Eklund: Swayman Situation Could Get Ugly For Bruins

Eklund: Swayman Situation Could Get Ugly For Bruins
- Eklund

which means Swayman will sign a long term deal tonight

I always hear about players holding teams accountable, especially when it comes to player contracts, but when do the teams start holding players accountable?

How many contracts have been signed by players where THEY don't perform up to their contracts?

Buyout? Sure players lose money, but the team (and fans) get hurt more by it. The player still gets money for nothing and still has an opportunity to get another contract on top of it.

Waive? Player still gets paid either way and the team still ends up paying it most of the time.

Trade? Not really holding the player accountable because they get paid by another team and most likely the team loses value and/or has to give up assets.

It has nothing to really do with Swayman specifically, but mostly players in general and their contracts. Imagine all the terrible contracts across the league, that could actually go to players who perform or outperform to their expectations.

How many players are never really given a shot because a bad contract is keeping them out? The argument could be made that if the player was good enough they would just win the spot...but the business side says otherwise.

I get the whole greedy corporate profit argument, but who pays for hotels, flights, working out rooms, equipment, staff that helps players and all the other expenses?

I'm sure there is more to it that I don't know, but for the most part the players sole responsibility is to train and perform....if they don't do that one thing, why are they getting paid? Just because the corporate overlords are making money? That's a pretty weak reason.

I always hear about players holding teams accountable, especially when it comes to player contracts, but when do the teams start holding players accountable?

How many contracts have been signed by players where THEY don't perform up to their contracts?

Buyout? Sure players lose money, but the team (and fans) get hurt more by it. The player still gets money for nothing and still has an opportunity to get another contract on top of it.

Waive? Player still gets paid either way and the team still ends up paying it most of the time.

Trade? Not really holding the player accountable because they get paid by another team and most likely the team loses value and/or has to give up assets.

It has nothing to really do with Swayman specifically, but mostly players in general and their contracts. Imagine all the terrible contracts across the league, that could actually go to players who perform or outperform to their expectations.

How many players are never really given a shot because a bad contract is keeping them out? The argument could be made that if the player was good enough they would just win the spot...but the business side says otherwise.

I get the whole greedy corporate profit argument, but who pays for hotels, flights, working out rooms, equipment, staff that helps players and all the other expenses?

I'm sure there is more to it that I don't know, but for the most part the players sole responsibility is to train and perform....if they don't do that one thing, why are they getting paid? Just because the corporate overlords are making money? That's a pretty weak reason.
- Glak18

There's risk on both sides. MacKinnon played Hart level hockey for several years on a $6M a year contract. Not because, as was often incorrectly stated, that he took a 'team friendly' deal but because he made one or two quantum leaps in performance over the consistent 50 points a year he was delivering when he signed the contract. He couldn't renegotiate just as management can't when a player under performs.

In the same interview he also said he loves Boston, has complete trust in his agent, and knows a contract will eventually get done. Bruins have $8.6M of cap space. So they are likely just figuring out details like bonus vs salary, NMC vs NTC, etc...None of this sounds acrimonious.

There's risk on both sides. MacKinnon played Hart level hockey for several years on a $6M a year contract. Not because, as was often incorrectly stated, that he took a 'team friendly' deal but because he made one or two quantum leaps in performance over the consistent 50 points a year he was delivering when he signed the contract. He couldn't renegotiate just as management can't when a player under performs.

@Foppa Exactly. Most people have trouble telling the difference between outperforming a contract and a hometown discount. Eg. Sam Reinhart the past 2 years vs. Reinhart's new contract.

Goalies are uniquely the most important and most inconsistent position on the team. Which is why it is so hard to determine their value. Now that Florida won the SC with Bobrovsky along with another SCF last year, the recency bias views his contract favorably. But that contract was looking bad to start out.

Make him one of the highest paid goalies in the NHL and been a starting goalie for about half a season in his career...makes sense

He may want out of Boston...asking for $10M when the team only has about $8.5M in cap space is a questionable move by him.

I went to the School of Business for the University of Maine, and I love the business side of it all.

Sounds like he'll be somebody's GM, in 15 years or so.

Boston should have signed him before trading the other guy. There is no way this guy is worth even near to what he wants

Bussi is about to get pounded if they call him in…

When these players see what athletes in mlb, nfl, mlb get, it’s no wonder. I get it not as many follow hockey but there’s still billion dollar teams in the nhl