.

 

[Sota Popinski]

It hilarious that people with biases in favor of Kaprizov or against the Wild are of the opinion that a 5x9M offer is a lowball, or unfair, or in bad faith but totally ignore that Kaprizov's request of a 3x10M deal is so preposterous that no other RFA or 10.2c deal has even come within $3M per year of it.

 

[AKL]

If term is a problem, the Wild should go with 2 years and then still have 1 RFA year left. If the Wild want 3+ years and to buy UFA years, they opened a can of worms.

Giving him 1 or 2 years is effectively no different than giving him 3 years. He can walk straight to UFA without ever talking to Guerin again.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Giving him 1 or 2 years is effectively no different than giving him 3 years. He can walk straight to UFA without ever talking to Guerin again.

He has 3 RFA years right? A 2 year bridge leaves 1 RFA year left and that can be traded where you allow the other GM to figure out his next contract. 3 years takes it right to UFA and it's not the same

Don't like the 2 year bridge? Go with another 1 year deal then and retain 2 RFA years.

 

[AKL]

Wild own the RFA years and Kaprizov owns his UFA years. They need to respect each other's leverage. If it's only 55 NHL games, I believe the Wild are not so smart to try to buy UFA years at a rate of 0.93 pts/game. That's massive risk.

He doesn't own anything right now. He doesn't have the leverage to own those years right now. The Wild own his rights right now. The Wild have the leverage. You want to talk about respecting each other's leverage, yet you think the Wild should give theirs away.

 

[AKL]

He has 3 RFA years right? A 2 year bridge leaves 1 RFA year left and that can be traded where you allow the other GM to figure out his next contract. 3 years takes it right to UFA and it's not the same

A 2 year deal means he only has to accept the QO or elect for arbitration to get a 1 year deal. It's effectively the exact same.

He can be traded on a 5 year contract too.

 

[Bazeek]

I think the plan was to spend as little time in Minnesota as possible while going the Panarin route as quickly as possible (cashing in huge in UFA at a prefered destination).
For that to happen he had to go to Minny at some point and prove himself in the NHL or nobody would offer him the big bucks once he turns 27 or 28 via UFA (or even before that if he can orchestrate a trade to the right team).

But yeah. At this point that is probably too much speculation. I just think if he had any interest in signing a longterm deal and staying longterm with the Wild, this offseason would have gone way different. Considering the name of his agent and what so far has transpired, the writing is probably on the wall for KK and Minny. Even if he signs the mysterious 5 year deal Russo keeps talking about for weeks now, he probably won't see the end of it in Minnesota.
Given the recapture penalties, its probably best for all parties involved to settle this quickly and then work on the terms of a divorce in the not so distant future.

If his goal was to spend as little time in Minnesota as possible he wouldn't have burned the first year on his ELC last summer. Playing 2 years on an ELC would have meant that his contract expires next summer and he'd have played enough games to earn arbitration rights, which would probably give him all the leverage that people are lamenting he doesn't currently have.

What he did instead was surrendered that in favor of (presumably) making more money sooner.

 

[rynryn]

Good faith also applies to intent. If one party comes to the negotiation with no intent of working toward a mutually beneficial result, that is bad faith. That doesn't mean fair down the middle, but at least a reasonable intent to compromise. If Kaprizov is at a 3 year and the Wild won't budge off 5 and neither party is even interested in discussing 4 then you could make the case that both sides have descended into at least some "bad faith".

Wild have already moved in this negotiation. Has Kaprizov moved?

 

[Habs Halifax]

He doesn't own anything right now. He doesn't have the leverage to own those years right now. The Wild own his rights right now. The Wild have the leverage. You want to talk about respecting each other's leverage, yet you think the Wild should give theirs away.

He owns his UFA years. Wild own the RFA years. Both sides need to respect each others leverage.

1 or 2 year deal is the obvious approach.

 

[AKL]

He owns his UFA years. Wild own the RFA years. Both sides need to respect each others leverage.

1 or 2 year deal is the obvious approach.

Again, you keep saying they need to respect each other's leverage, and you advocate for the Wild giving theirs away. And you're giving Kaprizov more than he actually has.

 

[TS Quint]

When a player is drafted, their RFA years are designed for them to give more than the team, and get less than the team. Their UFA years are designed for the player to get more than the team, and give less than the team.

Kaprizov hasn't given anything throughout his RFA years, but you expect the Wild to give him his UFA years? Why? What has he done to earn that? He didn't hold up his end of the bargain, and you're okay with that, but when the Wild refuse to give, it's not fair?

The Wild don't have the obligation to do what's best for Kaprizov or what you think is fair to Kaprizov, just as Kaprizov doesn't have to do what's best for the Wild or what we think is fair to the Wild. What you're seeing right now is that coming to a head. This is what happens when a player makes certain decisions. There are consequences. The Wild are not responsible for amending those consequences for him. They have no obligation to give to him what he hasn't given to them.

The Wild are not doing anything to Kaprizov that he didn't do to them. A team gets 7 RFA years from a player when drafted. Kaprizov will have given, at most, 4 of those, which means he took 3 RFA years from the organization. The Wild are asking for 2 of them back. It's not "unfair".

Kaprizov doesn’t owe the Wild any RFA years any more than the Wild owe a 7th round never will be a spot on their roster.

RFA status is about RESTRICTING the players market. Not about the team owning his life those years.

 

[Habs Halifax]

A 2 year deal means he only has to accept the QO or elect for arbitration to get a 1 year deal. It's effectively the exact same.

He can be traded on a 5 year contract too.

It's not the same. Your trying to spin it to be the same. As a GM, you have several options if you go with the 1 or 2 year fair rate cause you then can engage on a future extension before the Arbitration and if you get a sniff of him not wanting to extend, you can engage on trading him in a sign/trade approach. If another GM finds out Kaprizov wants to play for them, they will engage on trade talks. Less risks this way than paying him $9M for a 5 year contract.

I get the assumption you think he holds his 0.93 pts/game rate and therefore, you think his 5 year at $9M AAV can be easily traded. But what you are not considering is if he slips down to 0.75 pts/game which would be around 60 pts. He's only played 55 NHL games and his KHL numbers are 0.78 pts/game.

Paying someone in both term and AAV after 55 NHL games is very risky in my books.

 

[AKL]

Kaprizov doesn’t owe the Wild any RFA years any more than the Wild owe a 7th round never will be a spot on their roster.

RFA status is about RESTRICTING the players market. Not about the team owning his life those years.

And right now, his market is restricted to what the Wild will offer, and that's 5 years.

 

[rynryn]

this whole thing doesn't make him more tradeable. some of you think that's what they're trying to do?

 

[AKL]

But what you are not considering is if he slips down to 0.75 pts/game which would be around 60 pts. He's only played 55 NHL games and his KHL numbers are 0.78 pts/game.

Paying someone in both term and AAV after 55 NHL games is very risky in my books.

Then he should happily take the $45M in front of him, shouldn't he?

What you're describing might only net him $30M.