Joined: Jul 2018
I voted yes because there is no way to argue that Boeser won't out perform this value, he will.
This deal is high for a bridge deal based on comparables, but we are seeing a massive change in the market place, so it's hard to argue it isn't fair.
My biggest criticism is that the Canucks aren't a great team, and gave up a 1st round pick to take on a salary that didn't allow them to go longer term. They would have been better served by keeping their first, saving salary space, and trying to get a 7 or 8 year deal rather than push this out for 3 years. They now need to re-sign Boeser a year after Petterson and the same year as Hughes. The deal is good, the strategy seems flawed.
The qualifying offer stuff is getting copied from the Meier deal, but players aren't gaining anything from it. Meier's QO is a number was 167% of his AAV, which is a big increase, and guarantees him a lot of leverage going into his next contract, so it was done so he would accept a lower AAV. These other deals, the bridge seems to be for about fair value, and the qualifying offers are less than 150% of the AAV, so I don't get the point? The players would be better off getting their money sooner in signing bonus, but instead they need to get underpaid in actual dollars for 2 years, and get all salary in year 3. The crappy part from the players point of view, is that it accomplishes nothing. All of these players would be arbitration eligible when their deals expire, and if they wanted to force a one year deal I don't see any way that these guys wouldn't get arbitration awards bigger than these qualifying offers they are building. Honestly, if any of them performs poorly enough that they wouldn't get that type of award, they many not even get qualified.