[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Robbob

If you go with UFA being 1.75 times RFA I personally think you will get closer to the right number.

at 2.5% inflation (conservative)
$6.81 for 6 yrs
$7.35 for 7 yrs
$7.76 for 8 yrs

Originally Posted by Bingo

First off very interesting.

I think where it gets a little busy though is the inflation rate in a contract as most deals get signed somewhat straight lined and if not they get ledged, often with the ledges at the RFA/UFA kick point (from what I've seen, haven't done the research).

I'm not talking as much about dollar inflation as I am cap inflation, which manifests secondarily in AAV inflation over time.

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'd be the first to admit that I used nice easy round numbers for Tarasenko at 6 for RFA and 9 for UFA but it could have been almost any combination.

Using Tarasenko as a comparable is pretty solid given when the player became prolific, and almost everyone is using it.

I'm challenging the assumption the Tarasenko should be used as a 1:1 comparable. It would be like signing Sean Monahan to an 8 year 6.125M deal because that's what Scheifele got and he's Monahan's comparable. Sure, it can be argued that Scheifele was every bit as good as Monahan last season, but Monahan's career production is what got him paid a 5% higher AAV despite signing for only 3 UFA years instead of 4.

The historical precedent for financial valuation of players is point production. Over their respective careers, Gaudreau has dwarfed Tarasenko in this key metric.

I for one would argue that he's already over paid because he's somewhat of a one trick pony and found the pine a lot in the playoffs when the games were close.

That's a fine opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that the market has been set. Regardless, I don't recall Tarasenko being benched in the playoffs the in his contract year, and his perceived lack of dimension has no bearing on Gaudreau, especially considering that Gaudreau is indeed a complete player.

Originally Posted by Bingo

The crappy thing about this argument is that to disagree with you comes across as anti-Gaudreau which I'm not. Love the kid and I hope he stays in Calgary long term, but you have to get him into a contract that makes sense.

That's not at all true. What comes across as anti-Gaudreau is blaming him for the lack of a signed contract with no evidence, which you have not done.

And I'm sorry but killing penalties in college doesn't suggest he ever will in the NHL, some things just don't translate. Like the number of players that were scoring stars in junior hockey but now play bottom six in the show.

There is very little doubt that with his defensive awareness and quickness, he'd be an excellent penalty killer. That's probably why he was used late in games so much last year.

Bottom line Stamkos and his resume just signed almost exactly the $8.5M x 8 year deal that is being rumoured, and he had the leverage do do so. Gaudreau doesn't.

Stamkos was also far less productive last season, and his productivity has been declining following injury issues. And that 8 year deal takes him to 35 . . . Do you pay a player for what they have done or what they are likely to do over the term of their contract. My bet is that Johnny scores a lot more points than Stamkos over the next 8 years.