The NHL Network: Elliotte Friedman to New York Rangers forward Alexis Lafreniere will be a restricted free agent after the season and is set for a nice raise. The term can be a sticking point in this case.
** NHLRumors.com subscription
Friedman: “As for LaFreniere, I had heard that one of the issues that was discussed here was time. And you know, because if you look at LaFreniere, especially as you mentioned before, EJ, there is a belief that the cap will go up in the next few years. You know, the fact that there is a new CBA is also coming here. And what could that mean just next year?
Like, there are some people who are wondering if, as the Commissioner said, can they do it sooner, like, like the Stanley Cup Final, can they change what the proposed cap will be next year? It is now at $92.4 (million).
So one of the things I heard was that there was a question about, is it wise to wait? And number two, what’s the right name for Lafreniere because the high season can take him to a place where you might not get another big deal out of that. So it might end up being a little shorter, compared to the full eight.
But I think one of the other things as well, until you really know what (Igor) Shesterkin’s number is, you know, do you wait and make it another part of that puzzle?
Dan Rosen: “Yes Elliotte, it’s interesting to me, because I actually consider the Lafreniere deal to be very interesting to the Rangers. I think I agree with you. I think they will match what Igor wants. You will go, they will get there.
But Lafreniere, he’s not in the first power play right now, but in a few years he will be, and that will increase his numbers. You might argue that he should be here now, but they have five guys of their own, and they’ve been there to get you.
When his numbers go up, that should increase the price he paid, right? So why would you commit yourself to an eight-year contract? In that sense, if you feel that your role will increase and your numbers will increase, the end will increase, for me, that makes sense, almost, for a short-term agreement Lafreniere’s Idea. From Rangers’ point of view, I could see why they wanted to go longer. But that has to be weighed against it, right?
Friedman: “Dan, you should be Lafreniere’s representative because you’re filing a lawsuit.” No, I agree. Like, I totally agree that the Rangers were talking to Lafreniere. I believe that they wanted to stretch him out for a long time.
You know, one of the things that somebody said to me is, does eight really make sense for a player in this case? And I think you are right. If I am a team and I decide that this is a key player, I lock them up as long as I can, as quickly as possible, because the value never goes down.
But if I were Lafreniere here, I don’t know if he would do that, because it also takes you to later years where you might not be able to hit one out of the park.
EJ Hradek: “Yeah, maybe a Matthews-type thing where you do four years, and then look for another opportunity, like your point Elliotte, you can, make some grass down the road if things continue to go well. I want…”
Friedman: “I don’t want to. I don’t know if you do four, because that takes you straight to free work, I believe. So usually the group will want more or less.
Hradek: “Yes, I can see that. But for me, I’m not, I’m not afraid of that, since, when I’m running a program there, especially in New York where people want to play for the New York Rangers. If things go well for the player and things go well for the team, I’m not worried about that.
Because I think, you know, I’m going to make the deal happen. You know, I can see why in some places, maybe they would be and you want to be careful. But for me, I always feel like it’s good for everyone. If the team does well and the player does well, we will come to an agreement. And it will end up costing money but that is the cost of doing business in the era of pro sports. And as you point out, like the price, it’s always going up, that’s just how I’ve been putting this together and it’s been a long time.
Source link
