kind of a side thought from a couple of my posts about writing but I think it deserves its own post, so here goes:
when you’re writing a conflict between two characters or factions of characters, you need to consider whether their disagreement over the premise or over the methods. put another way: do they disagree on the problem or the solution?
this is a genuinely tricky thing to identify, especially in very complex narratives, so let’s do some very simple examples.
the situation: pacifist nation X is about to be invaded by empire Y. the laws and cultural practices of the Xians make violence and death so abhorrent that even accidental death is as minimized as possible. the Ylings, on the other hand, are totally cool with straight up murder and think diplomacy is for wimps, but are also pragmatic enough that they won’t waste troops if they don’t need to. the king of X calls in his council and asks for their opinions.
character A: It is more noble to die for one’s beliefs than to live having broken them. We should allow the Ylings to invade us and if we die, we die.
character B: If all life is sacred, then our lives are also sacred. We must fight back against the Ylings, even though that means we’d be committing violence.
A and B agree on premise but not solution: they both acknowledge that the Yling invasion is a bad thing that will lead to their deaths if unopposed and that the nonviolence code is important; what they disagree on is priorities and methods.
character C: We should invite them into our nation as honored guests. Maybe they’ll spare us or at least kill us more mercifully.
character D: We should propose an alliance and intentional annexation in exchange for our lives. Being part of the Yling Empire is a pretty sweet deal, actually.
C and D agree on solution but not premise: they’re both okay with just letting the empire walk in and invade, but C thinks the invasion would be a bad thing and is just trying to minimize the damage, and D thinks it would be a good thing and wants to maximize the rewards.
character E: We should fight the Ylings and stay a sovereign nation; the nonviolence code is stupid and holding us back.
character D: We shouldn’t fight the Ylings and try to be peacefully part of their empire instead; we’d be true to our code and reap the rewards of an alliance.
E and F disagree on both premise and solution.
Now, all possible permutations of this argument are fine. “Is this the best way to solve the problem?” and “What actually is the problem?” are both great sources of conflict. Captain America: The Winter Soldier’s entire plot is an argument over the methods to prevent death and crime, but everyone agrees that crime is bad; one of Zuko’s big character development moments is when he realizes that the problem with the world isn’t the other nations ungratefully rejecting the prosperity and unity offered by the Fire Nation, but that the Fire Nation routinely commits genocide in their quest to colonize the rest of the world.
The issue is when a disagreement over methods is treated like a disagreement over premise. The characters are positioned like one side’s entire worldview is correct and the other is wrong, but it turns out they actually disagree with what the other does rather than what the other believes.
A big giveaway that what you’re seeing is about methods and not underlying beliefs? If at any point it is said or implied that one character “goes too far.” “Too far” implies a point before that cutoff that the other characters or the reader would be okay with. You can’t go too far if going any distance in that direction is wrong. “Frollo in the Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame goes too far when he tries to kill all the Romani in the city” implies that the problem isn’t racism in general, but mass murder specifically, and that if Frollo was only nonviolently racist, that would be fine!
Like, you know the joke about the guy who offers a woman a million dollars to sleep with him, then ten dollars after she accepts the million dollar offer, and when she’s offended and says she’s “not that kind of woman,” he says, “Oh, we agreed you were that kind of woman, now we’re just haggling over price”? If your characters are arguing about the best way to solve a problem, they have already agreed about the existence and nature of the problem. Now they’re just haggling over price.
Again: that kind of storyline is okay if you actually do want to discuss extremism v. moderation of the same basic principle. It’s okay for two characters to argue over the best way to free all of their country’s slaves. It’s also okay for two characters to discuss the best way of practicing slavery, if you want to show how ingrained it is in society or how even the character you think is a moderate is still evil or something. What doesn’t work is if your intention is to say how awful slavery is, but then the entire conflict is over the treatment of slaves rather than whether slavery is okay.
tl;dr: setting up the conflict as one over premise and then having all the action be a fight over methods undermines your story; at best it’s just confusing, at worst it turns your characters into hypocrites.
You look around the lecture hall and notice all the other students have fallen asleep. You look towards the lecturer, who has now stopped talking and is staring straight at you. “I don’t know how you’re still awake, but I guess we do this the hard way.” He says before pulling out a sword.
Macklin Celebrini's agent describes ‘special' contract negotiations with Sharks
By Sheng Peng | July 31, 2026
It was a special meeting for a special player.
Pat Brisson, Macklin Celebrini’s agent, asked for an early-to-mid-June meeting with San Jose Sharks owner Hasso Plattner and GM Mike Grier to discuss his “unicorn” client’s upcoming extension.
“[This meeting] meant a lot to us; it was part of the negotiations, making sure we do things right,” Brisson told San Jose Hockey Now in an exclusive interview on Thursday, on the heels of Celebrini signing a record-setting five-year, $94 million extension.
That $18.8 million AAV is the highest in NHL history.
It’s new territory for the league, but not for the super-agent and CAA, who represents Sidney Crosby, Nathan MacKinnon, Patrick Kane, and more, a literal who’s who of hockey over the last three decades.
Brisson shares why the $18.8 million AAV could’ve justifiably been higher, and why Celebrini didn’t want that. The superstar center also wanted to give the Sharks more term than he had to.
Brisson took us behind the scenes of the June meeting, his respect for Plattner, when he first met Celebrini, and the circumstances behind Crosby’s famous $8.7 million AAV.
Sheng Peng: Can you tell us about meeting Plattner and Grier before July 1?
Pat Brisson: I made a special request with a special player like this. I call him a unicorn player. To really go in and meet with ownership and understanding what we're getting into.
When Sidney [got his second contract] in Pittsburgh, I had the [same] ability, with my friendship with Mario Lemieux and Ron Burkle. I mean, when you're talking about generational players, we got to do our due diligence, make sure that we have a face-to-face [with ownership] and understand the bigger picture.
I [had] met Mr. Plattner when he came to the interview period, to Los Angeles to meet us with John Tavares, when he was a free agent.
He was a wonderful man. He had an amazing presentation. You could tell that he's a passionate man. And I was very impressed with him.
When I made the request to meet him about Macklin through Mike, he accepted. I flew up to San Jose, met with him and Mike, and we had some great conversations about the state of the team and the present, the future, and the goals. It was important for us, before making a commitment, that we understand some of these things.
We know our [place]. We know our seat. Mike and his team, they're the architects; they're the ones putting the team together. We understood where the Sharks have been in the last couple of years. You have to be patient in these things.
Right now, I don't want to speak for the Sharks; it's pretty clear that they don't want to be a lottery pick team anymore. They want to move on and get going here. So we trust the process.
We wanted to make sure that we were able to have a face-to-face about understanding certain things, in case [of things] we don't know. Sometimes you get into a situation, and two months later the team is sold, for instance.
Mike does what he needs to do with the team as far as getting the appropriate pieces. For us, it's about progressing.
A player like Macklin, who's investing so much time into his craft and becoming the best version of himself, being that special of a player, it's important for us to put the right emphasis around him to make sure that we provide him with the best guidance possible, and then we rest assured that ownership is on the same page as us. We create some form of partnership.
SP: Not every owner would meet with you like Hasso did, right?
PB: Yeah.
Investing money is important, but investing the right resources and the passion, I have a lot of respect for him sitting down and talking to us. He's a passionate man. I saw that when he came down here to meet Tavares.
[This meeting] meant a lot to us; it was part of the negotiations, making sure we do things right. And fortunately, I've learned over the years to do things this way. The luxury to be able to have an opportunity to represent some, if not the best players in history, working with them and watching them grow, we appreciate the way Hasso handled everything.
SP: What was the meeting about?
PB: It was more about we're in this thing to win. Hasso really wants to win a championship, at all costs. Is not afraid to spend dollars where it matters. He wants to win, and his actions speak for itself.
He's willing to spend and to bring everything and all the resources possible in order for this franchise to become a winning franchise. I felt very positive after the meeting with him and in trusting Mike that they have the right intentions and the right plan.
SP: Let’s talk about the actual contract. It landed at five years, like Connor Bedard and Leo Carlsson’s contracts. Is five years kind of the new “long-term,” in terms of a good marriage between short enough so the player can see where the cap is in a few years, but long enough to give the team a chance to show the player that they’re going to be winners?
PB: As an agency, when the cap was installed in 2004-05, we were the first agency to really [have] out of entry-level players that have tremendous leverage, like Crosby. We did a five-year deal. Crosby took close to 17 percent of the cap.
We did five years for him. We did five years for Malkin. We did five years for Kane and Toews. That was our approach. We've always stayed very close to it.
Now we did six or seven years with other [top] entry-level players.
But let's put it this way: Crosby, Kane, Toews, they were in a different class at the time. And we try to mirror those five years in order to, the goal is always to, A, put the player in a financial situation where they're set for life.
And B, it gives the player the ability to re-evaluate after five years, six years. I do remember when even Crosby signed five years back in the in the day in 2007, the Penguins, at the time, wanted to sign a 12-year deal, a 10-year deal, but we stayed the course.
Bedard and Carlsson's contracts had nothing to do with this one. Part of my meeting [with the Sharks], and I made it clear publicly, that we came in with no comps. With all due respect to Carlsson's offer sheet or [Bedard’s] contract, we had already decided pretty much where we wanted to be.
The question was more to determine whether we do three or four or five years, and then Macklin wanted it right at five years to give Mike an opportunity to, give him a good runway to see what he could do.
But for us, he came in with the Crosby-McDavid type of leverage as a 19-year-old kid. He had [basically] no comp. The offer sheet had nothing to do with our approach.
SP: So a five-year length and signing now was driven by Macklin?
PB: It was Mack.
If we had gone next summer to the Sharks and said we wanted three years at 20, would have been 60 million for three years; he would have been set for life. But Macklin wanted to give Mike [an extension] a year out, the opportunity to [give him] time to plan. Rather than having to wait. So it was driven by Macklin.
We want to put our players in a position to succeed, and we want them to be happy with the decision. With our experience, we're able to discuss the do's and the don'ts that we've seen in the past.
But Macklin understands and registers really quick what makes sense, and he was able to drive this: "Pat, five years is what I want. I can help the team here. I want to be part of this plan. And I want to give Mike a five-to-six year runway here.”
It was driven by him.
SP: You mention Crosby and McDavid; Celebrini’s AAV landed at 16.6 percent of the cap; Crosby and McDavid were also in that range. Were those comps in some ways?
PB: The other thing too, back then we didn't know; we didn't have the luxury to know where the cap was going. We used to find out on June 30th [right before the new cap season]. Now we know that we were negotiating this deal at $113.5 million [for 2027-28].
We could have asked for 19.5. It would have been fine. That would have made sense.
He wanted to be at 18.8, and we left it at that.
You're going to see players in the next three years making 20, 22, 23 million. It's all percentages of the cap space. The business is growing, so we see large numbers now, but the revenues are there.
SP: Grier did say he would’ve given Macklin the maximum $20.8 million if your camp had insisted.
PB: He might have debated us a little bit. It's not like he handed over that quick either. He made his pitch. Also, as a general manager, he was doing his job.
It's not like he gave us a blank check either. He explained his position.
SP: The cap has grown at about a nine percent increase in recent years, how does your agency project it?
PB: We're looking at the cap being at $113.5 [in 2027-28], and then we did a 4-5 percent growth per year projection.
It might be four percent one year, six percent the other. But we don't see why would we be off by a lot there unless there's another pandemic or something like that.
I’m being cautious [with my growth projection]. I think at the end of this deal, Macklin is going to be at a 12 percent of the cap.
SP: You also signed Crosby’s first post-ELC contract, five years at $8.7 million AAV in 2007. What similarities and differences between Sid and Mack’s negotiations?
PB: The similarities are the leverage that both have.
The difference is we know where the cap is going. 2007, we're two years [into] the new cap. We had no clue where we were going. We were facing a lot of uncertainty.
In 2012, the players went from 57 percent of the revenues to 50 percent. We had another setback there. And then, we had the COVID setback. Remember, at that time, a lot of guys were doing eight-year deals because of the uncertainties; there were a lot of seven- and eight-year deals, that was like the thing to do. But now that we know where the revenues are, and the world is going.
So 19.5 to 20 [for Macklin], it would have been fine too, completely fine.
SP: But again, Macklin didn’t want to go to 19.5 to 20? He wanted 18.8.
PB: He didn't push for that. That's what he wanted to do.
SP: The signing bonus-heavy aspect of the contract is interesting; that’s meant to be lockout and buyout-proof, right? And Macklin also has an NMC in the final year of the deal. Those elements of the contract seem very in favor of the player, right? If the Sharks were to trade Celebrini in the final year of this deal, so he has control of his destination?
PB: When you have a player like him, you gotta maximize the structure under the CBA rules. I mean, why not? You have to. You're not doing your job otherwise.
Macklin doesn't really need a no-trade in the last year of his contract. I don't think he's ever gonna get traded, but you need to have it. It's permissible under the CBA.
And as of September 16, 2026, no teams will be able to grant signing bonuses to a player more than 60 percent of the contract. So we maximized it, based on the player that he is. He deserved the right [with his leverage].
SP: So Crosby has been at $8.7 million AAV for his last three contracts, 19 years in total. What’s the origin of that?
PB: For me, I always want to do what's right for the players. I tell my players, I wear a medal around my neck, when you guys are happy. So when the players are happy is when I deliver the amount of resources that I could around my player and give them the information, and at the end of the day, for them to be compensated fairly.
But with Sidney, what people don't understand, or don't know, the second contract, the one that he did the 12-year deal at 8.7; he was 26 years old, 25 going on 26. It was a time where we could do 12-year deals or 14-year deals. And we looked at it where Sidney, the way he plays the game, he was very physical. As you know, he was concussed. He was concussed the year before. He missed a full year almost, and he came back. He came back and he played 20 games.
His next contract was not insurable, so in other words, he had to have an exclusion to his head, the insurance companies are not lined up to insure that contract.
We were talking about a five-year deal, probably 11 million a year. And then we pushed. He's 26. Doing five years, gonna be 31.
And then we said, why don't we do eight years? We had agreed to do nine years at 11 a year. [So] nine years, he was going to be 35, and we said, are you going to play past 35 years old, the way you play the game? And Sidney was like, "I'm going to do my best, but there might be a time when I might not be able to."
Because Sidney's a physical player. He grinds it every night, and he had that concussion. So we decided to add three years to the deal and lower the AAV. Then we start playing with the numbers; we're at 9.1, 9.2, and then 8.7 came about again, and we end up doing 8.7 times 12.
But that deal was front-loaded. Sidney made 12 million the first five years, six years. At the end, he was making 3 million a year.
But if we had a crystal ball? We didn't know he was going to play [that long]. People forgot he missed a full year, and he signed a 12-year deal.
We thought he might play six months or might play three years or most likely, this guy's not playing after 35 years old.
He would have been gone through LTIR the last three years, last four years of his career.
His goal was to play, but we looked at the data, the possibilities, and internally, the odds were that he wasn't going to play past 34 years old.
So when we signed that deal, the ownership group took the entire risk.
So people say he left money on the table, by virtue of that. Now the last negotiation, two years at 8.7, he didn't care much. He kept it that way. His next deal, he may do an extension next summer. He may sign a one-year deal for $12 [million]. I don't know.
I want to clarify that he did and he didn't [with the 8.7]. We came close to a five-year deal for $60 million at the time.
SP: You would never tell a client to take the same AAV for their entire career.
PB: No, no, no. (laughs) Especially that contract at 8.7 for 12 years. That's easy to explain if you really look at it, [trying to protect him].
SP: So how long have you known Macklin? Is it personally rewarding, someone you’ve known since he was a teenager, to help set him up for life?
PB: It does feel good.
We've been very privileged over my career and our career now. We've been doing this now for 35, 36 years. We've been also very privileged of having had the opportunity of representing 10 first-overall picks in the past 20 years, and it started with Sidney Crosby in 2005, and then Erik Johnson, Patrick Kane, from Nathan MacKinnon to Jack Hughes to Owen Power.
I first met Mack when he was 14, I do believe.
Byron Ritchie, who was a client of mine when he played, Byron was a very good player. Byron played in the minors, in the NHL. He played in Sweden. He played in so many different leagues and became a player development member of our team here about 10 years ago or so.
His son Ryder is a 2006, played with Macklin. Byron, having an amazing eye for talent and being a great coach, he identified [Celebrini] as a potential CAA client.
We got introduced when he was 14, and then he went to play at Shattuck St. Mary's. Both of my sons played at Shattuck. It's a great school. It's a great program. That's why I put Crosby and Jonathan Toews there back in the days.
So he played there, and he played with my youngest son Jordan for one year on the prep team. We put him in Chicago the following year, USHL. Then after that, played at BU, and then from there went to the NHL. So it's been an amazing journey working with him.
Also, the experience that we've had with some of these special, special players over the years. I'm mentioning to you all these first-overall picks, including John Tavares and all that of the world. You get to a point where you see a 14-year-old; for us, we have to have the ability to be able to see that player at 20, 21 years old, [how] he's going to improve.
With [Macklin], it's been an amazing journey, and it was very rewarding yesterday to see him signing a lucrative contract that he completely earned and deserves. And at $94 million dollars, he should be set for life.
SP: Did Macklin’s family, his parents Rick and Robyn, have much say in these negotiations?
PB: He's got a lovely family and a very supportive family and an athletic family; they live and breathe sports. And Rick and Robyn have a lot of experience in the sports world. They're fantastic to deal with.
Dealing with Rick and with Macklin for the most part, you're talking to people who understand sports, who understand the highs and the lows, and the value of an asset. It's very refreshing to deal with both Macklin and Rick.
They get it. Very much so.
SP: Just looking back, was there a moment for you that you knew that Celebrini just had “it”?
PB: There are not too many players that I can compare to Sidney Crosby at 15 years old in my career, and he's one player that when I started observing him on and off the ice more and more, he resembled a lot of Sidney. He had the same traits: a skilled player [who was] dominating, but he also wanted to do all the little things right defensively. He had the team approach, leadership approach. He understood at a young age that this isn't tennis; it's a team sport.
He respected the third- and fourth-line players as much as the first-line players. He understood quickly leadership qualities. You see in his work ethic, this kid is separating himself from the group, you could tell.
He found consistency, also. A really good prospect at 14, that doesn't mean the prospect will be great at 20. And he continues to get better and better and work on his habits. Consistency has been key, and it's been remarkable to watch.
