Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
Hot take. Tkachuk was "paid" for his service. He didn't "win" the money. His agent negotiated for it and got him "paid." That is very different from winning or being part of a winner. Tkachuk was always about Tkachuk, first and foremost. Getting paid was his thing. Winning? Not so much.
The problem I always saw with Tkachuk was he wasn't a winner. He was about personal success over team success, which always made me glad he wasn't on the Flames. I don't begrudge the guy for making his money, but I didn't like that he wasn't a big team player. Don't like guys like that. Tkachuk will be remembered more for counting the dollars he was paid than be remembered as a guy that performed for his team or when the chips were down. Not a great legacy IMO.
|
Yeah, I don't disagree entirely. I'd argue what value a legacy in the game of hockey is worth. I'd gladly sell any legacy for an additional $10M or so career earnings - because I'd say a more important legacy is setting up generations worth of wealth for your children and so on and so forth.
Also, how is a team in the Flames/Sens situation supposed to handle this if they're trying to win? You win Championships with top tier talent, and both Tkachuk's are physical top tier talent. I think both guys are worth top dollar on these upcoming contracts. It's why, if the Flames aren't ripping it down, I'd be happy to see Matthew get a solid 6 year deal worth up to $10M per. We'd be buying his best years at a decent dollar figure (market value showing Jones and Nurse as $9.5M makes Tkachuk worth $10M in my opinion).
Would I want to sign Tkachuk to a long term big dollar deal beyond 30/into his mid and late 30s? Probably not - but for these next 6 years? I'd happily spend the $10M on him.