From the last thread:
Foppa2118 said:
I wonder if they could have a nice open conversation at the last minute if final offers fall through?
Sakic could say something like, "look, we both know where we stand in relation to $6M being the max. We have a disagreement on whether it's fair to use $6.5m as a starting point, and that's ok. You can elect for a one year deal, and if the arbitrator comes back at $6M or under, we'll match that on a medium length contract when you can re-sign in January."
"This will allow you to have UFA rights while you're still relatively young in 4-5 years. If they come back and offer closer to $5.5M, we'll still give you the $6M AAV on our final offer."
"If they come back and determine your salary should be north of the $6M, we'll find a team that is willing to accommodate your long term salary requests."
Sounds relatively fair, and open and honest to me. Just put all the cards on the table.
Freaudian said:
Why would O'Reilly do that? If Stastny gets $7M as a UFA, O'Reilly will easily get that. Especially since no team (except Avs) let their talented players go to market.
He'd do it because he wants to resign with the Avalanche for a fair salary, not get absolute top dollar UFA prices that he hasn't earned yet. A 3rd party arbiter telling him what his market value is should help realign his perception of what he's worth.
If O'Reilly has his sights set on getting $7M and won't budge, he's going to be playing for another team. That should be pretty obvious.
He's not a UFA. He doesn't get to command the same price Stastny did on the open market, because he's two years away. The only reason the market value for UFA's is so much higher is because there's potentially 30 teams driving the price up. RFA's only have one team to negotiate with. If RFA's get to command UFA prices it defeats the entire purpose of them being RFA's.
If he doesn't want to take a $6M AAV long term, then he can politely decline the offer, and they'll trade him. No bid deal, and having that kind of honest discussion allows them to understand each other without hard feelings from either side.
That's why it's a cut and dry discussion. The idea is that he thinks he's worth more than $6M. So if a 3rd party arbitrator comes in and says otherwise, it realistically should tell him he's asking for too much. If he's approaching it strictly from a business standpoint, this should get him to see reality a bit more and sign for less.
If not, he's got his eyes set on a number that's above market value, and he doesn't care what everybody else thinks market value is. In that case, there's no chance he resigns with the Avs, and they move him.
That's the point of having an open discussion, and letting a 3rd party determine his value. It takes any element of the Avs low balling him out of the equation. They have a difference of opinion on his market value, and he wouldn't be able to view it as them undervaluing him any more. He'll realize his demands are higher than market value in that case.
If the arbiter comes back with a number higher than $6M AAV, he'll realize he was right, but the Avs have their own internal structure and can't match that so they'll find a team that can.
If he turns down this deal, the Avs go through with arbitration with the plans of trading him no matter what, because he's not interested in what is market value, he's interested in getting a specific number and will wait until he's a UFA to get it if need be. It makes everything clear as day.
Tweaky said:
So the Avs should be like "if the arbitrator comes back with low or middling salary, we want you to sign for term, but if he comes back saying we are being stingy, then goodbye and let's see what we can get?"
Fair would be agreeing to taking the one year deal and an extension stipulating a 3% annual raise for the length of the contract, regardless of the length or base salary (~$61m over the 8 following years, or $25.9m over 4, using $6m for net year as base).
Otherwise, sign the long term deal before, or do the negotiating after the arbitrator's decision. I am betting on option 2, with arbitrator ruling $5.75m for one year, or $12m for 2y.
Your whole interpretation of "fair" is predicated on your opinion that $6M for Ryan O'Reilly is a "low to middling salary." Something I very much disagree with.
O'Reilly still gets the money he's looking for, it's not like he's losing out on anything. He's put a priority on getting that number in that scenario not where he plays, so he'd be getting what he wanted.
He's under no obligation to sign for the arbiters amount with the new team. They would just know his demands, and would feel comfortable meeting them. They'll gauge his interest in re-signing with them before finalizing the trade, and negotiate a little on the final number afterwards knowing they're pretty close.
, etc this year and ended up having to trade for Stuart. Waiting for a FA versus getting an inside track on one seems to have its merits more and more these last few years.
