The root of the disagreement in this conversation is you think Slaf is a future 80-100 pts player and the Agent will push to get paid this way.
I actually haven't said anything about what point potential I think he has, i'm not a fortune teller.
I based my response on the parameters you gave me, an 8 year deal at similar cap % as Suzuki and Caufield.
That means we're talking anywhere from 7.875M to 8.6M on an 8 year deal signed this offseason.
No, I don't think the agent works for the team. You're reaching on this.
It's just your typical long term deal vs bridge negotiation. Happens all the time. But in my opinion, if the 8 year deal is something both sides are seriously interested in getting signed, I think the Suzuki contract or something in the middle of Suzuki and Caufield is a good deal for both sides. That's with what we know today (not some 80-100 pts forecast). More like 60-80 pts and good in many areas
As long as you realize that the Suzuki and Caufield contracts were negotiated in a flat cap at 81.5M...this extension for Slafkovsky would start when the cap is projected to be at 92M.
If Slafkovsky signs an 8 year extension this summer, it means by the time he's 22-23, the cap will be at about 94-96M...that's 14-15-16M more than when Suzuki and Caufield signed. The pie is bigger.
You have to factor this into your negotiation. You can't ignore facts and act like they're still negotiating in a flat cap. It just doesn't make sense.
The point forecast i'm not arguing, I don't know how many points he's going to get, just like they didn't know how many Suzuki or Caufield would get either.
I think his progression and development is being pumped. So yeah, do you think he will be a 60-80 or 80-100. Depends on who you ask.
Of course his agent is going to pump his progression and development, just like the Habs are if they're negotiating an 8 year deal, by default, you're acknowledging that this player is going to progress.
Again you're bringing up the point prediction, if teams/player's knew what players would get in terms of points, negotiations would be a lot easier.
The only thing that matters is if you're negotiating an 8 year deal for Slafkovsky, like you did Suzuki and Caufield, it's because like them, you think he's going to be one of your teams leading contributors.
If you think Suzuki is going to be a PPG player with the contract you offered him, clearly, you must also thin Caufield is (and you paid him with that projection), so the same applies to Slafkovsky.
If you're not sure...that's also fine, just sign him to a bridge and get more certainty, but this also comes at a cost.
There's no certainty for either side, just calculated guesses. Pros and Cons.