Quote:
Originally Posted by TOfan
The way I read the post, and forgive me if I’ve misinterpreted, was some criticism was being directed towards Treliving for the Tkachuk contract.
Will it be a tough resign? Yes, probably. But it likely would have been regardless of the term. What’s the issue with the contract?
My understanding is that the Flames will need to qualify Tkachuk at $10 for his next contract. He will be 24 and under team control. At the time the deal was signed do we know what the cap projections were going to be? No. We understand the cap could have been as high as 88 million next year, pre pandemic. What were the comparable deals being signed in 2019? Point at 6.75 on a three year term will get the same QO as he is also due $9 in his final year. Rantanen at 9.25 for 6? Is that one better? Why? What’s the cap going to be in 6 years?
Seems to me there is quite a bit here we, the fans, don’t know. Not too sure what Treliving should have done here.
Maybe cherry picking is the wrong term, nitpicky for sure though. League wide, I don’t see what the issue is here.
|
Yes, you are right - I was throwing criticism at Treliving.
However, it isn't because of what the cap may or may not be at the time. It is because Treliving signed a contract that basically walks Tkachuk to free agency. Had it been a year shorter? Ok, that's not optimal, but it does give the Flames a bit more leverage. Had it been a few years longer for a higher hit? Well, ok, there is risk there too if Tkachuk doesn't live up to the contract, or if he sustains a serious injury, etc. However, the issue I have with it is that it walks Tkachuk right to becoming a UFA. All he has to do is not re-sign an extension, and just get the qualifying offer for a season.
Flames will not have much in the way of leverage on a contract extension. If Tkachuk wants to stay, great - Flames will be bent over on the next negotiation. If Tkachuk wants to become a UFA, the path is really easy for him to do so. It also devalues him as an asset to the Flames. Not this upcoming season yet (I don't think), but after that one I think his value will drop because of that deal he is on. Maybe it won't, but that's what I think anyway, and why I also feel it is an issue.
Then it comes down to 'why was that deal signed?'. It was announced it was structured that way in order to 'keep the team together as it was', since the playoffs were not indicative of what the team was capable of, and that this was a contender that should be kept together.
Unnecessary risk on arguably the most important contract on the team (at least one of), that walks a valuable asset right to free agency. There could have been moves to clear up some space with players that were not so important long-term to the organization (and Frolik was traded later that same season, for example).
We will see what happens, but in hindsight, this team as built (whether it was players, coaching, mix, culture - whatever else) was not a 'contender' that was in a position to take the risk on an asset like Tkachuk was (and is). That's my criticism as detailed as I can make it (and concisely... I had to edit this a few times since it got a bit long-winded, as many of my posts unfortunately are! lol).
I didn't want the Rantanen deal either, but I would rather Tkachuk signed the Rantanen deal (a bit rich IMO) than a deal walking him to UFA. To make this work, the Flames need at least one long playoff run to make the risk worth it in my estimation - one year of actually contending for the cup while Gaudreau and Tkachuk are on their deals, hence why "in hindsight this deal may really haunt Treliving".