Quote:
Originally Posted by united
I don't mind Tkachuk's comments at all. Players have short careers relatively speaking and should nearly always look to maximize their compensation using any permissible tactic. We, as fans, don't like the approach as it typically harms our team as far as we are concerned and we have an irrational and biased perspective on the level of loyalty players should have to our team. That despite teams showing comparatively little loyalty to most players.
The maximize compensation direction is even more important for players who play for teams with poor management groups as the money they leave on the table is almost always taken and blown to overpay worse players. For the Tkachuk brothers, playing for teams that are managed by two of the bottom five general managers in the League in Treliving and Dorion, there is no way either should consider not holding out to maximize their compensation. Any money they leave on the table just enables inept GMs to splash on players in the mold of Brouwer and Gudbranson to use two Flames examples. Even up North, McDavid's reward for not demanding the maximum contract from the Oilers is them overpaying Darnell Nurse. What a prize.
A player should consider taking a pay reduction if they are on a team that is a contender or close to it, and is managed by a top tier GM. They can be confident the money they leave on the table will be used efficiently to improve the team's probability of winning a Stanley Cup. For any team not close to contending or with a poor management group, no discount should ever be considered, all things equal (desire to stay in city, family, etc.). A player on the Colorado Avalanche? Yeah, definitely worth leaving some dough on the table. A player on the Calgary Flames? Hell no.
On that note, it is sure going to be interesting to see how hard Ritch Winter of Raze grinds for Mangiapane given the state of the Flames and his opinion of their leadership team, the previous Mangiapane negotiation, and how the Giordano situation unfolded. Of course, ultimately he acts as Mangiapane wishes should Bread just want #### to get done...
|
IIRC the narrative with Tkachuk when he signed his bridge deal was that it was important for him to leave the Flames money to keep the team together, which was interpreted as a reference to Frolik. The Flames were tight against the cap as usual and any more money to Tkachuk would have squeezed Frolik out. Well Frolik gets dealt midway through the season anyway.
Now I never really bought that Frolik's situation was a factor for Tkachuk, and it was simply the reality of the Flames cap situation that they didn't have any room to sign Tkachuk long term. And who knows, maybe he wanted exactly what he got anyway.
But it goes to prove your point that allocation of cap dollars is something that should be the GM's problem, not the players. Of course Treliving seems to be far from the only GM who struggles with this.