Quote:
Originally Posted by alslammerz
I think the larger point there might be about why Tatar, an RFA, wants an unrealistic 5-6 million long term contract to play in the NHL, but will sign for 2 years and a 1 million/season salary to play in the KHL.
|
To add another example of this..... Dmitry Kulikov asked for 5 years at 3.14M and I offered 4 at 3.25 (this was only my second offer, first offer was his desired salary for x4, second offer I increased the salary above his desired to 3.25) and then he would not negotiate any more. the lolwut?part was he then signed a 1 year minimum 100k contract in the KHL. I think those offers were close enough, and good faith negotiating that I can't see why he would stay angry and refuse to negotiate for 2 months and to sign a minimum contract in the KHL is just ridiculous.
At this point I just view negotiating with RFAs as broken. You just have to meet their demands or let them walk it seems. It's not worth the risk to try to save a little money, or the aggravation of watching them sign someplace else for a fraction of the money you offered.
my $.02 is that I'm okay with the idea that a RFA could get angry and not deal and okay that they can go play somewhere else. What probably needs to be fixed is that it should be harder to get them that angry that they break off talks completely. It should take several counter offers to get to that point, especially since we are asking them for a response and they seem to be okay with the offer. I think it should actually take a lot for a guy to absolutely stop negotiated when millions of dollars are on the table. Second thing that needs to be addressed is if they are angry and don't want to negotiate, there should be some sort of check to see if the contract offered by a foreign league is at least 70% of the value of the contract offered or something like that. I can see a player sticking it to his team on principle if you really tried to screw him over but he's not going to play for 100k when he could be making 3.25 for the next 4 years.