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
#51 Zarny
August 19 2014, 10:05AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
17
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?

Here is the thing though...Schultz isn't a UFA.

If PK Subban was a UFA 2 years he would have got a lot more than a 2 yr bridge @ $5.75M. Kadri would have gotten a lot more from the Leafs. Johansen would likely get 7 yr @ $6M/yr from someone. Ryan O'Reilly would have gotten more too.

Welcome to being an RFA in the NHL. The support group meets every third Wednesday of every second month.

It's silly to suggest the Oilers are trying to strong-arm Schultz into a 1 year deal. From the Oilers perspective a 2-3 year deal would be preferable for the simple fact that the face-plant to start last season put a stank on all things Oilers last year.

The Oilers could finish 27th with 77 PT next year and Schultz' cons would likely still look better than last season and it's highly unlikely his pros (TOI and points) take a hit putting him in a better bargaining position.

Not to mention Schultz couldn't walk anywhere after 1 year because he'd still be an RFA.

Avatar
#52 The Soup Fascist
August 19 2014, 10:06AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
10
cheers
Mike Krushelnyski wrote:

I got a great rate on a 4 bedroom defenceman

Marty Brodeur was (at minimum) a two-bedroom goalie.

Avatar
#53 justDOit
August 19 2014, 10:06AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
37
cheers

This is probably how this negotiation is proceeding:

Jultz/Agent: "We want X because Justin led his team in ice time last season - proving how important he was to the team."

MacT: "We're prepared to offer X/2, because Justin led his team in ice time last season, and that team had a -67 goal differential."

Avatar
#54 Harlie
August 19 2014, 10:10AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Mike Krushelnyski wrote:

I got a great rate on a 4 bedroom defenceman

I lol'd at this, well played Krusher!

Avatar
#55 Coach
August 19 2014, 10:23AM
Trash it!
10
trashes
Cheers
9
cheers

How about trading Schultz for Columbus's Johansen? It's not like Schultz adds anything defensively. Bringing in Johansen can allow the Oilers to actually develop Draisaitl for another year. To replace Schultz, we can bring up Klefbom, who can start in the bottom pairing. Or sign a 1 year deal with an unrestricted defenceman -- someone like Raphael Diaz (right shooting, puck mover, and power play guy).

Avatar
#56 Quicksilver ballet
August 19 2014, 10:25AM
Trash it!
14
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ryan Johanson sitting out there not even close to signing. Time to turn up the heat and sign a one yr deal in the KHL. Still be good for his continued development.

Avatar
#57 Quicksilver ballet
August 19 2014, 10:29AM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
8
cheers

Jonathan, that 40'ish million dollar settlement in the Bertuzzi/Moore case. Is that the responsibility of the NHL to pay that? Can't see Todd having access to that kind of money.

Avatar
#58 The Last Big Bear
August 19 2014, 10:31AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
Zarny wrote:

Here is the thing though...Schultz isn't a UFA.

If PK Subban was a UFA 2 years he would have got a lot more than a 2 yr bridge @ $5.75M. Kadri would have gotten a lot more from the Leafs. Johansen would likely get 7 yr @ $6M/yr from someone. Ryan O'Reilly would have gotten more too.

Welcome to being an RFA in the NHL. The support group meets every third Wednesday of every second month.

It's silly to suggest the Oilers are trying to strong-arm Schultz into a 1 year deal. From the Oilers perspective a 2-3 year deal would be preferable for the simple fact that the face-plant to start last season put a stank on all things Oilers last year.

The Oilers could finish 27th with 77 PT next year and Schultz' cons would likely still look better than last season and it's highly unlikely his pros (TOI and points) take a hit putting him in a better bargaining position.

Not to mention Schultz couldn't walk anywhere after 1 year because he'd still be an RFA.

I didnt mean to imply that the Oilers are trying to strong-arm him into a one-year deal.

I don't know which side is pushing for what term. They likely both have several positions they'd be happy with.

But if a 1 year deal is on the table, then trying to low-ball him just because he's an RFA and they think they can get away with it is IS strong-arming him, and I think that's a poor idea. If he wants 6 years, maybe hard-ball makes more sense, but not for a kid who's going to be back in your office 9 months from now.

Saying "We'll give you less than you're worth because you're an RFA and have no leverage" is probably not a good way to deal with people you want to keep around long term. I don't think it did the Habs any favors in their negotiations with Subban, O'Reilly's relationship with Colorado is up in the air, and Johansen's future in Columbus even THIS season is far from certain.

I'm not saying whether one party or the other should be pushing for a bridge or for term.

I'm saying that a one year deal at less than $3m, as suggested in the article, would be a slap in the face to Schultz.

Avatar
#59 Serious Gord
August 19 2014, 10:35AM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
5
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!

But if the house has suspect qualities that could be a terrible deal. And it's actually more of a lease agreement than a house.

Avatar
#60 sportsjunkie007
August 19 2014, 10:43AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers

@Smokey

Today's tip: if a word is underlined after you have typed it, it's misspelled. If you don't know how it should be spelled, try Googling it. Google will normally offer the correct spelling as an option.

Your spelling doesn't have to be perfect for you to get your thoughts across, but it does hurt your credibility when you start with a series of visible errors.

Avatar
#61 A rye morning
August 19 2014, 10:45AM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Cheers
5
cheers

@Rickithebear

Why are you so interested in box protection? Are you buying a chastity belt?

Avatar
#62 IM80
August 19 2014, 10:57AM
Trash it!
27
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers

sign him to an 8yr x 34mil deal then:

flip him to Nashville with Yakupov, Arco, a 1st & 3rd rounder for Weber, Colin Wilson, and 4th.......

done...and done, everyone's problems are solved.....

Avatar
#63 Guy Lafleur
August 19 2014, 11:05AM
Trash it!
11
trashes
Cheers
25
cheers

How can anyone even discuss Schultz in the same sentance as PK Subban ..Schultz couldnt hold PKs jock !!! I dont know what bargaining tools he thinks he has over the OIL ..take 900 Grrrr and thank your lucky stars they give you that much .This kid is the biggest flop since the rebuild started !!

Avatar
#64 Jeffer
August 19 2014, 11:24AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Cheers
14
cheers

I can't believe people want to get rid of Schultz. He has a tremendous upside and is an offensive defenseman that can move the puck and put up 40ish points. Yes he struggles defensively but he's only played 120 games for the worst team in the league. Paul Coffey struggled defensively too. I'm not saying he is anywhere close to Coffey but why would you move a guy with this much upside? It's ludicrous! He will improve this year just by not having to play so much. Petry will improve for the same reason, as will Ference. When guys aren't forced to play above their heads all year they can actually succeed.

Now if we could only get a second line centre and get out of the running for McDavid!

Avatar
#65 TigerUnderGlass
August 19 2014, 11:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers

@The Soup Fascist

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"?

It's a precarious balancing act.

In theory, the longer the term, provided it is given to a young enough player who can play hockey, the better the chance it becomes a good contract later on.

The trick is that you can't give term to diminishing assets or players who are not good enough to ever earn the money.

The other difficulty is that it requires a varying degree of risk. The riskier the deal the less likely it is to pay off, but it pays off at a much better rate when it does.

This means, as a manager, you have to take calculated gambles to compete, and not all of them will pay off, which is why you really need to do your homework.

Avatar
#66 Jeffer
August 19 2014, 11:27AM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
11
cheers
IM80 wrote:

sign him to an 8yr x 34mil deal then:

flip him to Nashville with Yakupov, Arco, a 1st & 3rd rounder for Weber, Colin Wilson, and 4th.......

done...and done, everyone's problems are solved.....

Why would Nashville even consider making this deal? Were you heavily sedated when you wrote this?

Avatar
#67 Clyde
August 19 2014, 11:29AM
Trash it!
26
trashes
Cheers
8
cheers

The Core guys got 6 million dollar contracts as rfa's. Why should Schultz not expect similar money when he has been listed as one of the Core?

Avatar
#68 Jeffer
August 19 2014, 11:30AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Cheers
15
cheers
Coach wrote:

How about trading Schultz for Columbus's Johansen? It's not like Schultz adds anything defensively. Bringing in Johansen can allow the Oilers to actually develop Draisaitl for another year. To replace Schultz, we can bring up Klefbom, who can start in the bottom pairing. Or sign a 1 year deal with an unrestricted defenceman -- someone like Raphael Diaz (right shooting, puck mover, and power play guy).

Good idea. Then we can trade Arco for Crosby and get our centre situation even better. Maybe we can move Marincin for Doughty and Kopitar too. Finally we should be able to get Price out of Montreal for Bachman.

These deals are slightly more rediculous than the one you proposed. Use your head man.

Avatar
#69 Linden Likes Bike Lanes
August 19 2014, 11:30AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
6
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.

Pat Quinn tried playing JF Jacques on the first line. I truly believe that this disqualifies him from forming an accurate opinion on anything hockey related.

On a side note, I hear the Canucks are going to retire Quinn's jersey this year.

Avatar
#70 TigerUnderGlass
August 19 2014, 11:31AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
18
cheers

@The Last Big Bear

I don't understand why they have to pay more than the market rate to avoid slapping him in the face. If they want term they have to pay up, if he wants to avoid term he has to give up money.

Avatar
#71 TigerUnderGlass
August 19 2014, 11:33AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
22
cheers
Clyde wrote:

The Core guys got 6 million dollar contracts as rfa's. Why should Schultz not expect similar money when he has been listed as one of the Core?

This is amazing. Since when do all core players on a team get the exact same pay?

Avatar
#72 Woogie63
August 19 2014, 11:37AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

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

I was not intending to imply the management was stupid, quite the opposite. The Management has a plan ... sign highend young talent BEFORE the potential is reached to a long term contract, that will be good value in the back half of the contract (Eberle, Hall and RNH.

Shultz is looking for equitability within the process the same way you our I would at our workplace.

Avatar
#73 IM80
August 19 2014, 11:53AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
9
cheers
Linden Likes Bike Lanes wrote:

Pat Quinn tried playing JF Jacques on the first line. I truly believe that this disqualifies him from forming an accurate opinion on anything hockey related.

On a side note, I hear the Canucks are going to retire Quinn's jersey this year.

Scotty Bowman played Tomas Sandstrom on the 1st line with Steve Yzerman in the 1990's....does that disqualify him from forming an opinion on anything hockey related as well?

as a sidenote, how many packs of gum do you think Pat Quinn went through each game with the Oil?

Avatar
#74 IM80
August 19 2014, 11:55AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
13
cheers
Jeffer wrote:

Why would Nashville even consider making this deal? Were you heavily sedated when you wrote this?

Yes. That's what being a lifelong Oiler fan has come to. Any more questions?

Avatar
#75 JeffyJazz
August 19 2014, 12:00PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
13
cheers

Trade the bum.

Avatar
#76 IM80
August 19 2014, 12:01PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
11
cheers
Jeffer wrote:

Good idea. Then we can trade Arco for Crosby and get our centre situation even better. Maybe we can move Marincin for Doughty and Kopitar too. Finally we should be able to get Price out of Montreal for Bachman.

These deals are slightly more rediculous than the one you proposed. Use your head man.

Is Arco for Crosby that bad of a deal? Just compare their advanced stats.....i'm sure Arco's worth can be best determined that way

Avatar
#77 IM80
August 19 2014, 12:02PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
11
cheers
JeffyJazz wrote:

Trade the bum.

Is K-Lowe tradable?

Avatar
#78 IM80
August 19 2014, 12:03PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
8
cheers
Woogie63 wrote:

I was not intending to imply the management was stupid, quite the opposite. The Management has a plan ... sign highend young talent BEFORE the potential is reached to a long term contract, that will be good value in the back half of the contract (Eberle, Hall and RNH.

Shultz is looking for equitability within the process the same way you our I would at our workplace.

"The Management has a plan"

This is my favourite reply yet. Let's hope the plan keeps the Oil in the playoff race this year.

Avatar
#79 Zarny
August 19 2014, 12:09PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
8
cheers
The Last Big Bear wrote:

I didnt mean to imply that the Oilers are trying to strong-arm him into a one-year deal.

I don't know which side is pushing for what term. They likely both have several positions they'd be happy with.

But if a 1 year deal is on the table, then trying to low-ball him just because he's an RFA and they think they can get away with it is IS strong-arming him, and I think that's a poor idea. If he wants 6 years, maybe hard-ball makes more sense, but not for a kid who's going to be back in your office 9 months from now.

Saying "We'll give you less than you're worth because you're an RFA and have no leverage" is probably not a good way to deal with people you want to keep around long term. I don't think it did the Habs any favors in their negotiations with Subban, O'Reilly's relationship with Colorado is up in the air, and Johansen's future in Columbus even THIS season is far from certain.

I'm not saying whether one party or the other should be pushing for a bridge or for term.

I'm saying that a one year deal at less than $3m, as suggested in the article, would be a slap in the face to Schultz.

Fair enough. I agree there is no need to pinch every penny on a young player the team sees as an important part of their core.

And I agree Mtl and Col didn't do themselves any favors with Subban and O'Reilly. Johansen is a tricky situation. I'd have the same concerns as CBJ right now, but I suspect they'll get a deal done. Johansen won't get the term he wants and Kekalainen will have to bend on the dollars.

I don't know if I'd characterize 1 yr @ $2.8M as a slap in the face but for the extra 200-300K to avoid any hurt feelings something around $3.1M ish wouldn't surprise me.

Meehan was pretty upfront in interviews that both sides acknowledge Schultz has work to do and are trying to determine his ceiling.

And nothing I've heard from MacT would indicate to me the Oilers are trying to push or strong-arm for anything in particular. I the fact both sides are probably open to multiple scenarios is simply prolonging the process.

Avatar
#80 Zarny
August 19 2014, 12:12PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
27
cheers
Clyde wrote:

The Core guys got 6 million dollar contracts as rfa's. Why should Schultz not expect similar money when he has been listed as one of the Core?

Simple.

His performance doesn't warrant it.

Being mentioned as a core player doesn't mean you get equal money.

To think that is beyond silly.

Avatar
#81 Will
August 19 2014, 12:14PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
8
cheers

These negotiation comments are amusing. I think people believe that the organization is negotiating with Schultz. When really they are negotiating with his agent, who is doing his job and trying to get Schultz top dollar. I suppose end of day it's up to Schultz to accept or reject offers, but if the guy he's hired is saying, let me do my job and get you paid, what is any incentive does Schultz have to say no?

I really like tripping through cap geek, and I adore fantasy drafts that comply with cap rules, but sometimes I think fans might be better off if the financial information was kept under wraps.

Avatar
#82 IM80
August 19 2014, 12:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
12
cheers
Zarny wrote:

Simple.

His performance doesn't warrant it.

Being mentioned as a core player doesn't mean you get equal money.

To think that is beyond silly.

I agree. Doesn't mean he won't earn $6mil in the future, but definitely not now.

Avatar
#83 copper
August 19 2014, 12:15PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers

If he is important and a member of Core, give him $3.775 what he earned past 2 years (with bonus) for next 1 or 2 years. Maybe an over pay. Maybe not. Likely below market value still.

Avatar
#84 Dave
August 19 2014, 12:15PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
25
cheers

It's interesting that nobody seems to be paying attention to the fact that he held out on ANA for 2 years and jumped ship to the best possible option to showcase himself. Now that he's here and that first contract is up, it's interesting to see that he's trying to get the best possible contract situation once more. Now, we all do that, but at what point do you point to the fact that in 3 contract discussions in a row, he's willing to hit as hard as he can - all in favour of himself? I suspect he won't retire an Oiler, let's say that.

Avatar
#85 Zarny
August 19 2014, 12:18PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
17
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.

Your logic is absolutely ridiculous. Being called a core player doesn't guarantee you equal money.

That's stupid beyond belief.

Avatar
#86 IM80
August 19 2014, 12:20PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
11
cheers
Dave wrote:

It's interesting that nobody seems to be paying attention to the fact that he held out on ANA for 2 years and jumped ship to the best possible option to showcase himself. Now that he's here and that first contract is up, it's interesting to see that he's trying to get the best possible contract situation once more. Now, we all do that, but at what point do you point to the fact that in 3 contract discussions in a row, he's willing to hit as hard as he can - all in favour of himself? I suspect he won't retire an Oiler, let's say that.

Well said, I put forth this same sentiment a few weeks back on this site and was met with immediate "trash heap".....i suspect you will endure the same fate from us delusional Oiler fans.

Avatar
#87 Zarny
August 19 2014, 12:28PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
5
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!

People aren't houses. And you can't only look at risk from one side of the equation. There is risk for both player and team with both a bridge and longer term deal.

If you dislike variables then you should prefer a bridge contract because there are far fewer variables over 2 years than 5 years. Doesn't matter whether it's the player's performance, injuries or the other players on the team the longer the term the more variables involved and the less certain you are of those variables. That's just how it works.

Why would the Oilers want to risk anything at this point? Go ask Buffalo about locking up Ville Leino for 6 years based on 1 good season and you'll have your answer.

Avatar
#88 Quicksilver ballet
August 19 2014, 12:30PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
13
cheers
Zarny wrote:

Your logic is absolutely ridiculous. Being called a core player doesn't guarantee you equal money.

That's stupid beyond belief.

One might argue RNH's and even Eberles deal could fall into that same category. Those both were deals made hoping the players would grow into, no?

Management never put either of these two on the rack (torture). Their earnings may be locked in, but what they get for their dollars is still up in the air. Schultz must be a 2nd class player vs the 1st class types maybe. Justin Schultz only proves we all love to partake in these whipping boy sessions. 120 gms into his time here and he's the new chosen one now that Sam's gone.

Avatar
#89 Ed in Edmonton
August 19 2014, 12:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers
The Last Big Bear wrote:

I didnt mean to imply that the Oilers are trying to strong-arm him into a one-year deal.

I don't know which side is pushing for what term. They likely both have several positions they'd be happy with.

But if a 1 year deal is on the table, then trying to low-ball him just because he's an RFA and they think they can get away with it is IS strong-arming him, and I think that's a poor idea. If he wants 6 years, maybe hard-ball makes more sense, but not for a kid who's going to be back in your office 9 months from now.

Saying "We'll give you less than you're worth because you're an RFA and have no leverage" is probably not a good way to deal with people you want to keep around long term. I don't think it did the Habs any favors in their negotiations with Subban, O'Reilly's relationship with Colorado is up in the air, and Johansen's future in Columbus even THIS season is far from certain.

I'm not saying whether one party or the other should be pushing for a bridge or for term.

I'm saying that a one year deal at less than $3m, as suggested in the article, would be a slap in the face to Schultz.

Subban speaks highly of the Habs management so if they slapped him in the face with the 2 year bridge at less the 3M per year he has a very short memory. If Subban was truly hurt by the bridge deal he would have taken the 1 year arbitration and cashed in next year.

If one uses Subban as a salary comparable $2.875 for 2 years, 2 years ago might escalate to say $3M for 2 year today. But Schultz is not Subban so a contract starting with 2 does not seem out of line. If it is a one year deal the $ figure goes down, so 2.X is even more likely.

Avatar
#90 Jeffer
August 19 2014, 12:44PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
11
cheers
IM80 wrote:

Is Arco for Crosby that bad of a deal? Just compare their advanced stats.....i'm sure Arco's worth can be best determined that way

Hahaha well said. I almost included something about that in my post but didn't feel like listening to all the advanced stats nerds crying about it all day.

Thanks for this!

Avatar
#91 Zarny
August 19 2014, 12:46PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
11
cheers
Quicksilver ballet wrote:

One might argue RNH's and even Eberles deal could fall into that same category. Those both were deals made hoping the players would grow into, no?

Management never put either of these two on the rack (torture). Their earnings may be locked in, but what they get for their dollars is still up in the air. Schultz must be a 2nd class player vs the 1st class types maybe. Justin Schultz only proves we all love to partake in these whipping boy sessions. 120 gms into his time here and he's the new chosen one now that Sam's gone.

Your assumption that a) Schultz is being put on the rack and b) Schultz must be a 2nd class player if he doesn't get exactly what Nuge and Eberle did is silly.

Fun facts - Nuge had 52 pt in 62 games his rookie season. Eberle put up 76 pt in 78 games in his 2nd season.

Schultz hasn't been that good. It's that simple.

I'm sure the Oilers would have no problem with a longer term deal Schultz could grow into. It simply won't be @ $6M per season.

That isn't being put on the rack or being treated as a 2nd class player. It's just reality.

This isn't tiddly winks, North Korea or kindergarten. Everyone doesn't get the same.

Welcome to life.

Avatar
#92 Zarny
August 19 2014, 12:50PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
4
cheers
Ed in Edmonton wrote:

Subban speaks highly of the Habs management so if they slapped him in the face with the 2 year bridge at less the 3M per year he has a very short memory. If Subban was truly hurt by the bridge deal he would have taken the 1 year arbitration and cashed in next year.

If one uses Subban as a salary comparable $2.875 for 2 years, 2 years ago might escalate to say $3M for 2 year today. But Schultz is not Subban so a contract starting with 2 does not seem out of line. If it is a one year deal the $ figure goes down, so 2.X is even more likely.

I'm not sure it's that simple.

Subban got paid and does seem to really enjoy playing in Mtl. No reason to be unhappy right now.

However, a NMC is conspicuously absent from his new contract. Mtl can trade him at any time. That doesn't exactly scream till death do us part.

Avatar
#93 Ed in Edmonton
August 19 2014, 12:52PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Cheers
8
cheers
Zarny wrote:

Your assumption that a) Schultz is being put on the rack and b) Schultz must be a 2nd class player if he doesn't get exactly what Nuge and Eberle did is silly.

Fun facts - Nuge had 52 pt in 62 games his rookie season. Eberle put up 76 pt in 78 games in his 2nd season.

Schultz hasn't been that good. It's that simple.

I'm sure the Oilers would have no problem with a longer term deal Schultz could grow into. It simply won't be @ $6M per season.

That isn't being put on the rack or being treated as a 2nd class player. It's just reality.

This isn't tiddly winks, North Korea or kindergarten. Everyone doesn't get the same.

Welcome to life.

I don't disagree with anything you state. But why MacT felt the need to publicly name his "core personnel" is also beyond belief.

Avatar
#94 Serious Gord
August 19 2014, 12:58PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers
Clyde wrote:

The Core guys got 6 million dollar contracts as rfa's. Why should Schultz not expect similar money when he has been listed as one of the Core?

Perhaps it was a big mistake to talk about core players. Just as it was to talk about being bold and that goaltending was solved and that dubnyk would be traded. Did I miss anything?

Avatar
#95 Serious Gord
August 19 2014, 01:01PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
Harlie wrote:

I lol'd at this, well played Krusher!

Pronger's not retiring?

Avatar
#96 Zarny
August 19 2014, 01:09PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
3
cheers

@Ed in Edmonton

MacT didn't publish a document titled "Core Players". He gave a public vote of confidence for a player he likes, helped recruit and views as part of the long term solution.

I see absolutely nothing concerning or beyond belief about that. Especially when the player is in a contract year. GM's make similar statements about similar types of players all the time. File it under routine relationship management.

That doesn't mean you abandoned all logic and reason. Schultz has a lot of pros but also has some cons. Those cons directly relate to his long term ceiling as a player. The Oilers know it. Schultz knows it. Meehan knows it.

So they're working there way to a deal that reasonably makes everyone happy. There is nothing wrong with that and no need to lose perspective.

Avatar
#97 Oilfire33
August 19 2014, 02:19PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
5
cheers

One year deal at 2.5 with bonuses, that will give him more incentive to dig deeper to keep on the right side of the +/-. Or if your bold, try him up front, he is probably a better winger than D. Could be worth 35-40 goals a year with a good +/-.

Avatar
#98 Quicksilver ballet
August 19 2014, 02:27PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
8
cheers

@Zarny

6'ish was never in the picture to begin with. They may want to take notice of the last team (Ducks) that tried to squeeze Justin into that RFA vise though. He walked away from them when he found a way. Don't understand the need to suddenly preach fiscal responsibility after the stupid deals (Nikitin) they've handed out this summer.

Ah, there's no sense us arguing about this when it's the team/management group that gave Devan Dubnyk a 2 yr 7 million dollar deal calling the shots. Nothing is easy when absurdity is the norm.

Avatar
#99 Woogie63
August 19 2014, 02:29PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers

@Zarny

Lets agree the Oilers' prepare for contract negotiation months in advance, and are in regular contact with the players agency anchoring their position. They would have multiple scenerios planned out, and multiple check points to ensure they stay on course.

So for MacT to come out a few weeks before a contract needs to be signed, after the arbitation process is waved and say Shultz is a core player and then not offer core money is confusing to the employee.

I think we are seeing for all the good MacT is doing we are seeing a pattern that he talks too much for his own good.

Avatar
#100 clyde
August 19 2014, 03:07PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

This is amazing. Since when do all core players on a team get the exact same pay?

Never said they do or should but the first 3 in Edmonton did and Schultz must have similar expectations.

Comments are closed for this article.