Ryan O'Reilly : Money-Money-Money-Money...Mo-ney!! Thread #6
View Single Post
02-26-2013, 02:07 PM
Insert clever phrase
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Middle of Noux
Originally Posted by
I've gone on record as saying I thought the deal was
. I also think it's totally fair for O'Reilly to try to negotiate for more.
The Avs have a contract structure they want to abide by, fine -- I get it. I'm also hesitant to give young players huge contracts.
But you have to ask yourself how much faith you have in their structure. Do you have enough faith in it that you're totally cool with (1.)
the Avs not allowing
room for negotiating whatsoever, and basically demanding that their RFAs "sign here or get bent"?
For all the people talking about what a "bad precedent" it would set if they gave O'Reilly $250k or $500k more
-- what about the precedent being set that they are ruthless, arrogant negotiators? And that if you don't like your contract offer, you can just sit out and be traded to a (3.)
team with enough common sense to actually negotiate with its core players?
It's not like the Avs are some kind of beacon of fiscal responsibility or whatever -- this is the team that just shelled out $4M per for 4 years for David Jones and PA Parenteau. How much you want to bet at least one of those contracts is going to be an albatross by the end of its term?
If the result of playing hardball with Ryan O'Reilly
and forcing him out is that we can continue to vastly overpay for UFAs ... no thanks. (5.)
O'Reilly is a special talent, and I would have much rather seen him be offered that $4M than one of those guys.
But hey, whatever, it's not my team to run into the ground.
Okay many things to answer here:
1. I seriously doubt Avs said right of the bat "we have two options; 5y/17 and 2y/3.5". That would've been absolutely idiotic cause O'Reilly still isn't worth that much. I would assume the Avs started below 3mil and worked themselves up to those numbers through
. Sign here or get bent? O'Reilly doesn't get bent by 2y/3.5mil. Jeez...
2. I doubt O'Reilly would sign even with 2y/4mil. And he isn't worth that money. Why would Avs overpay to set bad precedent (and yes they would do that by offering him that). The Avs would basically say "take lower money if you like the team, but you know you'll get more if you want to".
3. Wait what? New news for me that Avs haven't negotiated with Johnson, Duchene, Downie, McGinn, Wilson. They were lucky then they signed those contracts.... And extra lucky with McGinn and Wilson since they decided not to go to the arbitration hearing despite asking for it. What could've possibly changed their minds? You know it might start with "negot.." from the Avs part.
4. Oh for crying out loud, offering a 2y/3.5mil deal isn't playing hardball. That is already a fricking overpayment. At least O'Reilly didn't play hardball himself.... oh wait....
5. O'Reilly is a freaking RFA and that is meant to keep the salaries down and let teams keep their core players for at least some time. O'Reilly wants to change that and if you want it to change, then of course that's your opinion. I don't want to see these moneyhunters get piss in their heads with having UFA at 21years.
And BTW I don't think anyone would've liked to see O'Reilly getting 5mil/year (well of course TPS, but as a friend of O'Reillys that's perfectly normal). I thought a 5y/15mil deal was very fair. Check it up if you want. The only numbers that were talked here which were even close to 4mil or just over were for very long contracts before the new CBA took care of that.
Last edited by Nzap: 02-26-2013 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Nzap