Justin Schultz: One-Year Deal?

Jonathan Willis
August 19 2014 07:00AM

19-Schultz-3

As the summer drags on, Justin Schultz’s status as a restricted free agent has become increasingly conspicuous. All of the Oilers’ other in-house business seems to be done, leaving Schultz as the last item on the internal to-do list.

Is a one-year deal the way to resolve the situation?

Stauffer

In the opening portion of Monday’s show, Bob Stauffer floated the idea of a one-year contract for Schultz:

Justin Schultz: don’t be alarmed, this is an easily rectifiable situation on a short-term bridge deal. Either one – and at this stage right now maybe a one-year deal might make the most sense – or possibly a two-year deal. I do think that Craig MacTavish, the Oilers general manager and his staff, were probably willing to investigate going longer, but I’m getting a sense that maybe Don Meehan’s group thinks ‘Hey, let’s do a short-term thing and see where Justin Schultz is at.’

He further cautioned that an impasse in negotiations is not necessarily reflective of a worsening relationship between team and player.

This is not a situation like what’s going on in Columbus, where there’s been virtually no discussion with Ryan Johansen’s camp and the Columbus Blue Jackets. I think the Oilers easily can get a one-year deal done on Justin. My guess is that Newport Sports would bet that the Oilers would make some form of improvement and that Justin Schultz’s numbers correspondingly would improve as a result and that would put them in a better bargaining position carrying forward.

A Way Out

19-Schultz-1

It’s not hard to come up with a pretty decent list of reasons why this negotiation would be complex.

First, Schultz is coming off a bonus-laden rookie contract; he’s not going to be thrilled with taking a pay reduction. Second, while he’s still struggling defensively he’s a guy with significant offensive ability – and even on the blue line, players with points tend to get paid. Third, he entered the organization in a unique way (unrestricted free agency at a very young age) and now has minimal leverage. Finally, he’s only played 122 NHL games; a season and a half.

Put it all together and Schultz’s camp has significant pressure not to take a long-term deal at a low-dollar figure while the Oilers have minimal incentive to send a bunch of money his way.

Bridge deals are often used to solve these kind of logjams. One year from now, Schultz should be sitting around 200 NHL games and just maybe we’ll have seen a full season from him as part of a reasonably competitive blue line. If Schultz shines, Edmonton can feel better about paying him; if he struggles he should be amenable to a lower-end deal.

One year - presumably at a number that starts with “2” - just might be the best solution for both parties.

RECENTLY BY JONATHAN WILLIS

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer. He currently works for Oilers Nation, Sportsnet, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report. He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.
Avatar
#1 Danger Pay
August 19 2014, 07:12AM
Trash it!
49
trashes
Cheers
16
cheers

Early morning Fist!

Avatar
#2 Smokey
August 19 2014, 07:14AM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Cheers
18
cheers

Justin may have great offensive upside but they can't lock into long term contracts with players who have not prooved they can defend at the NHL level. 2-3 year bridge at 2-3 million, let him proove himself.

When you see a guy like Del Zotto almost fall by the wasteside because because he simply can't pay huge coin.

The only comparable I have seen this off season was Gardiner, but he had a bit more track record. If you offer a contract like that it is either brilliant two years from now or terrible.

Avatar
#3 wintoon
August 19 2014, 07:31AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
53
cheers

While Schultz appears to have high level offensive talent, he has not yet demonstrated that he has sufficient defensive ability to warrant a mega type of deal. In the event he shows that level of talent, both offensive and defensive, the Oilers will pay and they should.

Until that happens the Schultz contract should be a fair bridge deal so that both he and the Oilers can better peg exactly what he is going to bring to the table. This would simply make good business sense.

Avatar
#4 Speeds
August 19 2014, 07:33AM
Trash it!
34
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers

If I were the Oilers, I wouldn't be particularly interested in a one year deal. I would probably suggest to Schultz's camp that we aren't interested in a one year deal, and if you insist on one you can have it, but it starts with a 0., not a 2.

Avatar
#5 Robin Brownlee
August 19 2014, 07:44AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
35
cheers

As Stauffer suggested, one year is overwhelmingly the likeliest scenario at this point. I'd put it at 90-10 it goes that way.

Avatar
#6 RexHolez
August 19 2014, 07:47AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Cheers
45
cheers

I'm in favour of anything that doesn't lock the oilers long term on a defenceman that can't defend

Avatar
#7 Serious Gord
August 19 2014, 07:49AM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers

A one year would seem to make sense for everyone. Unless Shultz isn't confident that his game will improve to that of a solid 1/2.

As for the amount of $, too high a figure and if Shultz has a standout year his ask will be very high - higher than he is worth relative to other players if similar ability, but not relative to the year he had and what he got paid for it. Sort of a PK Subban part deux

Some questions I don't know have been answered: have the oil offered a one year and for how much? And has Shultz agreed to talk about a one year offer and if so, for how much?

Avatar
#8 The Last Big Bear
August 19 2014, 07:51AM
Trash it!
57
trashes
Cheers
27
cheers

Justin Schultz on a one year deal at 2-point-something might be best for both sides?

Seriously?

If you were Justin's agent, you would tell him the best he can do is a one year deal as the 13th highest paid skater, and 5th highest paid defenceman? On the team where he leads all skaters in ice time, and leads the blue line in scoring?

That he should settle for a one-year deal, where he makes less than literally every non-rookie defenceman on the team? On a team that has $8m+ in cap space?

I don't know if that qualifies as "best for both sides", and id call it closer to "spitting directly in the face of the player who is relied on for more game time than any other skater on the team".

Avatar
#9 HardBoiledOil
August 19 2014, 08:08AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Cheers
26
cheers

meh. not a big fan of the way he plays defense (or tries to?), or his lack of physical play, but we apparently need his offense so if his agent doesn't want a bridge contract, i wonder what we could get for him?

Avatar
#10 Gordie Wayne
August 19 2014, 08:15AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
34
cheers
Robin Brownlee wrote:

As Stauffer suggested, one year is overwhelmingly the likeliest scenario at this point. I'd put it at 90-10 it goes that way.

Now that you and Jonathon have both basically predicted a 1 year deal, we should see an 8 year deal sometime this week...isn't that the way it works??? ;)

Avatar
#11 Spydyr
August 19 2014, 08:27AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Cheers
25
cheers

The only thing has has proved to me at the NHL level is he is weak defensively and as Pat Quinn says "looked likes Barbara Ann Scott out there."

A one year deal works for me.

Avatar
#12 Rick
August 19 2014, 08:29AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
24
cheers

Meehan's group are getting quite a reputation for playing hard ball but I am wondering if it is driven by the best interests of their clients or a desire to run up the commissions they receive on the deals ( see Suban contract) .This could be a big risk for Schultz what happens if he gets inured?? Big contract gone and do you think Meehan and Company are going to pay his bills? Not going to happen. These Agents are not acting in these kids best interests .

Avatar
#13 j
August 19 2014, 08:33AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
13
cheers

I find it interesting how polarizing Schultz is. Every team covets an offensive defenseman. The preference being that they also play great defense but there aren't that many to choose from. Good positional defense is easier to learn that offensive instincts - IMO Schultz only needs to be 'adequate' in his end of the rink to be a great asset to this team. With a stronger support cast this year and consistent coaching, I think we'll see a much better version of Schultz. 1-2 year deal is ideal.

Avatar
#14 Spoils
August 19 2014, 08:38AM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Cheers
13
cheers

trash away, but i'd like to see us push for the cheapest possible long deal

- the cap will go up thus the bad outcome associated with an overspend is minimized in later years on a $/player per capita basis

- i honestly believe he will get better and be more valuable and more expensive down the road

Avatar
#15 Serious Gord
August 19 2014, 08:40AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers
The Last Big Bear wrote:

Justin Schultz on a one year deal at 2-point-something might be best for both sides?

Seriously?

If you were Justin's agent, you would tell him the best he can do is a one year deal as the 13th highest paid skater, and 5th highest paid defenceman? On the team where he leads all skaters in ice time, and leads the blue line in scoring?

That he should settle for a one-year deal, where he makes less than literally every non-rookie defenceman on the team? On a team that has $8m+ in cap space?

I don't know if that qualifies as "best for both sides", and id call it closer to "spitting directly in the face of the player who is relied on for more game time than any other skater on the team".

I don't know what the dollar figure should be - but in the neighbourhood of four seems reasonable.

Are you also upset with the one year term idea too?

Avatar
#16 Serious Gord
August 19 2014, 08:45AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Cheers
5
cheers
Spoils wrote:

trash away, but i'd like to see us push for the cheapest possible long deal

- the cap will go up thus the bad outcome associated with an overspend is minimized in later years on a $/player per capita basis

- i honestly believe he will get better and be more valuable and more expensive down the road

But at what dollar figure do you walk away?

Avatar
#17 Linden Likes Bike Lanes
August 19 2014, 08:46AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Cheers
17
cheers
Spydyr wrote:

The only thing has has proved to me at the NHL level is he is weak defensively and as Pat Quinn says "looked likes Barbara Ann Scott out there."

A one year deal works for me.

This makes no sense to me. The kid from Westbank never played for Pat Quinn.

Quinn was probably talking about Tom Gilbert.

How could you screw that up?

Avatar
#18 Norm
August 19 2014, 08:57AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
11
cheers

Make it a 2yr deal at 3.5-3.75. This separates negotiation with the Oilers home grown D (Schultz-Petry) by a year. They have already turned over 40% of their D this summer. If Petry walks next summer and Schultz can't get a deal done then, that means in 2 summers the Oilers will change about 70% of their D. Maybe good!! But sure doesn't sound like it.

Avatar
#19 Fresh Mess
August 19 2014, 08:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
Rick wrote:

Meehan's group are getting quite a reputation for playing hard ball but I am wondering if it is driven by the best interests of their clients or a desire to run up the commissions they receive on the deals ( see Suban contract) .This could be a big risk for Schultz what happens if he gets inured?? Big contract gone and do you think Meehan and Company are going to pay his bills? Not going to happen. These Agents are not acting in these kids best interests .

Of course the agent is trying to get the most commission. That would mean he also got his client the most money.

As for the risk of catastrophic injury-- that is why the player purchases insurance. If it's a long term deal the team purchases insurance on the contract. If it's a short term deal the player purchases insurance.

Avatar
#20 Woogie63
August 19 2014, 08:59AM
Trash it!
22
trashes
Cheers
21
cheers

Shultz, IMO, wants a $6M multi-year contract similar to what was given to Eberle, Hall and last year to an injuried RNH. MacT called Shultz out as a core player and core Oilers' players get $6M multi-year contracts.

Our management has built this bed, so we should not blame the employee for wanting consistent treatment.

Avatar
#21 The Soup Fascist
August 19 2014, 08:59AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
8
cheers
The Last Big Bear wrote:

Justin Schultz on a one year deal at 2-point-something might be best for both sides?

Seriously?

If you were Justin's agent, you would tell him the best he can do is a one year deal as the 13th highest paid skater, and 5th highest paid defenceman? On the team where he leads all skaters in ice time, and leads the blue line in scoring?

That he should settle for a one-year deal, where he makes less than literally every non-rookie defenceman on the team? On a team that has $8m+ in cap space?

I don't know if that qualifies as "best for both sides", and id call it closer to "spitting directly in the face of the player who is relied on for more game time than any other skater on the team".

The way the system works is RFAs do not have a ton of leverage. Schultz got the $3.5 million / yr deal 3 years ago because he loopholed into what was essentially UFA status.

The shoe is on the other foot now and he does not hold a ton of cards until he is a UFA again.

The Nikitin's of the world are not $4.5 MM / year defensemen because of their talent level, but because of their free agent status. It just is the way the world works. That is why PK Subban signed the crappy deal 2 years ago.

Where the Oilers have dropped the ball is by not putting the boots to guys in their RFA years. Eberle could have been signed far cheaper, IMO. Hall is a bargain. RNH will likely be a bargain.

Hopefully the Oilers do not kowtow to the demands of a guy with no leverage. Really, where is he going to go? But Oilers management do not want to hurt anyone's feelings so expect the number to start with 3.

Avatar
#22 TigerUnderGlass
August 19 2014, 09:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
The Last Big Bear wrote:

Justin Schultz on a one year deal at 2-point-something might be best for both sides?

Seriously?

If you were Justin's agent, you would tell him the best he can do is a one year deal as the 13th highest paid skater, and 5th highest paid defenceman? On the team where he leads all skaters in ice time, and leads the blue line in scoring?

That he should settle for a one-year deal, where he makes less than literally every non-rookie defenceman on the team? On a team that has $8m+ in cap space?

I don't know if that qualifies as "best for both sides", and id call it closer to "spitting directly in the face of the player who is relied on for more game time than any other skater on the team".

I suspect it's the player side wanting the bridge more than management, making this a calculated gamble to make more later rather than a slap in the face.

Avatar
#23 Rickithebear
August 19 2014, 09:04AM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers

Schultz reuslts defnding the net

13-14 204/220 3.08 EVGA/60

Hall 3.01 - RNH 2.63 - Eberle 2.78

12-13 205/210 3.47 EVGA/60

Hall 3.42 - Horcoff 3.19 - Eberle 2.98

None of our best even producers at each position could outscor that bad a defence. Negating our top line production.

We have signed by comp and evga

Petry 1st comp 2.23 EVGA/60

Ference 2nd comp 2.09 EVGA/60

Marincin 1st comp 2.08 EVGA/60 (100+ MPH PP point shot).

Nikitin against 2nd comp 1.31 EVGA/6

Fayne against 2nd comp 1.61 EVGA/60

Aulie 1st Comp W/ Petry type 1.63 EVGA/60

J. schultz 2nd comp 3.00+ EVGA/60

Klefbom and Nurse in the wings.

Avatar
#24 Fresh Mess
August 19 2014, 09:06AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
7
cheers

@The Soup Fascist

You are right. Although I would suggest Nikitin is still not worth 4.5, but I agree with your point.

Schultz can go to geopolitically precarious Russia for a year if he wants more money. He looked lousy last year...I can't believe this is even being discussed.

Avatar
#25 TigerUnderGlass
August 19 2014, 09:07AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
The Soup Fascist wrote:

The way the system works is RFAs do not have a ton of leverage. Schultz got the $3.5 million / yr deal 3 years ago because he loopholed into what was essentially UFA status.

The shoe is on the other foot now and he does not hold a ton of cards until he is a UFA again.

The Nikitin's of the world are not $4.5 MM / year defensemen because of their talent level, but because of their free agent status. It just is the way the world works. That is why PK Subban signed the crappy deal 2 years ago.

Where the Oilers have dropped the ball is by not putting the boots to guys in their RFA years. Eberle could have been signed far cheaper, IMO. Hall is a bargain. RNH will likely be a bargain.

Hopefully the Oilers do not kowtow to the demands of a guy with no leverage. Really, where is he going to go? But Oilers management do not want to hurt anyone's feelings so expect the number to start with 3.

"Putting the boots" to them was not an option because they wanted to buy UFA years.

Avatar
#26 TigerUnderGlass
August 19 2014, 09:09AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Cheers
7
cheers
Woogie63 wrote:

Shultz, IMO, wants a $6M multi-year contract similar to what was given to Eberle, Hall and last year to an injuried RNH. MacT called Shultz out as a core player and core Oilers' players get $6M multi-year contracts.

Our management has built this bed, so we should not blame the employee for wanting consistent treatment.

I hate this argument. It implies that every single person related to this contract negotiation is stupid beyond belief.

Avatar
#27 The Soup Fascist
August 19 2014, 09:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
5
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

"Putting the boots" to them was not an option because they wanted to buy UFA years.

And I get that. Both sides are keenly aware that once the term gets into buying UFA years that there is a balance between the "bargain" RFA years and lottery cheque UFA years.

Easy for me to play Monday morning quarterback, now. Overall Oilers, did a good job in this regard. Hall should be a steal, Eberle right now, looks like a slight overpay and RNH should be a good deal. We will see.

I will be interested to see what they do with Yak. TUG, do you think there is a finite number of long term guys a team should have (dependant on dollars, obviously), or "the more the merrier"?

Avatar
#28 Bigfan
August 19 2014, 09:20AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Cheers
9
cheers

Rickithebear and Fresh Mess have it right - and the hype is overblown; this guy will not help the Oil become winners - its time to admit this guy is not part of the core of a successful nhl team

Avatar
#29 The Soup Fascist
August 19 2014, 09:23AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
Fresh Mess wrote:

You are right. Although I would suggest Nikitin is still not worth 4.5, but I agree with your point.

Schultz can go to geopolitically precarious Russia for a year if he wants more money. He looked lousy last year...I can't believe this is even being discussed.

Yeah, the money is in Russia but there are a lot of N.A. guys who came home pretty quickly with some scary stories. Personally, I don't see Schultz going there, but who knows?

Schultz had a bad year. Not sure he ever is going to be a stalwart defender and his shot is not scaring anyone. Very good skater, great passer and accurate wrister but teams figured him out pretty quickly.

The guy would appear to be Mike Green without the bomb. He has some value but he has to improve a lot before anyone sees him as a top pairing guy, I would think.

Avatar
#30 Spydyr
August 19 2014, 09:23AM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers
Linden Likes Bike Lanes wrote:

This makes no sense to me. The kid from Westbank never played for Pat Quinn.

Quinn was probably talking about Tom Gilbert.

How could you screw that up?

Not sure if your comment is sarcasm or not but the only defenceman that has played for the Oilers the last decade that is softer than Gilbert is Shultz.

I was sharing Quinn's opinion.

Avatar
#31 The Soup Fascist
August 19 2014, 09:27AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers
Spydyr wrote:

Not sure if your comment is sarcasm or not but the only defenceman that has played for the Oilers the last decade that is softer than Gilbert is Shultz.

I was sharing Quinn's opinion.

You were sharing Quinn's opinion of a guy he never had an opinion on?

Okay.

Avatar
#32 Big Cap
August 19 2014, 09:32AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
12
cheers

This will not end well.

Either we make Schultz the new whipping boy and eventually drop him well below his value or he holds out dropping hints in the media at how bad our management is and how cold the winters are.

Avatar
#33 The Last Big Bear
August 19 2014, 09:32AM
Trash it!
11
trashes
Cheers
8
cheers
Serious Gord wrote:

I don't know what the dollar figure should be - but in the neighbourhood of four seems reasonable.

Are you also upset with the one year term idea too?

How much is he worth to the Oilers?

Every other non-rookie defenceman on the team will be making north of $3m, and only one of them is on a 1-year deal.

If you can't even offer him that, you may as well get him a custom embossed coffee mug that says "Least Valued Defenceman".

"Sorry Schultzy, $3m is pretty steep, we can't break out that kind of scratch for guys like YOU. Only every single winger in the top-9, three of our four centres, and every non-rookie defenceman on the team gets a contract like that. Guys like you have to make do with what's left. Well, actually less than 1/3 of what's left. We need to keep a bunch of cap space in case we have to throw a $3m+ contract at someone else. Who's not you. Because you're not worth that much to us. Just to be clear."

I don't know whether Schultz is looking for term or not. But if he was a UFA and demanding a one-year deal I suspect he'd be getting offers in the region of 4-point-something. Given the Oilers' difficulty in attracting and retaining talent, he should be worth at least that much to them despite being an RFA. And i think its a very poor decision to try strong-arming this kid over a one-year deal. If Schultz signs it acrimoniously and walks at the end, what does it take to replace him?

Avatar
#34 Harlie
August 19 2014, 09:35AM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers

Am I the only one that doesn't like bridge deals?

To me it's like getting a 2 year mortgage at 2.5% when you can get a 5 year at 3%, because you are hoping that in 2 years you can finally make the decision to stay or move, or hope to get another mortgage at an even better rate.

Too many variables equals risk. Why the hell do the Oilers want to risk anything at this point? And how quickly does 2 years go? In a blink.

You already have the house, just invest in it long term already!

Avatar
#35 Spydyr
August 19 2014, 09:41AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
11
cheers
The Soup Fascist wrote:

You were sharing Quinn's opinion of a guy he never had an opinion on?

Okay.

Ok I will try to explain it to you:

My opinion on Shultz is a quote from Quinn:

"looked likes Barbara Ann Scott out there."

That is what I feel about Shultz.I am well aware as anyone with half a brain should be Quinn never said that about Shultz but I bet if you asked him he would agree.

Avatar
#36 TigerUnderGlass
August 19 2014, 09:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Harlie wrote:

Am I the only one that doesn't like bridge deals?

To me it's like getting a 2 year mortgage at 2.5% when you can get a 5 year at 3%, because you are hoping that in 2 years you can finally make the decision to stay or move, or hope to get another mortgage at an even better rate.

Too many variables equals risk. Why the hell do the Oilers want to risk anything at this point? And how quickly does 2 years go? In a blink.

You already have the house, just invest in it long term already!

Two to tango.

Avatar
#37 TigerUnderGlass
August 19 2014, 09:49AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
5
cheers
The Last Big Bear wrote:

How much is he worth to the Oilers?

Every other non-rookie defenceman on the team will be making north of $3m, and only one of them is on a 1-year deal.

If you can't even offer him that, you may as well get him a custom embossed coffee mug that says "Least Valued Defenceman".

"Sorry Schultzy, $3m is pretty steep, we can't break out that kind of scratch for guys like YOU. Only every single winger in the top-9, three of our four centres, and every non-rookie defenceman on the team gets a contract like that. Guys like you have to make do with what's left. Well, actually less than 1/3 of what's left. We need to keep a bunch of cap space in case we have to throw a $3m+ contract at someone else. Who's not you. Because you're not worth that much to us. Just to be clear."

I don't know whether Schultz is looking for term or not. But if he was a UFA and demanding a one-year deal I suspect he'd be getting offers in the region of 4-point-something. Given the Oilers' difficulty in attracting and retaining talent, he should be worth at least that much to them despite being an RFA. And i think its a very poor decision to try strong-arming this kid over a one-year deal. If Schultz signs it acrimoniously and walks at the end, what does it take to replace him?

Team don't pay RFAs UFA money because to do otherwise might hurt their feelings.

Schultz is almost certainly the one looking for short term here because the Oilers would happily give him 4M with term.

Schultz wants to gamble that he will be worth much more after next year.

Avatar
#38 Zarny
August 19 2014, 09:50AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
5
cheers

People need to relax. A deal will get done. Mostly because Schultz has no leverage and holding out hurts Schultz more than it hurts the Oilers.

From Schultz' perspective there is an argument to preferring a 1 yr deal over a 2-3 yr deal which at first might seem counter-intuitive.

There are a lot of pros with Schultz - led the Oilers in ice time and has 60 pt in 122 games which equates to 40 PT over a full season. As Mr. Willis mentions points typically gets you paid.

But there are also some cons. Like any rookie D not named Drew Doughty he has struggled defensively. He needs to bulk up and learn to be more intense physically in his own end. His +/- and his possession numbers also stunk last year.

The argument for why Schultz may prefer a 1 yr deal over a 2-3yr deal is I don't see his pros getting worse next season but his cons could improve significantly. Even if his cons only improve a bit by virtue of the Oilers not starting next season with a face-plant his bargaining positioning would improve.

Of course, if I'm MacT I'd prefer a 2-3 year bridge deal but a 1 year deal is a reasonable compromise.

Avatar
#39 madjam
August 19 2014, 09:53AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers

Pay him 2M for one season and you trade him come trade deadline for something of value . Pay him 4m and you get basically nothing in return for same scenario over one season . Pay him 4m for two seasons and you could end up with nothing , and have a Gagner scenario staring you in the face again if you decide he is not worth keeping due to lack of defence or offence . You might lose player for nothing and cost you additional to rid team of that contract in one form or another . The lower the amount the more options for the team . However , is MacT. still as sold on keeping him is the question ? 3.75 - 4.12 M (10% raise ) for even one season would show club wants to go ahead with him and player happy to stay as well . Not an easy decision on which way to go short term or long term . Is he worth more than Petry at this stage one year or otherwise ? $3M seems to fit without handcuffing team if things don't pan out .

Avatar
#40 The Soup Fascist
August 19 2014, 09:54AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers
Spydyr wrote:

Ok I will try to explain it to you:

My opinion on Shultz is a quote from Quinn:

"looked likes Barbara Ann Scott out there."

That is what I feel about Shultz.I am well aware as anyone with half a brain should be Quinn never said that about Shultz but I bet if you asked him he would agree.

Intentionally or not, the inference from your offering was that Quinn said it about Schultz.

LLBL, quite reasonably questioned how that would be possible.

I get that you are part of "all negative / all the time" format and given this team's performance, that is understandable.

But your statement in #11 is at best poorly worded and at worst disingenuous.

And for the love of Gord, it is "Schultz" not "Shultz". We finally got rid of the Gagne / Gagner debacle, let's not start another.

No matter how bad a defenseman you or I think he is, he deserves to have his name spelled correctly. Right Spid (oops) .. Spyde (oops) ... Spydyr?

P.S. Quinn sadly is an old man who the game passed years ago. I really don't care what his thoughts are. I stopped caring the day he put JFJ on the Oilers first line opening night. It was a true "face palm moment". Quinn's ONLY contribution in his time here was the term "sucked the hind bananna".

Avatar
#41 Mike Krushelnyski
August 19 2014, 09:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
Harlie wrote:

Am I the only one that doesn't like bridge deals?

To me it's like getting a 2 year mortgage at 2.5% when you can get a 5 year at 3%, because you are hoping that in 2 years you can finally make the decision to stay or move, or hope to get another mortgage at an even better rate.

Too many variables equals risk. Why the hell do the Oilers want to risk anything at this point? And how quickly does 2 years go? In a blink.

You already have the house, just invest in it long term already!

I got a great rate on a 4 bedroom defenceman

Avatar
#42 Rob...
August 19 2014, 09:54AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

Removed post. Punctuation caused original to truncate and couldn't find a way around it.

Avatar
#43 Rickithebear
August 19 2014, 09:54AM
Trash it!
9
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers

Soup Facist: Nikitin has heh Best 2nd comp EVGA the last 3 years. One of the better D man at keeping shots to the perimeter.

Feelings are for your Mom; Wife; Girlfriend; Drinking Buddies.

The oilers have signed 5 Dmen who have had top 40 numbers at keeping shots to the perimeter. Petry; Ference; Nikitin; Fayne; Aulie.

A sophmore who had the 3rd best perimeter shot rate in game behind Chara and Lovejoy.

J. schultz is Phanuef bad in Defending the net.

LLAK had 5 of the top 20 force to Perimeter Dmen. Pired with a top 7 Box Save% golaie got those 5 Dmen 5 of the top 10 EVGA/60.

Box protection dmen and goood Box Save % goalies. Makes it easier for the forwards to outscore the oppositin.

Going out and getting 2 1st line point producers (Perron; Purcell)and 1 2md line producer (pouliot)

To add to 3 1st line (Hall; RNH; Eberle) and 1 2nd line producer.

Gives 5 1st and 2 2nd the kind of depth we see from

SJS 5-2 CHI 5-2 COL 5-2 EDM 5-2 BOS 4-2 MTL 4-3 STL 4-3 LAK 3-4 PHI 3-4 WPG 3-4 PIT 3-2

17 of 23 positions changed in 13 months. The bad box protection and EVGA rfa Dman not signed.

Avatar
#44 Rob...
August 19 2014, 09:54AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
20
cheers

Could we please switch to performance based contracts, with a base salary with adequate compensation for an average season?

Avatar
#45 Rickithebear
August 19 2014, 09:57AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

The oilers have retained or brought in 6 top 40 box protection dmen. Have not signed the one of the 10 worst box protection dmen in the game.

Yup it is the oilers that want to offer money and term.

Avatar
#46 Harlie
August 19 2014, 09:58AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Two to tango.

More like 2 against 6.

Justin and Agent

Vs.

MacT, Howson, KLowe, Bill Scott, Eakins, MC79...

http://oilers.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=33068

Avatar
#47 RDS
August 19 2014, 09:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
12
cheers
The Last Big Bear wrote:

How much is he worth to the Oilers?

Every other non-rookie defenceman on the team will be making north of $3m, and only one of them is on a 1-year deal.

If you can't even offer him that, you may as well get him a custom embossed coffee mug that says "Least Valued Defenceman".

"Sorry Schultzy, $3m is pretty steep, we can't break out that kind of scratch for guys like YOU. Only every single winger in the top-9, three of our four centres, and every non-rookie defenceman on the team gets a contract like that. Guys like you have to make do with what's left. Well, actually less than 1/3 of what's left. We need to keep a bunch of cap space in case we have to throw a $3m+ contract at someone else. Who's not you. Because you're not worth that much to us. Just to be clear."

I don't know whether Schultz is looking for term or not. But if he was a UFA and demanding a one-year deal I suspect he'd be getting offers in the region of 4-point-something. Given the Oilers' difficulty in attracting and retaining talent, he should be worth at least that much to them despite being an RFA. And i think its a very poor decision to try strong-arming this kid over a one-year deal. If Schultz signs it acrimoniously and walks at the end, what does it take to replace him?

Justin? Is that you?

Avatar
#48 Ivan Drago
August 19 2014, 10:00AM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Cheers
9
cheers
Spydyr wrote:

Ok I will try to explain it to you:

My opinion on Shultz is a quote from Quinn:

"looked likes Barbara Ann Scott out there."

That is what I feel about Shultz.I am well aware as anyone with half a brain should be Quinn never said that about Shultz but I bet if you asked him he would agree.

You wrote what you meant incorrectly. Don't blame other posters for not getting it. Admit your mistake, reiterate your point correctly and move on.

Avatar
#49 Seanjohn667
August 19 2014, 10:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
5
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

I suspect it's the player side wanting the bridge more than management, making this a calculated gamble to make more later rather than a slap in the face.

This. The Schultz camp doesn't want a long term deal, because even they have to admit, they can't rightfully expect better than a 5.0per average.

But I'm surprised they'd be interested in just a one year deal. Doesn't seem like much time to prove you are a star. How can they be so sure that he will up his value significantly in 80 games. If he can do it, great. But, chances are higher that he will get near 40p and be a minus player. I would be surprised if anyone's opinion of Schultz changes much by April.

Avatar
#50 DieHard
August 19 2014, 10:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
7
cheers

Shultz must develop a slap shot from the point. Wrist shot is fine in close but not from the point. Right now Shultz is 3rd pairing and 1st PP. He needs to show more. He needs to be 1st/2nd pairing and a good slap shot on the PP. Hence the bridge too prove he can be that. Otherwise if he gets big dollars and can't get beyond 3rd pairing we are screwed. Suban's 2 year bridge was under 3M. So should Shultz's. Prove it first.

Comments are closed for this article.