Jump to content
You are a guest user Click to join the site
News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

ruxpin

Seravalli: Flyers & Provorov not close

Recommended Posts

One year deal is probably smart for the Flyers. Quite frankly, his play has not warranted the 8x8 talk I’ve seen. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting points from Doug's brother, Bob McKenzie:

 

The Werenski deal is 3Y/$15M, but salary is $4M, $4M, $7M. Werenski is an RFA with arb. rights at end of deal, thus qualifier for him would be $7M. McKenzie points out this is then essentially a 4Y/$22M deal at the end of which - if he doesn't extend beforehand - Werenski is UFA.

 

Not clear on where Proviewit is in this situation. Has one more year to arbitration. Not sure on when he gets to UFA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Provorov should be similar. They were the same draft class, 4 more years would walk Provorov to UFA (I think, 7 years in the NHL). I don't know that arbitration eligibility would really factor in here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

Provorov should be similar. They were the same draft class, 4 more years would walk Provorov to UFA (I think, 7 years in the NHL). I don't know that arbitration eligibility would really factor in here. 

 

Doug's brother's point was not so much "arbitration" but the QO at the end of the third year based on Y3 salary.

 

If Werenski is a "benchmark" then they c/should be able to work something out along those lines.

 

Seeing similar speculation for Marner (although the Leafs really don't have the cap space for it).

 

Whadda we think about 3Y/$18M for Provorov with $4M, $4M, $10M as a salary base? Honestly, I don't think he's a $10M player at this point (full disclosure: I'm not convinced anyone is a $10M player) but if that's the number he "wants" then this is a means to get him there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, radoran said:

Some interesting points from Doug's brother, Bob McKenzie:

 

Hose off, eh?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, radoran said:

Whadda we think about 3Y/$18M for Provorov with $4M, $4M, $10M as a salary base? Honestly, I don't think he's a $10M player at this point (full disclosure: I'm not convinced anyone is a $10M player) but if that's the number he "wants" then this is a means to get him there.

 

Provorov might never be a $10M player, but if you structure a deal as you suggest, that would de facto make him a $10M player at the end of the deal. I don't like that direction. That would again be giving the player ALL the power, and the team none.

 

Besides, there are twelve $10+M players in the league right now, and looking at that list, Provorov doesn't belong. McDavid, Panarin, Karlsson, Tavares, Price, Toews, Kane, Eichel... Unless he has a radical transformation in the next 3 years, I still don't think he'd crack that list. 

 

Also, isn't there a CBA stipulation that all annual values must be no more than 50% apart or something?

 

EDIT: Found the variance rule... 

 

There are two variability rules that front loaded SPCs must satisfy. First, the salary variances of adjacent years cannot exceed 35% of the salary in the first year of the specific deal. This requirement holds true for both salaries increasing and decreasing. The second requirement is the year with the lowest total salary cannot be less than 50% of the year with the highest salary.

 

Non-front loaded SPCs have two different variability rules that such contracts must satisfy. Unlike front loaded SPCs, the variability rules specifically account for whether the salary is increasing or decreasing from one year to the next. First, any increases in year-to-year variances may not exceed the lower of the first two years of the contract. Second, any decreases in year-to-year variances may not exceed 50% of the lower of the first two years of the contract.

 

 

Edited by brelic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brelic said:

Provorov might never be a $10M player, but if you structure a deal as you suggest, that would de facto make him a $10M player at the end of the deal. I don't like that direction. That would again be giving the player ALL the power, and the team none.

 

I don't like it one bit, either. I think he c/should be happy with the Werenski benchmark or around that number. 3Y/$18M?

 

1 hour ago, brelic said:

Also, isn't there a CBA stipulation that all annual values must be no more than 50% apart or something?

 

This is a good point. I forget the actual number. Werenski is $4M, $4M, $7M.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, radoran said:

 

Doug's brother's point was not so much "arbitration" but the QO at the end of the third year based on Y3 salary.

 

OK, yeah. It's been the recent trend. Happened out in Cali too, I think.

 

2 hours ago, radoran said:

If Werenski is a "benchmark" then they c/should be able to work something out along those lines.

 

Seeing similar speculation for Marner (although the Leafs really don't have the cap space for it).

 

Whadda we think about 3Y/$18M for Provorov with $4M, $4M, $10M as a salary base? Honestly, I don't think he's a $10M player at this point (full disclosure: I'm not convinced anyone is a $10M player) but if that's the number he "wants" then this is a means to get him there.

 

Too much year over year variability. the amount permitted is greater on a backloaded contract, but 7 from year 2 to 3 is too much. Without digging into the CBA, I think the most you can do on a backload is double the previous year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's safe to say that Werenski has set the bar for the extensions for Provorov, McAvoy, etc.....If Chuckles is smart, he's sending a thank you package to Kekalainen for the contact. Mark Gandler no longer has a leg to stand on in terms of negotiations....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, radoran said:

 

Doug's brother's point was not so much "arbitration" but the QO at the end of the third year based on Y3 salary.

 

If Werenski is a "benchmark" then they c/should be able to work something out along those lines.

 

Seeing similar speculation for Marner (although the Leafs really don't have the cap space for it).

 

Whadda we think about 3Y/$18M for Provorov with $4M, $4M, $10M as a salary base? Honestly, I don't think he's a $10M player at this point (full disclosure: I'm not convinced anyone is a $10M player) but if that's the number he "wants" then this is a means to get him there.

 

The Leafs will have their Marner money on day 1 of the season.  He won’t sign til then. 

 

Giving Provy 3 gets him to when G and scoots expire so that helps, but ending with $10 seems like a killer.  Ghost likely won’t be a factor then, and they could theoretically buyout Hayes with the new CBA(no way scott will be okay buying him out that early though) but Sanheim’s bridge will be up and Myers will not be far behind.   Needing to start at $10million seems like a shot to the foot.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pay Provorov whatever it takes and lets get on with it. If its 10m in the last year I dont care. He will either be worth it, in which case none of us should bitch (ha ha ha, yeah right), or he wont. If he isnt, you can let him walk as UFA and not be saddled by the contract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, CoachX said:

Pay Provorov whatever it takes and lets get on with it. If its 10m in the last year I dont care. He will either be worth it, in which case none of us should bitch (ha ha ha, yeah right), or he wont. If he isnt, you can let him walk as UFA and not be saddled by the contract

 

Honestly, I'd be fine with the Flyers standing firm and moving on the season without him if they can't reach an agreement. 

 

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.

 

 

 

Unrelated but interesting tidbit I saw this morning: the player drafted right before Provorov - Pavel Zacha - has signed in the KHL. 

Edited by brelic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i am hoping Werenski's contract is a nice benchmark to get Ivan in camp.

 

I am good with a 3 year deal to get it done. Ivan has a chance to make some coin and go prove himself and make even more in 3 years.

 

I think that is the best case for both than a one year deal and then arbitration rights next summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, King Knut said:

 

The Leafs will have their Marner money on day 1 of the season.  He won’t sign til then. 

 

Giving Provy 3 gets him to when G and scoots expire so that helps, but ending with $10 seems like a killer.  Ghost likely won’t be a factor then, and they could theoretically buyout Hayes with the new CBA(no way scott will be okay buying him out that early though) but Sanheim’s bridge will be up and Myers will not be far behind.   Needing to start at $10million seems like a shot to the foot.  

 

5 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

Well i am hoping Werenski's contract is a nice benchmark to get Ivan in camp.

 

I am good with a 3 year deal to get it done. Ivan has a chance to make some coin and go prove himself and make even more in 3 years.

 

I think that is the best case for both than a one year deal and then arbitration rights next summer.

 

I'd love to see the bridge deal go as far as it an while keeping him an RFA when it expires.  With Sanheim and Myers coming along and Ghost already on board, there's something to be said for hedging your bets and almost playing them against each other.  Instinct says they'll use whatever the others get to define their own deals, but if Fletcher is proactive, he can leverage the performance of the others against the next to sign.

 

So if Provo gets a three year deal, So Myers is next and if he has a really great season, he'll likely get a deal a little lighter than Sanheim's (I kinda wish Sanheim would have gotten at least three years, so maybe Fletcher can get that out of the less experienced Myers next summer). 

 

So after that it's Sanheim again, at which point he may be able to start making some serious demands cash wise to which Fletcher can play the, "Well I don't know man... we've got Myers and Provy to lock up next year two and they're playing as many or more minutes yadda yadda... open market's one thing but here's where we think you are in relation to our team and what we're trying to build here.

 

Hextall was quite good at this tactic.  With the exception of Voracek (who was early on and producing the best) but he really got Simmer, Coots and Ghost for team friendly deals.  Almost as friendly as the deals Johnsson and Kapanen just signed.  

 

I'd love to see Fletcher manage to do something similar.  So far though, I'm a little terrified of his negotiating and cap management skills.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevermind.  My question was answered in a subsequent post.

 

I should know to RTFF.

Edited by vis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brelic said:

Unrelated but interesting tidbit I saw this morning: the player drafted right before Provorov - Pavel Zacha - has signed in the KHL. 

Wow.  Shero can't be happy about that.  Devils don't need him anyway.  He's been a disappointment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brelic said:

Honestly, I'd be fine with the Flyers standing firm and moving on the season without him if they can't reach an agreement. 

Seriously?

 

So youd be okay with them playing without their best defenseman becuase you dont like the money they pay him?

 

You do know its not your money, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this honest news soon or just blowing smoke up our arses???

 

 

C'mon Chuckles wrap it up....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, CoachX said:

Seriously?

 

So youd be okay with them playing without their best defenseman becuase you dont like the money they pay him?

 

You do know its not your money, right?

 

After Werenski, it can't even be that much money we're talking about here.  

 

Honestly, I really don't see any reason to assume there's a problem.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark this off-season down as the point at which a sea change occurred with respect to the approach to high-profile RFAs.  Suspect we are going to see more of these types of "bridge" deals with a big kicker in the final RFA year to set the stage for a substantial salary increase via qualifying offer, arbitration or UFA.  It's an interesting structure.  Wonder if we are going to see more arbitration hearings down the line as a result.  Given that there have been similar rumblings with Marner's deal, sure as **** agents have gotten together on this strategy and are trying to implement it on a wide-scale basis.  Teams are probably reluctant to accept the change (perhaps due in large part to inertia), but will come around.  Werenski was the first domino to fall.  Perhaps a new norm.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, radoran said:

 

Doug's brother's point was not so much "arbitration" but the QO at the end of the third year based on Y3 salary.

 

If Werenski is a "benchmark" then they c/should be able to work something out along those lines.

 

Seeing similar speculation for Marner (although the Leafs really don't have the cap space for it).

 

Whadda we think about 3Y/$18M for Provorov with $4M, $4M, $10M as a salary base? Honestly, I don't think he's a $10M player at this point (full disclosure: I'm not convinced anyone is a $10M player) but if that's the number he "wants" then this is a means to get him there.

Since the ball dropped on one key RFA defenseman in Werenski who is comparable to Provorov, then hopefully Fletcher can hammer out a deal. What about a 3 year deal/$16.5 million with Provorov at $4.5M/$4.5M/$7.5M as the base? I'm wondering if all of these RFA's are going to sign similar type structure deals like Werenski.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 12:06 PM, brelic said:

One year deal is probably smart for the Flyers. Quite frankly, his play has not warranted the 8x8 talk I’ve seen. 

 

 

 

I disagree. He was tied by the lead in goals wise by Victor Hedman in 2017-18 who was 27 and making 8 mill per season.

 

 

Well if he returns to form he certainly will be worth the money.

 

I'm not going to under sell him after having a down season coming off surgery on a very up and down team.

 

Kid is a #1  defenseman and they don't grow on trees.

 

#gethimsigned

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vis said:

Wow.  Shero can't be happy about that.  Devils don't need him anyway.  He's been a disappointment.

 

Apparently it was a bit of negotiating tactic because Zacha just signed a 3 year deal with the Devils a few hours ago lol. So he 'played' in the KHL for all of like 6 hours.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CoachX said:

Seriously?

 

So youd be okay with them playing without their best defenseman becuase you dont like the money they pay him?

 

You do know its not your money, right?

 

Of course, I'd love to have him in the lineup, but I'm completely ok if Fletch decides "nope, you're just not being reasonable" and does what he feels is best for the team.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

I disagree. He was tied by the lead in goals wise by Victor Hedman in 2017-18 who was 27 and making 8 mill per season.

 

Sure, but last season he was pretty awful... and again, not just because of the 'team' but because he was making uncharacteristic gaffes all season long. I know, learning process, he's young, asked to be #1, coaching was an issue, organization was in turmoil, we used a charter plane worth of goaltenders... but he still did not look ok. 

 

So Chuck has to decide if that was a minor dip in the development curve, or indicative of something else. 

 

I'm pretty sure he will be fine long-term.... it's more about Fletch gambling 8 years and $64M that he will be a bonafide #1. In all likelihood, it's a safe bet that he will find his game again and grow from it, but I'm not the one signing the cheques nor do I have to manage a salary cap. 

 

The Hayes signing was a luxury... if it goes south, it's no fun but the team can afford one or two bloated contracts. All teams have them. That's why contracts are risk/reward. But Fletch can't go full Homer either, and hand out huge contracts with NMCs.

 

 

 

 

Edited by brelic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 8
      Post
      Provorov is the lead defender in Philadelphia. When he's on, there's no one on that club that's better. And when he's out of sorts (like last season) everyone is affected. I get he didn't have the 'numbers', but the intangibles he brings to the table are immeasurable. Honestly, if Giroux and Voracek are worth $8+ million per year, then Provorov is right up there with them. If I'm GM, I'd start with an 8 year/$62 million deal, $7.75 million per year cap hit. 
    • 6
      Post
      Never happening. Provorov didn't come over to North America when he was 14 to play in the KHL. He came here to play in the NHL. 
    • 6
      Post
      Provorov is a rare entity. Unlike many, he's worth every penny of whatever he gets. 
    • 5
      Post
      If Fletcher doesn't figure out how to keep Ivan Provorov than he's an even bigger idiot than his worst critics think he is.  
    • 5
      Post
      I dont...who is gonna eat those minutes. Trading Provs would set this team back years. Basically restart the rebuild from scratch...I for one dont have the stomach for that. Provs has shown us about 60% of what he is gonna be...and he is already clearly our most valuable d man and youngster. At certain points...prospects and picks can be counter productive...esp if you cant transition the puck out of your end.
    • 5
      Post
      I have no doubt there'll be a slogan...I just think the team will take a step forward and doesn't need one my friend.      Here's a slogan....GFY.      I don't need no winery...I can grow WEED in my backyard.....LEGALLY!      

Game Room 1

Please enter your display name

×
×
  • Create New...