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

[Habs Halifax]

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.

I can't control your comprehension or spins, and I will I be responsible for it either.

A 1 or 2 year bridge is not the same as a 3 year deal. You are worried about arbitration too much and going overboard with it. A 1 or 2 year bridge buys you time to evaluate the player more and look for a longer extension when his deal is 12 months or less.

Stop pretending that teams don't go with bridge contracts.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

Sign then trade his ass at the deadline for Boeser +

 

[AKL]

I can't control your comprehension or spins, and I will I be responsible for it either.

A 1 or 2 year bridge is not the same as a 3 year deal. You are worried about arbitration too much and going overboard with it. A 1 or 2 year bridge buys you time to evaluate the player more and look for a longer extension when his deal is 12 months or less.

Stop pretending that teams don't go with bridge contracts.

I'm not pretending teams don't use bridge contracts all the time, I'm explaining to you why a bridge is not a good option for the team in this situation, and you don't understand the situation well enough to understand what I'm saying.

 

[Habs Halifax]

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

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

It's a two sided approach and a $7M offer for one or 2 years is a fair bridge for the Wild's RFA years. Are you saying Kaprizov is entitled to $30M or $45M after 55 NHL games?

 

[north21]

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.

I think myself and other wild fans are in agreement here, the problem is we don't really know what is being discussed and people are making "wild" accusations based off very limited info. However the majority of us are certainly fine taking the risk on longer term. Not sure what kind of shorter term options are available and we are all just speculating off the report of 5 by 9 right?

 

[Habs Halifax]

I'm not pretending teams don't use bridge contracts all the time, I'm explaining to you why a bridge is not a good option for the team in this situation, and you don't understand the situation well enough to understand what I'm saying.

You can explain all day long. That's your opinion but it appears you think your opinions are fact. Have a nice day. We chatted enough and it's going to go nowhere

 

[AKL]

It's a two sided approach and a $7M offer for one or 2 years is a fair bridge for the Wild's RFA years. Are you saying Kaprizov is entitled to $30M or $45M after 55 NHL games?

I'm saying exactly what you're saying. He isn't entitled to $45M, nor has he earned $45M, yet. And yet, it's there in front of him for the taking. The logical conclusion is he should take it.

 

[Ban Hammered]

Truth can be shocking, i understand.

When you start speaking it...it sure will be.

 

[TS Quint]

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.

You can think it’s silly all you want but you are wrong.

I’d bet at this point the Wild are doing something similar to what you are suggesting. I think the Wild could find some number of players who start hot and have some ups and downs but turn out alright. So they could logically offer that but say we believe you will get there so if you want big money we want to be sure you will be part of the Wild when you do so here’s bigger money longer term. But if you want short term the money won’t be there. But a short term contract has been offered.

 

[mouser]

Per the MOU, signing bonuses and player performance bonuses are not included when calculating escrow which is presently set at 20 percent of a player's salary before taxes for the upcoming season.

i believe y'all but i think i first heard it on Sirius, I think Russo mentioned it, and the only hit on the first page of results that says this is wrong is issued as a correction on a Ryan O'Reilly article from 2015. Should be easier to find without having to actually sift through the CBA.

I haven't seen any language in the the MOU saying that. If you can locate that citation in the MOU I'd love to examine it.

The CBA states in 50.4(d)(i) that all Bonuses are subject to Escrow.

Where the confusion comes from is the CBA says the Escrow rate is established at the start of the regular season. So a lot of people assume that means that Signing Bonuses paid before the start of the regular season should have no escrow withholding.

However there have been many articles discussing that summer Signing Bonuses have been subjected to Escrow, often at the final escrow withholding % rate of the prior season. So the empirical reporting implies the NHL and PA have agreed on some process for withholding on signing bonuses that isn't explicitly detailed in the CBA. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened, there are many other areas of the CBA where they've reached implementation agreements that aren't detailed, such as how LTIR is implemented.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I think myself and other wild fans are in agreement here, the problem is we don't really know what is being discussed and people are making "wild" accusations based off very limited info.

After the long term deal talks fall through and it's been a while now, I would turn to a 1 or 2 year bridge. 55 games is not enough to give out a monster AAV with term. That's massive risks IMO.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I'm saying exactly what you're saying. He isn't entitled to $45M, nor has he earned $45M, yet. And yet, it's there in front of him for the taking. The logical conclusion is he should take it.

Smart or dumb. He doesn't have too. So the next step for the Wild GM is to offer two offers. That one you are talking about and a 1 or 2 year bridge. Then sit back and go on vacation. If you are a GM and the offers are fair and comparable to others, don't sweat it.

55 games is too little for me

 

[north21]

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

He certainly has the choice to stay in Russia for much much less money but as his old coach said, he is not playing there. Something will get figured out, more than likely this is just all a last minute squeeze to see if he can't get some insane deal instead of a super high paid deal?

 

[Minnesnota]

After the long term deal talks fall through and it's been a while now, I would turn to a 1 or 2 year bridge. 55 games is not enough to give out a monster AAV with term. That's massive risks IMO.

You would make for a terrible GM. We get it. You don't have to continue explaining to us why.

 

[TS Quint]

He certainly has the choice to stay in Russia for much much less money but as his old coach said, he is playing there. Something will get figured out, more than likely this is just all a last minute squeeze to see if he can't get some insane deal instead of a super high paid deal?

Go full Nylander and hope Guerin goes full Dubas!

 

[AKL]

Smart or dumb. He doesn't have too. So the next step for the Wild GM is to offer two offers. That one you are talking about and a 1 or 2 year bridge. Then sit back and go on vacation. If you are a GM and the offers are fair and comparable to others, don't sweat it.

Yeah, the Wild don't want to offer a 1 or 2 year bridge because it's not a good option for them right now, and they don't have to offer a 1 or 2 year bridge either, so they won't.

 

[north21]

After the long term deal talks fall through and it's been a while now, I would turn to a 1 or 2 year bridge. 55 games is not enough to give out a monster AAV with term. That's massive risks IMO.

Not really if you look at his resume, not to mention him basically carrying the team last year. Certainly some risk but a risk every wild fan and management is willing to take.

 

[Habs Halifax]

You would make for a terrible GM. We get it. You don't have to continue explaining to us why.

Weak material that lacks no substance. Basically flaming. The number # problem on internet chat forums.

Reply back with some reasoning please.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Yeah, the Wild don't want to offer a 1 or 2 year bridge because it's not a good option for them right now, and they don't have to offer a 1 or 2 year bridge either, so they won't.

It's a standstill and if the longer term deal don't work cause the AAV is too high, then you are left with the 1 or 2 year bridge. You can't force him to take that money when he feels like he wants a higher AAV. What you can control is a bridge and then evaluate him past 55 NHL games.

 

[AKL]

It's a standstill and if the longer term deal don't work cause the AAV is too high, then you are left with the 1 or 2 year bridge.

Like I said, you don't understand the situation well enough, and refuse to learn.

 

[McJedi]

I'm not pretending teams don't use bridge contracts all the time, I'm explaining to you why a bridge is not a good option for the team in this situation, and you don't understand the situation well enough to understand what I'm saying.

A one year bridge is better than 2 or 3 years. 3 seems like worst case scenario for the Wild.

One year shouldn’t be off the table. It’s a can kicker.

a two year deal means the player accepts arbitration for year 3 and walks as a UFA, don’t think Wild can even trade him in that scenario. So Also not smart for the Wild.

4 years isn’t ideal but it’s a contract that holds huge trade value next summer. Maybe something to consider if this lingers.

 

[Digitalbooya]

You can think it’s silly all you want but you are wrong.

I’d bet at this point the Wild are doing something similar to what you are suggesting. I think the Wild could find some number of players who start hot and have some ups and downs but turn out alright. So they could logically offer that but say we believe you will get there so if you want big money we want to be sure you will be part of the Wild when you do so here’s bigger money longer term. But if you want short term the money won’t be there. But a short term contract has been offered.

So you think the Wild should be FORCED to offer 1-3 years in term?

Again, that's just me. If it's two years then I'm not offering anywhere near the money that the Kaprizov camp wants (probably half of $9M or less). If it's a "prove it" contract then he shouldn't get $7M AAV for instance. If there is any truth to the previously mentioned 3 years $10M AAV ask from the Kaprizov camp then it is yet another example of that camp being unreasonable, unwilling to compromise, and acting in "bad faith" (the buzzword of this thread).

 

[AKL]

A one year bridge is better than 2 or 3 years. 3 seems like worst case scenario for the Wild.

One year shouldn’t be off the table. It’s a can kicker.

a two year means the player accepts arbitration for year 3 and walks as a UFA. Also not smart for the Wild.

A one year means he either accepts his QO or elects for arbitration next year, and then accepts his QO or elects for arbitration the following year, and then what do you know, he's a UFA.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Not really if you look at his resume, not to mention him basically carrying the team last year. Certainly some risk but a risk every wild fan and management is willing to take.

How do you go from 0.78 pts/game in the KHL over 293 games to 0.93 pts/game in the NHL over 55 games? Did he improve that much from age 23 to 24? Kid looks talented but I'd steer clear of stapling him as a 0.93 pts/game as his base rate moving forward. But if you want to take that risks, go ahead. Your choice.

His last two season in the KHL are close to his NHL season of 55 games last year. You have no 82 game sample to evaluate. How do we know if he fades in a longer season? In the playoffs, he had 3 pts and 2 goals in 7 games.

A very interesting situation for the Wild. Personally, I'd go with the 1 or 2 year bridge. I doubt he trumps his 0.93 pts/game over 82 games.

 

[Bazeek]

It's a standstill and if the longer term deal don't work cause the AAV is too high, then you are left with the 1 or 2 year bridge. You can't force him to take that money when he feels like he wants a higher AAV. What you can control is a bridge and then evaluate him past 55 NHL games.

The problem with the bridge is that it probably forces the team to trade him before the end of it. Some portion of Minnesota's fanbase is generally okay with that, but it seems like the team isn't keen on going there if it doesn't have to.

But there isn't a realistic way for Minnesota to bridge him, reevaluate, and sign a longer extension in the middle of the "dead cap years" from the Parise and Suter buyouts. That's why the idea's getting dismissed.