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 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
#2 Danger Pay
August 19 2014, 07:12AM
Trash it!
49
trashes
Cheers
16
cheers

Early morning Fist!

Avatar
#3 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
#4 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
#5 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
#6 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
#7 Old time oil fan
August 19 2014, 07:17PM
Trash it!
15
trashes
Cheers
10
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.

Some people just don't get it. Are you related to Kblowe? The Last Big Bear has hit the nail on the head. The oilers overpaid every D-man they signed this year and then when it comes to signing the one guy who actually chose the oil over many other teams they try to screw him just because they can. It's no wonder we have been the worst team in the league for 8 years and counting. If we continue to operate like a no class circus we will never attract desirable players. Just cause you can screw a guy it doesn't mean you should. Gee, I wonder why we couldn't attract any free agent centers?

Avatar
#8 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
#9 clyde
August 19 2014, 03:34PM
Trash it!
12
trashes
Cheers
15
cheers

Schultz was on pace to have a 50 point season as a rookie def. Last year he led the team in ice time and was their top scoring def. Nuge got paid and he doesn't even have a 20 goal or 60 point season yet. Oiler management set the bar by giving 3 guys mentioned as their Core the same yearly money after their first contract. Schultz has some warts but don't the other 3? If the team doesn't have him, who will run the point on the pp? Like him or not, he is a threat that other teams have to respect and this creates space for others. I don't know what kind of money he will get but can't blame him for trying to get paid right now. Management created this problem. Just wait until next year especially if Yak scores 20.

Avatar
#10 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
#11 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
#12 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
#13 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
#14 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
#15 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
#16 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
#17 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
#18 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
#19 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
#20 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
#21 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
#22 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
#23 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
#24 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
#25 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
#26 Dan 1919
August 19 2014, 04:08PM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Cheers
8
cheers
clyde wrote:

Schultz was on pace to have a 50 point season as a rookie def. Last year he led the team in ice time and was their top scoring def. Nuge got paid and he doesn't even have a 20 goal or 60 point season yet. Oiler management set the bar by giving 3 guys mentioned as their Core the same yearly money after their first contract. Schultz has some warts but don't the other 3? If the team doesn't have him, who will run the point on the pp? Like him or not, he is a threat that other teams have to respect and this creates space for others. I don't know what kind of money he will get but can't blame him for trying to get paid right now. Management created this problem. Just wait until next year especially if Yak scores 20.

Well said, a few people are saying the contracts of Hall, RNH, and Ebs have zero impact on Shultz's negotiations. Those three contracts along with this off season's UFA signings I'd say are the main reasons why Shultz isn't signed already.

Overall I like what MacT has done, but I do think being so openly starry eyed over these young guys has been one of his shortcomings (along with not addressing Dubnyk earlier, those of us that watch hockey have known for years DD was not going to work).

Agreed Yak's situation should be interesting to watch. Hopefully he lights it up and 6mil will be fair for both sides, but if he has a solid season but nothing special will he expect 6mil like Nuge? Or maybe Nuge has a breakout year and separates himself completely of any comparison. Still plenty of scenarios that will impact Yak's contract, will be interesting to see.

(I know I'm an Oiler fan because I find ways to entertain myself thinking of how RFA's will sign a year down the road. Relying solely on their on ice game play just doesn't cut it.)

Avatar
#27 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
#28 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
#29 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
#30 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
#31 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
#32 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
#33 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
#34 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
#35 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
#36 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
#37 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
#38 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
#39 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
#40 JeffyJazz
August 19 2014, 12:00PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
13
cheers

Trade the bum.

Avatar
#41 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
#42 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
#43 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
#44 backup bob
August 19 2014, 04:08PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
6
cheers
Ed in Edmonton wrote:

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

Beyond belief? MacT praised his top players like all GM's do. Your making it sound like the ultimate sin.

Using your logic, don't tell Crosby he is good, and well sign him for less money.

Avatar
#45 Smokey
August 19 2014, 07:52PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Cheers
8
cheers
sportsjunkie007 wrote:

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.

Im not looking for credibility. Just scroll past if it bugs you. Im not writing an article. And its a blog. I like breaking da rules.

Avatar
#46 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
#47 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
#48 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
#49 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
#50 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.

Comments are closed for this article.