Friedman: Gaudreau negotiations will be put on hold during World Cup

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by jemjey

I can't believe I keep checking this thread and expecting anything different.

I can't believe it's not butter!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

You are confusing market value with what contract he will sign, in a situation where he the team can essentially hold him hostage. There are countless posts where people have said they don't think he is worth 8M or even 7.5M.

There has been a ton of discussion here and elsewhere about his fair market value, which is certainly relevant for the negotiations, specifically when you talk about term.

Please help me understand your part in this: You have basically conceded that because of the RFA constraints which guarantee that Gaudreau will sign a long-term deal for under $8.0 m (which I think will actually be under $7.5 m), then why are we even arguing about what you define—incorrectly—as "fair market value"? Why does it even matter??

Fair market value is the number that best aligns with a variety of factors that includes production, potential, age, status, experience, offer-sheet eligibility, etc. Because of all of these mitigating circumstances that govern the value of Gaudreau's next contract this is essentially his worth precisely because it cannot possibly be otherwise. In short, Gaudreau is not worth +$8.0 m because no one will pay him that much. No one will pay him that much because the only team who can sign him is the Calgary Flames.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Yappin Tappin

...As a quiet observer in this thread the past little while I must say some of you guys have been overly harsh on Gaudreauvertime. I can understand how some believe he is completely off base on what Gaudreau deserves to be paid but the way he has been mocked for his beliefs seems on the harsh side to me...

No way. He has invited both the content and demeanour of the responses to his posts by virtue of his consistently overbearing and presumptuous manner of interaction with other posters.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by the2bears

Clearly he was using the "figuratively" definition of "literally" you pedant.

Oh god not this again

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Four hours? Step on it, grandma

It takes 4 hours when you stay in the right lane behind the strugglers.

Oh wait, wrong thread...that one has less arguing though.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Guessing some might make a big deal out of this. Gaudreau won't sign a contract during the world cup, but apparently won't stop him from signing endorsement deals.

Roger MillionsVerified account ‏@RogMillions
Johnny Gaudreau has signed New http://Equip.marketing deal with #warriorhockey . Deal includes New Balance footwear and clothing.

I'd suspect that deal was done before the tournament otherwise I doubt he'd be using Warrior sticks and gloves in the tournament. I'm guessing he's not wearing them for free.

[Enoch Root]

Gaudreau and TNA couldn't make the playoff round - so his contract value goes down now?

[Bunk]

How is Tarasenko's 8 yr $60m ($7.5m AAV) not the perfect comparable for Johnny's contract? Just do it.

[CroFlames]

Brad should call Johnny and fawn and praise him for his performance at the WCH. That'll soften Johnny's stance and a deal will get done.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Bunk

How is Tarasenko's 8 yr $60m ($7.5m AAV) not the perfect comparable for Johnny's contract? Just do it.

[Moneyhands23]

Tick..Tick..Tick...

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Damn my faulty critical thinking skills:




Crosby has as many goals and assists in the World Cup and plays a much better all-around game.

Yes, awful awful critical thinking skills.

You'll have to walk me through the logical leaps you took to come to your conclusions.

I wouldn't be surprised if Europe beats Sweden. Does that mean I think Europe is going to beat Sweden? No.

Stop and think about that.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Please help me understand your part in this: You have basically conceded that because of the RFA constraints which guarantee that Gaudreau will sign a long-term deal for under $8.0 m (which I think will actually be under $7.5 m), then why are we even arguing about what you define—incorrectly—as "fair market value"? Why does it even matter??

I'm sorry, how is he guaranteed to sign under 8.0M? I've never said anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Fair market value is the number that best aligns with a variety of factors that includes production, potential, age, status, experience, offer-sheet eligibility, etc. Because of all of these mitigating circumstances that govern the value of Gaudreau's next contract this is essentially his worth precisely because it cannot possibly be otherwise. In short, Gaudreau is not worth +$8.0 m because no one will pay him that much. No one will pay him that much because the only team who can sign him is the Calgary Flames.

The fair market value is the price at which it no longer becomes beneficial to sign a player. When people say he's not worth 7.5m-8m, that equates to them preferring to trade him or otherwise not have him be a Flame, because the team would be made worse off.

It is relevant because the term of the contract could extend into UFA years, or be short enough where Gaudreau could accept an offer sheet, both scenarios would be exposed to market forces.

If Treliving wants to stay below Giordano at 7-8 years, Johnny is better of holding out or signing a 1 year 3M deal and then taking the highest offer sheet available next season, which would likely be much higher than 6.5M per.

That's why you have to balance with fair market value.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

The fair market value is the price at which it no longer becomes beneficial to sign a player. When people say he's not worth 7.5m-8m, that equates to them preferring to trade him or otherwise not have him be a Flame, because the team would be made worse off.

Nope. When people say he's not worth 7.5m-8.0m, it equates to them preferring he sits out until he signs for less because, while he may be worth $8M, we don't have to pay him that and there's nothing he can do about it other than sit out a year and lose $7M he'll never get back (i.e. $1M a year on a deal now).

So ya, way to jump to a conclusion then argue against it. *Strawman ooga booga booga strawman rabble rabble rabble strawman*. #### are people who call strawman annoying.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by codynw

Hey it worked for Monahan with MacKinnon, Barkov, Scheifele, etc.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

If Treliving wants to stay below Giordano at 7-8 years, Johnny is better of holding out or signing a 1 year 3M deal and then taking the highest offer sheet available next season, which would likely be much higher than 6.5M per.

Can the more CBA savvy confirm if this is even possible?

I thought the offer sheet ineligibility had to do with not enough games or "NHL seasons" played. If so, how would sitting out a season help become eligible?

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Nope. When people say he's not worth 7.5m-8.0m, it equates to them preferring he sits out until he signs for less because, while he may be worth $8M, we don't have to pay him that and there's nothing he can do about it other than sit out a year and lose $7M he'll never get back (i.e. $1M a year on a deal now).

So ya, way to jump to a conclusion then argue against it. *Strawman ooga booga booga strawman rabble rabble rabble strawman*. #### are people who call strawman annoying.

So you're saying that when people claim he's not worth 7.5M-8M they really think he is worth that much?

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Can the more CBA savvy confirm if this is even possible?

I thought the offer sheet ineligibility had to do with not enough games or "NHL seasons" played. If so, how would sitting out a season help become eligible?

I think at a certain age he graduates from his current RFA type.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Can the more CBA savvy confirm if this is even possible?

I thought the offer sheet ineligibility had to do with not enough games or "NHL seasons" played. If so, how would sitting out a season help become eligible?

That is correct. He requires 3 years of professional experience to qualify for RFA status.

For the purposes of this Section 10.2(a), a Player aged 18 or 19 earns a year of professional experience by playing ten (10) or more NHL Games in a given NHL Season, and a Player aged 20 or older (or who turns 20 between September 16 and December 31 of the year in which he signs his first SPC) earns a year of professional experience by playing ten (10) or more Professional Games under an SPC in a given League Year.

So, even if he played hardball and went and played in Europe, he wouldn't gain a year of professional experience because those games wouldn't be played under an SPC.

[Frequitude]

So basically, he's boned? Sign for what the Flames want or never play in the league until you hit 27 and qualify for group 3 UFA?