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

[ForsbergTheGreat]

35 minutes ago, aGENT said:

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.

 

Why. Keller just got more. Nylander got more. 

Gaudreau 3 years ago got 6.75 for 6 years having very comparable numbers and being in the same class of RFA status .89p/gp vs .83p/gp.

 

The cap has went up 12% since then. Simple math suggests brock should be getting 7.56 for 6 years. Maybe he’s earns slightly less due to injuries. Fine drop it to 7.25 per year. Suggesting he’s would 6.5 for 6 years is not based on comparables or logic. It’s just a number you felt comfortable with without doing any actual research on. 

 

Quote

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 

Stawns is about as clueless as they come. Claims Brock isn’t a sure thing despite having put up .83p/gp (116 points in 140 games by the age of 22. Believes injuries my limits him. 

 

Then on the flip side thinks joulevi will be better than tkachuk, despite having played in zero nhl games and a even worse injury record.   Yeah ok then. Talk about la la land

 

Brocks market value is worth more than you are claiming. Provorov and morrissey are defensemen that while have high ceilings haven’t really broke out. Not really great comparables. Brock in the other hand has proven his talent and was a Calder runner up to boot. Comparable forwards are making more than you are suggesting. Anything over 6 years and Brock who’s still got another level he can hit will be leaving money on the table for anything under 7.25 mill. He wants a short term deal to hit, bet on himself and hit a home run in 3 years. He can see what a 40 goal season lands you (skinner just got 9). 

Edited September 13, 2019 by ForsbergTheGreat

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Why. Keller just got more.

Nope. Stopped reading there.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Nope. Stopped reading there.

Very left wing of you. “I believe My opinion is right thus won’t acknowledge the other side no matter how reasonable or logical it might be”

 

But really we both know you did read it and aren’t capable of responding since it completely rips apart your opinion 

 

 

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Very left wing of you. “I believe My opinion is right thus won’t acknowledge the other side no matter how reasonable or logical it might be”

 

But really we both know you did read it and aren’t capable of responding since it completely rips apart your opinion 

 

 

How very right wing of you. Open statement with a complete fabrication and expect people to take anything you say seriously.

[apollo]

This is getting silly... 

 

Just come to camp Brock

 

I can't believe how many NHLers are bent up over a couple million. 

 

Is 1 mill AAV gonna make any difference in their lives? Like I know they're all hockey players and that's where all their confidence is shifted... But come on... Do they have 0 confidence in their ability to make more money?

 

4 mill AAV or 8 mill AAV... How hard do they think it will be to make more money? 

 

They're nhl stars... Brock could literally do any business in Vancouver and make additional millions with his eyes closed. 

[VanIsleNuckFan]

3 minutes ago, apollo said:

This is getting silly... 

 

Just come to camp Brock

 

I can't believe how many NHLers are bent up over a couple million. 

 

Is 1 mill AAV gonna make any difference in their lives? Like I know they're all hockey players and that's where all their confidence is shifted... But come on... Do they have 0 confidence in their ability to make more money?

 

4 mill AAV or 8 mill AAV... How hard do they think it will be to make more money? 

 

They're nhl stars... Brock could literally do any business in Vancouver and make additional millions with his eyes closed. 

If you think ahead, if the players decided that they would make stacking this team easy, by taking maybe a mil less per season than they're worth, the future money from working around the game (From winning 4 cups in a row) would net them more over a lifetime, than just cashing in once or twice. Yes, this is fantasy, but look at players like Gretz, he made most of his money outside of playing the game.

Edited September 13, 2019 by VanIsleNuckFan

[apollo]

Just now, VanIsleNuckFan said:

If you think ahead, if the players decided that they would make stacking this team easy, by taking maybe a mil less per season than they're worth, the future money from working around the game (From winning 4 cups in a row) would net them more over a lifetime, than just cashing in once or twice. Yes, this is fantasy, but look at players like Gretz, he made most of his money outside of playing the game.

You're as right as it gets. Sadly I don't think their closed minded agents who just want a big commission care about this

 

 

If Brock signed 8 years 5 mill AAV for example, he could easily make up way more doing business in town. Everyone would respect him way more and flock to do business with him. 

 

Heck he could close his eyes and become the #1 grossing realtor in town and make bank doing that... He could invest in gyms... I'd %1000000 go to a Brock boeser gym over a Steve Nash one... 

 

It's just silly. Not to play the game you love over a couple million. 

 

I've never made more than low 6 figures in my life and I'm less worried about money than these players tbh... 

 

But again these guys are hockey players and that's what they're confident making money at. I think if they had more business acumen they wouldn't care as much. 

 

Whatever tho, Brock is worth billions if you ask me. So not bashing him or anything. He's the greatest American on the planet. Hope he joins us in camp shortly 

[grandmaster]

It’s funny when owners or GMs get together to dictate the market it’s called collusion but when player agents do that it’s ok. It’s obvious all the big RFA agents are in on this.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

How very right wing of you. Open statement with a complete fabrication and expect people to take anything you say seriously.

fabrication?

 

Keller is making 7.15 for 8 years = fact

nylander making 6.9 for 6 years = fact 

Gaudreau signing 3 years ago 6.75 for 6 years = fact

 

these are undeniable facts. 

 

 

 

 

[Grape]

14 hours 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.

I see your point, but I'm looking at it from a perspective that they are still paying you for future performance.

 

In normal jobs past performance is generally a good indicator of future performance, which is why for example as an employee of a normal job you can cite your past performance and say "I deserve a raise." At the end of the day though, if for example, a laborer who has done exceptionally well at his/her job asks for a raise, but has just suffered permanent damage to a body part that pertains to their work, they likely wouldn't be able to be earn such a raise. 

 

Hockey, or any sport in general, is a much exaggerated version of that. There's no way I'm paying Phil Kessel close to the amount, for example, Jack Eichel earns per year, even though Kessel in a PPG basis, has produced more

Edited September 13, 2019 by Grape

[VanIsleNuckFan]

4 hours ago, apollo said:

You're as right as it gets. Sadly I don't think their closed minded agents who just want a big commission care about this

 

 

If Brock signed 8 years 5 mill AAV for example, he could easily make up way more doing business in town. Everyone would respect him way more and flock to do business with him. 

 

Heck he could close his eyes and become the #1 grossing realtor in town and make bank doing that... He could invest in gyms... I'd %1000000 go to a Brock boeser gym over a Steve Nash one... 

 

It's just silly. Not to play the game you love over a couple million. 

 

I've never made more than low 6 figures in my life and I'm less worried about money than these players tbh... 

 

But again these guys are hockey players and that's what they're confident making money at. I think if they had more business acumen they wouldn't care as much. 

 

Whatever tho, Brock is worth billions if you ask me. So not bashing him or anything. He's the greatest American on the planet. Hope he joins us in camp shortly 

Hey Apollo, nice to see you!

 

i agree, in fact I agree so much that we are in danger of becoming an echo chamber! Lol

 

i lost my first response here on sign in with my phone but will try to summarize.

 

brock has no foresight business wise, he knows hockey and the closest thing to a financial adviser he has ever had is his agent.

(Edit: on second thought, assuming he has "No" foresight may be an exaggeration, but we are thinking he would do better by focusing more on the hockey than the money)

 

brock needs to step up and think about his hockey well being not just his financial well being as he is already behind the 8 ball now. (I think also what we were both getting at is that if he just focused on his hockey well being, he would be just as much or more financially well off in the future)

 

And yes Brock has been nothing but a team player until now. I'm afraid that he has made it clear that he is above the team, and is putting himself first here, before these other guys. And I know that's going to effect his presence in the locker room, even if the deal gets done today.

 

He is not there, he is not a part of this team today, and it is crucial to those other guys that he shows commitment or it's just not going to be the same. In fact, and I think this is what I was trying to get at, it already won't be the same. 

Edited September 13, 2019 by VanIsleNuckFan

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

32 minutes ago, Grape said:

I see your point, but I'm looking at it from a perspective that they are still paying you for future performance.

 

In normal jobs past performance is generally a good indicator of future performance, which is why for example as an employee of a normal job you can cite your past performance and say "I deserve a raise." At the end of the day though, if for example, a laborer who has done exceptionally well at his/her job asks for a raise, but has just suffered permanent damage to a body part that pertains to their work, they likely wouldn't be able to be earn such a raise. 

 

Hockey, or any sport in general, is a much exaggerated version of that. There's no way I'm paying Phil Kessel close to the amount, for example, Jack Eichel earns per year, even though Kessel in a PPG basis, has produced more

So going by what you're implying and now Brock, I guess he doesn't deserve much of a raise at all, back injury, wrist injury, groin injury in past, so he doesn't deserve a raise then.....

[Grape]

7 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.

Bolded pt 2., you are paying them based off of "production" because it is a good indicator of future performance. Now say if one of your employees contracted something hypothetical that limited them to doing their job at 50% of their former production, would you still give them the raise based off of past production?

 

Bolded pt 1. It has always been like what I just said if you look at it from that perspective. If younger players were getting paid less in the past than now (which is not true, read the rest of the post), it's because as RFA's there isn't much leverage to use. The reason UFA's get paid more is because they are able to choose where they go, not because a team thinks a 30 year old player who has produced x amount the past season "deserves" more than a 22 year old player who produced x amount as well. Kane and Toews have leverage as older players, which is why they signed for more. If you go back and tell 22 or so year old versions of Kane and Toews they could choose wherever they went, you don't think Chicago would lock them up for just as much of a percent of their team's salaries now vs. before?

 

Furthermore, you're citing a specific example where Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews both definitely surpassed their projected performance, which would definitely skew the argument in favor of getting paid less back then. Another IMPORTANT factor is that, if you use the same player you have to factor in time horizon and the growth of the salary cap.

 

I'll use you're Kane example: he signed for around 6.3M per year back in 2009, when the cap was at 56.8M, that's 11% of what the team can spend. Under today's cap of 81.5M, that would be 9M. Is that any different from what a 21 year old Kane comparison now, such as Dylan Larkin or Elias Pettersson, would earn if they were a RFAs now? Probably not (both of them actually have higher PPGs than Kane back then).

 

That's why examples like Jack Eichel's 10M contract, Nylander's 6.9M contract, McDavid's 12.5M contract aren't that crazy when they signed them compared to Kane's present adjusted 9M contract back in 2009, when he had 70 points in 82 games. For this reason exactly, the first bolded part is an illusion due to the salary cap uptick. RFA's or younger players have ALWAYS gotten paid like this, they are not getting more greedy as was inferred by "ChuckNORRIS4Cup"

 

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Grape

[Grape]

1 minute ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

So going by what you're implying and now Brock, I guess he doesn't deserve much of a raise at all, back injury, wrist injury, groin injury in past, so he doesn't deserve a raise then.....

Of course, these injuries need to be accounted for. That's why you see teams hesitant to pay for injury riddled players compared to players who don't get injured.

 

However "he doesn't deserve a raise" is crazy, where did I ever say that? First of all, it's not like they will severely hinder him for the rest of his career, second of all, he was on his ELC, which is very limited by nature so of course he deserves a raise, third, he's a young player bound to improve or at least projected to sustain his production for years to come.

 

Again, his apparent propensity to get injured should be factored into his extension, along with the fact that he's young and will get better.

 

I just replied to another poster above, but basically there's some math in there that says players now aren't getting more "greedy" as you implied in your original post, it's an illusion caused by the increase in salary cap.

[5Fivehole0]

2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Very left wing of you. “I believe My opinion is right thus won’t acknowledge the other side no matter how reasonable or logical it might be”

 

But really we both know you did read it and aren’t capable of responding since it completely rips apart your opinion 

 

 

Despite anything they replies with. You crushed them with facts and logic. Your previous reply was spot on

[Chicken.]

to make myself feel better,... we are not alone ! we are not alone ! we are not alone ! we are not alone !

 

 

Marner is among a group of high-profile RFAs who remain unsigned, including forwards Mikko Rantanen of the Colorado Avalanche, Patrik Laine and Kyle Connor of the Winnipeg Jets, Brock Boeser of the Vancouver Canucks, Matthew Tkachuk of the Calgary Flames, Brayden Point of the Tampa Bay Lightning, and defenseman Charlie McAvoy of the Boston Bruins.

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

3 minutes ago, Grape said:

Of course, these injuries need to be accounted for. That's why you see teams hesitant to pay for injury riddled players compared to players who don't get injured.

 

However "he doesn't deserve a raise" is crazy, where did I ever say that? First of all, it's not like they will severely hinder him for the rest of his career, second of all, he was on his ELC, which is very limited by nature so of course he deserves a raise, third, he's a young player bound to improve or at least projected to sustain his production for years to come.

 

Again, his apparent propensity to get injured should be factored into his extension, along with the fact that he's young and will get better.

 

I just replied to another poster above, but basically there's some math in there that says players now aren't getting more "greedy" as you implied in your original post, it's an illusion caused by the increase in salary cap.

I never said you said that... but your logic you were trying to say to me implied that someone won't give a raise to someone if they have past injuries which could limit them in the future for doing their job, so I used that towards Brock, but I felt you would switch it around again to make sure Brock gets paid.

 

I will strongly disagree with your last statement, I understand the cap rises so eventually so do salaries, but that shouldn't mean 21-22 year olds deserve all that extra money in the increase of the salary cap rise, it shouldn't be all only going to them, after 6 years of showing you deserve is when it should be going to them not after 3 years.

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

Despite anything they replies with. You crushed them with facts and logic. Your previous reply was spot on

'fact':

 

7.15 is now more than 7.25-7.5

 

[Grape]

10 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

I never said you said that... but your logic you were trying to say to me implied that someone won't give a raise to someone if they have past injuries which could limit them in the future for doing their job, so I used that towards Brock, but I felt you would switch it around again to make sure Brock gets paid.

 

I will strongly disagree with your last statement, I understand the cap rises so eventually so do salaries, but that shouldn't mean 21-22 year olds deserve all that extra money in the increase of the salary cap rise, it shouldn't be all only going to them, after 6 years of showing you deserve is when it should be going to them not after 3 years.

That's because my logic is nowhere close to being applicable to Brock. I think I understand your point now, but you can re-read my last post because I think you misunderstood mine. 

 

Last thing I will say is, (and this is a gross exaggeration of my argument but still applicable), if we hypothetically went back to summer 2016 and asked CDC how much they would pay for Loui Eriksson knowing that his abilities would decline the way they did: do you CDC would cite past performance and say we should pay him his 36M contract? Or would CDC look towards the future projections and say we should pay Loui an amount closer to ZERO. It's ALWAYS about the future, not how much someone "deserves," as seen from Loui here

[Kanukfanatic]

2 minutes ago, Grape said:

That's because my logic is nowhere close to being applicable to Brock. I think I understand your point now, but you can re-read my last post because I think you misunderstood mine. 

 

Last thing I will say is, (and this is a gross exaggeration of my argument but still applicable), if we hypothetically went back to summer 2016 and asked CDC how much they would pay for Loui Eriksson knowing that his abilities would decline the way they did: do you CDC would cite past performance and say we should pay him his 36M contract? Or would CDC look towards the future projections and say we should pay Loui an amount closer to ZERO. It's ALWAYS about the future, not how much someone "deserves," as seen from Loui here

That is such a bizarre sentence.

 

There is NO way anyone anywhere can predict with certainty a player's future performance so your question is irrelevant. 

 

In the past, NHL players were paid based on past performance and those were usually established NHLers with lots of previous performance to base the contract on.

 

Now you get these entitled little 21 year olds thinking that after 1.5 years in the league they deserve 50 million dollars. The NHL and NHLPA need to re examine their contract because these negotiations are all out of whack now.