Z, the Boll, Horton contracts are not directly relevant to the RJ valuation conversation. Those contracts rise and fall on their own merit. Boll, falls and fails, no doubt. Horton, we will see. Neither are comps to RJ. Those contracts are relevant to your argument that JD/JK mis-manage contracts; that won't be known for several years (other than the Boll contract which I agree looks like a bad deal for club from inception, but will give some deference to those who believe Boll earned it for prior combat pay).
Whether one likes or dislikes CBJ's hard stance on RJ contract, it is justified under the current CBA and RJ's performance. RJ may very well be worth $6.5M, or $8M or more, on the next contract. But he isn't yet, not under the parameters of the CBA. That is not a shot at RJ's character or skill. It simply is based on the stage of his career- he's 3 years in, with one very productive year, and a CBA that gives such a player NO LEVERAGE, unless he wants to take his skills across the pond (not good for anyone), or another club inks an offer sheet (unlikely because of exhorbitant price of compensation that would go CBJ's way in exchange).
The issue as to RJ is as simple and yet as complex as it could be - What is his worth as a 22 yr old talent with 3 years in the NHL, based on the CBA and market value as established around the remainder of the league? Not going to cite additional stats, players or backup, Z, that has been done over and over, by both sides of the argument, and in some respects in a vacuum. But the key is that the negotiations aren't within a vacuum. The CBA does dictate that RJ's value is determined by what other 3-yr players coming off ELC with similar performance have received, and by the expectation of what this bridge contract will do to the next contract. Plus, there aren't many good comparables - although the few that really are comparable, meaning 3 year ELC expiring, probably push under $4M. But use $4M as base.
From the business side of hockey, it does not matter much that a 30 yr old center with 9 years in the league who had similar stats was paid $x last year. That player has certain rights under the CBA that RJ is 4 years away from having. That doesn't make RJ a better or lesser player, we can argue who is the best player til dawn, and if another team might pay $9M, even if the skills are starting to decline, then $9M is the market value, with each team having to decide whether that player fits into their plan at $9M.
The CBA system is inherently slanted toward veteran players, and RJ simply doesn't have the leverage to get a free market offer. If another club were to offersheet RJ at his requested $6.5, if CBJ did not match, CBJ would get 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks in return, and CBJ could still match anyway. And if offer sheet over $6.7M, then it's Two - 1st’s, one 2nd, one 3rd (Mayor Bee, please fact check for me!).
Not that I would trade RJ for picks, not the point. I wouldn't make that trade. The point is that no other team is realistically willing to part with those picks (and most don't have the right allottment anyway), so that an offersheet is highly unlikely to come about in the first place. So the point is simply about negotiation leverage, not about what you or anyone else thinks RJ is worth. Because ultimately RJ's worth is determined by 30 GMs in the next 4 weeks- and all have to give up picks in addition salary to sign RJ, except for CBJ, who can keep RJ with salary only.
Neither RJ nor his agent can change that leverage, short of heading overseas, where RJ gets paid much LESS over the life of any contract there. Now, I have no issue with RJ and his agent seeking the best deal they can negotiate. But realistically, with the CBA structured the way it is for RFA/UFA/arbitration rights, and given RJ's play and stats over a 3 year period (not negative, weighing year 3 much more heavily), his current contract value falls in the $4-$4.5M range. I agree with giving more weight to most recent year; that is a rational business valuation technique - but no credible business analysis would completely ignore prior years. Not saying Joey's years 1 and 2 were bad or that he was/is a problem child - those years he simply performed x (whatever it was, with some growing pains expected) - the reason for weighting averages is to recognize a business' (i.e. Joey's) potential, so we do that too. There are many ways to weight, but a common method to valuing a business would be to weight on a 3-2-1 basis; I'd even be ok with a 5-3-1 basis. Because of that, I would not object to paying him $5.0M for year 1, with some increase for year 2. But RJ has no leverage, short of a holdout, and so I am afraid that he and his agent are stuck at $6.5 with a holdout has his only hole card. His only way of "winning" the negotiation is to hold out.
He doesn't like the card game he's in, you might not like the game, I might not like the game. The CBA isn't particularly fair to a player coming off his ELC, but that is the CBA that was negotiated by the union, and it provides the framework for all contracts. The CBA is structured to reward veteran players - not surprising when the union reps are mostly veterans, when the vast majority of members are veteran players, so the union is built around protecting current players, not the up and coming talent. Part of the reason for fully guaranteed contracts.
RJ can't "win" this negotiation on the money/term - he doesn't have leverage to get anything near $6.5M - so his only "win" now is to make some statement by sitting out. And my guess is that CBJ will allow RJ to holdout if $6.5M (or thereabouts) remains RJ's number, and try other alternatives to fill the gap. Not saying that is the best solution for CBJ; I am not saying any of CBJ's alternatives will work in the long run of an 82 game season. I AM saying that CBJ's position has more leverage behind it.
I agree, Z, that RJ is most talented CBJ player. However, he is not yet the best hockey player. Do not read between the lines - I am not implying he's lazy or malcontent, he simply is not yet the best player at all phases. He very well could become the best hockey player over the next 1-2 years - thus the bridge, and thus why I have some tolerance for payment on the bridge over what the market would otherwise pay. And if he plays his arse off in year 1, then I would show (offer) him the long-term extension after year 1, and get the extension done before year 2 even kicks in. I don't need 4 more years of great play to be convinced. I do need more than the one year of great play thus far.
Z, you can disagree that the current market is $4M, but there are simply no comparables for a player 3 years in, with limited RFA rights, to be paid more on a bridge contract. If a long term (6 or 8 years) was being negotiated, likely a different story. But both sides have made bridge contract THE term. So that is what we are talking about, a 2-yr deal. And there is no offer sheet yet - if there is, CBJ will match it unless $6.7M or more, and might still match it even then.
What possible leverage do you see RJ having here? Almost all of the higher-end comparisons are RJ vs. players who were able to command higher salaries because of where they fit into the CBA (i.e. number of years) combined with level of performance. That isn't judging Joey's attitude or character - it is the contract formula imposed by the CBA, and CBJ is correct in negotiating to its advantage using the current CBA as guidance. That doesn't make the UFA or 3rd contract player more talented than RJ, or in any way lessen RJ's potential. He just isn't in a free market yet, and won't be for 4 years. CBJ (and me) want to see more before committing long-term dollars, which they can do as soon as they see enough - and they have the leverage to insist on just that.
Now, I hope a deal gets done in the next 24-48 hours...but based on the info from the weekend (or lack thereof) now thinking it won't until after camp opens. $4.5 M for 2 is my prediction, but not til mid-October. I'd go a bit higher as CBJ, but that won't happen until RJ lowers his demands. Blech.
