|
|
Post by EddieblackhawksGM on Jul 15, 2018 16:29:03 GMT -5
2017 - 2018 (GP:65) 1.38 FP/G - Tier 2
2016 - 2017 (GP:82) 1.42 FP/G - Tier 2
2015 - 2016 (GP:81) 1.24 FP/G - Tier 2
2014 - 2015 (GP:78) 1.08 FP/G - Tier 3
Offer: 3 years @ 4.5 m
|
|
|
|
Post by Smashville / PredsGM on Jul 15, 2018 18:18:16 GMT -5
I'm torn on this one. The rule he falls under is;
d) Does the player demonstrate a clear upward trend in production?
ii. If no, make an offer within the salary range for the most recent season.
The offer Atkinson has received is at the lowest point of his bracket when his last two season would suggest he should be paid at the peak.
I'll leave this here and let other GMs vote on how the perceive the deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris - Hartford Whalers on Jul 15, 2018 18:28:21 GMT -5
Sorry Eddie this needs to be a bridge contract. If he was at the high end of the range I could maybe approve but fact he had a miserable first half of the season which gave him unexpected numbers for the year I have to decline based on his previous 2 years.
0-1
|
|
|
|
Post by chris - Hartford Whalers on Jul 15, 2018 18:30:13 GMT -5
Sorry Eddie this needs to be a bridge contract. If he was at the high end of the range I could maybe approve but fact he had a miserable first half of the season which gave him unexpected numbers for the year I have to decline based on his previous 2 years. 0-1 Actually I rescind my vote on this one. It should be a bridge deal and if this deal was 3x5m I’d vote yes. I’m really conflicted on this and withdrawal my vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Smashville / PredsGM on Jul 15, 2018 19:40:57 GMT -5
Sorry Eddie this needs to be a bridge contract. If he was at the high end of the range I could maybe approve but fact he had a miserable first half of the season which gave him unexpected numbers for the year I have to decline based on his previous 2 years. 0-1 Actually I rescind my vote on this one. It should be a bridge deal and if this deal was 3x5m I’d vote yes. I’m really conflicted on this and withdrawal my vote. Hi Chris, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm struggling to see what classifies this as a bridge deal - which one of the three below would Atkinson fall under? a) 2 or less full NHL seasons (41+ games) played in last 4 NHL seasons b) Production tier in most recent season has not been replicated in players recent seasons (move to step 4) c) Production tier in 2 or more previous full seasons (41GP+) are higher than production tier in most recent season (move to step 3b to see if it applies) |
|
|
|
Post by San Jose Sharks (Alex/Taco) on Jul 15, 2018 20:23:14 GMT -5
1-0 (I think?) I don't think this falls into a bridge deal. He's offering a tad over what he should be, if anything this is more of a risk than most other re-signs. Atkinson was not trusted by the Blue Jackets at all last year, and didn't play as much in previous years. I'm alright with this contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris - Hartford Whalers on Jul 15, 2018 22:21:04 GMT -5
Actually I rescind my vote on this one. It should be a bridge deal and if this deal was 3x5m I’d vote yes. I’m really conflicted on this and withdrawal my vote. Hi Chris, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm struggling to see what classifies this as a bridge deal - which one of the three below would Atkinson fall under? a) 2 or less full NHL seasons (41+ games) played in last 4 NHL seasons b) Production tier in most recent season has not been replicated in players recent seasons (move to step 4) c) Production tier in 2 or more previous full seasons (41GP+) are higher than production tier in most recent season (move to step 3b to see if it applies) I misread his stats as newest to oldest 😞 given my misread I will vote against for being too low of a salary. 1-1 |
|
|
|
Post by Smashville / PredsGM on Jul 15, 2018 23:13:28 GMT -5
I misread his stats as newest to oldest 😞 given my misread I will vote against for being too low of a salary. 1-1 Ah yeah it's confusing. I think I'm going to have to also deny this 1-2. |
|
|
|
Post by EddieblackhawksGM on Jul 15, 2018 23:37:02 GMT -5
I fixed the stat line:
So just checking as I may have to resubmit this:
He's had one season just below 1.4- so thats 4.75 (most recent season)
He's had one season just above 1.4 - which would put him in the 5 range.
He's had one season in the 3.5 range .
One season where is was Tier 3. Which is basically irrelevent at this point
So what I did was use 5 + 4.75 + 3.5 = 13.25/3 = 4.41 I rounded up. He's 29 years old so expecations of him pushing above 1.4 are less likely than him staying the mid 1.30's. Should I have put this in the initial post?
|
|
|
|
Post by San Jose Sharks (Alex/Taco) on Jul 15, 2018 23:44:40 GMT -5
I still think it's fine how it is, unless I'm missing something, that's how I looked at it myself as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by EddieblackhawksGM on Jul 15, 2018 23:55:26 GMT -5
Thanks Alex. This was the first one I did, and Shatty was pretty easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Smashville / PredsGM on Jul 16, 2018 3:12:26 GMT -5
Thanks Alex. This was the first one I did, and Shatty was pretty easy. It's not far off in my eyes. But the way I interpret the guidelines and make my own judgement is that the last two years he's shown consistency around the 1.4 mark and that is where I believe he should be paid. The trend at the moment is seeing GMs pay their player like this, so to be fair I voted against. On the flip side - Alex's argument is pretty valid too. I guess this is why we vote on these things eh |
|
|
|
Post by JetsGM (Jacob) on Jul 16, 2018 7:36:45 GMT -5
1-3
Very tough vote. Our re-sign format favours most recent seasons (specifically the most recent), which suggest his salary should fall at the higher end of the 1.3-1.39 range (5M). With a season slightly bettering the most recent, it justifies being at the top end of the salary range.
3x5m is the amount I'd approve as well.
|
|
.svg/1280px-Nashville_Predators_Logo_(2011).svg.png){kind=logo}
