[Rumor] Boeser Camp Eyeing 4 Year Deal Worth $28M

[aGENT]

On 9/11/2019 at 12:52 PM, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I’m curious to see how you determine what is reasonable. The numbers you have thrown around are not. 

My numbers still seem pretty damn reasonable after seeing the contracts signed the last few days. YMMV.

Edited September 13, 2019 by aGENT

[Tracksuit]

He was on pace to win the Calder he went to the all star game and was mvp. 

And he wants more money than LE ..shocking .. just another problem when you grossly over pay a third  and fourth liners. 

He wants market value and he’s earned it. 

It’s not his fault Jim’s continuously  overpays. Especially ufas. 

This kid should have been the top priority and far more important to the future than  old injured edler and bottom pairing dmen (benn fantom). 

Players that miss camp usually have a tough season. Canucks don’t have the skill or depth to have bess not be at the top of his game and in the line up. 

Defiantly disappointing not seeing  him signed yet. 

 

[Kanukfanatic]

41 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Not sure what job you do, but raises are normally based on how well you do your job over the years of doing it, and prove you deserve it, not on what they're hoping you may do in the future.

Stop it!!

 

You will offend the millennials!!

 

[Canuck Surfer]

35 minutes ago, aGENT said:

My numbers still seem pretty damn reasonable after seeing the contracts signed the last few days. YMMV.

Missed it. Curious what you offered as reasonable?

[MystifyNCrucify]

Hate to say it, but if i was benning and this goes on much longer, i would be starting up a bidding war. 

 

Lets see what we can get for boeser trade wise. Minnesota? What you got

[N4ZZY]

11 minutes ago, MystifyNCrucify said:

Hate to say it, but if i was benning and this goes on much longer, i would be starting up a bidding war. 

 

Lets see what we can get for boeser trade wise. Minnesota? What you got

Please no. We need Brock. Good chemistry with EP, and he's a goal scorer. 

If there's one area that the Canucks struggled in recently, it's putting pucks in the net. Boeser helps with that tremendously. 

 

I think Benning and Co does eventually get Brock signed before the season begins. I also think that Boeser is hating missing training camp as well. If he's not signed by the time regular season begins, he's going to be behind the eight ball, and might be injured at some point just trying to catch up. 

 

[IBatch]

10 hours ago, Grape said:

It's not about what you've done in the past though, it's about what you're projected to do in the future.

 

Young players generally get better, old players get worse. If an old guy plays well year after year and produces x amount of points, teams will still be more willing to pay the younger guy that is projected to get x amount of points in the future, rather than the older guy, who is bound to decline at some point. It has nothing to do with these kids being more greedy, it's literally just because Matthews holds more value over the next 10 years compared to Tavares.

 

It's supply and demand, not deserve and reward. If it was deserve and reward, you would be correct, but that's never how things work in any profession.

Haven’t followed hockey for very long or just not paying attention?   Up until McDavid, Eichel, Nylander, AM RFAs never got paid like this - (ok with the exception of the a few elite guys like Ovi and Crosby so this isn’t on McDavid, percentage wise to cap Crosby’s deal wasn’t much different but how many guys start their careers with 100 plus seasons at 18-19?).

 

 What’s the financial incentive for these guys if they get their legacy deals two-three years after starting?   Pay should always be linked to production, so in a way what your saying makes sense as quite often players have their best years before they are 30 - and blue chip stars often decline at some point on a full term UFA deal (some like the Sedins have their best years during their third contract too) - but maybe part of that isn’t so much as age as it’s players working as hard as they can to get top dollars on their third deals.    

Now they expect to get paid like UFAs right away AND also get paid even more when they become UFAs (that’s why AM went with the five year deal - that’s greed and no he didn’t earn that contract yet at all).    Now AHO has joined that group and the rest are salivating while they wait for theirs.  

 

Under the cap the best teams assembled was probably CHI.   But would they have won three cups without one or more core pieces - as no way are teams going to be able to afford that much talent anymore - and a teams window in the cap era always has been when the majority of core guys are still on their RFA deals.  CHI hasn’t won since Kane and Toews signed their money deals, not because of their play as “ older players”, Kane had his best seasons after he got paid and Toews had a career year at 30 last season.  

 

Within a few years this is going to make a mess of the cap - no way teams don’t line up July 1 to give crazy deals on UFAs, but the middle class is already getting squeezed and will continue to get squeezed.   The model worked has worked since salary disclosure - why change it?

 

Plus now we will see a lot more Bobby Ryan types - that is guys that have a couple of good years, get their 9-10 million (that’s about what his deal was worth back then) and then get 30 points most of the time after that.   No incentive.  

 

Edit:  As an aside, except for government work and maybe some unions, workers ARE paid on deserve and reward.  Ran a successful business for 15 years, employees were given raises and paid based on production - never once did I or any of my competitors hypothesize that what guys might do in a few years and say hey he’s a rising star so let’s pay him as much as our star foreman who’s being around a long time because he can PROBABLY run a crew too.   Maybe you’d add a crew and see how it goes first if anything.  Pay based on production is a little harder to pin down in sports, and a premium is paid based on the reliability of it...the system is broken or at least going through a change.   If on ice product is the goal I can’t see how this is going to help.

Edited September 13, 2019 by IBatch

[aGENT]

8 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Missed it. Curious what you offered as reasonable?

Plus or minus...8 years at $7.25-$7.5, $7 x 7, $6.5 x 6, $6 x 5, $5.5 x 4

[ForsbergTheGreat]

8 hours ago, aGENT said:

My numbers still seem pretty damn reasonable after seeing the contracts signed the last few days. YMMV.

 

Yeah... No. 

[spook007]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

Haven’t followed hockey for very long or just not paying attention?   Up until McDavid, Eichel, Nylander, AM RFAs never got paid like this - (ok with the exception of the a few elite guys like Ovi and Crosby so this isn’t on McDavid, percentage wise to cap Crosby’s deal wasn’t much different but how many guys start their careers with 100 plus seasons at 18-19?).

 

 What’s the financial incentive for these guys if they get their legacy deals two-three years after starting?   Pay should always be linked to production, so in a way what your saying makes sense as quite often players have their best years before they are 30 - and blue chip stars often decline at some point on a full term UFA deal (some like the Sedins have their best years during their third contract too) - but maybe part of that isn’t so much as age as it’s players working as hard as they can to get top dollars on their third deals.    

Now they expect to get paid like UFAs right away AND also get paid even more when they become UFAs (that’s why AM went with the five year deal - that’s greed and no he didn’t earn that contract yet at all).    Now AHO has joined that group and the rest are salivating while they wait for theirs.  

 

Under the cap the best teams assembled was probably CHI.   But would they have won three cups without one or more core pieces - as no way are teams going to be able to afford that much talent anymore - and a teams window in the cap era always has been when the majority of core guys are still on their RFA deals.  CHI hasn’t won since Kane and Toews signed their money deals, not because of their play as “ older players”, Kane had his best seasons after he got paid and Toews had a career year at 30 last season.  

 

Within a few years this is going to make a mess of the cap - no way teams don’t line up July 1 to give crazy deals on UFAs, but the middle class is already getting squeezed and will continue to get squeezed.   The model worked has worked since salary disclosure - why change it?

 

Plus now we will see a lot more Bobby Ryan types - that is guys that have a couple of good years, get their 9-10 million (that’s about what his deal was worth back then) and then get 30 points most of the time after that.   No incentive.  

 

Edit:  As an aside, except for government work and maybe some unions, workers ARE paid on deserve and reward.  Ran a successful business for 15 years, employees were given raises and paid based on production - never once did I or any of my competitors hypothesize that what guys might do in a few years and say hey he’s a rising star so let’s pay him as much as our star foreman who’s being around a long time because he can PROBABLY run a crew too.   Maybe you’d add a crew and see how it goes first if anything.  Pay based on production is a little harder to pin down in sports, and a premium is paid based on the reliability of it...the system is broken or at least going through a change.   If on ice product is the goal I can’t see how this is going to help.

You speak way too much sense here... Incentive... 

Athletes always want to do their best, but carrot in front of the donkey always helped. +1

[Jester13]

Do the 7x4 with the final year being 8 or 9 instead of 10. If this won't get it done I don't know what will. 

 

After hearing Stech's comments yesterday, maybe this has more to do with Brock's dad and less to do with everything else.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Jester13

[stawns]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

Haven’t followed hockey for very long or just not paying attention?   Up until McDavid, Eichel, Nylander, AM RFAs never got paid like this - (ok with the exception of the a few elite guys like Ovi and Crosby so this isn’t on McDavid, percentage wise to cap Crosby’s deal wasn’t much different but how many guys start their careers with 100 plus seasons at 18-19?).

 

 What’s the financial incentive for these guys if they get their legacy deals two-three years after starting?   Pay should always be linked to production, so in a way what your saying makes sense as quite often players have their best years before they are 30 - and blue chip stars often decline at some point on a full term UFA deal (some like the Sedins have their best years during their third contract too) - but maybe part of that isn’t so much as age as it’s players working as hard as they can to get top dollars on their third deals.    

Now they expect to get paid like UFAs right away AND also get paid even more when they become UFAs (that’s why AM went with the five year deal - that’s greed and no he didn’t earn that contract yet at all).    Now AHO has joined that group and the rest are salivating while they wait for theirs.  

 

Under the cap the best teams assembled was probably CHI.   But would they have won three cups without one or more core pieces - as no way are teams going to be able to afford that much talent anymore - and a teams window in the cap era always has been when the majority of core guys are still on their RFA deals.  CHI hasn’t won since Kane and Toews signed their money deals, not because of their play as “ older players”, Kane had his best seasons after he got paid and Toews had a career year at 30 last season.  

 

Within a few years this is going to make a mess of the cap - no way teams don’t line up July 1 to give crazy deals on UFAs, but the middle class is already getting squeezed and will continue to get squeezed.   The model worked has worked since salary disclosure - why change it?

 

Plus now we will see a lot more Bobby Ryan types - that is guys that have a couple of good years, get their 9-10 million (that’s about what his deal was worth back then) and then get 30 points most of the time after that.   No incentive.  

 

Edit:  As an aside, except for government work and maybe some unions, workers ARE paid on deserve and reward.  Ran a successful business for 15 years, employees were given raises and paid based on production - never once did I or any of my competitors hypothesize that what guys might do in a few years and say hey he’s a rising star so let’s pay him as much as our star foreman who’s being around a long time because he can PROBABLY run a crew too.   Maybe you’d add a crew and see how it goes first if anything.  Pay based on production is a little harder to pin down in sports, and a premium is paid based on the reliability of it...the system is broken or at least going through a change.   If on ice product is the goal I can’t see how this is going to help.

?

[stawns]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Plus or minus...8 years at $7.25-$7.5, $7 x 7, $6.5 x 6, $6 x 5, $5.5 x 4

If his injuries persist or his skating limits his development, he is un-tradeable with that deal.  To me, Boeser is still not a sure thing

[EdgarM]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Yeah... No. 

I was all for supporting Brock in getting a fair deal but if he is looking for more then this offer, then I am afraid he is just another Willy Nylander. This is sad because I thought he had more character then that. The longer this goes the more I am inclined to look at moving him for someone who would like to play here and their priorities are "winning" more then anything else.

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Yeah... No. 

Actually, yeah.

 

Brock's agent should have taken that reported deal and run (if even true...I mean...Sekeres) and Brock frankly, should be looking for new representation.

 

1 hour ago, stawns said:

If his injuries persist or his skating limits his development, he is un-tradeable with that deal.  To me, Boeser is still not a sure thing

Tell that to FTG ^^^  

 

You say too rich, he says la la land. All that's telling me is that I'm likely the closest to being right 

[Provost]

1 hour ago, Jester13 said:

Do the 7x4 with the final year being 8 or 9 instead of 10. If this won't get it done I don't know what will. 

 

After hearing Stech's comments yesterday, maybe this has more to do with Brock's dad and less to do with everything else.

No, that is a terrible deal for the team and ensures that the Boeser camp has 100% of the leverage in the next contract negotiation... right when we are hoping to be a team that is expected to win playoff rounds.

 

This is the contract to play hardball on.  Boeser is a very good but not elite player.  You need to hold the line on him to create an internal cap structure before having to sign Petterson and maybe even Hughes.

 

Either a low AAV 2-3 year deal or a 6-8 year deal at around $7 million. 

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, Provost said:

No, that is a terrible deal for the team and ensures that the Boeser camp has 100% of the leverage in the next contract negotiation... right when we are hoping to be a team that is expected to win playoff rounds.

 

This is the contract to play hardball on.  Boeser is a very good but not elite player.  You need to hold the line on him to create an internal cap structure before having to sign Petterson and maybe even Hughes.

 

Either a low AAV 2-3 year deal or a 6-8 year deal at around $7 million. 

Bingo. I have zero desire to see us be the next Dumbass run Leaves.

Edited September 13, 2019 by aGENT

[CanuckGAME]

Brock made UNDER 1 million last season.

 

Imagine your employer offering you 7x what you made the previous year and you turn it down.

 

Such a joke.  7 million  is a life changing amount of money.  For him and his entire family.  That's just for one season.  I'm sure he could make that for 6 or 7 years.  Apparently that's not good enough though.  

 

Dude hasn't even completed a full season in this league.  Hasn't scored 30 goals,  and he feels the contract reportedly offered isnt fair.  **** out of here.

[Bure_Pavel]

In my opinion this needs to be a long term deal (6-8 years). If its not I gravely worry about the Canucks future cap issues. If its a 1-2 year deal it will not end well.  

 

Preferably 7.5 x 8 years. 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Bure_Pavel

[Devron]

Love Boeser but after those reported offers. He either needs to fire his agent or he can sit. If I’m JB I’m not budging. This is about the future of our team now.