Quote:
Originally Posted by bax
For sure I can. Essentially there are a lot imaginary deadlines, but nothing concrete. The Flames don't need to trade Gaudreau, and in fact I think it's likely that they don't. Treliving is more than comfortable keeping him and trying to build around him next season and possibly the following season.
Gaudreau is a player that out performs his contract and still has 2 more years on his deal. That is extremely valuable in a league where the cap is staying flat. There isn't a need to trade Gaudreau this offseason so if a team really wants him- they can pay up. Treliving doesn't need to take back a garbage contract or accept a less than stellar return.
The NTC issue is overblown too. Realistically everybody knows Johnny is either going to end up long term in Calgary or one of the east coast teams. Teams that will be willing to put together a significant package for him will have an understanding if they can sign him or not and I'm sure his NTC won't exclude east coast teams.
Realistically there are four different times you can trade him. This offseason, 2021 deadline, 2021 offseason, or 2022 deadline. Who's to say Johnny wouldn't be willing to waive his NTC to go to any team for a playoff run and then go to free agency? Even in that worst case scenario the Flames probably make out with a 1st and prospect (plus 1.5 seasons of Gaudreau vs trading him this offseason) at a minimum. Is that return really all that worse than what's being proposed in this thread?
Erik Karlsson was traded as a pending UFA and brought back Tierny, Demelo, Norris (1st round pick), Balcers (5th round pick), a 1st round pick, and a 2nd round pick. I don't know if Johnny will pull quite that much as a UFA, but bottom line Treliving isn't in a position where he needs to force a trade in fear of losing out on value.
|
Thanks for answering the question. I actually agree that in a vacuum, and assuming Gaudreau reverts to his 'mean', the return won't vary that greatly whether it's now or his final TDL before UFA. But there are 2 more elements to consider:
1. Gaudreau's play if he remains a Flame - the return diminishes fairly quickly if he is below average again. I'm not sure the inverse is as true (an acquiring GM has already convinced himself that Gaudreau will be his 'above average' self on their team...if JG is playing closer to that level it increases the GMs confidence in that belief, but not necessarily the price he is willing to pay)
2. What that return means from a timeline standpoint considering the Flames other assets. A prospect/pick today has potential to start paying off ~1-4 years from now. Waiting 1.5 more years pushes that window back, too.
IMO a re-tool should be targeting contention by spring '23. If it hasn't happen, you reassess whether you re-tool again by moving Monahan/Lindholm/Hanifin/Backlund (if you still have them) or blow it up altogether. Waiting until spring '22 to get assets from Gaudreau will make it nearly impossible for them to pay off while any of the aforementioned are under contract (so you might as well fire sale them at that point, too).
IMO you roll the dice on taking a step back to build towards contention in the mid '20s, or accept a few more years of mediocrity now and a near-guarantee of tear down by '24.
More generally, I actually think a slow/patient approach of perpetual mediocrity is okay, so long as that mediocrity hasn't been achieved on the basis of spending your most valuable futures. We'll never know if we could have achieved this same level of
success mediocrity without chasing Hamilton, Hamonic, Elliott, Smith, etc. and whether those spent assets would have helped us reach the next level. It seems painfully clear to me that this group's ceiling is well short of the SCF, and with Chiarelli currently unemployed, there are no trades that are going to change that between now and '22.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Why is a long term deal risky? Isn't every long term deal risky? If you trade Gaudreau and then sign an oft injured Taylor Hall to a 6 or 7 year deal is that not also risky? If you give Tkachuk an 8 year deal and he suffers multiple concussions and injuries due to the way he plays wasn't that risky? I think Ward's coaching stifled the offense of this club, you bring a puck possession quick transition coach and I think Gaudreau is an 80-100 point player and given his non physical play I don't see any reason why he won't be that player for the duration of a long term deal.
|
If we couldn't win with JG at 6.75, MT on ELC, and nearly everything possible going right for this team, why should we expect to win with those 2 players costing ~$18M instead of 8?