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

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Well, you have said it:

No, I haven't. Re-read that post. It's about the value of UFA years.

C'mon people, this isn't that difficult.

[CliffFletcher]

Of the 69 U.S. Olympic roster players over the last three games, a total of 7 were playing for Canadian NHL teams at the time. That's 10%. Canadian teams make up 30% of the league.

It's not wild speculation to suggest that American players prefer to play in the U.S. And when they have the choice to play in the U.S., they tend to exercise that choice.

[Major Major]

Re: EE and pylon's made up anxiety...

Maybe it's the case, but nothing is happening here that would point to that. Why the hell do we refer to this decision as a family unit? The gaudreaus? Give me a break. Players aren't basing where they want to play 5 years from now to be close to mammy. If it were up to JG's mom, he'd be entering his 6th year of college this year. Jonny is a nice boy, but he has shown that he values his passion for hockey more than his attachment to his mom. His dad has shown that Jonny ought to do what's best for his career.

If his goal was to be close to home, he'd be there already. He was never closer to a long NHL career anywhere he wanted to play just three short years ago. If this was the plan, then he and his family and agent have taken the absolute longest and dummest way to get there possible.

Also, if 8.5 is true, then he and his agent are evidently pushing to buy UFA years. An 8.5 5 year deal is not plausible as an opening bargaining position and would be blunderous as a negotiating tactic.

Dude and his agent are waiting until the 11th hour. There is nothing wrong or unusual about that. It is not an American getting out of Canada move. It's just a move. Players do it every year including others doing it this year. Overwhelmingly, they sign. Don't give me PK as an example. Not analogous. Unless Murray doesn't like his aw shucks attitude. Only real fear is ROR situation of soured relationship, but the players in that situation are known for taking business personally. BT is not that.

Everyone is welcome to gut anxiety, but it doesn't stand to reason.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by jemjey

Maybe you should work on your writing? I find it hilarious that you make outlandish statements, get called out on them, and then backtrack and blame the reading comprehension of whoever called you out.

Here's a thought, maybe articulate your ideas clearly? or just stop spouting utter nonsense.

Help me out here.

I said: "I wouldn't be surprised if he was the best player in the league next year."

Which has been interpreted by multiple individuals as "I expect him to be the best player in the league next year."

And you're telling me that's evidence of good reading comprehension/critical thinking?

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Help me out here.

I said: "I wouldn't be surprised if he was the best player in the league next year."

Which has been interpreted by multiple individuals as "I expect him to be the best player in the league next year."

And you're telling me that's evidence of good reading comprehension/critical thinking?

Both statements are ridiculous. I guess the former is less so, but even still -- they're both highly unlikely and blatantly homerish statements.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

So to be clear, on a $100 bet, there's way too much variability and risk for you to be confident that he'll reach 90 points next year. However, you'd have zero problems with management paying him $8M to $8.5M a year because in your eyes, that's fair market value and you have no concerns of him not being a top point producer for years to come?? So there's only risk in him not scoring if you're having to put money on him...but if it's the team's money, they should ignore that risk??

Zero problems with 8M per on an 8 year deal, even if he only remains an 81 point pace player. As I said earlier, at 8.3 the deal starts getting expensive for that level of production based on the situation.

But you seem to be intentionally confusing the issues. Firstly, you're comparing my personal funds to that of the Calgary Flames. Secondly, and more importantly, is that the bet is about progression. If Johnny turns into a 90 point player, that's a bargain at 8.0M, and you know it.

[Lanny'sDaMan]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Blah Blah Blah

Please, Until a Contract is signed, for the sanity of everyone here

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Both statements are ridiculous. I guess the former is less so, but even still -- they're both highly unlikely and blatantly homerish statements.

You can disagree with my statement all you want, but if it's such a ridiculous statement to begin with, why do some feel the need to to intentionally mis-characterize it?

They are completely different statements.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Zero problems with 8M per on an 8 year deal, even if he only remains an 81 point pace player. As I said earlier, at 8.3 the deal starts getting expensive for that level of production based on the situation.

But you seem to be intentionally confusing the issues. Firstly, you're comparing my personal funds to that of the Calgary Flames. Secondly, and more importantly, is that the bet is about progression. If Johnny turns into a 90 point player, that's a bargain at 8.0M, and you know it.

No, I'm not confusing any issue. I'm merely pointing out that you're able to acknowledge risk when you're personally affected by the situation yet when it comes to his contract, you refuse to acknowledge that regression is possible, whether through worse play or injuries limiting his games played.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Lanny'sDaMan

Please, Until a Contract is signed, for the sanity of everyone here

I'm just replying to people who directly quote me or ask me questions. Sorry if that upsets you. I thought that was the purpose of a message board.

If you have a problem with anyone, it should be the people who keep mis-characterizing my statements or needlessly post about me instead of the topic.

[DiracSpike]

It stands to reason that the most opposed JG would've been, if at all, to playing in Canada was when he was still in College and barely familiar with the city. If staying home was so important to him he would've played his last year at BC and become a free agent but he didn't. So from that point only good things have happened to him in Calgary like putting up points, making friends, playoffs, being embraced by the city, and pulling mad game at National every weekend.

Nothing has happened since that would make him want to leave, and the only public statements he's ever made are that we wants to be here long term. This is just latent anxiety from "Gaudreau College Signing Watch ca 2014"

[dammage79]

See? It said so itself. If you stop feeding it, it will go away.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

I'm just replying to people who directly quote me or ask me questions. Sorry if that upsets you. I thought that was the purpose of a message board.

If you have a problem with anyone, it should be the people who keep mis-characterizing my statements or needlessly post about me instead of the topic.

If you lower your posting, you'll lower the number of people who directly quote you or ask you questions or mis-characterize your statements here.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

No, I'm not confusing any issue. I'm merely pointing out that you're able to acknowledge risk when you're personally affected by the situation yet when it comes to his contract, you refuse to acknowledge that regression is possible, whether through worse play or injuries limiting his games played.

I have acknowledged these risks. But every long term contract has these same risks. Monahan and Gio's contracts are far riskier in that regard.

In the case of Johny putting up a 75 point pace, I would make a much bigger bet without needing odds.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I sure could live with six years. Honestly, the huge number of RFA years really puts the Flames in a good position in this negotiation.

Yes. I had a chat with one of the owners the other day and he specifically mentioned RFA and leverage. My impression is that things may be trending towards a shorter term.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

If you lower your posting, you'll lower the number of people who directly quote you or ask you questions or mis-characterize your statements here.

Or if I just hopped in with the rest of the herd? Seems a lot of people disagree with me and choose to mis-characterize my statements because of that fact.

Like I pointed out earlier, the crowd who has exhibited this behavior the most are almost exclusively in the minority regarding this topic.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Re: EE and pylon's made up anxiety...

Maybe it's the case, but nothing is happening here that would point to that. Why the hell do we refer to this decision as a family unit? The gaudreaus? Give me a break. Players aren't basing where they want to play 5 years from now to be close to mammy. If it were up to JG's mom, he'd be entering his 6th year of college this year. Jonny is a nice boy, but he has shown that he values his passion for hockey more than his attachment to his mom. His dad has shown that Jonny ought to do what's best for his career.

If his goal was to be close to home, he'd be there already. He was never closer to a long NHL career anywhere he wanted to play just three short years ago. If this was the plan, then he and his family and agent have taken the absolute longest and dummest way to get there possible.

Also, if 8.5 is true, then he and his agent are evidently pushing to buy UFA years. An 8.5 5 year deal is not plausible as an opening bargaining position and would be blunderous as a negotiating tactic.

Dude and his agent are waiting until the 11th hour. There is nothing wrong or unusual about that. It is not an American getting out of Canada move. It's just a move. Players do it every year including others doing it this year. Overwhelmingly, they sign. Don't give me PK as an example. Not analogous. Unless Murray doesn't like his aw shucks attitude. Only real fear is ROR situation of soured relationship, but the players in that situation are known for taking business personally. BT is not that.

Everyone is welcome to gut anxiety, but it doesn't stand to reason.

Ha ha ha I can assure you I don't have anxiety. I'm not living or dying on his decision to stay in Calgary. The jersey means more to me than the name on the back. Obviously I would like him to sign a long term deal that works for both parties but if he wants to stay here the minimum amount of time to free agency I'm not going to lose a second of sleep over it as that can trade him today for all I care and if the return is solid I'm fine with moving on post-Gaudreau.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

I have acknowledged these risks. But every long term contract has these same risks. Monahan and Gio's contracts are far riskier in that regard.

In the case of Johny putting up a 75 point pace, I would make a much bigger bet without needing odds.

Yes, the good long term deals factor in these risks. That's why you don't see any $7.5M+ long term deals given out to players with less than 3 years of experience regardless of the promise they show.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Or if I just hopped in with the rest of the herd? Seems a lot of people disagree with me and choose to mis-characterize my statements because of that fact.

Like I pointed out earlier, the crowd who has exhibited this behavior the most are almost exclusively in the minority regarding this topic.

You're not going to change anyone's mind though. Just let things play out for now, then start trashing Treliving/Burke/ownership once the puck drops on the regular season minus Gaudreau.

Going into this season, my expectations are extremely low. Inexperienced coach, lots of roster turnover, and Bollig will be taking regular shifts.

Do yourself a favor and leave this thread alone for awhile.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

Yes, the good long term deals factor in these risks. That's why you don't see any $7.5M+ long term deals given out to players with less than 3 years of experience regardless of the promise they show.

Tarasenko and Ekblad both played less games before Johnny and literally just signed 7.5M 8 year deals.