[Signing] Sharks re-sign Timo Meier

[mll]

18 hours ago, -AJ- said:

This deal could be a steal very quickly.

He's going to get more opportunities with Pavelski moving on.   He'll likely get to play PP1.  SJS thinks he's just scratching the surface.  

 

[Maniwaki Canuck]

1 minute ago, 18W-40C-6W said:

Agreed but if we want longer term we’ll have to up AAV to buy some of his UFA years 

Absolutely but it still sets a reasonable base-line and makes something like 7x7 possible, which was looking doubful.

[theo5789]

4 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

Hard to argue that Boesser deserves more than Mier, so this is a good precedent.  Glad that the dominoes are starting to fall. 

You have to look at the way the contract is structured though. The dollar amount is okay for now, but they may have to trade or let him hit UFA at the end of it because he would have to be qualified at 10 million. He's essentially given himself the Nylander deal (at least 34 million over 5 years = 6.8 million a year over the 5 years), but with more freedom to walk in the end and earlier.

 

It'll be interesting if this becomes the new bridge system where players bank on themselves to where they think they might be by the end of the deal. If they don't get there, it still forces the team to pay them that one year or they could simply walk. Teams will be weary of trading for them too because of that one year they would have to qualify him for and risk losing him in a year.

 

Not too sure if I want Boeser to be going this route either, but I could see it being a trend as it's favourable to the player with shorter term benefit for the team.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

1 minute ago, theo5789 said:

You have to look at the way the contract is structured though. The dollar amount is okay for now, but they may have to trade or let him hit UFA at the end of it because he would have to be qualified at 10 million. He's essentially given himself the Nylander deal (at least 34 million over 5 years = 6.8 million a year over the 5 years), but with more freedom to walk in the end and earlier.

 

It'll be interesting if this becomes the new bridge system where players bank on themselves to where they think they might be by the end of the deal. If they don't get there, it still forces the team to pay them that one year or they could simply walk. Teams will be weary of trading for them too because of that one year they would have to qualify him for and risk losing him in a year.

 

Not too sure if I want Boeser to be going this route either, but I could see it being a trend as it's favourable to the player with shorter term benefit for the team.

100%.  For sure Meier is betting on himself here and this is one new template for bridge deals.  Hopefully it just sets a dollar benchmark for a Brock deal that goes 6-8 years at a slightly higher figure. 

[theo5789]

36 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

100%.  For sure Meier is betting on himself here and this is one new template for bridge deals.  Hopefully it just sets a dollar benchmark for a Brock deal that goes 6-8 years at a slightly higher figure. 

Well 6 million mark is pretty much where I was thinking already, so this doesn't really change that except for the potential structure, which would be worse for us. So I hope this doesn't put ideas in his or his agents minds.

[mll]

3 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

You have to look at the way the contract is structured though. The dollar amount is okay for now, but they may have to trade or let him hit UFA at the end of it because he would have to be qualified at 10 million. He's essentially given himself the Nylander deal (at least 34 million over 5 years = 6.8 million a year over the 5 years), but with more freedom to walk in the end and earlier.

 

It'll be interesting if this becomes the new bridge system where players bank on themselves to where they think they might be by the end of the deal. If they don't get there, it still forces the team to pay them that one year or they could simply walk. Teams will be weary of trading for them too because of that one year they would have to qualify him for and risk losing him in a year.

 

Not too sure if I want Boeser to be going this route either, but I could see it being a trend as it's favourable to the player with shorter term benefit for the team.

They will likely try to sign him a year ahead like they did with Couture.  

 

[Provost]

55 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

You have to look at the way the contract is structured though. The dollar amount is okay for now, but they may have to trade or let him hit UFA at the end of it because he would have to be qualified at 10 million. He's essentially given himself the Nylander deal (at least 34 million over 5 years = 6.8 million a year over the 5 years), but with more freedom to walk in the end and earlier.

 

It'll be interesting if this becomes the new bridge system where players bank on themselves to where they think they might be by the end of the deal. If they don't get there, it still forces the team to pay them that one year or they could simply walk. Teams will be weary of trading for them too because of that one year they would have to qualify him for and risk losing him in a year.

 

Not too sure if I want Boeser to be going this route either, but I could see it being a trend as it's favourable to the player with shorter term benefit for the team.

It could work that way, but there is also the ability for club elected arbitration.

 

He is guaranteed at least 85% of that final year’s salary though, which is still significant.

[theo5789]

Just now, mll said:

They will likely try to sign him a year ahead like they did with Couture.  

 

For sure, but it puts the pressure more on the team because he could easily say they have to qualify him at 10 million and he could walk after. If RFAs go this route, they give themselves far more negotiating power down the road and argue they gave the team a "friendly" deal through the RFA years. 

[theo5789]

25 minutes ago, Provost said:

It could work that way, but there is also the ability for club elected arbitration.

 

He is guaranteed at least 85% of that final year’s salary though, which is still significant.

I guess it's more of a safer gamble for the player to bank on himself. More risk for the team.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

59 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Well 6 million mark is pretty much where I was thinking already, so this doesn't really change that except for the potential structure, which would be worse for us. So I hope this doesn't put ideas in his or his agents minds.

After Nylander's deal, 6 was the best case scenario, with many pundits saying 7-8.  Hopefully they're wrong like they were with the contract Myers just signed with us, but the fact is that buying out ufa years has a cost.  If we can go 6 + years at 7 million, that's probably around market value. 

[apollo]

On 7/1/2019 at 9:06 AM, Jester13 said:

Good contract. Is this possibly the type of deal we sign Boeser to?

This is a steal... I can't believe no one offer sheeted him... I'd say he's better than Aho. 

 

If Brock takes a deal like this I'd be over the moon. Although would prefer 8 years at 7 mill 

[theo5789]

2 hours ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

After Nylander's deal, 6 was the best case scenario, with many pundits saying 7-8.  Hopefully they're wrong like they were with the contract Myers just signed with us, but the fact is that buying out ufa years has a cost.  If we can go 6 + years at 7 million, that's probably around market value. 

Well I was hoping if just looking at RFA years anyway that he would do a 6x4 years. at around 6 years, then I would do 6.5. But yes if it's 7-8, then we will likely look at 7 million a year. This Meier deal is essentially 6.8 million for 5 years unless they can negotiate beforehand to get a more reasonable deal. Meier simply just put the negotiations more favourable towards himself towards a deal that is reasonable within his timeframe. I could see RFAs liking this route.