Ryan Johansen II (contract etc)

[Tulipunaruusu*]

(IMO) Applying the typical "kids these days think they don't gotta earn it" bridge-deal rhetoric to Ryan Johansen is stodgy nonsense. He's the real deal, probably already the best player on the team. And if my GM publicly hedged his bets on me I would be insulted, too. Jarmo can sign this kid long-term NOW, or give him $8m a year in July 2016.

You have no idea what European teams would give for the right to hold onto key player's contractual rights (with 'over'compensation if he is snatched against your will) for as long as the whole RFA/UFA-system allows you to in the best case scenario. Imagine if Teemu Selänne, Jaromir Jag or Peter Forsberg would have arrived into NHL at the age of 31... And those are just early examples from the European expansion.

Surely having Johansen for all those years means also added revenue towards the team even with the cost of perhaps couple million cap hit dollars. Doesn't that also make it more likely that the internal cap determined by ownership would be bit higher?

 

[Jackets16]

I am guessing Kekalainen and Davidson know what they are doing.

 

[CBJRzeznik]

Although I recognize that locking Joey up long term now would likely save significant $ on the life of the contract, I still agree with the CBJ approach of wanting the bridge deal now and then locking up the bigger $/long term deal in the next RFA negotiation. I am a big Joey fan but I do want to see the continued growth across the next 2 years to solidify he is the true emerging 1C he appears to be, then reward him with the long term huge $ deal that he earned. Very glad to see that there appears to be progress on the negotiations.

 

[Nordique]

I am guessing Kekalainen and Davidson know what they are doing.

Absolutely.

 

[DarkandStormy]

Jarmo simply doesn't offer long-term contracts to RFAs. He has offered exactly zero to RFAs in his time in Columbus so far.

With some long-term money locked up in Dubinsky, Horton, Hartnell, (presumably) Bob, Tyuts and JJ for 4 more years...the FO simply wants to delay paying out these big deals for as long as possible. Plus Boone and Murray will be coming off their ELCs in a couple years and I think it's safe to assume that some of the current prospects will be up for deals in a few years. You can only pay a certain number of guys $4+ million a season unless the cap skyrockets.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

It's just my Dad's interpretation, and he does/involved in contract negotiations for his job. I tend to trust what he says about contract negotiations.

So no evidence then? What your dad says makes sense, and is certainly a piece of the puzzle for those looking to solve one. But just a piece. How one weights the pieces is an individual thing, and without evidence, IMO all conjecture is equal.

You still haven't given me anything that helps support the notion that Johansen's apparent capitulation to signing a bridge deal means we can forget about him possibly being a problem kid - if that was my existing position.

 

[blahblah]

Jarmo simply doesn't offer long-term contracts to RFAs. He has offered exactly zero to RFAs in his time in Columbus so far.

So what happens the next time Johansen is a RFA? What is going to happen with Bob's next contract? Is it going to be long term?

I love how we have such a feel with such a long history of moves by JK.

Don't oversimplify this. He's not going to want to give a long term deal, if he can help it, to any player that hasn't proven themselves for more than a season. He's also going to try, like most GM's, to work the contract terms to keep his player as long as he can before UFA status. At least for the important players.

 

[Fro]

the funniest thing for me in all of this still is that a bridge deal is a slap in the face when the CBJ offer it. But its alright when Joey's camp proposes it...

 

[cbjfaninmo]

Although I recognize that locking Joey up long term now would likely save significant $ on the life of the contract, I still agree with the CBJ approach of wanting the bridge deal now and then locking up the bigger $/long term deal in the next RFA negotiation. I am a big Joey fan but I do want to see the continued growth across the next 2 years to solidify he is the true emerging 1C he appears to be, then reward him with the long term huge $ deal that he earned. Very glad to see that there appears to be progress on the negotiations.

Agree with this. Joey still has a lot to prove. If he does, he will be paid accordingly. I am sure JD and JK can do the math.

 

[EspenK]

So what happens the next time Johansen is a RFA? What is going to happen with Bob's next contract? Is it going to be long term?

I would guess that Bob's next is long term. Otherwise they wouldn't have indicated they were starting negotiations. I don't think you do that for another 2 year deal. Bob isn't quite yet at Lundqvist/Rask/Quick status but as the team in front of him improves he could get to that level. My guess is jarmo would want something in the 6.5 mill range at most and for at least 5 years. Give Forsberg/Dansk/Elvis a chance to establish themselves as NHL ready. He wins the Vezina again and all bets are off. It will be 8 years for a lot of $.

I would also assume Joey's next contract is long term unless he craps the bed over the next two years. Not saying its going to be 8 mm but I do think whatever the next two years bring will give a true estimation of his long term worth to the team and his market value. A couple more 65 pt seasons and it will be real interesting. Not quite good enough for 8 mill but good enough for 6.5 or so. Hopefully he goes for 80+ next two years and it costs the Jackets a ton.

 

[blahblah]

(IMO) Applying the typical "kids these days think they don't gotta earn it" bridge-deal rhetoric to Ryan Johansen is stodgy nonsense. He's the real deal, probably already the best player on the team. And if my GM publicly hedged his bets on me I would be insulted, too. Jarmo can sign this kid long-term NOW, or give him $8m a year in July 2016.

I tend to think he's the real dead do. Asking him to replicate the feat isn't a bad idea.

I don't care if we give him 8 million in 2016. I doubt JK does either, if it means keeping him an extra couple of years before the first UFA contract.

 

[cslebn]

Assistant GM Bill Zito, who has handled these negotiations,

That's the one I find interesting. Jarmo isn't even doing the talking. I wonder if Zito was given a set of goals by JK or whether he just gets let go and does what he can for the team.

 

[Jackets16]

That's the one I find interesting. Jarmo isn't even doing the talking. I wonder if Zito was given a set of goals by JK or whether he just gets let go and does what he can for the team.

I would guess Zito is the one talking (negotiating) with Johansen's agent, but he and Jarmo are constantly talking to each other and preparing what they want to offer and talk about each time.

 

[Xoggz22]

I have pushed for the bridge deal since day one. I do have one concern. After this contract Joey becomes arbitration eligible. I believe the CBJ would determine if they pursue a one or two year arbitration hearing but if the player actually determines that this could ultimately wind up as a 4 year situation with Joey. Potential bad blood between the parties and the opportunity for Joey to leave after 4 years after all.

Too early for the worry now but this type of thing does stick in the back of my mind. I'm hoping a two year deal and after year 1 Joey prove he deserves a long term deal and they extend next summer.

 

[CBJSlash]

The challenge with the bridge dollar amount will be that it will set the baseline for negotiations on the longterm.

Ideally we can get it less than 5 so if we get a longterm contract between 6 - 6.5 it feels like a win for him. If this bridge ends up being closer to 6, we may have to go over 7 on the next contract.

If we can extend Bob for 5-6 years that would be ideal in the 6.5 - 7 range.

 

[pete goegan]

...Hopefully he goes for 80+ next two years and it costs the Jackets a ton.

...I don't care if we give him 8 million in 2016. I doubt JK does either, if it means keeping him an extra couple of years before the first UFA contract.

Yep.

 

[DarkandStormy]

Hopefully he goes for 80+ next two years and it costs the Jackets a ton.

Now that he's not stuck with Umberger for a good portion of his ice time, his assist numbers might improve. Only half kidding, but a healthy Horton on his right should bump up his assists as well.

 

[EspenK]

The challenge with the bridge dollar amount will be that it will set the baseline for negotiations on the longterm.

I'm not sure that is right. My guess is how he performs the next 2 years and market rates will play as much bigger factors.

 

[BluejacketNut]

There's no doubt JK and company have the short term leverage, but Joey has the long term leverage once UFA time comes. And if he feels slighted, he'll either put the screws to us or leave. Time will tell

 

[pete goegan]

There's no doubt JK and company have the short term leverage, but Joey has the long term leverage once UFA time comes. And if he feels slighted, he'll either put the screws to us or leave. Time will tell

It certainly could work out that way. On the other hand, should Ryan sign for two years and not perform up to the level he did in the best of his three previous seasons, the Jackets could "feel slighted" and either let him leave or assist him along on his merry way. I doubt that either scenario is more likely than the other, but...

time will tell.

 

[LetsGOJackets!!]

Yes we do have an idea..

You have no idea what European teams would give for the right to hold onto key player's contractual rights (with 'over'compensation if he is snatched against your will) for as long as the whole RFA/UFA-system allows you to in the best case scenario. Imagine if Teemu Selänne, Jaromir Jag or Peter Forsberg would have arrived into NHL at the age of 31... And those are just early examples from the European expansion.

Surely having Johansen for all those years means also added revenue towards the team even with the cost of perhaps couple million cap hit dollars. Doesn't that also make it more likely that the internal cap determined by ownership would be bit higher?

different sport entirely but the MLS American professional soccer league cannot attract the players from the premier league. We get the down side of their career guys or the guys that can't make the premier league.

In hockey we have the advantage of having the NHL: for hockey players it is the best league in the world. With that said, get the bridge deal done with Ryan, pay him his market value and lets move forward to this coming season.

 

[blahblah]

I would guess that Bob's next is long term.

I'm sure it will be. My post was to illustrate that he or she was oversimplifying the situation based on a very short time frame. Of course we're going to give long term deals to RFA's; when it makes sense.

 

[blahblah]

I don't care about who has 'leverage". Ultimately Johansen could force his way out, if he wants to. We could end up paying more on his next contract. I don't think it will be substantially different personally. We're going to play him like a 30 goal scoring center, most likely, this time around. That's expensive.

We jerked him around the first couple of years, even before JK/JD got here. Part of that was on Richards. I'm not surprised he's taking this stance.

Like anyone else he wants his money now and be as young as possible for that first UFA deal. Cake and eat it too. Front office wants to delay that first UFA deal and keep the cost manageable.

It's called business. We need to quit getting all worked up about it. The likelihood of him by a Jacket this season is almost 100%. Sure we could trade him, but unless something really unexpected comes around I just don't see it. Someone would really have to make it worth our while. This isn't Spezza demanding a trade going into the last year of his contract.

This isn't the first or last time we'll see this.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

So no evidence then? What your dad says makes sense, and is certainly a piece of the puzzle for those looking to solve one. But just a piece. How one weights the pieces is an individual thing, and without evidence, IMO all conjecture is equal.

You still haven't given me anything that helps support the notion that Johansen's apparent capitulation to signing a bridge deal means we can forget about him possibly being a problem kid - if that was my existing position.

If you're going to use his AHL playoff benching as the trademark to being a 'problem kid' then there's really not much I can say with 'facts' other than to say I disagree with you and think it was just a young kid making a mistake.

Now if you're using this contract negotiation and the public comments he made to the Dispatch, I can try to dispute that. Johansen isn't an idiot, he didn't make those comments or agree to do the interview without talking with his agent. His agent is obviously the guy most connected to the negotiations in Johansen's camp, and things obviously weren't going well, and short of signing an offer sheet, they were likely looking for any way to get this moving forward and establish some sort of 'leverage'. So, I believe that Johansen's agent was informed of the possible interview and told Johansen to go for it, and told him what to say. The agent wants to test the FO here, whether they are really serious or not on this 'bridge deal', so he had his client try to make the negotiations more public and in light because they weren't going well in order to set pressure on the FO to get the deal moving forward.

"Slap in the face" to the bridge deal, seems more like agent speak to me. Listen, Johansen doesn't care how long his deal is, he already has his nice house in BC and probably a nice living arrangement here in Columbus, he just wants paid. His agent is doing everything he can to make that happen for him, including speaking through him. Now all of this is pure speculatory by me/my Dad, but this is often what I've seen. I don't think that should be used against his character.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

If you're going to use his AHL playoff benching as the trademark to being a 'problem kid' then there's really not much I can say with 'facts' other than to say I disagree with you and think it was just a young kid making a mistake.

Now if you're using this contract negotiation and the public comments he made to the Dispatch, I can try to dispute that. Johansen isn't an idiot, he didn't make those comments or agree to do the interview without talking with his agent. His agent is obviously the guy most connected to the negotiations in Johansen's camp, and things obviously weren't going well, and short of signing an offer sheet, they were likely looking for any way to get this moving forward and establish some sort of 'leverage'. So, I believe that Johansen's agent was informed of the possible interview and told Johansen to go for it, and told him what to say. The agent wants to test the FO here, whether they are really serious or not on this 'bridge deal', so he had his client try to make the negotiations more public and in light because they weren't going well in order to set pressure on the FO to get the deal moving forward.

"Slap in the face" to the bridge deal, seems more like agent speak to me. Listen, Johansen doesn't care how long his deal is, he already has his nice house in BC and probably a nice living arrangement here in Columbus, he just wants paid. His agent is doing everything he can to make that happen for him, including speaking through him. Now all of this is pure speculatory by me/my Dad, but this is often what I've seen. I don't think that should be used against his character.

I'm saying that if I am using the AHL stuff to begin to speculate on whether there's an issue with this player, then it's perfectly reasonable to place his public comments on the contract negotiations in a bad light, and that him potentially agreeing to this kind of contract under such circumstances would hardly qualify as enough to change my mind, which was your original position. Thus, I'm thinking that, if I was predisposed to commenting negatively or speculating as such, I'm unlikely to heed your question about refraining from such comments just in light of this most recent news story. And adding that, if I were of such a mind, my position would be more than reasonably defensible, despite your implication.