Olli Juolevi | #48 | D

[MattJVD]

I think this contract/character discussion is missing a lot of the picture. The player doesn't usually have a lot to do with the negotiations, it's the agent. The agent and player will probably have a talk about the ball park term and $ the player is looking for, and some comparable players' contracts. Then it's all in the agent's hands, the agent isn't going to bring every single offer to the player. The agent is the one negotiating all summer. 

Edited January 26, 2019 by MattJVD
Spelling

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, MattJVD said:

I think this contract/character discussion is missing a lot of the picture. They player doesn't usually have a lot to do with the negotiations, it's the agent. The agent and player will probably have a talk about the ball park term and $ the player is looking for, and some comparable players contracts. Then it's all in the agents hands, the agent isn't going to bring every single offer to the player. The agent is the one negotiating all summer. 

Absolutely this. What people sometimes forget is sometime the player just wants to play and doesn't want to have anything to do with the negotiation. He lets the agent decide what his value is. Makes it unfair if the player gets a bad rep for something the agent did.

[Phat Fingers]

55 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

McDavid is the best player on earth and he could of gotten the max 13,25 but instead took 12.5  if he took any less it causes problems with the NHLPA.  Contracts are about making what you are worth and Connor is the high water mark, if he asks for 10 and gets it what would Matthews get?  Certainly not as much as Connor, so 8.5-9 mil for him? The trickle down effect would continue and you will have a bunch of pissed off people not making as much money as they could have. 

So McDavid would have been run out if the league had he taken 11.5,  I doubt it   I disagree with you second premise.  The high end players are actually literally taking money away from the middle and low end guys.  There is a hard cap.  Only so much to go around.  So the more McDavid takes means that the guys down the line have less pay, added to that, the team suffers and the fans lose.  

[Legendary10]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

So basically you are the type of person who doesn't like to forgive and is willing to spread your hate, whether right or wrong, decades later? Based on the start of a career and not even the full career even if the person has changed? This also then extends to his children basically being against that child at birth with that child having little to no say in whether you are going to like them or not?

 

That's some extreme grudging there. Unhealthy I might add...

Why not?  I feel the same way about Messier.  Don't you?  

[The Lock]

5 minutes ago, Legendary10 said:

Why not?  I feel the same way about Messier.  Don't you?  

Haha. That's a good point. Although to be honest, I don't even think about Messier, so I probably don't have a grudge as unpopular as that might be of a statement. lol

Edited January 26, 2019 by The Lock

[Legendary10]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

Absolutely this. What people sometimes forget is sometime the player just wants to play and doesn't want to have anything to do with the negotiation. He lets the agent decide what his value is. Makes it unfair if the player gets a bad rep for something the agent did.

Agreed but the player Lets agent know whether at what point they are willing to sit/demand trade/set minimum $ amount if contract demands are not met.  

I would also like to point out that the active NHL player agents/companies out there all have a "reputation" as to how they approach negotiations with teams.  Players know this and choose their legal representation based on this.  So in a round about way, I don't think it's entirely unfair if the player gets a bad rep for something the agent did.

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, Legendary10 said:

Agreed but the player Lets agent know whether at what point they are willing to sit/demand trade/set minimum $ amount if contract demands are not met.  

I would also like to point out that the active NHL player agents/companies out there all have a "reputation" as to how they approach negotiations with teams.  Players know this and choose their legal representation based on this.  So in a round about way, I don't think it's entirely unfair if the player gets a bad rep for something the agent did.

I think what it comes down to is every situation is going to be different which can make it easy for players to get judged either way, be it fair, or unfair.

[cyoung]

Ya so back to OJ...looking forward to seeing him back on the ice training...

[TheRealistOptimist]

I dislike so many of these premises. 

No player should get blamed for signing for as much money as possible. Tkachuk shouldn't be blamed for the Jets moving. The ownership should be blamed for not having enough money to pay their players.

 

The argument of taking $1-2 million dollars less per year and still being "filthy rich" is a ridiculous statement IMO. First off its not just $1-2 million it's $8-16 million in the case of McDavid. I don't know anybody who would want to give up that much money. We really shouldn't judge anybody based on the money they get paid. Especially when someone felt they were worth it. 

 

As for Juolevi and his attitude towards fans. Not every player is PK Subban who loves being the center of attention. Some players are uncomfortable being the center of attention and/or with fan interaction, especially as young player and then on top that, probably even more so being in a new country (as someone mentioned before). This issue hits a little closer to home for me, as I played minor league baseball, during that time I was never comfortable with fan interaction. I probably came off as rude to some fans but it wasn't me being rude or thinking I was too good for the fans, it was more me being intimidated by the situation and not being great at small talk. I think we forget that professional athletes are just normal people and everyone of them has unique personalities and characteristics. Also their personalities have nothing to do with their skills and how good they are. 

[Noble 6]

The idea of players taking less than their perceived value to create/stay with a good team is a good one (looking solely at the organization's interests), but it's very rare that it actually happens.

 

That's why the Sedins and Burrows are held in such a positive light.

[TheRealistOptimist]

Except both of your examples (the Sedin's and Burrows) had albatross contracts that didn't match their production after their primes. 

 

But I never blamed them for getting those contracts, just management for giving them those contracts.

Edited January 27, 2019 by TheRealistOptimist
added to my op

[Legendary10]

5 minutes ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

Except both of your examples (the Sedin's and Burrows) had albatross contracts that didn't match their production after their primes. 

 

But I never blamed them for getting those contracts, just management for giving them those contracts.

It may not have matched their on ice production, but their role as leaders both on and off the ice were just as valuable. Their work ethic, dedication to the game, community work, etc cannot be shrugged off. Had to rub off on the baby Canucks the right way yes?   Without that, We have a good chance to emulate the path that the Oilers are stuck on.  So I say well worth the price till the very end.

[HomeBrew]

18 minutes ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

Except both of your examples (the Sedin's and Burrows) had albatross contracts that didn't match their production after their primes. 

 

But I never blamed them for getting those contracts, just management for giving them those contracts.

Fake news. 

[TheRealistOptimist]

They held our team hostage for 4 years, because we couldn't truly embrace a rebuild while they were here wrapping up their careers.

 

It makes me want to vomit whenever I hear someone praise a players community work. As a fan I couldn't care less what a player does in the community. They get paid to play the game, produce and try to win championships.  

[TheRealistOptimist]

Just now, HomeBrew said:

Fake news. 

How so?

 

Burrows made $2 million while he was scoring 25-35 goals

(28 years old) 2009-10 - 35 goals - $2 million 

(29 years old) 2010-11 - 26 goals - $2 million

(30 years old) 2011-12 - 28 goals - $2 million

(31 years old) 2012-13 - 13 goals in 47 games - $2 million (strike shortened season)

Signed a 4 year deal with a $4.5 million AAV with a NTC

(32 years old) 2013-14 - 5 goals in 49 games - $4.5 million

(33 years old) 2014-15 - 18 goals - $4.5 million

(34 years old) 2015-16 - 9 goals - $4.5 million

(35 years old) 2016-17 - 9 goals in 55 games for Vancouver - $4.5 million

 

You don't give someone who's 32 years old, their production already waning a 250% raise to go along with a NTC. Albatross contract for his production.

 

The Sedin's are obviously not as bad but their production had already been waning prior to them signing their last contract. Then at 33 years old they inexplicably got a raise and a full NMC, they had 1 more good year where they were worth the money and then they regressed like old players tend to do.

[HomeBrew]

22 minutes ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

How so?

 

Burrows made $2 million while he was scoring 25-35 goals

(28 years old) 2009-10 - 35 goals - $2 million 

(29 years old) 2010-11 - 26 goals - $2 million

(30 years old) 2011-12 - 28 goals - $2 million

(31 years old) 2012-13 - 13 goals in 47 games - $2 million (strike shortened season)

Signed a 4 year deal with a $4.5 million AAV with a NTC

(32 years old) 2013-14 - 5 goals in 49 games - $4.5 million

(33 years old) 2014-15 - 18 goals - $4.5 million

(34 years old) 2015-16 - 9 goals - $4.5 million

(35 years old) 2016-17 - 9 goals in 55 games for Vancouver - $4.5 million

 

You don't give someone who's 32 years old, their production already waning a 250% raise to go along with a NTC. Albatross contract for his production.

 

The Sedin's are obviously not as bad but their production had already been waning prior to them signing their last contract. Then at 33 years old they inexplicably got a raise and a full NMC, they had 1 more good year where they were worth the money and then they regressed like old players tend to do.

 

This has nothing to do with Juolevi. And Burrows was worth every dime we paid him for this time here. 

[TheRealistOptimist]

47 minutes ago, HomeBrew said:

 

This has nothing to do with Juolevi. And Burrows was worth every dime we paid him for this time here. 

now that is fake news.

 

You are the one that quoted my statement, then said it was fake news. I was just backing up my point.

[Ray_Cathode]

3 hours ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

The idea of players taking less than their perceived value to create/stay with a good team is a good one (looking solely at the organization's interests), but it's very rare that it actually happens.

 

That's why the Sedins and Burrows are held in such a positive light.

It mostly happens when older players see a last chance at a cup - see Burrows, Selanne, Jagr, etc.

[cyoung]

3 hours ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

How so?

 

Burrows made $2 million while he was scoring 25-35 goals

(28 years old) 2009-10 - 35 goals - $2 million 

(29 years old) 2010-11 - 26 goals - $2 million

(30 years old) 2011-12 - 28 goals - $2 million

(31 years old) 2012-13 - 13 goals in 47 games - $2 million (strike shortened season)

Signed a 4 year deal with a $4.5 million AAV with a NTC

(32 years old) 2013-14 - 5 goals in 49 games - $4.5 million

(33 years old) 2014-15 - 18 goals - $4.5 million

(34 years old) 2015-16 - 9 goals - $4.5 million

(35 years old) 2016-17 - 9 goals in 55 games for Vancouver - $4.5 million

 

You don't give someone who's 32 years old, their production already waning a 250% raise to go along with a NTC. Albatross contract for his production.

 

The Sedin's are obviously not as bad but their production had already been waning prior to them signing their last contract. Then at 33 years old they inexplicably got a raise and a full NMC, they had 1 more good year where they were worth the money and then they regressed like old players tend to do.

Sorry but that's how contracts go most of the time. They earn big contracts and then production declines due to age. Also in most cases, those players would get big contracts wherever they sign. Burrows would of made more money elsewhere most likely, he was a bargain for his time in Vancouver.

[JeremyCuddles]

3 hours ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

They held our team hostage for 4 years, because we couldn't truly embrace a rebuild while they were here wrapping up their careers.

 

It makes me want to vomit whenever I hear someone praise a players community work. As a fan I couldn't care less what a player does in the community. They get paid to play the game, produce and try to win championships.  

This post could not possibly corroborate with your name more.