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

[Boondock]

So I've read through 15 or more pages of this thread so its possible this question/observation has already been responded to - but I'm looking for a Wild fans perspective.

I know I'm simplifying it, but a player drafted into the NHL owes the team that drafted them roughly 7 years of NHL eligibility. But there are loop holes. If a player plays in the KHL for instance or if a college student doesn't sign their ELC before they finish their senior year. So the player was drafted, chose to stay closer to home to develop and when he thought he was ready (physically, mentally, maturity - no one knows for sure) he came and played in Minnesota. Due to his age and time he only had 4 more years of control, perfectly acceptable nothing was done wrong. Now that he has played a season he is looking to have the most control over his own playing career, so he only wants to sign for the minimum number of years that he has to. At that point he can chose his own path. Again this is well within his rights and follows all guidelines as laid out in the CBA.

Now I understand all fan bases want their players to love their city/team. Fan bases want all their players to want to play for their franchise for ever, and the better the player is the more they want that player on their team for a long period of time, but that isn't always the way it works. So if KK really wants to have control over his career as early as possible it might hurt feelings but what has he done wrong in this case? KK might have to accept less AAV for the next 3 seasons due to the QO mechanics laid out in the CBA, but signing a player to a contract that walks them to free agency happens all the time - I'm pretty sure Brayden Point's bridge deal took him straight to free agency as an example.

I also understand the Wild organization hurt themselves financially in the short term with the Parise and Suter buy outs, but that isn't KK's problem. I understand that the ideal situation for the Wild would be a long term commitment and they are willing to compensate him for his service, but I don't see why there is anger towards KK and how he has worked through these negotiations.

So my long winded build up to my question is - has KK done something to get the Wild fans angry? Or is this just a case of hurt feelings that KK doesn't want to commit beyond his minimum RFA years at this time?

 

[TS Quint]

Honestly, should someone call for help for you? Are you off your meds?

Can’t find where I said I wanted to back up the Brinks truck?

Why are you lying?

 

[TS Quint]

Reading and context is especially hard when the thought isn't expressed clearly. I'll readily believe that you weren't intending to say that the team was acting in bad faith (whatever one's interpretation of "good/bad faith" is), but that's not clear from what you posted.

Must be hard for you.

 

[McJedi]

Our GM is under no obligation to facilitate Kaprizov playing for the team of his choosing. Through the CBA the Wild are entitled to a minimum of 2 years of Kaprizov's services. He has played one season for them. If Guerin trades Kaprizov for anything less than a massive haul, when he has the absolute maximum amount of negotiating leverage, he might as well resign as GM. He isn't going to back down here. There is more at stake than the 2021-22 season.

I do think he’d be in position to trade Kirill for a massive haul. And I think that’s the route he needs to take next offseason.

because the player is under no obligation to commit long term to the Wild.

this pending divorce can leave the Wild with valuable assets coming back to them. As a very much non Wild fan, this is still a trade I think Minnesota can do well on in terms of the return. Could do a Duchene.

 

[TS Quint]

If they insist on 5+ years and refuse to offer cheap short-term deals they are.
5+ years they insist on is the result of Parise & Sutter fiasco. Kaprizov had nothing to do with it and should not be punished for it. It's not fair to ask him to take one for the team. I hope Guerin understands it.

I think you listen to too many people on here who have no idea what they are talking about and have zero knowledge of the negotiation but want to act like they are at the table. These posters start with their conclusion of wanting to keep Kaprizov for as long as possible and work their way backwards.

 

[McJedi]

I don't disagree but there seems to be a disconnect between Suter the player and Suter the locker room presence. There were allegations that every time Suter was bent about something (which apparently was often) he would run straight to the owner because they had a relationship back to Nashville. I think he chafed Guerin.

My opinion, but I think Guerin's offseason plans blew up in his face....whether that be a failed trade for Eichel, Kaprizov telling him to take his longterm offer and pound sand or something we don't know about.

Yea. It does seem like the off-season didn’t go as Guerin wanted or planned. The Fiala deal doesn’t make sense to me either. Why 1 year him. Fiala is a good player. He should be locked into the core. Man. I’d see if Kirill could be traded to Buffalo for Eichel. Feels like it could be a one for one.

doubt Kirill would sign long term there but would be a great get for the Wild assuming Eichel is healthy.

 

[heisenbergsitti]

So I've read through 15 or more pages of this thread so its possible this question/observation has already been responded to - but I'm looking for a Wild fans perspective.

I know I'm simplifying it, but a player drafted into the NHL owes the team that drafted them roughly 7 years of NHL eligibility. But there are loop holes. If a player plays in the KHL for instance or if a college student doesn't sign their ELC before they finish their senior year. So the player was drafted, chose to stay closer to home to develop and when he thought he was ready (physically, mentally, maturity - no one knows for sure) he came and played in Minnesota. Due to his age and time he only had 4 more years of control, perfectly acceptable nothing was done wrong. Now that he has played a season he is looking to have the most control over his own playing career, so he only wants to sign for the minimum number of years that he has to. At that point he can chose his own path. Again this is well within his rights and follows all guidelines as laid out in the CBA.

Now I understand all fan bases want their players to love their city/team. Fan bases want all their players to want to play for their franchise for ever, and the better the player is the more they want that player on their team for a long period of time, but that isn't always the way it works. So if KK really wants to have control over his career as early as possible it might hurt feelings but what has he done wrong in this case? KK might have to accept less AAV for the next 3 seasons due to the QO mechanics laid out in the CBA, but signing a player to a contract that walks them to free agency happens all the time - I'm pretty sure Brayden Point's bridge deal took him straight to free agency as an example.

I also understand the Wild organization hurt themselves financially in the short term with the Parise and Suter buy outs, but that isn't KK's problem. I understand that the ideal situation for the Wild would be a long term commitment and they are willing to compensate him for his service, but I don't see why there is anger towards KK and how he has worked through these negotiations.

So my long winded build up to my question is - has KK done something to get the Wild fans angry? Or is this just a case of hurt feelings that KK doesn't want to commit beyond his minimum RFA years at this time?

Look up his agent. Start there. This isn't about hurt feelings. Kaprizov wanting to be highest paid, and while not willing to meet in the middle is the problems. There was a reason Minnesota let suter and Parise go. Both were team cancers.
Also when was the last time in any sports a team just gave a player everything they wanted, and ot get something back? This is on kaprizov, and kaprizov himself. Also, it's been reported he's not willing to take less to get 3 years. So one can't have it both ways

 

[Zine]

I've already acknowledged that he may be credible but I've seen even the credible ones be wrong. No reporter is that accurate. And if he is right, Kaprizov is an idiot. The main point I was making is why are we not allowed to talk about other options without being jumped on? That's nonsense. Like I said, usually, when longer team deals fall through, bridge deals are plan B.

This Russo fellow isn't 100% credible, like at all. His KHL reporting is laughable, to the extent he's spread lies about Kaprizov in the past.

I've noticed these people will pick and choose what they deem credible from Russo. I suppose it's not without some grounds. His track record is probably better in some areas than others.

But, as a complete package, he's hardly some pillar of insider truth.

 

[heisenbergsitti]

Yea. It does seem like the off-season didn’t go as Guerin wanted or planned. The Fiala deal doesn’t make sense to me either. Why 1 year him. Fiala is a good player. He should be locked into the core. Man. I’d see if Kirill could be traded to Buffalo for Eichel. Feels like it could be a one for one.

doubt Kirill would sign long term there but would be a great get for the Wild assuming Eichel is healthy.

Eichel is a cancer. Glad wild walked away. Also, kaprizov for eichel wouldn't be fair for both. Could end up being more beneficial for Buffalo, and wild taking more risks. Also wild couldn't just trade Parise and suter due to recapture

 

[heisenbergsitti]

If they insist on 5+ years and refuse to offer cheap short-term deals they are.
5+ years they insist on is the result of Parise & Sutter fiasco. Kaprizov had nothing to do with it and should not be punished for it. It's not fair to ask him to take one for the team. I hope Guerin understands it.

Being offered 9.5 mil , longest in NHL history for a player of kaprizov 1 year of playing isn't asking him to take one for the team

 

[Dickie Dunn]

Can’t find where I said I wanted to back up the Brinks truck?

Why are you lying?

Never said it the way you are claiming, go back and ready my post again.....but much slower this time. You keep claiming that the Wild are somehow negotiating in a poor way. But they are the ones offering huge money aka Brinks truck....so how are the Wild in the wrong here by trying to make him wealthy? YWIA

 

[Wasted Talent]

If they insist on 5+ years and refuse to offer cheap short-term deals they are.
5+ years they insist on is the result of Parise & Sutter fiasco. Kaprizov had nothing to do with it and should not be punished for it. It's not fair to ask him to take one for the team. I hope Guerin understands it.

It's not Wild's fault Kaprizov has no offer sheet or arbitration rights, they didn't force him to say in Russia so long. It's not fair to expect the team to be punished for that. I hope Kaprizov understands that.

See how it works both ways? Sometimes there's nuance to situations.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

So I've read through 15 or more pages of this thread so its possible this question/observation has already been responded to - but I'm looking for a Wild fans perspective.

I know I'm simplifying it, but a player drafted into the NHL owes the team that drafted them roughly 7 years of NHL eligibility. But there are loop holes. If a player plays in the KHL for instance or if a college student doesn't sign their ELC before they finish their senior year. So the player was drafted, chose to stay closer to home to develop and when he thought he was ready (physically, mentally, maturity - no one knows for sure) he came and played in Minnesota. Due to his age and time he only had 4 more years of control, perfectly acceptable nothing was done wrong. Now that he has played a season he is looking to have the most control over his own playing career, so he only wants to sign for the minimum number of years that he has to. At that point he can chose his own path. Again this is well within his rights and follows all guidelines as laid out in the CBA.

Now I understand all fan bases want their players to love their city/team. Fan bases want all their players to want to play for their franchise for ever, and the better the player is the more they want that player on their team for a long period of time, but that isn't always the way it works. So if KK really wants to have control over his career as early as possible it might hurt feelings but what has he done wrong in this case? KK might have to accept less AAV for the next 3 seasons due to the QO mechanics laid out in the CBA, but signing a player to a contract that walks them to free agency happens all the time - I'm pretty sure Brayden Point's bridge deal took him straight to free agency as an example.

I also understand the Wild organization hurt themselves financially in the short term with the Parise and Suter buy outs, but that isn't KK's problem. I understand that the ideal situation for the Wild would be a long term commitment and they are willing to compensate him for his service, but I don't see why there is anger towards KK and how he has worked through these negotiations.

So my long winded build up to my question is - has KK done something to get the Wild fans angry? Or is this just a case of hurt feelings that KK doesn't want to commit beyond his minimum RFA years at this time?

First of all, he burned most of those early years of control by staying the KHL. Comes over, finally, plays 55 games and when offered more money than a player of his resume has ever been offered, says no.

So yeah, f' him and the лошадь he rode in on.

 

[Bazeek]

So I've read through 15 or more pages of this thread so its possible this question/observation has already been responded to - but I'm looking for a Wild fans perspective.

I know I'm simplifying it, but a player drafted into the NHL owes the team that drafted them roughly 7 years of NHL eligibility. But there are loop holes. If a player plays in the KHL for instance or if a college student doesn't sign their ELC before they finish their senior year. So the player was drafted, chose to stay closer to home to develop and when he thought he was ready (physically, mentally, maturity - no one knows for sure) he came and played in Minnesota. Due to his age and time he only had 4 more years of control, perfectly acceptable nothing was done wrong. Now that he has played a season he is looking to have the most control over his own playing career, so he only wants to sign for the minimum number of years that he has to. At that point he can chose his own path. Again this is well within his rights and follows all guidelines as laid out in the CBA.

Now I understand all fan bases want their players to love their city/team. Fan bases want all their players to want to play for their franchise for ever, and the better the player is the more they want that player on their team for a long period of time, but that isn't always the way it works. So if KK really wants to have control over his career as early as possible it might hurt feelings but what has he done wrong in this case? KK might have to accept less AAV for the next 3 seasons due to the QO mechanics laid out in the CBA, but signing a player to a contract that walks them to free agency happens all the time - I'm pretty sure Brayden Point's bridge deal took him straight to free agency as an example.

I also understand the Wild organization hurt themselves financially in the short term with the Parise and Suter buy outs, but that isn't KK's problem. I understand that the ideal situation for the Wild would be a long term commitment and they are willing to compensate him for his service, but I don't see why there is anger towards KK and how he has worked through these negotiations.

So my long winded build up to my question is - has KK done something to get the Wild fans angry? Or is this just a case of hurt feelings that KK doesn't want to commit beyond his minimum RFA years at this time?

Speaking only for myself, it doesn't bother me that he's held out and wouldn't bother me if he wanted to get away from Minnesota (though I don't think we have much information one way or the other on the latter). It's not his responsibility to make things easy for management nor is he obligated to want to play for the team that drafted him.

About the only thing that annoys me is people bending over backwards to portray him as a victim while ignoring that the current situation is largely a result of his own decisions.

 

[kp61c]

Being offered 9.5 mil , longest in NHL history for a player of kaprizov 1 year of playing isn't asking him to take one for the team

9,5? I thought it was 8 x $9M. Maybe Kaprizov thinks that he will command 7 x $11M in three years. Having complete control over where to play should not be underestimated either. 8 x $9M looks like the team will use all his prime years and then discard him like an old boot. In this light, 8 x $9M suddenly doesn't seem so tempting.

It's not Wild's fault Kaprizov has no offer sheet or arbitration rights, they didn't force him to say in Russia so long. It's not fair to expect the team to be punished for that. I hope Kaprizov understands that.
See how it works both ways? Sometimes there's nuance to situations.

If he had left for the NHL earlier they whould have buried him in the AHL and shipped a certified bust back to Russia. It was a boon for the team that he decided to stay and develop in Russia. The Wild should give him a bonus or something because of it, not punish him.

 

[Boondock]

Look up his agent. Start there. This isn't about hurt feelings. Kaprizov wanting to be highest paid, and while not willing to meet in the middle is the problems. There was a reason Minnesota let suter and Parise go. Both were team cancers.
Also when was the last time in any sports a team just gave a player everything they wanted, and ot get something back? This is on kaprizov, and kaprizov himself. Also, it's been reported he's not willing to take less to get 3 years. So one can't have it both ways

But there are mechanisms in the CBA that protect the Wild. I never said anything about just giving a player everything they want. Use the same document (the CBA) that KK is using to get to free agency as soon as possible. If KK isn't happy with the offer he knows he's only 3 seasons away from getting to make his own choices. Again this seems like emotions from a fan base, not wrong doing by the agent or the player.

 

[AKL]

So I've read through 15 or more pages of this thread so its possible this question/observation has already been responded to - but I'm looking for a Wild fans perspective.

I know I'm simplifying it, but a player drafted into the NHL owes the team that drafted them roughly 7 years of NHL eligibility. But there are loop holes. If a player plays in the KHL for instance or if a college student doesn't sign their ELC before they finish their senior year. So the player was drafted, chose to stay closer to home to develop and when he thought he was ready (physically, mentally, maturity - no one knows for sure) he came and played in Minnesota. Due to his age and time he only had 4 more years of control, perfectly acceptable nothing was done wrong. Now that he has played a season he is looking to have the most control over his own playing career, so he only wants to sign for the minimum number of years that he has to. At that point he can chose his own path. Again this is well within his rights and follows all guidelines as laid out in the CBA.

Now I understand all fan bases want their players to love their city/team. Fan bases want all their players to want to play for their franchise for ever, and the better the player is the more they want that player on their team for a long period of time, but that isn't always the way it works. So if KK really wants to have control over his career as early as possible it might hurt feelings but what has he done wrong in this case? KK might have to accept less AAV for the next 3 seasons due to the QO mechanics laid out in the CBA, but signing a player to a contract that walks them to free agency happens all the time - I'm pretty sure Brayden Point's bridge deal took him straight to free agency as an example.

I also understand the Wild organization hurt themselves financially in the short term with the Parise and Suter buy outs, but that isn't KK's problem. I understand that the ideal situation for the Wild would be a long term commitment and they are willing to compensate him for his service, but I don't see why there is anger towards KK and how he has worked through these negotiations.

So my long winded build up to my question is - has KK done something to get the Wild fans angry? Or is this just a case of hurt feelings that KK doesn't want to commit beyond his minimum RFA years at this time?

Really weird way to present a loaded question.

Kaprizov hasn't done anything wrong, and is well within his rights to ask for a three year contract.

Guerin is well within his rights to do what he is doing, which is only offering 5+ years, apparently. Or making it so the 3- year contract isn't worth accepting.

Neither side has done anything "wrong" or broken any rules.

 

[Boondock]

Speaking only for myself, it doesn't bother me that he's held out and wouldn't bother me if he wanted to get away from Minnesota (though I don't think we have much information one way or the other on the latter). It's not his responsibility to make things easy for management nor is he obligated to want to play for the team that drafted him.

About the only thing that annoys me is people bending over backwards to portray him as a victim while ignoring that the current situation is largely a result of his own decisions.

I agree with the bolded. I don't think KK is a victim, I think he's opportunistic and given the way contract negotiations have gone with other young players ie Matthews and Marner I think this type of situation is going to happen more and more.

 

[Bazeek]

I agree with the bolded. I don't think KK is a victim, I think he's opportunistic and given the way contract negotiations have gone with other young players ie Matthews and Marner I think this type of situation is going to happen more and more.

Fully agree. The trend has shifted toward high-end young players avoiding selling off UFA years and I don't expect that to reverse any time soon.

 

[Boondock]

Really weird way to present a loaded question.

Kaprizov hasn't done anything wrong, and is well within his rights to ask for a three year contract.

Guerin is well within his rights to do what he is doing, which is only offering 5+ years, apparently. Or making it so the 3- year contract isn't worth accepting.

Neither side has done anything "wrong" or broken any rules.

It's not a loaded question - I would argue that by not offering a 3 year deal the Wild are not well within their rights, because they only have team control during that time. By only offering a 5 year or longer deal you are trying to force him to sign for longer than necessary. I think the compensation should match the contract length absolutely, but I don't feel that the Wild have the right to limit his contract offer to the term they find the most beneficial. That would be ideal, but it should not be their right to only negotiate beyond his RFA years, that's why these rules exist.

 

[ThatGuy22]

But there are mechanisms in the CBA that protect the Wild. I never said anything about just giving a player everything they want. Use the same document (the CBA) that KK is using to get to free agency as soon as possible. If KK isn't happy with the offer he knows he's only 3 seasons away from getting to make his own choices. Again this seems like emotions from a fan base, not wrong doing by the agent or the player.

There is zero evidence KKs camp is willing to go with a lower AAV for short term.

If he was, Theonous would have leaked to Weekes or Serivelli that they've counter with 3 x 5m AAV or something to try turn public sentiment put BG on his heals.

 

[ThatGuy22]

It's not a loaded question - I would argue that by not offering a 3 year deal the Wild are not well within their rights, because they only have team control during that time. By only offering a 5 year or longer deal you are trying to force him to sign for longer than necessary. I think the compensation should match the contract length absolutely, but I don't feel that the Wild have the right to limit his contract offer to the term they find the most beneficial. That would be ideal, but it should not be their right to only negotiate beyond his RFA years, that's why these rules exist.

They offered a 1 year deal. It's called a qualifying offer.

KK could have accepted it and earned his Arb rights.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

Fully agree. The trend has shifted toward high-end young players avoiding selling off UFA years and I don't expect that to reverse any time soon.

And the young players that lock in make the ones that won't look even worse. And now teams not only have to think "will he develop", its "will he stay if he does". Can't wait for the NHL to turn into the NBA and only 6-8 teams are viable and the rest are the Washington Generals.

 

[AKL]

It's not a loaded question - I would argue that by not offering a 3 year deal the Wild are not well within their rights, because they only have team control during that time. By only offering a 5 year or longer deal you are trying to force him to sign for longer than necessary. I think the compensation should match the contract length absolutely, but I don't feel that the Wild have the right to limit his contract offer to the term they find the most beneficial. That would be ideal, but it should not be their right to only negotiate beyond his RFA years, that's why these rules exist.

The length of time necessary is negotiated upon by the team and the player. If he doesn't want to play for the Wild beyond three years, he should have accepted his qualifying offer. At this point, he is free to go back to Russia or any other league in Europe if he doesn't want to play ball with the Wild. He can either come back next year and agree to a contract that works for the Wild, or he can stay there for three years.

You're conflating how you think it should work with how it actually works. Had the Wild broken any rules, we would have heard about it by now.

 

[grimmel95]

It's not a loaded question - I would argue that by not offering a 3 year deal the Wild are not well within their rights, because they only have team control during that time. By only offering a 5 year or longer deal you are trying to force him to sign for longer than necessary. I think the compensation should match the contract length absolutely, but I don't feel that the Wild have the right to limit his contract offer to the term they find the most beneficial. That would be ideal, but it should not be their right to only negotiate beyond his RFA years, that's why these rules exist.

The Wild are well within their right to only offer 5+ year contracts. There is no rule that says the team has to offer him a 3 yr contract because KK is due to be a UFA in 3 yrs.