View Single Post
04-14-2014, 09:16 PM
Random Forest
aka hockeyfreak7
Random Forest's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,031
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by LegionOfDoom91 View Post
He could be making sure the Flyers come with the max offer of $900K because they can offer lower if the want to but I'd wager that wouldn't be the case.

He could want to get some performance bonuses in there.

Lastly he could want a year burnt off his ELC so he only has to wait two years until his second contract as opposed the standard three.

He has some options to potentially get himself more money but my guess is the last option would interest him the most if he indeed was trying to pull a power move here.
Right, but all those options are available next year for him except the last one, but I'm not sure how that's considered "financial leverage".

When I think of financial leverage in terms of NHL contracts, I'm thinking of negotiating salary figures. I guess I just think it's an odd way of asking a question.

Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Yeah, it's nitpicking on my part, but it could be an important distinction. We don't know who's advising him...if it's someone at his school, or his mom with a PDF of the CBA.
True, but from my experiences in hockey, many college players have a person they pay for advice.

Regardless, whoever it is has probably presented him with all his options:

A) Sign now
B) Sign over the summer
C) Sign after next season
D) Don't sign and become a FA

So my thinking is he just quickly recalled the the option that contrasted the most with the one he was asked about to illustrate how his position doesn't really change between now and next year as far as negotiation goes.

Random Forest is online now   Reply With Quote