SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Conner moved

Created by: Boomer125
Team: 2019-20 Winnipeg Jets
Initial Creation Date: Sep. 6, 2019
Published: Sep. 6, 2019
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Free Agent Signings
RFAYEARSCAP HIT
5$8,500,000
Trades
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2020
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
2021
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
2022
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
Logo of the WPG
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
22$81,500,000$79,499,167$0$272,500$2,000,833
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$2,250,000$2,250,000
RW, LW
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$6,125,000$6,125,000
C
UFA - 5
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$8,250,000$8,250,000
RW
NMC
UFA - 5
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$6,000,000$6,000,000
RW, LW
UFA - 6
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$5,291,667$5,291,667
C, RW
NMC
UFA - 5
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$8,500,000$8,500,000
C, RW, LW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$3,400,000$3,400,000
LW, RW
UFA - 4
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$2,916,667$2,916,667
C
UFA - 2
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$2,280,000$2,280,000
C, LW, RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$894,166$894,166 (Performance Bonus$212,500$212K)
C, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$700,000$700,000
RW, LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$4,125,000$4,125,000
LW, RW, C
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$741,667$741,667
RW
UFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$4,333,333$4,333,333
LD/RD
M-NTC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$7,600,000$7,600,000
RD
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$6,166,667$6,166,667
G
UFA - 5
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$3,150,000$3,150,000
LD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$3,000,000$3,000,000
RD
UFA - 2
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$1,225,000$1,225,000
G
UFA - 1
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$1,000,000$1,000,000
LD/RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$775,000$775,000 (Performance Bonus$60,000$60K)
LD/RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Winnipeg Jets
$775,000$775,000
RD
UFA - 2

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Sep. 6, 2019 at 12:47 p.m.
#1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2017
Posts: 7,513
Likes: 5,734
Shocker that this came from a leafs fan
CD282 liked this.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 12:48 p.m.
#2
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2015
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 801
Quoting: wojme
Shocker that this came from a leafs fan


beat me to it
wojme liked this.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 12:48 p.m.
#3
Habs for 25
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2017
Posts: 1,626
Likes: 526
Quoting: wojme
Shocker that this came from a leafs fan


My thoughts exactly...
wojme liked this.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 12:50 p.m.
#4
Re-sign Bo
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2018
Posts: 974
Likes: 364
Sep. 6, 2019 at 1:04 p.m.
#5
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 24,997
Likes: 7,855
Quoting: wojme
Shocker that this came from a leafs fan


If it did, it came from one who doesn't understand how the Salary Cap works.
Pharow and wojme liked this.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 1:05 p.m.
#6
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2016
Posts: 93
Likes: 10
As a leafs fan we dont need more cap problems
Sep. 6, 2019 at 1:06 p.m.
#7
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2019
Posts: 5,081
Likes: 1,433
Quoting: LoganOllivier
If it did, it came from one who doesn't understand how the Salary Cap works.


Not just salary cap, i mean value is disgusting here, no prospect, two older players for a 22 years old back to back 30 goal.
MisstheWhalers liked this.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 1:11 p.m.
#8
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 24,997
Likes: 7,855
Quoting: Sebybbq
Not just salary cap, i mean value is disgusting here, no prospect, two older players for a 22 years old back to back 30 goal.


The trade doesn't make sense. Although, Johnsson and Hyman scored 40 goals last season. You are correct though, a 22 year old with back to back 30 goals shouldn't be moved.

It never stops surprising me to see so many fans who think trading these RFA's instead of paying them is a smart idea. I just don't get it. If Winnipeg needs to make moves to work around the cap, they should move Little, Wheeler and Buff.

Its the same when people think trading a young player for Hall is smart. It just isn't in this era of hockey, you want guys who will be valuable for their entire contract not the start of it.
Pharow liked this.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 1:18 p.m.
#9
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2019
Posts: 5,081
Likes: 1,433
Quoting: LoganOllivier
The trade doesn't make sense. Although, Johnsson and Hyman scored 40 goals last season. You are correct though, a 22 year old with back to back 30 goals shouldn't be moved.

It never stops surprising me to see so many fans who think trading these RFA's instead of paying them is a smart idea. I just don't get it. If Winnipeg needs to make moves to work around the cap, they should move Little, Wheeler and Buff.

Its the same when people think trading a young player for Hall is smart. It just isn't in this era of hockey, you want guys who will be valuable for their entire contract not the start of it.


I think winnipeg already explore the option of trading little but is contract makes him tough piece to get rid of. The worst thing gm can does is giving nmc to players.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 1:24 p.m.
#10
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 24,997
Likes: 7,855
Quoting: Sebybbq
I think winnipeg already explore the option of trading little but is contract makes him tough piece to get rid of. The worst thing gm can does is giving nmc to players.


There is a huge problem right now with bad contracts. So many teams have too many of them and hardly anyone has any room to take on contracts like them. Little will cost a great deal to move but I'd wager you could find an okay return for either Buff or Wheeler that would help the Jets in 2 years when they could probably once again be a top team in their division. The way the Jets are currently built they will get worse before they get better.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 1:38 p.m.
#11
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2019
Posts: 5,081
Likes: 1,433
Quoting: LoganOllivier
There is a huge problem right now with bad contracts. So many teams have too many of them and hardly anyone has any room to take on contracts like them. Little will cost a great deal to move but I'd wager you could find an okay return for either Buff or Wheeler that would help the Jets in 2 years when they could probably once again be a top team in their division. The way the Jets are currently built they will get worse before they get better.


I know that wheeler contract wasn’t my favorite, but despite wheeler and buff the real bad contract is little,kulikov its 10 millions there that could been use more properly. Plus this year little increase over the cap as very affected gm. The salary cap was averaging increase of 3 millions a years. Look at team with problem against the cap. They all miss around 1 millions. This is another reason for the late signing. But i totally agree that bad contract is a reel problem. I already propose once here that they should had option to the contract. This would benefit team and players. I mean a players like alzner can still play in nhl for the right team and the right price. With a option both could agree to end contract.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 1:49 p.m.
#12
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 24,997
Likes: 7,855
Quoting: Sebybbq
I know that wheeler contract wasn’t my favorite, but despite wheeler and buff the real bad contract is little,kulikov its 10 millions there that could been use more properly. Plus this year little increase over the cap as very affected gm. The salary cap was averaging increase of 3 millions a years. Look at team with problem against the cap. They all miss around 1 millions. This is another reason for the late signing. But i totally agree that bad contract is a reel problem. I already propose once here that they should had option to the contract. This would benefit team and players. I mean a players like alzner can still play in nhl for the right team and the right price. With a option both could agree to end contract.


I am not sure players will support the idea of a club option on contracts. Guys like Lucic would be out the money. Players won't give up guaranteed money.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 1:57 p.m.
#13
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2019
Posts: 5,081
Likes: 1,433
Quoting: LoganOllivier
I am not sure players will support the idea of a club option on contracts. Guys like Lucic would be out the money. Players won't give up guaranteed money.


But a option doesnt means less money. I means this is just a idea but if lucic was offer 7 years but 5 garanteed earnings the big buck the first few years of the contract, and with the option on the final years the deal
Can still be respected or ended or renegotiate. I take a case lime brendan gallagher he sign for 6 year at a very friendly deal, entering option for him would make him loose money but he would have a major raise. There not just bad situation like lucic or eriksson there players like gallagher, Pacioretty before is extension kick in, morgan rielly, dylan larkin. Could be interesting avenue for players and for the team
Sep. 6, 2019 at 2:07 p.m.
#14
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 24,997
Likes: 7,855
Quoting: Sebybbq
But a option doesnt means less money. I means this is just a idea but if lucic was offer 7 years but 5 garanteed earnings the big buck the first few years of the contract, and with the option on the final years the deal
Can still be respected or ended or renegotiate. I take a case lime brendan gallagher he sign for 6 year at a very friendly deal, entering option for him would make him loose money but he would have a major raise. There not just bad situation like lucic or eriksson there players like gallagher, Pacioretty before is extension kick in, morgan rielly, dylan larkin. Could be interesting avenue for players and for the team


I understand how options work. Think of this from the players point of view though, if they sign a contract that is 5 years in length with the first 3 guaranteed, after that 3rd season they are dumped and get zero dollars from the remaining contract. That is great for the team but anyone who isn't a star player gets wrecked by these. Lucic is going to make 6 million for the next 4 years, if there was options, he'd be out that money and his next contract will be much lower.

Owners would love this and young star players would likely be in favour of this as well since they could give themselves a player option to leave if they don't like where things are going. McDavid could be sitting here waiting for his options to kick in so he can just leave. But do you think for a second the owners want that scenario to come up? Its a hard sell.

Top players will want it but the rest won't and the owners will want the reverse of that, they'd want options on older players and depth guys while not wanting it for star players.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 2:15 p.m.
#15
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2019
Posts: 5,081
Likes: 1,433
Quoting: LoganOllivier
I understand how options work. Think of this from the players point of view though, if they sign a contract that is 5 years in length with the first 3 guaranteed, after that 3rd season they are dumped and get zero dollars from the remaining contract. That is great for the team but anyone who isn't a star player gets wrecked by these. Lucic is going to make 6 million for the next 4 years, if there was options, he'd be out that money and his next contract will be much lower.

Owners would love this and young star players would likely be in favour of this as well since they could give themselves a player option to leave if they don't like where things are going. McDavid could be sitting here waiting for his options to kick in so he can just leave. But do you think for a second the owners want that scenario to come up? Its a hard sell.

Top players will want it but the rest won't and the owners will want the reverse of that, they'd want options on older players and depth guys while not wanting it for star players.


Contract would be built differently. Lucic would have received all signing bonus in the first 5 years for sure that would have left 4 millions for the remaining of the deal. This isnt as bad as you think, plus almost more than a half of the players in nhl would have that option since a lots of players are sign for 3 lesser years. I still think it could
Work but a lot of work would have to be done before.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 2:19 p.m.
#16
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 24,997
Likes: 7,855
Quoting: Sebybbq
Contract would be built differently. Lucic would have received all signing bonus in the first 5 years for sure that would have left 4 millions for the remaining of the deal. This isnt as bad as you think, plus almost more than a half of the players in nhl would have that option since a lots of players are sign for 3 lesser years. I still think it could
Work but a lot of work would have to be done before.


Most teams can't afford to give every player on their roster a tonne of signing bonuses. Sure rich teams can but would Edmonton be able to give all their players front loaded contracts so these guys can walk if it doesn't work out? Why would any owner want that? You'd have some players that would sign monster front loaded deals just to get the cash and then take the option to do it again. There are about a thousand reasons why this doesn't make sense and 5 for why it does. It would completely change the league and the chaos that it would create while the league figure this out would be insane.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 2:26 p.m.
#17
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2019
Posts: 5,081
Likes: 1,433
Quoting: LoganOllivier
Most teams can't afford to give every player on their roster a tonne of signing bonuses. Sure rich teams can but would Edmonton be able to give all their players front loaded contracts so these guys can walk if it doesn't work out? Why would any owner want that? You'd have some players that would sign monster front loaded deals just to get the cash and then take the option to do it again. There are about a thousand reasons why this doesn't make sense and 5 for why it does. It would completely change the league and the chaos that it would create while the league figure this out would be insane.


Why giving signing bonus to everyone?? Plus with the revenue shares this isn’t a concern anymore everyteam is able to spend a 80 millions if they want since rich team pay for it already. Last time nhl change the contract rule they offer a buyout windows for team to restart on good bases i don’t see why they could do it now.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 3:07 p.m.
#18
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 24,997
Likes: 7,855
Quoting: Sebybbq
Why giving signing bonus to everyone?? Plus with the revenue shares this isn’t a concern anymore everyteam is able to spend a 80 millions if they want since rich team pay for it already. Last time nhl change the contract rule they offer a buyout windows for team to restart on good bases i don’t see why they could do it now.


That is entirely different and now this conversation is getting loopy.

1) Options are completely different than buyouts.
2) Revenue sharing does not mean all teams have the same amount of money. Some teams can afford to spread 80 million over the whole year and front loading the bills to July 1 (Which is when bonuses are paid) is difficult.

I am not sure I am following your thoughts here.

The options on contracts as I have stated would be attractive to certain players but not others, the majority of players would likely not want that since the older guys could see themselves lose a tonne of long term stability. Edmonton would drop Lucic as soon as possible and Lucic would just be out the money. (Your bonus money argument doesn't help this since who would want to front load a contract with bonus money and then watch a player opt out of a contract?) Young Star players may be open to options since it gives them even more control over their situation, but the depth guys won't be in favour of it since they could be out in the cold quickly after a rough year. Owners would like it for older players since if they mess up a signing they can opt out after a certain amount of time scott free.

I think player/team options are a non starter for both sides. Doesn't make sense for either side. No player would want to give the team the ability to just not have to pay them and cancel a contract and the owners won't want the players to be able to do the same.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 3:27 p.m.
#19
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2019
Posts: 5,081
Likes: 1,433
Quoting: LoganOllivier
That is entirely different and now this conversation is getting loopy.

1) Options are completely different than buyouts.
2) Revenue sharing does not mean all teams have the same amount of money. Some teams can afford to spread 80 million over the whole year and front loading the bills to July 1 (Which is when bonuses are paid) is difficult.

I am not sure I am following your thoughts here.

The options on contracts as I have stated would be attractive to certain players but not others, the majority of players would likely not want that since the older guys could see themselves lose a tonne of long term stability. Edmonton would drop Lucic as soon as possible and Lucic would just be out the money. (Your bonus money argument doesn't help this since who would want to front load a contract with bonus money and then watch a player opt out of a contract?) Young Star players may be open to options since it gives them even more control over their situation, but the depth guys won't be in favour of it since they could be out in the cold quickly after a rough year. Owners would like it for older players since if they mess up a signing they can opt out after a certain amount of time scott free

I think player/team options are a non starter for both sides. Doesn't make sense for either side. No player would want to give the team the ability to just not have to pay them and cancel a contract and the owners won't want the players to be able to do the same.


You are not understanding anything are you? If the contract where negociate with option the money own in last season would be a little part of the deal. And so on 42 millions on 7 year a guys would end up with 38 millions for 5 years. Not bad for since if he performed well he could end up making 10-12 more millions i the 2 years of option. I know how revenu share works and salary isn’t a issue even bonuses aren’t a problem even for the arizona coyotes. Since its not all the players that will sign those deal. And players that are not affected by that doesnt care. Utility players continu too earn their paycheck that doesnt affect them at all why would they care if some
Other player have option. Plus options is basically based on performance so i don’t see why its bad. Im sure a majority of players would agree on that. Its not alwas about money. A players sign 5 years with a team and the team suck badly the entired time some of the players would rather loose money them always loose. Even if you don’t like the ideas i keep thinkinh that it would be a grwat thing for the nhl. I don’t no why you keep arguing with that. Its not like they have talk about it or something i know
This isnt goiing to happen in a near futur but it work well in other sport why not try it in hockey
Sep. 6, 2019 at 4:15 p.m.
#20
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 24,997
Likes: 7,855
Quoting: Sebybbq
You are not understanding anything are you? If the contract where negociate with option the money own in last season would be a little part of the deal. And so on 42 millions on 7 year a guys would end up with 38 millions for 5 years. Not bad for since if he performed well he could end up making 10-12 more millions i the 2 years of option. I know how revenu share works and salary isn’t a issue even bonuses aren’t a problem even for the arizona coyotes. Since its not all the players that will sign those deal. And players that are not affected by that doesnt care. Utility players continu too earn their paycheck that doesnt affect them at all why would they care if some
Other player have option. Plus options is basically based on performance so i don’t see why its bad. Im sure a majority of players would agree on that. Its not alwas about money. A players sign 5 years with a team and the team suck badly the entired time some of the players would rather loose money them always loose. Even if you don’t like the ideas i keep thinkinh that it would be a grwat thing for the nhl. I don’t no why you keep arguing with that. Its not like they have talk about it or something i know
This isnt goiing to happen in a near futur but it work well in other sport why not try it in hockey


Okay there is a bit to decompress here.

If I am going to sign a contract and I am late 20's or early 30's, would I ever want to accept a contract where the club has the option of just ending my contract if its inconvenient? No chance would I do that. I'd much rather just make the money.

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that if I sign a 7 year deal with the last 3 years having either a player option or a team option or both, then the structure of the contract would be that most of the money is paid in the first 4 years. That all sounds fine but why on earth would a team every do that? Why would an owner be okay with front loading a contract and giving the player an out after he gets all the money? So if there were player options, as an owner, I'd make sure each year the player is getting the same amount in either bonuses or salary.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 4:30 p.m.
#21
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2019
Posts: 5,081
Likes: 1,433
Quoting: LoganOllivier
Okay there is a bit to decompress here.

If I am going to sign a contract and I am late 20's or early 30's, would I ever want to accept a contract where the club has the option of just ending my contract if its inconvenient? No chance would I do that. I'd much rather just make the money.

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that if I sign a 7 year deal with the last 3 years having either a player option or a team option or both, then the structure of the contract would be that most of the money is paid in the first 4 years. That all sounds fine but why on earth would a team every do that? Why would an owner be okay with front loading a contract and giving the player an out after he gets all the money? So if there were player options, as an owner, I'd make sure each year the player is getting the same amount in either bonuses or salary.


The options is more for the management than the money. That why they stop using longer contract, because money was the same but on longer term. Its would gave team option after 4-5 years. This is personnel issue because i don’t like 8 years deal. In any sport i thing 5 years is already hard to project. Giving option benefits both players and team.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 5:13 p.m.
#22
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 24,997
Likes: 7,855
Quoting: Sebybbq
The options is more for the management than the money. That why they stop using longer contract, because money was the same but on longer term. Its would gave team option after 4-5 years. This is personnel issue because i don’t like 8 years deal. In any sport i thing 5 years is already hard to project. Giving option benefits both players and team.


The league that uses options the most is MLB. In that league generally the options are for either the player or the team and sometimes both.

A player option, means the player can elect to terminate the remainder of their contract and become a FA.
A team option allows the team to terminate the remainder of a contract.
When both sides have it one or the other can terminate the contract with no penalty.

So explain to me why the players would want teams to have that sort of power? Why would an owner want to let a player just cancel his contract and walk away without any assets coming back in return?
Sep. 6, 2019 at 5:29 p.m.
#23
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2019
Posts: 7,120
Likes: 1,640
Quoting: LoganOllivier
The league that uses options the most is MLB. In that league generally the options are for either the player or the team and sometimes both.

A player option, means the player can elect to terminate the remainder of their contract and become a FA.
A team option allows the team to terminate the remainder of a contract.
When both sides have it one or the other can terminate the contract with no penalty.

So explain to me why the players would want teams to have that sort of power? Why would an owner want to let a player just cancel his contract and walk away without any assets coming back in return?


I can see the league heading in a similar direction as the NBA where there is Max contracts at 5 years with a max dollar amount and there being restrictions on how many Max contracts a team can have, I can the players agreeing to a last year of contract option where either the player or the team can exercise the option but if the team uses it the player gets paid out and the AAV would be spread over the next 2 seasons, if the player chooses to exercise the option the player just walks into FA a year early with no cap penalty to the team
Pharow liked this.
Sep. 6, 2019 at 5:51 p.m.
#24
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2019
Posts: 5,081
Likes: 1,433
Quoting: LoganOllivier
The league that uses options the most is MLB. In that league generally the options are for either the player or the team and sometimes both.

A player option, means the player can elect to terminate the remainder of their contract and become a FA.
A team option allows the team to terminate the remainder of a contract.
When both sides have it one or the other can terminate the contract with no penalty.

So explain to me why the players would want teams to have that sort of power? Why would an owner want to let a player just cancel his contract and walk away without any assets coming back in return?


I was referring to the nfl and nba mostly. In nfl when a team loses a players in free agency they received a compensatory pick. This could
Be something that could be use in nhl. Plus the option to opt out isnt always use i mean most of the time is a performance issue that caused either the player or the team the exercise the option. I dont see why a team
Or a player would be upset since at base they would know that the contract is for 5 years with possible extension. They negociate contract for month i would
Think that negociate a option for both side would be different then a mnc or big bonus signing. Its just another tool for either players or team. I don’t understand why you are freaking about it. If a players after is 5 years feel he deserved a raise and wanted to opt out why not. If a team think the players isnt playing at the level he was sign for why not. It would benefit everyone. Opt out doesn’t mean that players and team do whatever they want when they want. It just another tool for long term contract. If matt duchenes who clearly said he wanted to be on a stanley cup team, in three years in that contract realize that nashville isnt the team that will give him
That why couldn’t he decided to move on earlier. On other hand if nashville would entering a rebuilt phase i think they would
Mind if duchenes opt out to go elsewhere. I would just be different then now.
Sep. 7, 2019 at 12:48 a.m.
#25
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 24,997
Likes: 7,855
Quoting: Sebybbq
I was referring to the nfl and nba mostly. In nfl when a team loses a players in free agency they received a compensatory pick. This could
Be something that could be use in nhl. Plus the option to opt out isnt always use i mean most of the time is a performance issue that caused either the player or the team the exercise the option. I dont see why a team
Or a player would be upset since at base they would know that the contract is for 5 years with possible extension. They negociate contract for month i would
Think that negociate a option for both side would be different then a mnc or big bonus signing. Its just another tool for either players or team. I don’t understand why you are freaking about it. If a players after is 5 years feel he deserved a raise and wanted to opt out why not. If a team think the players isnt playing at the level he was sign for why not. It would benefit everyone. Opt out doesn’t mean that players and team do whatever they want when they want. It just another tool for long term contract. If matt duchenes who clearly said he wanted to be on a stanley cup team, in three years in that contract realize that nashville isnt the team that will give him
That why couldn’t he decided to move on earlier. On other hand if nashville would entering a rebuilt phase i think they would
Mind if duchenes opt out to go elsewhere. I would just be different then now.


Using Duchene as the example, why on earth would the GM and ownership want to give Duchene the option to just cancel his contract. That is what a player option is. They decline the option and are free to leave.

On the flip side, why on earth would a player sign a contract that gives his team the power to just cancel his contract if things don't go his way.

Lucic is signed for 4 more years at 6 million a season, if options where in play now, he would be dropped immediately and lose millions.

The NBA is different since they have far less players on the squad and single players make such a huge difference on teams so it can't work the same way as hockey. The NFL is also different, football players already know they only get a certain amount of guaranteed money but their contracts can be released which isn't a thing in hockey.

I am not at all freaking on this, I just enjoy discussing hockey. I hear what you are saying and there are benefits for both players and teams but negatives out way the positives
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll