View Single Post
02-09-2013, 12:08 PM
Clearly deranged
Freudian's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 38,294
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by volaju View Post
Pretty sure negotiations start with a wildly optimistic and/or unrealistic number in your favor. The other side counters. Time passes, offers are exchanged, you meet somewhere in the middle.

Only the Avs don't do that. Their offer -- while fair, nonetheless being on the low end of fair -- is apparently their final offer. They do not negotiate.

When word gets out that O'Reilly rejected a $4M contract, then I'd start to wonder what he's after. Nonetheless, I can't blame the guy for having this experience put a sour taste in his mouth. It sure has put one in mine.
It's obvious that Avs don't want to sign O'Reilly to a five year deal. That's why their five year offer is at the lower end of what is reasonable. My guess is that they would have preferred not to offer any long term deal at all.

But the two year offer is very generous. I can't think of a single two year bridge deal that any player in the league has gotten has been bigger. It's on the high end of being fair.

The solution to this mess has been staring O'Reilly in the face the whole time. Take the two year deal, make a lot of money and then earn a longer contract. But it seems he is willing to do pretty much everything except the right thing here.

I think tabling an offer and not moving from it is a perfectly legitimate negotiation tactic if the offer is fair. And the two year offer from Avs is that. There is no reason to move from that. Even more so after the Subban, del Zotto and Kulikov signings showed the market value bridge deals given to highly touted RFAs.

Last edited by Freudian: 02-09-2013 at 12:14 PM.
Freudian is offline