• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

HockeytownRules19

Athanasiou Signed 1 year $1.4 mil

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Buppy said:

You have been saying Holland is wrong the whole time. You say for offering less than AA is worth, but apparently you mean less than what you'd pay, and paying him less than he's worth is fine as long as it gets him signed. Basically what it boils down to is just get AA signed. Maybe I presume to much to guess how you might react in a different situation, so fine, forget that part. As for what I think is fair, I'd say anything in the $1.5-2.5 range for 2 years is fair. Even higher over longer term. I'd do $4M over 6 years. Point is, I think what is being offered is already within the fair range, and therefore doesn't warrant criticism. 

Regarding my posting habits, while not really any of your business, my "deal" is only that I happen to value logical, rational, well-reasoned opinions. Something often in short supply on the internet and in the emotional world of sports fandom, I know. I like to pretend that my posts encourage people to put more thought into their posts and opinions. If your bulls*** can't stand up to some scrutiny, learn better bulls*** kind of thing. Probably delusional, but it helps me sleep. I could pretend to be sorry about it if it'll make you and krsmith feel better.

 

Except you're not posting with any kind of logical or intellectual rigor.  You're the king of the strawman.  See the bolded above.  Never said any of that.  That's you just being argumentative.  I said that AA is worth more than 1.9 million per year.  And that Holland should offer him the 2.5 million he's asking.  I never, ever, said offering him a lower AAV was "fine".  I said that Holland should  counter with a longer term, since it's a negotiation, but that he should absolutely offer the 2.5 because AA is worth that to this team.  You've somehow morphed that into "Kip wants him signed no matter what even if that means lowballing him", which is pretty far from the truth.  And you do this stuff all the time.  If you were being "rational" you'd discuss hockey with people rather than trying to win debate points by distorting what other people say. 

If you want to scrutinize my posts, have at it.  But you tend to scrutinize arguments you've made up.  And then you run with it.  Not really all that different that what millions of other commenters do when they try to "win" the internet.  And then hide behind, "I'm just being rational".  You're not.  Your schtick is pretty obvious.

Here, I'll clarify.  I think 2.5 million over three years is a fair deal.  To get there Holland will have to accept 2.5 million (which is fair) and counter offer with 4 years.  Considering this is too long a term, we might reasonable expect AA's camp to counter with 3 years at 2.5 million.  And then we'd have a fair deal.  All clear?  Since this falls within your parameter of a "fair deal" you shouldn't have anything to argue about right? 

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Except you're not posting with any kind of logical or intellectual rigor.  You're the king of the strawman.  See the bolded above.  Never said any of that.  That's you just being argumentative.  I said that AA is worth more than 1.9 million per year.  And that Holland should offer him the 2.5 million he's asking.  I never, ever, said offering him a lower AAV was "fine".  I said that Holland should  counter with a longer term, since it's a negotiation, but that he should absolutely offer the 2.5 because AA is worth that to this team.  You've somehow morphed that into "Kip wants him signed no matter what even if that means lowballing him", which is pretty far from the truth.  And you do this stuff all the time.  If you were being "rational" you'd discuss hockey with people rather than trying to win debate points by distorting what other people say. 

If you want to scrutinize my posts, have at it.  But you tend to scrutinize arguments you've made up.  And then you run with it.  Not really all that different that what millions of other commenters do when they try to "win" the internet.  And then hide behind, "I'm just being rational".  You're not.  Your schtick is pretty obvious.

Here, I'll clarify.  I think 2.5 million over three years is a fair deal.  To get there Holland will have to accept 2.5 million (which is fair) and counter offer with 4 years.  Considering this is too long a term, we might reasonable expect AA's camp to counter with 3 years at 2.5 million.  And then we'd have a fair deal.  All clear?  Since this falls within your parameter of a "fair deal" you shouldn't have anything to argue about right? 

Not playing "gotcha", but...

On 9/21/2017 at 1:02 AM, kipwinger said:

... He's worth more than 1.9 million per year, and that's all our organization is willing to offer him.  Every other team in the league would offer him 2.25-3.0 million.  We can't, or won't, because our GM handed out terrible contracts to other players.  It's not AA's job to take less than he's worth to bail out Ken Holland. ...

On 9/22/2017 at 10:48 AM, kipwinger said:

Paying a guy what he's worth isn't "overpaying".  This drives me crazy.  Regardless of whether he's an RFA, he's worth the money.  Ken Holland is lowballing this kid because he's put himself into a bad cap situation.  I understand that Holland CAN offer a guy less than he's worth if the player is an RFA, but that doesn't mean he should.  If he's made a competitive offer, as opposed to an insulting one, AA would be on the team right now....

On 10/2/2017 at 8:38 PM, kipwinger said:

If your boss offered you a salary, and you thought you were worth more than he offered, would it be your responsibility to take less to prove your worth?  ...

What strawman? Pretty clearly making an issue of paying him less than he's worth, and also pretty clearly implying Holland is in the wrong. 

Are you not saying Holland is wrong? Do you admit that 2x$1.9M is a competitive, fair-market offer and not an insulting lowball offer? If so we can drop it and move on.

All the stuff about paying him what he's worth? You say my inference that you don't really care about that is wrong. Ok, I stand corrected; you definitely think AA should be paid what he's worth. But then I'm afraid I have to ask the questions that led me to that inference. Is $2.5M all you think he's worth? Obviously not if you suggest a range up to $3M. And in the post suggesting the 4 year deal you said he would likely outperform that deal in 3 of the 4 years, which I take to mean you think he would be worth more in those years. So you're clearly fine with paying him less than what you consider his maximum worth. I suppose then that would have to mean that you believe $2.5M would be still be within his worth range. Is that true?

Assuming so, I would wonder how you come to that conclusion. I would argue that it is too high a minimum value now, and too low in the future. Which leads to some good ol' hockey discussion:

On 9/24/2017 at 12:21 AM, Buppy said:

You're exaggerating a bit. His goals/60 was tied for 29th among forwards playing 30 or more games, trailing such "superstars" as Brett Connolly, Nazem Kadri, Michael Grabner, and Tyler Pitlick. While it is very good, you shouldn't ignore that it is a small sample size. Magnus Paajarvi scored at an almost identical rate and just signed for 1yr/$800K, because he isn't actually good despite his great stats in a small sample. Vanek, who was a UFA, better in every way while with the Wings, and has a history of very good scoring just got $2M for 1 year. 

I would also argue with your second point. We have 7 other forwards who could potentially score 20+ goals (or 6 if we don't think Zetterberg can do it anymore). Another handful that could score in the teens. I don't believe our scoring issues have been the result of individual ability, nor that AA is as vital as you suggest. I think Svech could probably step into AAs role and give reasonably close results. Parenteau scored 20 just two years ago. You've said previously that you believe Frk could be a decent depth scorer. The most we should reasonably expect from AA over whatever replacement is maybe 5-10 goals. He's not a make-or-break player.

I posted that earlier in response to one of your comments on comparable players, but you never responded. We can pursue that if you want.

And finally, in response to your last paragraph, I would say yes, that could be a fair resolution. So long as you agree that there are other potential resolutions that would also be fair (For example, if 1 extra year of term should be worth $600k extra AAV from Holland, then not committing for the extra year should be worth $600k to AA, and signing for 2x$1.9M would also be fair. Or more of a compromise and say 2x$2.2M), then yes again, nothing to argue about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In every other contract negotiation I've ever seen, you pay more for a shorter term, and less for a longer one.  Isn't that how we kept Abby's cap hit down, and why Green's is probably higher than he's worth.  I think AA is worth 2.5 million over 3 years.  A little less for more term, and little more for less term.  I certainly think he's worth more than the comparables people have been throwing around considering all the guys mentioned as comparables (Brown, Anderson, Baertschi, Bennett) score roughly the same number of points with more TOI, more games, or both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kipwinger said:

In every other contract negotiation I've ever seen, you pay more for a shorter term, and less for a longer one.  Isn't that how we kept Abby's cap hit down, and why Green's is probably higher than he's worth.  I think AA is worth 2.5 million over 3 years.  A little less for more term, and little more for less term.  I certainly think he's worth more than the comparables people have been throwing around considering all the guys mentioned as comparables (Brown, Anderson, Baertschi, Bennett) score roughly the same number of points with more TOI, more games, or both. 

They were UFAs. It's very different. At that age it's a trade off of security for value. The longer the contract the better the value because the player is going to decline. RFAs on the other hand are going to more than likely get better so it's the opposite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Son of a Wing said:

RFAs on the other hand are going to more than likely get better so it's the opposite. 

I believe the reason is AA is arbitration eligible next year. So - give him more money for two years is in a fact cheaper than give him less money for one year, because we could assume arbiter would set like 2,5-3M per year as a minimum if he´s able to be 20g+ boy.

So it´s like "I will give you less money now, but you can have way more money next year if you´re good." and "or I will give you little bit more money now for more years, but will wait for your big payday longer". AA would like to have the combination - don´t risk he will suffer from bad 17/18 season, BUT wants better money right now. 

Edited by Juklitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't think Holland is going to give in. It a about time for AA to s*** or get out of the kitchen. Like JR said yesterday, if the KHL has a significant offer, go. Holland already had overpaid, underachieving players, what if he gives in and AA doesn't produce? Best bet, take the 2 year bridge, earn your big payday. If you outperform the bridge deal, get a huge payday in 2 years. Underperform, then not so much. Ugh, I'm defending Holland....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

I just don't think Holland is going to give in. It a about time for AA to s*** or get out of the kitchen. Like JR said yesterday, if the KHL has a significant offer, go. Holland already had overpaid, underachieving players, what if he gives in and AA doesn't produce? Best bet, take the 2 year bridge, earn your big payday. If you outperform the bridge deal, get a huge payday in 2 years. Underperform, then not so much. Ugh, I'm defending Holland....

I never thought I would see the day......for shame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, brett said:

do we still care about AA? at this point i say f*** him do what we can to trade him for a high pick or a better defensive asset 

Well I, for one, do care.  The guy's electric and has the capacity for significant growth. Game breaking speed with hands to finish?  This isn't just another "prospect".  He's demonstrated he can already play at a high level. 

Am I the only one who's most excited about him out of all our kids besides Larkin?  Dare I say I love his play more than Mantha?  Yes. Yes I do. 

Sign soon, AA. 

Hey- if he ever becomes an assistant captain, can I be the first to call him triple-A batteries?  You heard it here first- folks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Juklitz said:

I believe the reason is AA is arbitration eligible next year. So - give him more money for two years is in a fact cheaper than give him less money for one year, because we could assume arbiter would set like 2,5-3M per year as a minimum if he´s able to be 20g+ boy.

So it´s like "I will give you less money now, but you can have way more money next year if you´re good." and "or I will give you little bit more money now for more years, but will wait for your big payday longer". AA would like to have the combination - don´t risk he will suffer from bad 17/18 season, BUT wants better money right now. 

AA is only arbitration eligible if he plays in Detroit this year, If he goes to the KHL or Europe this year he looses his salary arbitration rights next year and will be in the same boat as this year. He wouldn't be eligible until he reaches 25 years old and that's if he plays next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next season, our pool of wingers could be Tatar, Nyquist, Mantha, Svechnikov, Frk (?), Rasmussen (?), Helm, Abdelkader, Glendening, Bertuzzi.

Having AA in that pool would make it a stronger pool, but it's a pretty respectable group even without him.

Just saying. Food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now