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

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Plus it doesn't take much to take a Flames stance on salary and apply a Gio cap when there wasn't one.

The Flames may think he should be paid between 6.5 and 6.75 based on math, not based on Giordano being the highest paid player as a rule.

As I've said numerous times my starting point was always 5.5x5 + 8.5x3 for $6.6 and I certainly wasn't aiming to be under Giordano.

The 5 years of RFA drag the deal down, not a captain that signed a UFA deal.

8.5 for UFA years that would occur 6 years from now seems extremely low considering what we just saw from Stamkos, Benn, Kane, Toews contracts.

With that breakout, he'd still be only getting 7M over 8 years with only 4 RFA years, which would effectively be 10% less than Tarasenko's inflation adjusted AAV, despite Gaudreau putting up much better offensive numbers.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Do contracts typically adjust for inflation?

Someone other then Gaudreau#1fan reply please.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

8.5 for UFA years that would occur 6 years from now seems extremely low considering what we just saw from Stamkos, Benn, Kane, Toews contracts.

With that breakout, he'd still be only getting 7M over 8 years with only 4 RFA years, which would effectively be 10% less than Tarasenko's inflation adjusted AAV, despite Gaudreau putting up much better offensive numbers.

Jesus guys ... I said the Flames position. I didn't say it would get signed.

You don't negotiate by finding the point where things should get done, park there, and hope for the best.

The Flames have some logic to come in at 6.5 but they know they won't get done there.

I still go back to the Tarasenko model adjusted for one RFA year and getting 7.125.

And that builds in 9M per year UFA years, not 8.5

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Do contracts typically adjust for inflation?

Someone other then Gaudreau#1fan reply please.

I'm sure agents have argued for cap inflation in their numbers, but that argument is at an all time low given the exchange rate and the consternation that the league and NHLPA just went through about this year's cap.

Just read a crude oil report suggesting that the supply/demand structure may catch up in 2018 now instead of 2017, so that pretty much locks in three hockey seasons with the Canadian dollar in the dumper.

A solid argument for a salary roll back could be made to counter.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

8.5 for UFA years that would occur 6 years from now seems extremely low considering what we just saw from Stamkos, Benn, Kane, Toews contracts.

With that breakout, he'd still be only getting 7M over 8 years with only 4 RFA years, which would effectively be 10% less than Tarasenko's inflation adjusted AAV, despite Gaudreau putting up much better offensive numbers.

you are so far off base it is hardly worth commenting.

Stamkos 8.5M career worst season 64 pts in 77 games. 4 seasons of more than 40 goals (60, 51, 45, 41) plus the strike season where he had 29 in 48 games.

Benn 9.5M #3 leading scorer in the league over the last 3 years.

Kane 10.5 #2 leading scorer over the last 3 years.

Gaudreau is not yet in this level of players.


I would put better odds of him becoming an Eberle than a Kane. Eberle at age 21 had 34 goals and 76 pts on a team where the next highest scorer was 23 pts behind him. His 6m CAP hit 4 years later did not have teams lining up to take him off the Oilers.

The other thing is that I can't understand is why the Flames would consider paying Gaudreau anymore than 3M for his next 2 RFA years. The owners lost a season to get salaries under control and the NHLPA sold out the young guys.

Why would the Flames even consider paying more than what they have to on a bridge deal? Where will Gaudreau play making more than 3M next year? Sit out a year and come back to the Flames in the same situation?

Use Trouba as a non-partisan example..... I would consider it crazy for the Jets to pay any more than 3M x 2 for his bridge contract. There is no option for Trouba to get any more... This might tick him off because d-men at his level (Hamilton, Jones) will be making 2-3M more in 2016-17 but he needs to complain to the NHLPA who agreed to the CBA.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

8.5 for UFA years that would occur 6 years from now seems extremely low considering what we just saw from Stamkos, Benn, Kane, Toews contracts.

With that breakout, he'd still be only getting 7M over 8 years with only 4 RFA years, which would effectively be 10% less than Tarasenko's inflation adjusted AAV, despite Gaudreau putting up much better offensive numbers.

How do Gaudreau's numbers compare to Tarasenko? I think people would be interested in hearing this.

[TheoFleury]

Valuing Gaudreau's next two years at 3m per? LOL that's a slap in the face offer. Would be a great way to hurt your relationship with the player, if that's what you're after.

I guess I missed the part in the CBA where suggested dollar values are being assigned to RFA years.

[Sec218]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

you are so far off base it is hardly worth commenting.

Stamkos 8.5M career worst season 64 pts in 77 games. 4 seasons of more than 40 goals (60, 51, 45, 41) plus the strike season where he had 29 in 48 games.

Benn 9.5M #3 leading scorer in the league over the last 3 years.

Kane 10.5 #2 leading scorer over the last 3 years.

Gaudreau is not yet in this level of players.


I would put better odds of him becoming an Eberle than a Kane. Eberle at age 21 had 34 goals and 76 pts on a team where the next highest scorer was 23 pts behind him. His 6m CAP hit 4 years later did not have teams lining up to take him off the Oilers.

The other thing is that I can't understand is why the Flames would consider paying Gaudreau anymore than 3M for his next 2 RFA years. The owners lost a season to get salaries under control and the NHLPA sold out the young guys.

Why would the Flames even consider paying more than what they have to on a bridge deal? Where will Gaudreau play making more than 3M next year? Sit out a year and come back to the Flames in the same situation?

Use Trouba as a non-partisan example..... I would consider it crazy for the Jets to pay any more than 3M x 2 for his bridge contract. There is no option for Trouba to get any more... This might tick him off because d-men at his level (Hamilton, Jones) will be making 2-3M more in 2016-17 but he needs to complain to the NHLPA who agreed to the CBA.

Was this suppose to be in green text?

[Enoch Root]

ricardodw is pretty much right

if Gaudreau were to get a 2 year bridge deal, it would probably be in the $3s.

Subban is the last and best comparable and he got $2.875

If you take a bridge deal, you don't get long-term money. That's the way it works, it isn't a free pass to riches.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

There's no hard evidence of anything we've been discussing, but where there's smoke, there is typically fire.

In the media, where there's smoke, there's typically some jerk from the special effects department, playing around with a smoke machine.

[Sec218]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

ricardodw is pretty much right

if Gaudreau were to get a 2 year bridge deal, it would probably be in the $3s.

Subban is the last and best comparable and he got $2.875

If you take a bridge deal, you don't get long-term money. That's the way it works, it isn't a free pass to riches.

True. How did it work out with Subban and the Canadiens?

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

ricardodw is pretty much right

if Gaudreau were to get a 2 year bridge deal, it would probably be in the $3s.

Subban is the last and best comparable and he got $2.875

If you take a bridge deal, you don't get long-term money. That's the way it works, it isn't a free pass to riches.

Wow those first two years at 3m are really going to weigh the AAV down, I guess we should for sure expect an AAV with a 6 in front, maybe a 5. Honestly at these numbers, management should be pushing for a 4 year deal at 4.0m-4.75m or something. 4 years is a long time and he'll still be an RFA at the end.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

ricardodw is pretty much right

if Gaudreau were to get a 2 year bridge deal, it would probably be in the $3s.

Subban is the last and best comparable and he got $2.875

If you take a bridge deal, you don't get long-term money. That's the way it works, it isn't a free pass to riches.

I'm not sure how Subban is the last comparable when you have Ryan Johansen. Johansen held out until October 6, 2014. He signed a 3 year contract, averaging 4M a year. He's still an RFA when it ends. He signed that deal as a 22 year old coming off 33 goals and 63 points. The year before he had 12 points. He was far less proven then Gaudreau, and still made 4M a year.

Jeff Carter averaged 5M a year with his 3 year bridge signed years ago. He had a career high 53 points.

Mrazek, his first year starting, got a contract worth 4M as a RFA.

Kulikov signed for 4.33M a year.

Lucic made 4.1M in his bridge contract.

Semin made 4.6M with his 'second bridge contract'.

Subban's contract is an outlier. I certainly agree that the value for a bridge contract would probably be less than what many expect, it would not be in the 3M range.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I'm not sure how Subban is the last comparable when you have Ryan Johansen. Johansen held out until October 6, 2014. He signed a 3 year contract, averaging 4M a year. He's still an RFA when it ends. He signed that deal as a 22 year old coming off 33 goals and 63 points. The year before he had 12 points. He was far less proven then Gaudreau, and still made 4M a year.

Jeff Carter averaged 5M a year with his 3 year bridge signed years ago. He had a career high 53 points.

Mrazek, his first year starting, got a contract worth 4M as a RFA.

Kulikov signed for 4.33M a year.

Lucic made 4.1M in his bridge contract.

Semin made 4.6M with his 'second bridge contract'.

Subban's contract is an outlier. I certainly agree that the value for a bridge contract would probably be less than what many expect, it would not be in the 3M range.

Shhhh... those examples don't fit the narrative.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Sec218

True. How did it work out with Subban and the Canadiens?

It worked out pretty much the same as it would if he had signed a long term deal (except for the fact that he is overpaid at $9M - I think $8M is too much for him but some people seem to think he is the greatest thing ever, so whatever).

Here's what he got:

2 x 2.875 = 5.75M
8 x 9.000 = 72.0M

Total, over 10 years of $77.75M, or $7.775M per season

If he had signed an 8 year deal to begin with, it would have looked something like:

8 x 7.0 = 56M
2 x 10 = 20M

Total $76M over 10 years

(I think it's safe to say that he will be able to make $10M in 6 years if he is making $9M now.)

Now, if we correct his current contract, even to $8M (which I still don't think he's worth) that makes the 10 years look like so:

2 x 2.875 = 5.5M
8 x 8.000 = 64M

Total over the 10 years of $69.5M

Had he signed an 8 year deal at $6.5M...

8 x 6.5 = 52M
2 x 9.0 = 18M

Total over 10 years of $70M

The point of all this is that, if you sign a bridge deal and then a big contract, it will likely work out just about the same as if you sign the 8 year and then add a couple UFA years at the end of it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I'm not sure how Subban is the last comparable when you have Ryan Johansen. Johansen held out until October 6, 2014. He signed a 3 year contract, averaging 4M a year. He's still an RFA when it ends. He signed that deal as a 22 year old coming off 33 goals and 63 points. The year before he had 12 points. He was far less proven then Gaudreau, and still made 4M a year.

Jeff Carter averaged 5M a year with his 3 year bridge signed years ago. He had a career high 53 points.

Mrazek, his first year starting, got a contract worth 4M as a RFA.

Kulikov signed for 4.33M a year.

Lucic made 4.1M in his bridge contract.

Semin made 4.6M with his 'second bridge contract'.

Subban's contract is an outlier. I certainly agree that the value for a bridge contract would probably be less than what many expect, it would not be in the 3M range.

All of those contracts are longer than 2 years. If you sign a 3 or 4 year bridge, the AAV will be higher.

But if you follow the logic of the other post I just made, a 3-year bridge + 8 years, will get you to a similar place as 8 yearrs then 3 years of UFA.

There is no magic path to higher career earnings. It ends up about the same no matter hw you chop up the contracts (assuming that each contract is roughly fair value)

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It worked out pretty much the same as it would if he had signed a long term deal (except for the fact that he is overpaid at $9M - I think $8M is too much for him but some people seem to think he is the greatest thing ever, so whatever).

Here's what he got:

2 x 2.875 = 5.75M
8 x 9.000 = 72.0M

Total, over 10 years of $77.75M, or $7.775M per season

If he had signed an 8 year deal to begin with, it would have looked something like:

8 x 7.0 = 56M
2 x 10 = 20M

Total $76M over 10 years

(I think it's safe to say that he will be able to make $10M in 6 years if he is making $9M now.)

Now, if we correct his current contract, even to $8M (which I still don't think he's worth) that makes the 10 years look like so:

2 x 2.875 = 5.5M
8 x 8.000 = 64M

Total over the 10 years of $69.5M

Had he signed an 8 year deal at $6.5M...

8 x 6.5 = 52M
2 x 9.0 = 18M

Total over 10 years of $70M

The point of all this is that, if you sign a bridge deal and then a big contract, it will likely work out just about the same as if you sign the 8 year and then add a couple UFA years at the end of it.

The player might make roughly the same but it is the team that should want to avoid this situation. Had Montreal just signed him for 7/8 years to begin with they could've saved $2-2.5m on the AAV from years 3-8. The fact that they saved $6.2m on the AAV for years one and two mean nothing now because Montreal has nothing to show for it. The Flames are in the same situation (being an aveage team) so signing a bridge is a bad, bordering on terrible, idea. I want the cap savings later when the cup window might actually open. Getting a great 'value' two or three year deal is a gigantic waste of time, it's a classic high risk, low reward move.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

The player might make roughly the same but it is the team that should want to avoid this situation. Had Montreal just signed him for 7/8 years to begin with they could've saved $2-2.5m on the AAV from years 3-8. The fact that they saved $6.2m on the AAV for years one and two mean nothing now because Montreal has nothing to show for it. The Flames are in the same situation (being an aveage team) so signing a bridge is a bad, bordering on terrible, idea. I want the cap savings later when the cup window might actually open. Getting a great 'value' two or three year deal is a gigantic waste of time, it's a classic high risk, low reward move.

(assuming a player stay with the team the entire time)...

The team saves in years 1 and 2

The team loses in years 3 - 8

The team saves in years 9 and 10

If the total amount will be roughly the same, then the seasons have to average out as well.

The difference of course, is that the bridge, followed by a bigger contract, means more variance for the team, which sucks.

Getting the longer term deal now means more consistent cap hits, which is obviously easier to manage.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

(assuming a player stay with the team the entire time)...

The team saves in years 1 and 2

The team loses in years 3 - 8

The team saves in years 9 and 10

If the total amount will be roughly the same, then the seasons have to average out as well.

The difference of course, is that the bridge, followed by a bigger contract, means more variance for the team , which sucks.

Getting the longer term deal now means more consistent cap hits, which is obviously easier to manage.

I guess I would just like the certainty of a max term deal given where the team is at. If the Flames were in Chicago's position, I would have an entirely different outlook.

I have visions of Gaudreau signing a Benn-like contract after a bridge. No thanks to that.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

I guess I would just like the certainty of a max term deal given where the team is at. If the Flames were in Chicago's position, I would have an entirely different outlook.

I have visions of Gaudreau signing a Benn-like contract after a bridge. No thanks to that.

I completely agree. I want a long term deal as well.

The only point I was making was that signing a bridge deal doesn't/shouldn't change a player's expected career earnings.

There are no short cuts to more money.