Toggle sidebar

Speculation: The Bruins and Jeremy Swayman are far apart in contract term (length) and dollar amount.

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

Hookslide

Registered User
Nov 19, 2018
5,041
4,371
Peasy said:
Why shouldnt they? They are THE product. Without them there is no league or money.
Click to expand...
That is true, but call me naive or stupid but I have always put hockey players in a different light.

Warden of the North said:
I feel like he's going to sign prior to Game 1 and all this hand wringing will have been for nothing
Click to expand...
You might have had the odds in your favor a month ago, but I think those odds have changed drastically since.
 
theMajor

theMajor

Registered User
Feb 9, 2012
4,465
937
Socal
Hierso said:
I can understand Swaymans frustration. Imagine if you work with a co-worker and split your duty 50/50. After some time your co-worker moves on to another job and managment tells you "now you have to be THE guy that get things done". You feel like you can do it but you want a raise for the increased workload and they tell you that you haven't shown that you can actually do it.
Click to expand...

this is disingenuous at best. he's getting a raise either way, the only question is to what degree. he wants a 157% increase which is insane. yes he is good but is he shesterkin or hellebuyk good?? i dont think so. he's being a big ol baby IMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: bb_fan, I Hate Philadelphia, Bodit9 and 1 other person
Figgy44

Figgy44

A toast of purple gato for the memories
Dec 15, 2014
13,527
8,835
GirardSpinorama said:
Not the best analogy. Imagine if you had a coworker who did just as good as you (if not better) but was older, who was fired to give you a promotion. You havent proven you can perform with that new title/responsibilities, you're getting a raise anyways. Because you are a high potential employee. Now you think you have leverage and going on a personal strike to squeeze out as much money as possible despite company budget. While not getting any offers from other companies.
Click to expand...

Also not a good analogy. In those situations, you aren't negotiating a salary that will be frozen for up to 8 years and guaranteed whether or not you perform. Most salaries are based on what you'd accomplished up to that point and re-evaluated on a yearly basis. Also, Swayman can't seek offers from other companies. It'd be akin to violating a non-compete clause, that's technically also currently built into the situation.

Hockey contracts are a bizarre situation. You rarely have situations where someone is compensated for the future based projections of their performance. Even long term incentive compensations aren't truly based on projections of performance from what you'd accomplished up to that point, but the duration you stay at the company at the minimum level required.

It's honestly more akin to someone going, "I don't feel loved, so give me more money to make up for it instead." Honestly, I think he's not wrong in doing so. But due to the length of any contract he signs, the value involved here could be quite significant and downright silly, so I can also see why Boston is saying no. A compromise could be a "bridge like deal", but that introduces reasons for both sides to have unnecessary risk, so I again could see why either sides say no to that. The struggle here is that the agreement basically has to be unanimous, or it's a stale mate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nashnaidoo
GirardSpinorama

GirardSpinorama

Registered User
Aug 20, 2004
21,681
10,667
Figgy44 said:
Also not a good analogy. In those situations, you aren't negotiating a salary that will be frozen for up to 8 years and guaranteed whether or not you perform. Most salaries are based on what you'd accomplished up to that point and re-evaluated on a yearly basis. Also, Swayman can't seek offers from other companies. It'd be akin to violating a non-compete clause, that's technically also currently built into the situation.

Hockey contracts are a bizarre situation. You rarely have situations where someone is compensated for the future based projections of their performance. Even long term incentive compensations aren't truly based on projections of performance from what you'd accomplished up to that point, but the duration you stay at the company at the minimum level required.

It's honestly more akin to someone going, "I don't feel loved, so give me more money to make up for it instead." Honestly, I think he's not wrong in doing so. But due to the length of any contract he signs, the value involved here could be quite significant and downright silly, so I can also see why Boston is saying no. A compromise could be a "bridge like deal", but that introduces reasons for both sides to have unnecessary risk, so I again could see why either sides say no to that. The struggle here is that the agreement basically has to be unanimous, or it's a stale mate.
Click to expand...

"i dont feel love so overpay me" is not something I empathize with. Very toxic when you have so many teammates that count on your performance and also gets underpaid if you are overpaid.
 
Figgy44

Figgy44

A toast of purple gato for the memories
Dec 15, 2014
13,527
8,835
GirardSpinorama said:
"i dont feel love so overpay me" is not something I empathize with. Very toxic when you have so many teammates that count on your performance and also gets underpaid if you are overpaid.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but the reality of the situation is that this is rampant in the league and has been so for decades. Swayman isn't the first to do this. He's just the one in the current spotlight with this specific situation.

In other situations, I am totally in agreement with you. But with the arbitration stuff that's being mentioned, I can see why he might feel that. It's well known that arbitration can get really nasty.

I think he's hinting he's upset that the Bruins just kept tearing him down in arbitration and contract negotiations in a sort of, "You can do no right, so take the lower amount" type of bias. If he doesn't feel valued as a person, he wants to be shown he is valuable by the money he takes home. IMO this is a very common thing for many people in general (not just hockey) and why people take pay cuts for certain roles. People all want to feel valued. They just differ in how they wanted it measured (ie: Combination of take home money and intangibles of how they feel going to work every day).
 
Ghost of Murph

Ghost of Murph

Registered User
Dec 23, 2023
950
1,615
Peasy said:
https://x.com/i/web/status/1841831916317675607

Get that bag Sway!
Click to expand...
Hopefully no opposing players call him bad names. Maybe he makes a list of those too and can go on various podcasts to show how mean and unfair the world is to him. I guess Swayman didn't educate himself about arbitration before or after he elected to go through it. Arbitration is not where management gives you gold stickers and sings Kumbaya with the agent.

This guy is an unrealistic greedy headcase. Boston is stupid if it thinks committing to him for 8 years at 8+ per is a good idea. After all that has transpired surely they won't go more than 4, if they even keep him around.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Idunkmyoreos, King 88, Bodit9 and 1 other person
JKG33

JKG33

Leafs & Kings
Oct 31, 2009
7,526
11,413
Winnipeg
Hilarious to see people shitting on a guy who's showed up at every chance he got. Good on him for getting his money, some team will be thrilled to have him
 
Score08

Score08

Registered User
Apr 6, 2017
4,661
4,803
Curious if some of his teammates might secretly be little pissed his bag grab is going to negatively affect the teams flexibility
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X