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

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I think the real life comparisons are pretty apt. If you were at work and your boss said "Man, you're a great employee, but the team would be so much better if you took $55k instead of $75k".

Then you did it, and next month Jim walks in and says "Yeah, they headhunted me from company X for $65k, any ways looks like you'll be my boss, nice to meet you".

Not a perfect comparison obviously, but the point is players are human and just because their salaries are beyond our comprehension doesn't me they're not prone/entitled to the same feelings and aspirations as us in terms of career earnings.

I disagree.

Does your office have a salary cap and they can only spend up to X amount on 23 employees? Do you have the burning desire to win every day in your entry level accounting job? (Obvs not you personally, just making a point).

The only reason a company would want to pay you less is to save money. The Flames are prepared to spend to the cap, but they have to spend those dollars wisely and spread it around 23 guys. It's not a question of saving money.

A lot of these guys have the burning desire to win a Cup. Many guys are willing to take a little less so the club can spread the cap dollars around. However, a big caveat is a player is only willing to do so if the player has faith the GM can construct a championship team.

If I'm Johnny, I look at Monahan, Bennett, Tkachuk, Gio, Brodie, Hamilton, Elliot/Johnson and I say that has the makings of a championship team. I'm not saying Johnny should take a discount, but he should take what the Flames are offering. I am certain they are not low-balling him.

[polak]

Except once one or more of those players don't follow suit Johnny gets screwed, the team loses a key piece and he's not winning the cup any more.

You look out for #1. Always.

Sure you can take a discount, say you like the city or the organization, but you don't take pay cuts in hopes that others do the same. We're talking about millions of dollars here.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by polak

Except once one or more of those players don't follow suit Johnny gets screwed, the team loses a key piece and he's not winning the cup any more.

You look out for #1. Always.

Sure you can take a discount, say you like the city or the organization, but you don't take pay cuts in hopes that others do the same. We're talking about millions of dollars here.

Yes and no. There is more to it than just dollars for the player.

Lets say you love your job and you are making $80k a year. Great boss, great location, loosey goosey hours, and there is a prospect of moving up in the company.

Let's say a player (Johnny) likes the team and city, likes his boss, has friends on the team and there is a chance at a Cup.

Would you take $85k or $90k to go to a complete unknown company if you got head hunted?

Should Johnny scratch and claw for every last penny for himself and then basically the club is forced to trade him to somewhere he might not like?

Again, I'm not saying he should take a discount. But he should take the Flames long term offer (assuming there is one) if he is comfortable in Calgary and thinks they can win.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I think it's wrong to say Flames have ALL the leverage. Although they clearly have more options than the player does currently, if they want a long term deal them the player has some leverage.

Flames don't win if he leaves as a UFA at first opportunity. And it is difficult to get fair value in a trade involving g a star player.

No, the Flames do not have all the leverage, but they sure as hell have the lion's share.

The real imbalance in this equation is in the fact that Gaudreau's UFA status is still five years away, AND he is not offer-sheet eligible. His ONLY bargaining chip is withholding service, and I think this is actually more detrimental in the long run to him than it is to the team. As Jonathan Drouin discovered, players need to keep playing if they ever hope to retain their value. He can likely afford to sit for a few games, but not many more than three or four. Even if both parties are unable to come to terms on a long-term deal, a short-term contract still provides a lot of control to the Flames for another five years, which is an eternity in professional hockey.

Of course, this is all a worst-case scenario, and I remain supremely confident that Gaudreau will sign a 6–8 year contract, and he will be in the starting lineup on 12 October.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

In business deals that I'm negotiating, I don't just compromise and "meet in the middle" when negotiations come to a halt.

There's a reason that I'm at the position I am: because that's what my company can afford. In this instance, the Flames can't afford a higher cap hit because other players need to be signed. Meeting in the middle with Johnny would be dumb because the Flames hold all the leverage.

So in this position, if the company can't afford to pay market value for certain services, they just don't. That seems reasonable - essentially you are saying that you are better off not making any deal than to pay more than what you think you can afford, even in the case that their asking price is market value.

Originally Posted by CroFlames

If the party I'm negotiating with doesn't meet me at my position, I walk away from the deal. I won't give things away cheaply. If Johnny wants something above and beyond market value, well you bridge him and then say goodbye.

But that's not what you are saying, you are saying that you'd walk away if Johnny wants something above and beyond what the Flames can afford. Those are two very different concepts. In this case, Johnny's camp holds no responsibility what Calgary can or cannot afford, and his fair market value is independent of that.

This goes back to what I said earlier. If they are still far apart on money and Calgary is at their max offer (meaning they would be made worse off by paying any more) then he should be traded for the kings ransom he would command.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Vehemently disagree with the notion Monahan signed for upwards of half a million per season above his comparables as well. The Flames got a good fair deal for Sean, as pointed out in that signing thread if you care to read it.

Well that's weird, because nobody ever said that he signed for upwards of half a million above his comparables. So you are basically arguing with yourself. His comparables are Barkov, Forsberg, Scheifele, and Mackinnon. He signed for 75k-475k more than those comparables, I don't even know how that is debatable. Its basic math

[TheoFleury]

If Gaudreau is fully prepared to sit out half the season or more, I would say whatever leverage the Flames have will disappear into nothing as the months drag on. It all comes down to how determined Gaudreau is, and nobody here has any idea how far he is willing to go. For all we know he could be 100% willing to sit out the season. Leverage is a funny thing, it can change drastically over time. Months into a holdout, RFA years, arbitration rights, etc, will mean nothing because the Flames will have most likely destroyed the relationship with the player. There is a real possibility of the Flames over playing their hand here if Gaudreau refuses to blink.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

They just signed Monahan 100-500k above his comparables

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Well that's weird, because nobody ever said that he signed for upwards of half a million above his comparables.

Oh, okay.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Oh, okay.

Do you understand what "upwards" means?

Here:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...20of%20meaning

If you disagree with the fact that he signed for 75k-475k above his comparables, you either can't do math or disagree with who his comparables are.

[CroFlames]

You are Too Much.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Do you understand what "upwards" means?

Well aware of what upwards is, the problem is you never used that word in the post I'm referring to, I did in reply that's it. I'll go back and check to make sure though, hold on.

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Why bother negotiating at all then? Flames have all the leverage, right? Let's just give him his qualifying offer.

If the difference is 200k on AAV and Gaudreau is asking 7.75M or less on an 8 year deal, it would be foolish for the Flames to not at the very least compromise. They just signed Monahan 100-500k above his comparables. He's our best player, and will likely be the face of the franchise for the next decade, and you get him locked up for the entirety of his offensive prime. Is it really worth letting him sit to save $100k of cap space? Especially when doing so for any significant length of time could be the difference between making the playoffs and golfing?

Nope, don't see the word in your post.

[Frequitude]

I don't know what's funnier, someone trying to weasel out of saying up to $500K over even though he did, or someone using the figure $475K to say "I never said $500K" (ignoring the fact that he actually did though).

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Well aware of what upwards is, the problem is you never used that word in the post I'm referring to. I'll go back and check to make sure though, hold on.


Nope, don't see the word upwards.

Ofcourse I didn't use it, you did in your response to me saying that Monahan was paid 100-500k more than his comparables.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Vehemently disagree with the notion Monahan signed for upwards of half a million per season above his comparables as well. The Flames got a good fair deal for Sean, as pointed out in that signing thread if you care to read it.

Nobody made that notion. I stated an objective fact that he signed for more money than his comparables, the range of which spans from ~100k to ~500k, to which you unnecessarily replied "he didn't sign for 500k+ more than his comparables".

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I don't know what's funnier, someone trying to weasel out of saying up to $500K over even though he did, or someone using the figure $475K to say "I never said $500K" (ignoring the fact that he actually did though).

Sigh . . .

[MrMastodonFarm]

Just because a group of people are compared to one another doesn't make them equal across the board, one is better than the rest, there is an order. At number one is Monahan. A great case could be made for Barkov but he's also missing a year, so it brings that number down.

Beyond tired of the Splitting Hairs with Gaudreauvertime show.

[Ryan Coke]

The issue is the disagreement on what are legitimate comparables. Mr Gross' and yours are unrealistically high, whereas the Flames are much more reasonable. So if you and Johnnys agent are stuck on those unrealistic comparables then it makes sense that this isn't progressing.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Do you understand what "upwards" means?

Here:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...20of%20meaning

If you disagree with the fact that he signed for 75k-475k above his comparables, you either can't do math or disagree with who his comparables are.

You are No Good.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

The issue is the disagreement on what are legitimate comparables. Mr Gross' and yours are unrealistically high, whereas the Flames are much more reasonable. So if you and Johnnys agent are stuck on those unrealistic comparables then it makes sense that this isn't progressing.

Wait, what is unrealistic about the Tarasenko comparable? Maybe the fact that Gaudreau is a more productive player and better defensively makes it a little on the low side, but it's not unrealistically low.

[Freeway]

Anyone else kind-of excited to see Gaudreau play tonight?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Wait, what is unrealistic about the Tarasenko comparable? Maybe the fact that Gaudreau is a more productive player and better defensively makes it a little on the low side, but it's not unrealistically low.

Player A scored 30 goals, player B scored 40. They are separated by four points.

You tell me who is more productive.

[psyang]

TIL that "upwards of" means "more than", not "up to". This is another phrase whose common usage is very different from its actual meaning.

Same as "begs the question", but more nefarious because the actual meaning of "upwards of" is almost the opposite of how it is normally used.

[Ryan Coke]

He also was awarded an additional year of UFA contract. And you could have quite a debate about which one is better.

If indeed you are part of Johnnys representation, you are effectively reducing he amount of sympathy he would get should a deal not get done by the start of the season. I assume that wasn't the goal.