Alex Tuch contract talks

[dudacek]

Tuch is re-signing unless Adams insults him or he has an absolutely crazy ask

That’s what usually happens when both sides want it to happen.

The rest is just negotiation.

[Carmel Corn]

3 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

Tuch has been one of the best value players not on their ELC, we've had. I wonder if he's looking to make up for some of that, beyond his current value.

Agree….not to mention maybe keeping an eye on some other players negotiating new deals….like Kaprizov with the Wild.  Depending on where that lands, Alex and his agent could say that $10 million AAV is reasonable.

[bob_sauve28]

 

 

 

 

[dudacek]

Story also says both sides leaning toward long term, sense is that this gets done, but nothing is imminent.

It's basically about the rising cap and what's fair under the re-setting market.

[tom webster]

30 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Story also says both sides leaning toward long term, sense is that this gets done, but nothing is imminent.

It's basically about the rising cap and what's fair under the re-setting market.

People that I would trust with my life tell me this deal was done and than it wasn’t. My feeling, with no collaboration, is that NHLPA, is pushing these guys to reset the market. I think I posted earlier that there is talk of a $150M cap in the not too distant future and players don’t want to be making $9M when players start earning $20M.

[dudacek]

30 minutes ago, tom webster said:

People that I would trust with my life tell me this deal was done and than it wasn’t. My feeling, with no collaboration, is that NHLPA, is pushing these guys to reset the market. I think I posted earlier that there is talk of a $150M cap in the not too distant future and players don’t want to be making $9M when players start earning $20M.

Gonna be a run on contracts that blow peoples minds today and look like bargains in 2 or 3 years.

Might be in Tuch’s best interest to follow Byram’s lead and sign for a year or 2.

Still think Power’s contract has the potential to look like a major steal at the back end.

[dudacek]

Here’s the thing about the NHLPA resetting the market:

The players are getting 50% regardless, every extra dollar McDavid squeezes out of some team is just a dollar less for the Justin Danforth and Conor Timmins of the world.

No skin off Bettmans ass.

[jad1]

9 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Gonna be a run on contracts that blow peoples minds today and look like bargains in 2 or 3 years.

Might be in Tuch’s best interest to follow Byram’s lead and sign for a year or 2.

Still think Power’s contract has the potential to look like a major steal at the back end.

Dahlin's deal is going to look like a major steal in a couple of years.

Don't understand why the Sabres are balking at a double digit AAV for Tuch.  Just give him Dahlin's deal and be done with it.

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

Here’s the thing about the NHLPA resetting the market:

The players are getting 50% regardless, every extra dollar McDavid squeezes out of some team is just a dollar less for the Justin Danforth and Conor Timmins of the world.

No skin off Bettmans ass.

Have been saying this for YEARS.  And still to this day can't understand why the rank and file end up going along with leadership when they push hard for guys getting close to max deals and ALSO when the leadership fights so hard to keep guys that injure their brethren from getting punished.

The players get 1/2 of the pie, regardless how big or small the pie is (Covid disruptions to that not withstanding).  It is in their best interest to do everything possible to grow the pie and the best way to do that is to put a tremendously entertaining product on the ice.

And the players don't seem to understand that when they adjust actual salaries to meet the 50% of revenue total, that they do a straight %age boost across the board when revenues come in above projections (and, pulling Covid out of the picture, they almost always end up exceeding projections).  So, if HRR exceeds projections by 10%, then a $1MM player actually gets $1.1MM and a $10MM player gets $11MM.  The divide between the haves and have nots actually increases even more.

Granted, on those rare occassions projections don't get met, the bigger monied players take the bigger hit, but that is the exception, not the rule.

And, rather than wanting to come down on the guys that cross check others in the back eventually helping to contribe to back issues for players that are extremely talented (cough, cough, Dahlin); the leaders of the NHLPA are perfectly fine with that crud.  Well, when the skilled players are out of the game, its a LOT less enteraining.  Not saying they should go to a checking free game; but the PA needs to care about more than simply hits that might lead to concussions.

 

EDIT: SLIGHT oversimplication on the contract adjustment as it is the total nominal player payroll that gets adjusted to 50% of HRR.  Made an assumption that nominal player payroll was close/equal to actual player payroll.  But if at the end of the day player nominal payroll was under what actual payroll should be, all the players nominal salaries get adjusted by the same % so a $1MM player gets an extra $100k and a $10MM player gets an extra $1MM should nominal get adjusted 10%.  

Edited 31 minutes ago by Taro T

[mjd1001]

49 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Gonna be a run on contracts that blow peoples minds today and look like bargains in 2 or 3 years.

Might be in Tuch’s best interest to follow Byram’s lead and sign for a year or 2.

Still think Power’s contract has the potential to look like a major steal at the back end.

Tuch is in an interesting, and difficult spot.

Now is his time for a Long term deal. Lets say he signed a 2 year deal to see what happens after that.  Maybe he has 2 more good years, but the issue is his age. RIGHT NOW statistically he is at his peak.  Sure, things can be different but the 2nd year of that deal he will be starting his final year at age 31 and ending it at 32. It is likely his numbers will not be as good as they are now.

So, lot of assumptions here but lets assume his numbers at the end of that 2 year deal are a bit worse. Add to that the fact his next deal after that will START with him being 32 and ending the first year at 33 years of age, I'm not sure, even with an increasing cap, that a guy who is going to start his new 'long term' deal at that point in his age 32-33 age year, with possible declining numbers, going to age 38-39....is going to be in a better spot than just getting what he can get this year in a long term deal.

The Sabres, or any time, is likely to overpay a bit long term to get prime Tuch age 29-32 (that may not be prime Tuch, that might already be declining Tuch) rather than what they would be willing to pay when he is already sliding at age 32+.

[DarthEbriate]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Here’s the thing about the NHLPA resetting the market:

The players are getting 50% regardless, every extra dollar McDavid squeezes out of some team is just a dollar less for the Justin Danforth and Conor Timmins of the world.

No skin off Bettmans ass.

It doesn't squeeze the bottom roster guys if it's the same percentage of the cap that it is now (or was when the cap froze at about 82.5).

If Tuch's camp feels he's worth 1W money, say Mark Stone's 9.9% of cap. Why should he sign for $9M next year (on $113 cap that % would be $11.18M)? Or worse, why sign for 7 years if the cap is going to reaches 125 within just a couple more seasons?

Every player who is UFA next summer should be waiting until next summer.

San Jose has $70M in cap space next summer. They need to 2/3 of their roster -- but if you get McDavid and Tuch, and still have Celebrini and Smith on ELCs that could be bridged -- you can attract a bunch of established Cup-hunting vets like Edmonton did, and still fortify with a handful of standard $5M guys.

[dudacek]

23 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Tuch is in an interesting, and difficult spot.

Now is his time for a Long term deal. Lets say he signed a 2 year deal to see what happens after that.  Maybe he has 2 more good years, but the issue is his age. RIGHT NOW statistically he is at his peak.  Sure, things can be different but the 2nd year of that deal he will be starting his final year at age 31 and ending it at 32. It is likely his numbers will not be as good as they are now.

So, lot of assumptions here but lets assume his numbers at the end of that 2 year deal are a bit worse. Add to that the fact his next deal after that will START with him being 32 and ending the first year at 33 years of age, I'm not sure, even with an increasing cap, that a guy who is going to start his new 'long term' deal at that point in his age 32-33 age year, with possible declining numbers, going to age 38-39....is going to be in a better spot than just getting what he can get this year in a long term deal.

The Sabres, or any time, is likely to overpay a bit long term to get prime Tuch age 29-32 (that may not be prime Tuch, that might already be declining Tuch) rather than what they would be willing to pay when he is already sliding at age 32+.

Agreed. 

He's got to decide how badly he wants the security of term.

I bet the Sabres would give him $10M over 3 years in a heartbeat, but might balk at $10 over 8 years because of how that deal might bite them Jeff Skinner fashion if the cap stalls again.

But picking the wrong spot in between reduces his earning power on another contract significantly.

[Jorcus]

42 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Tuch is in an interesting, and difficult spot.

Now is his time for a Long term deal. Lets say he signed a 2 year deal to see what happens after that.  Maybe he has 2 more good years, but the issue is his age. RIGHT NOW statistically he is at his peak.  Sure, things can be different but the 2nd year of that deal he will be starting his final year at age 31 and ending it at 32. It is likely his numbers will not be as good as they are now.

So, lot of assumptions here but lets assume his numbers at the end of that 2 year deal are a bit worse. Add to that the fact his next deal after that will START with him being 32 and ending the first year at 33 years of age, I'm not sure, even with an increasing cap, that a guy who is going to start his new 'long term' deal at that point in his age 32-33 age year, with possible declining numbers, going to age 38-39....is going to be in a better spot than just getting what he can get this year in a long term deal.

The Sabres, or any time, is likely to overpay a bit long term to get prime Tuch age 29-32 (that may not be prime Tuch, that might already be declining Tuch) rather than what they would be willing to pay when he is already sliding at age 32+.

It's the Sabres who are in a difficult spot. If they can't come to terms with Tuch before the trade deadline they will have to give up one of the best players on the team for whatever they can get. No one want's to do that again. Tuch is going to double his salary but you have that pesky Skinner buyout to work around next year. After that it gets better, but can they structure a Tuch Contract that works around that? No way Tuch does not go for a 7 or 8 year deal somewhere. Sure players decline but good players last longer than not so good ones. If Bennett could sign 8x8. A year later I would think Tuch is closer to 9 x8. The long term does not bother me with Tuch because he will find a way to make him self useful until the end of his career. Some how some way I think this gets done. If not it is going to be worse than it is now at Key Bank center. 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

Tuch is in an interesting, and difficult spot.

Now is his time for a Long term deal. Lets say he signed a 2 year deal to see what happens after that.  Maybe he has 2 more good years, but the issue is his age. RIGHT NOW statistically he is at his peak.  Sure, things can be different but the 2nd year of that deal he will be starting his final year at age 31 and ending it at 32. It is likely his numbers will not be as good as they are now.

So, lot of assumptions here but lets assume his numbers at the end of that 2 year deal are a bit worse. Add to that the fact his next deal after that will START with him being 32 and ending the first year at 33 years of age, I'm not sure, even with an increasing cap, that a guy who is going to start his new 'long term' deal at that point in his age 32-33 age year, with possible declining numbers, going to age 38-39....is going to be in a better spot than just getting what he can get this year in a long term deal.

The Sabres, or any time, is likely to overpay a bit long term to get prime Tuch age 29-32 (that may not be prime Tuch, that might already be declining Tuch) rather than what they would be willing to pay when he is already sliding at age 32+.

Excellent post. You presented a clear analysis of the contract issue from player and organization perspectives. I'm confident that a deal will be made but as you point out it is tricky balancing the needs of the player with the needs of the organization. And as what was brought up in another post (I believe from you or @dudacek??) that there is a difference between Byrum's and his situation. Byrum went for the shorter term recognizing that he is not in his prime just yet so a later deal would make sense for him. In contrast, Tuch is in his prime now and his future play most likely will level down some. It seems to me that it makes sense for Tuch to get a longer deal now so that when his game slides down he will already be locked in with his contract. 

[PromoTheRobot]

3 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said:

 

 

 

 

I never heard of this site. Is anyone legit behind it?

Also, if Tuch gets double-digits, won't they have to redo Tage's deal soon?

[dudacek]

17 minutes ago, Jorcus said:

It's the Sabres who are in a difficult spot. If they can't come to terms with Tuch before the trade deadline they will have to give up one of the best players on the team for whatever they can get. No one want's to do that again. Tuch is going to double his salary but you have that pesky Skinner buyout to work around next year. After that it gets better, but can they structure a Tuch Contract that works around that? No way Tuch does not go for a 7 or 8 year deal somewhere. Sure players decline but good players last longer than not so good ones. If Bennett could sign 8x8. A year later I would think Tuch is closer to 9 x8. The long term does not bother me with Tuch because he will find a way to make him self useful until the end of his career. Some how some way I think this gets done. If not it is going to be worse than it is now at Key Bank center. 

Oh Tuch clearly has all the leverage and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.

Where I’m coming from assumes 2 things: Tuch wants to stay more than he wants to maximize his contract; and the Sabres aren’t playing hardball in terms of the current market. Which, IMO was set artificially low by Elhers.

I think if Tuch wants $9M over 8 years it would be done.

The question is determining how much more than that he could get as an UFA under the new reality and the answer is no one really knows.

Is he going to take $9M and watch Kempe sign a UFA deal for $12M this summer?

Edited 43 minutes ago by dudacek

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, Jorcus said:

It's the Sabres who are in a difficult spot. If they can't come to terms with Tuch before the trade deadline they will have to give up one of the best players on the team for whatever they can get. No one want's to do that again. Tuch is going to double his salary but you have that pesky Skinner buyout to work around next year. After that it gets better, but can they structure a Tuch Contract that works around that? No way Tuch does not go for a 7 or 8 year deal somewhere. Sure players decline but good players last longer than not so good ones. If Bennett could sign 8x8. A year later I would think Tuch is closer to 9 x8. The long term does not bother me with Tuch because he will find a way to make him self useful until the end of his career. Some how some way I think this gets done. If not it is going to be worse than it is now at Key Bank center. 

Without getting traded, he can ONLY get an 8 year deal from the Sabres.  And IF as a condition of running the playoff BF-LTIR rules into this season, the 6/7 rule kicks in July 1 rather than mid-September then if he walks to FA then he can only get a 6 year deal from anybody.  (Expecting that won't happen; but until they finalize the revisions to the implementation of the new MOU to the CBA, it is possible.)

[dudacek]

4 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I never heard of this site. Is anyone legit behind it?

Also, if Tuch gets double-digits, won't they have to redo Tage's deal soon?

It’s quoting an athletic report from Pierre Lebrun.

NHL contracts cannot be undone. Tage is getting $7M for another 5 years in deal that Tuch probably doesn’t want to repeat.

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I never heard of this site. Is anyone legit behind it?

Also, if Tuch gets double-digits, won't they have to redo Tage's deal soon?

Contracts CAN NOT get "redone" in the NHL.  Thompson is locked in through the deal and cannot sign another contract until July 1 of the last season of the deal.  That contract would take effect when the current 1 expires.

[mjd1001]

40 minutes ago, Jorcus said:

It's the Sabres who are in a difficult spot. If they can't come to terms with Tuch before the trade deadline they will have to give up one of the best players on the team for whatever they can get. No one want's to do that again. Tuch is going to double his salary but you have that pesky Skinner buyout to work around next year. After that it gets better, but can they structure a Tuch Contract that works around that? No way Tuch does not go for a 7 or 8 year deal somewhere. Sure players decline but good players last longer than not so good ones. If Bennett could sign 8x8. A year later I would think Tuch is closer to 9 x8. The long term does not bother me with Tuch because he will find a way to make him self useful until the end of his career. Some how some way I think this gets done. If not it is going to be worse than it is now at Key Bank center. 

Maybe, but there is another side to it.

If Tuch is going to be dealt at the deadline, there is a chance any team trading for him will want to work out an extension.  As is the case, the Sabres could allow Tuch to talk to those teams before a trade is complete.

Now take that to the next step.  There are a LOT of pending free agents right now in Tuchs spot (on last year of deal) and there has been very little movement on any of them, meaning the Sabres 'thinking' on the situation is not different than most other teams. So, lets take this to the deadline where the Sabres have not re-signed him and have to trade him. Any other team will be facing the same dilemna the Sabres are....do you Trade for Tuch (give up ANY asset) for the honor of paying a guy maybe $10+ million long term, on a deal that will start when he is over 30 years old and likely already slightly declining?

Its not just the Sabres problem that he may not be worth that much at the deadline, it is Tuchs problem that the best deal he may get will be what he gets NOW from the Sabres and as time ticks away, the $$$s on a long term deal may be declining (or at least harder to get).

I really think what is holding this up is simply ever agent representing a guy going into the last year of the deal doens't want to be the one to have his guy 'sign first'.  It can be agent career-suicide to sign first, and then every guy AFTER your guy gets a better deal in this rising cap environment.

[thewookie1]

Just now, Taro T said:

@thewookie1

Care to explain what part of that post was incorrect?  (Normally don't care about X's, but pretty sure it was factually correct.  Would appreciate knowing what wasn't.)

 

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Have been saying this for YEARS.  And still to this day can't understand why the rank and file end up going along with leadership when they push hard for guys getting close to max deals and ALSO when the leadership fights so hard to keep guys that injure their brethren from getting punished.

The players get 1/2 of the pie, regardless how big or small the pie is (Covid disruptions to that not withstanding).  It is in their best interest to do everything possible to grow the pie and the best way to do that is to put a tremendously entertaining product on the ice.

And the players don't seem to understand that when they adjust actual salaries to meet the 50% of revenue total, that they do a straight %age boost across the board when revenues come in above projections (and, pulling Covid out of the picture, they almost always end up exceeding projections).  So, if HRR exceeds projections by 10%, then a $1MM player actually gets $1.1MM and a $10MM player gets $11MM.  The divide between the haves and have nots actually increases even more.

Granted, on those rare occasions projections don't get met, the bigger monied players take the bigger hit, but that is the exception, not the rule.

And, rather than wanting to come down on the guys that cross check others in the back eventually helping to contribe to back issues for players that are extremely talented (cough, cough, Dahlin); the leaders of the NHLPA are perfectly fine with that crud.  Well, when the skilled players are out of the game, its a LOT less enteraining.  Not saying they should go to a checking free game; but the PA needs to care about more than simply hits that might lead to concussions.

Was meant to be a thumbs down more than a red X

Its more that I disagree with what you are saying because I wouldn't like the result it could possibly bring. It's quite literally just 2 lines.

I don't want the PA or players to play the games that this would involve.

I want players to be invested in winning at nigh-any cost and doing whatever it takes to do that; not trying to be "performers" merely looking to entertain to the masses. The younger masses, as a whole, are predominately low attention span holding idiots that require instant gratification and a constant stream of it to be made "entertained." You play to WIN the game, and anything less than that is a travesty.

 

As for the last line, the terms you lay out would be effectively oxymoronic. For the PA to maximize profit and avoid the need to judge a hit's legality they would merely take it away entirely. Why spend time and money in additional staffing and/or rules when banning it would be cheaper and easier? Thankfully the usually troublesome dinosaurs of old hockey are still in control mainly so we can enjoy hitting and physicality but once you start to play in the sandbox of protecting players for less easily defined hits than the likes of "hits to the head" or "charging" you will quickly fall into a pit of generalities until the rules just can't compute any longer. 

 

 

 

 

I'd give Tuch this option.

8 years x 10mil  However I'm deferring some money to lower the cap hit to 9.466mil AAV

He'd get 8mil per year for years 1 through 8

1 mil from each year would be deferred to his a Year 9 giving him a 9th year with 8 mil

500k from each year would be deferred to his a Year 10 giving him 4mil then

500k from each year would be deferred to be paid exactly 10 year later so for instance Year 5's 500k would go to Year 15

 

Gives him 9 years 8mil, 1 year 4mil and 8 years of 500k