Phil Kessel #1 - Declined

[Arizona GM - Jeremy]

Phil Kessel:
19/20 - 0.97 - Tier 3
18/19 - 1.57 - Tier 1
17/18 - 1.80 - Elite
16/17 - 1.40 - Tier 2

Obvious fall-off contract, so I'll give a 1 year deal at top of the salary range from his most recent season

I'll offer 1 year @ 2M

[Devils GM(Colin)]

Our rules are written with wording issues that need to be addressed, but I feel that the intention was that a fall off guy should be in the next salary range (2-2.75) above and the weighted 4 year average should bring it up or down. So Kessel having 3 much better years should bring this up to the top of that next range.

I'd like to see a 1 x 2.75

0-1

[Arizona GM - Jeremy]

So then why the restriction to one year?

I feel like if you're limiting the fall-off players to 1 year deals it should be at current production. Basically a let's see what you actually are deal.

If I have to raise the salary anyways, then why can't I offer more years?

Seems to contradict each other the way you stated

[Devils GM(Colin)]

If he had .03 more fp/g he'd be bare minimum 2 mil per year. I just can't see a guy with his past accept that this is who he is at that pay grade now, at least a little extra to say "we know what you've done in the past and feel you can get closer to those #s again".

Maybe I'm off base but let's see what the other guys think, the fall off rule is a hard one to negotiate.

[CarolinaHurricanesGM]

I guess for me, the hard part is that the salary ranges are bumping up next to each other (inevitable). So, with it being a fall-off, you must go one salary range up, that "one salary range up" low end is 2M (range=2-2.75M), and his current range is 1.5-2M. I think the wording is poor in the rules, and should be changed to something like "on the high end of the next salary range, if previous seasons are higher etc". While your offer is technically following the rules of the law, his previous seasons need to be taken into account too, at least driving his price to the top of the next salary range, so 2.75M (in this case). I agree with Colin that 1 year, 2.75M would be a good spot for him, and also agree that the rule needs to be looked at in terms of wording.

0-2

To answer your question above, I do interpret it as a prove it deal, but so many things can contribute to one bad season, so I would have a very hard time completely throwing away his previous seasons where he was worth 5M+.

[chris - Hartford Whalers]

For kessel he left an offensive team playing with 2 of the best centers in the league to a team with very little offensive talent so returning to his previous stats is highly unlikely imo. I was one of the people that pushed for the drop off contract when it was implemented but with all of these contracts also falling into bridge deals in the future i would be ok removing the fall off rule and giving GM more incentive to gamble on bounce back seasons especially with older players who may not bounce back.

Let's put it out of it's misery for Jeremy can regroup and put in a new submission with the feedback provided from Colin and EJ.

0-3