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

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The most logical decision is to sign Johnny for 4 years under 6 million.

If we aren't contenders by then, we'll have bigger issues.

This keeps Johnny as an RFA who the Flames will have a better read on and let's them see what we have in Bennett and Tkachuk (namely: how much we have to pay them).

On the downside, you're (hopefully) looking at giving Gaudreau a pay raise. You can either give it to him or (if Bennett/Tkachuk prove to be better building blocks) trade him to address an area of weakness.

4 is ideal. But contracts that are 5, 8, 1, and 2 years long are all "avoid at all costs" IMO. 8 might be palatable if you can get him for under 7 mil, but if not, don't give him 8 years.

Problem with a 4 year is it gives him the option to go to arbitration and get on the ufa market right away if he wants. Team gets to decide term there so best case they only buy 1 UFA year and he's gonzo.... assuming he wants to go.

I think a 3 year is better than 4 IF you go bridge. I still go 7 or 8.

[schooner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The most logical decision is to sign Johnny for 4 years under 6 million.

If we aren't contenders by then, we'll have bigger issues.

This keeps Johnny as an RFA who the Flames will have a better read on and let's them see what we have in Bennett and Tkachuk (namely: how much we have to pay them).

On the downside, you're (hopefully) looking at giving Gaudreau a pay raise. You can either give it to him or (if Bennett/Tkachuk prove to be better building blocks) trade him to address an area of weakness.

4 is ideal. But contracts that are 5, 8, 1, and 2 years long are all "avoid at all costs" IMO. 8 might be palatable if you can get him for under 7 mil, but if not, don't give him 8 years.

4 years might actually be the worst option. You take him right to the end of his RFA years, with arbitration and offer sheet rights. Its an easy path to UFA from there. All he has to do is accept a one year contract, by accepting is QO, arbitration ruling or otherwise, and then go on his merry way from there.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by jemjey

I'm interested why you're opposed to an 8 year deal? I agree with all your points as to why the other contract lengths are bad. But I'd sign 8x7 (prefer less ofc) if it were up to me.

Only because the extra UFA year makes the AAV go up. I think they'd save more money signing the 7 and risking the next contract than they would paying a higher AAV because of the extra UFA year.

If the options are something like 8x7 or 7x6.75 then yeah, you take the 8, but if it's more than 3-400K difference in AAV, take the 7.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by schooner

4 years might actually be the worst option. You take him right to the end of his RFA years, with arbitration and offer sheet rights. Its an easy path to UFA from there. All he has to do is accept a one year contract, by arbitration or otherwise, and then go on his merry way from there.

If the player elects to go to arbitration the team can go with a 2 year term if they want.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by schooner

4 years might actually be the worst option. You take him right to the end of his RFA years, with arbitration and offer sheet rights. Its an easy path to UFA from there. All he has to do is accept a one year contract, by arbitration or otherwise, and then go on his merry way from there.

If he's still wanting out after 4 years, you're going to lose him regardless of what you do. And if he wants out after 4, years 5-8 aren't going to be fantastic.

5 is indisputably the worst scenario. 4 could be bad too, but that's if things go poorly. At bare minimum, it gives the greatest time advantage while keeping a slight RFA advantage.

[schooner]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

If the player elects to go to arbitration the team can go with a 2 year term if they want.

Fair enough, forgot about the difference between team elected and player elected. But I think the general premise still stands. You end up in a precarious situation where the cost-dollar trade off is a lot easier for the player. At that point he is not sacrificing as much money vs future value over one or even two years. Whereas right now he is no doubt making a much more crucial decision regarding his current and future value over the next 7 or 8 years.

[schooner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If he's still wanting out after 4 years, you're going to lose him regardless of what you do. And if he wants out after 4, years 5-8 aren't going to be fantastic.

5 is indisputably the worst scenario. 4 could be bad too, but that's if things go poorly. At bare minimum, it gives the greatest time advantage while keeping a slight RFA advantage.

No doubt 5 years is the worst. I just dont like going to 4. Obviously the max is preferable at the right dollars. If a bridge is absolutely needed it has to be very short term. Having said that, I am not the type of person to panic in most situations, but a short term bridge would make me wonder what is going on.

[Stay Golden]

As much as I admire the Flames to want to sign Johnny to 6.4-6.6m per which is just my guess they are seeking somewhere close to that. They are going to have to come to the realization Johnny's camp wants 8m per. The reality is he has already established himself in the top 10 in the NHL and next year, 2 years, 3 years and so on he is going to be known as a truly top 10 elite exciting Winger. Size or not Johnny's camp has come to the quick realization Johnny is a unique commodity and very soon worth 8m per when he is measured amongst his peers. Who blinks first is a game both sides are playing and if the Flames don't quit this stand off I bet the house money Johnny holds out and the Flames will notice the large void without Johnny.
Put it this way there is no doubt in many fans minds around the league that would love their GM to add a 8m per multi year deal to a calibre of player like Gaudreau. Especially at his age.

[Mike F]

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

As much as I admire the Flames to want to sign Johnny to 6.4-6.6m per which is just my guess they are seeking somewhere close to that. They are going to have to come to the realization Johnny's camp wants 8m per...

*sigh*

Five years removed from UFA.
No arbitration rights.
NHL offer-sheet exempt.

How do so many posters keep missing these points?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

If the player elects to go to arbitration the team can go with a 2 year term if they want.

Actually if the player is one year away from UFA, the arbitration award can only be a 1 year term according to the CBA.

You can't backdoor a player into giving up an UFA year with arbitration.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There are all kinds of comparables. We have been talking about them for 100s and 100s of posts.

Just because his agent is being over zealous does not mean its unique or special.

I suppose Tarasenko and Ekblad's agents were also over zealous?

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

He likely has little to nothing to gain from it.

A one year deal would probably be $2 - $2.5M The Flames have ZERO motivation to pay him much on a one year deal. It would mean new negotiations again next year, as well as the possibility of an offer sheet.

Using your example of $6.75M for 8 years, he might think he deserves as much as $750k more per year. Or $6M over the life of the contract.

So he plays a year at $2M (foregoing $4.75M) because he thinks he's missing $6M (over 8 years).

Say Johnny signs a 1 year 2M and puts up another top 10 scoring campaign, what kind of offersheets do you think he'd be getting, considering they'd be for only 4 RFA years? Probably in the 8-9M range for 7 years. Let's say 8.5M to be safe.

So now he'd be getting 1.75M extra over the term of 7 years and (12.25M total) versus forfeiting only 4.75M in year one. That's a delta of 7.5M over the course of the contract (about 5.4M if you discount the cash flows). That's far from "little to gain".

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

So by your own logic, why even offer him 6.5? Why not offer him only 3? You don't because you want him to play. And he'd be wise to sign a 1 year deal or withhold his services should the team refuse to offer him what he is worth.

The real hook is the arbitration rights and offer sheet limitations. They can effectively hold Johnny hostage if he doesn't meet their demands. This is a completely different situation than other hold outs, as Johnny literally has no alternative in the league, yet is a budding superstar. He's the future of our offense, why would you want to hold him hostage by offering him far less than he'd get in an offer sheet? He's the last guy we should be nickel and diming - why risk bad blood and a potentially unmotivated star player all to save like 1% on cap?

No, by my logic we should pay him $6.5-$7.0 instead of $8+ because we can. Who said anything about $3M. Stop the hyperbole. It makes you look silly.

And with respect to the 1%, you're about $1.5M away from what I'm arguing for so its 2%. 2% of the cap is MASSIVE. It's almost 10% of the difference between the floor and the cap. It's half the value of an average salary on a 23 man roster. Or more simply, it's $1.5M of cap age which is extraordinarily valuable.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

As much as I admire the Flames to want to sign Johnny to 6.4-6.6m per which is just my guess they are seeking somewhere close to that. They are going to have to come to the realization Johnny's camp wants 8m per. The reality is he has already established himself in the top 10 in the NHL and next year, 2 years, 3 years and so on he is going to be known as a truly top 10 elite exciting Winger. Size or not Johnny's camp has come to the quick realization Johnny is a unique commodity and very soon worth 8m per when he is measured amongst his peers. Who blinks first is a game both sides are playing and if the Flames don't quit this stand off I bet the house money Johnny holds out and the Flames will notice the large void without Johnny.
Put it this way there is no doubt in many fans minds around the league that would love their GM to add a 8m per multi year deal to a calibre of player like Gaudreau. Especially at his age.

So many Johnny's

[Bingo]

Treliving isn't being stingy.

First off we don't really know what either side is doing, only reports and rumours.

But for the sake of argument lets just call this fact and deal with it as such. The Flames at 6.5 are setting the RFA issue goal post of what he should be paid based on having 5 RFA years in his contract. Going lower than that would be stingy or difficult to deal with. At that point is prudent as it establishes a goal post that is defendable.

5*5.5 + 3*8.5 = $6.6M

It pays him a healthy amount historically for RFA years, and recognizes his worth as a UFA at the end.

The agent if he's asking for $8.5M is establishing the other goal post, the one where his client in one of the best in the world and deserves to be paid as such. It's a good goal post to create as it comes from production and the impact the player has had on the team's game.

I get it.

From there though you have to move to the middle, and in this case, the structure of NHL salaries and the pressure points on the two sides suggest the Flames won't need to travel as far to get a deal done as the agent will.

Neither side are being stingy, but the Flames simply can't move at all until the agent gets into this game, there's no point, they'd be negotiating against themselves.

So here we sit.

As soon as Gross gets a 7 at the front of his ask things will get moving. Until that point it's a standoff and Treliving (if all this above is the case) certainly won't be to blame.

[Da_Chief]

The comparison to Dion Phaneuf is ridiculous. There are few players who become stars in their first 2 years and few who fade out quickly after that. Many of them end up career stars, like the current stars of the NHL.

Few failed after promising starts while many flourished and got even better after promising starts in the NHL.

I expect him to be one of the best players at the World Cup because that's what he does wherever he goes. He is on a path to become a superstar. If Francis' reports are correct and they're holding it up over 1.5 million then it is disappointing from both sides. I don't believe it though. Treiliving in the past has paid more on AAV to keep years down.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

He's not Lemieux, no. But his first 2 seasons put him in the company of elite players, which is something special. He's standing out amongst the best in he world at the WCH. It takes a special talent to do that.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Holy crap. THEY WERE EXHIBITION GAMES

Originally Posted by trublmaker

against a bad team

A bad team built for Johnny's style: Old, slow D. Soft checkers. Little or no cycle game in the offensive zone (which is when Johnny is at his least usefulness).

Maybe we should wait and see how Johnny does against the other teams, all of whom show a desire to play really hard hockey.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A bad team built for Johnny's style: Old, slow D. Soft checkers. Little or no cycle game in the offensive zone (which is when Johnny is at his least usefulness).

Maybe we should wait and see how Johnny does against the other teams, all of whom show a desire to play really hard hockey.

What kind of game did LA play when he hung a hatty on them at home?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Yoho

He looks like a character from the Matrix on the ice. Do you really want to wait till his value is 12 mill a season to sign?

If it means getting him for 6 years for cheap (~$6.75) and losing out on those two extra years, then absolutely. 6 years is a lonnnnng time. The franchise will look completely different then.

If he's getting paid after 6 he's getting paid after 8. Similarly, if he's leaving after 6 he's leaving after 8. Give me 6 years for cheap at the expense of 2 years either expensive or without him. I make that choice 10 times out of 10.

But I'm also a hedonist...

edit: Of course if you can get him for 8x$7 or something, then fine. I'm proposing that 6x$6.75 >>> 8x$8.5.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Yoho

What kind of game did LA play when he hung a hatty on them at home?

Yes, he played great against a hard checking team in that game (though he was allowed to wheel in that third period). No one said he couldn't. What I'm saying is that Team Europe was especially good for his game. Do you think he has it as easy against Team Canada, or the US, or even Sweden?