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

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by 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?

It's an interesting twist. Consider that if the Flames hadn't burned that first year of his deal, Gaudreau would have played three years on a rookie deal and stepped right into the type of deal he wants now.

Fate is a fickle bitch.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by 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?

Yea I think you're right.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Yea I think you're right.

So then... 7x$6.74?

[Frequitude]

Wow! I don't think we'll ever see a player do that first year burn thing again.

Can I change my answer to $6.75-$6.875???

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by 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?

No. He has every right not to play at the offered amount - and take his services elsewhere (other leagues).
But it is clear that teams are willing to pay for these young players. So he'll get his.
But leverage wise, he doesn't have a lot.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

No. He has every right not to play at the offered amount - and take his services elsewhere (other leagues).
But it is clear that teams are willing to pay for these young players. So he'll get his.
But leverage wise, he doesn't have a lot.

Oh I get that. That's why I said "in the league"...meant the NHL.

He has some leverage obviously (value towards the Flames winning, bolting for another league, hating the Flames if they screw him and leaving at 27). That's why the Flames aren't offering league min.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Wow! I don't think we'll ever see a player do that first year burn thing again.

Can I change my answer to $6.75-$6.875???

Why? He stands to make millions more in 2016/17 than he would've had he signed a three year deal.

Unless I'm missing something, he would've earned 925k or whatever this year had he signed a three year deal. Now he gets whatever he's about to sign for, but it will be at least 5x the amount he would've been paid under a standard ELC.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

So then... 7x$6.74?

Nope. Calgary isn't gonna just let him sit all year over 500k. There'd be riots.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

Why? He stands to make millions more in 2016/17 than he would've had he signed a three year deal.

Unless I'm missing something, he would've earned 925k or whatever this year had he signed a three year deal. Now he gets whatever he's about to sign for, but it will be at least 5x the amount he would've been paid under a standard ELC.

Yes, but he would've had the leverage to get the $7.5M Tarasenko type deal he wants, and he would've been able to be offersheeted.

Either way he wins, but it seems this way worked out better for the Flames when I think most would assume burning the extra year always works out in favor of the player.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

Why? He stands to make millions more in 2016/17 than he would've had he signed a three year deal.

Unless I'm missing something, he would've earned 925k or whatever this year had he signed a three year deal. Now he gets whatever he's about to sign for, but it will be at least 5x the amount he would've been paid under a standard ELC.

...and maybe lose a million or more in the remaining years of the contract since he has no leverage.

I'm not saying its a for sure, just postulating that there's a chance he could lose more in years 2-5/6/7 than he stands to gain in year 1.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Nope. Calgary isn't gonna just let him sit all year over 500k. There'd be riots.

Ah, so you've come to $7.24M for fair market value? Cool. Things are gonna get pretty boring in here now.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Ah, so you've come to $7.24M for fair market value? Cool. Things are gonna get pretty boring in here now.

That's where I think they'd settle on a 7 year deal.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Nope. Calgary isn't gonna just let him sit all year over 500k. There'd be riots.

riots

[TheScorpion]

Yeah, I don't think we're trading Gaudreau to Vancouver.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Nope. Calgary isn't gonna just let him sit all year over 500k. There'd be riots.

This is how we know you're from out of town.

Where-as in other hockey cities, rioting is an occurrence with disgruntled hockey fans. In Calgary, really a bunch of drunk people roam down 17th ave, the fairer sex will go topless, and it gets as rowdy as public urination in the back alleys.

Don't Jersey, Ver-- Calgary mate.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

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

Okay, this is probably the point of contention. It seems to me that you're defining and using terms like "worth" and "fair market price" in a way the rest of us are not.

You're defining "fair market price" as such:

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.

Based on this definition, it would appear that you're claiming the fair market price is the tipping point at which the team (or in our case us fans) would much rather cut ties with the player rather than sign him.

However, I would argue that's the exact opposite of fair market price.

If the fair market price of an item is x, then there would also be a reasonable price range of (for example) x +/- 2.5%. It's only after you get above x+2.5% that you move passed a tipping point into the realm where it's better to cut ties.

It might be that $8M is the tipping point for the Flames regarding Gaudreau, but that doesn't mean it is fair market value. By that same logic, $6.5M might be Gaudreau's tipping point regarding the Flames. But likewise, that wouldn't mean $6.5M is fair market price.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

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.

Your inability to understand things, even the things you've said, is literally stupefying.

That means it's stupefying btw, not "well maybe kind of actually not stupefying if I get questioned on it"

Please tell me more about how Gaudreau literally looks like the best player in the world and the best player in the World Cup but not actually better than Crosby, who is both in the world and in the World Cup. Anytime.

If you say Europe looks like the best team in the World Cup, and that it wouldn't surprise you if they beat Sweden, you aren't saying they'll beat Sweden, but you are saying they look better than every other team in the World Cup.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

Okay, this is probably the point of contention. It seems to me that you're defining and using terms like "worth" and "fair market price" in a way the rest of us are not.

You're defining "fair market price" as such:



Based on this definition, it would appear that you're claiming the fair market price is the tipping point at which the team (or in our case us fans) would much rather cut ties with the player rather than sign him.

However, I would argue that's the exact opposite of fair market price.

If the fair market price of an item is x, then there would also be a reasonable price range of (for example) x +/- 2.5%. It's only after you get above x+2.5% that you move passed a tipping point into the realm where it's better to cut ties.

It might be that $8M is the tipping point for the Flames regarding Gaudreau, but that doesn't mean it is fair market value. By that same logic, $6.5M might be Gaudreau's tipping point regarding the Flames. But likewise, that wouldn't mean $6.5M is fair market price.

You're right on a macro scale, you'd definitely have differing levels depending on the TAM for that player.

Fair market price implies there is a market to begin with, and therefore there are options available to the seller. In this case, there is no active market today, but there is a hypothetical market that exists as Gaudreau becomes a group 2 RFA. Which is essentially why Calgary will be able to sign him for less than market value if both parties are acting rationally and Johnny's value to Calgary is representative of his value to the average NHL team. But if the market's perception of Johnny's value is a material amount greater than Calgary's, then it would likely reduce the discount Calgary could get.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Your inability to understand things, even the things you've said, is literally stupefying.

That means it's stupefying btw, not "well maybe kind of actually not stupefying if I get questioned on it"

Please tell me more about how Gaudreau literally looks like the best player in the world and the best player in the World Cup but not actually better than Crosby, who is both in the world and in the World Cup. Anytime.

If you say Europe looks like the best team in the World Cup, and that it wouldn't surprise you if they beat Sweden, you aren't saying they'll beat Sweden, but you are saying they look better than every other team in the World Cup.

Because in any given game or sequence of games, a player can play extremely well?

During Kane's point streak, he looked like the best player in the world. But he wasn't.

[The Fonz]

This God damn thread will be the death of me.