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

[dabrit]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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?

Seen as I've seen him make highlight plays against the likes of Chicago( Stanley cup champs at the time) LA( two time stanley cup champs got a hat trick) Boston( big brusing team, another hat trick) New York( were in the eastern conference final year before, another big bruising team put up 2 goals against them)

I'd say it's safe it doesn't seem to matter what the opposition. Johnny Be Real Gaudreau... he just continues to score.

For the love of god pay this guy before we piss him off and he goes to Europe only to leave us the following year. This is pissing me and many people off he is our offense. If management thinks they are signing him for anything less than 7 then clearly they aren't serious about keeping him and I'm going to storm their office with a pitch fork...I know I wont' be alone

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Yoho

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

Sam Gagner also scored 8 points against Chicago once. Does that really mean anything?

Just pointing out one or 2 games isn't a good way to describe things. He does have a more lofty resume than 1 game against LA.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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?

I do agree with this, but the same could be said for Connor Mcdavid. It doesn't diminish his value.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by dabrit

Seen as I've seen him make highlight plays against the likes of Chicago( Stanley cup champs at the time) LA( two time stanley cup champs got a hat trick) Boston( big brusing team, another hat trick) New York( were in the eastern conference final year before, another big bruising team put up 2 goals against them)

I'd say it's safe it doesn't seem to matter what the opposition. Johnny Be Real Gaudreau... he just continues to score.

For the love of god pay this guy before we piss him off and he goes to Europe only to leave us the following year. This is pissing me and many people off he is our offense. If management thinks they are signing him for anything less than 7 then clearly they aren't serious about keeping him and I'm going to storm their office with a pitch fork...I know I wont' be alone

Haha....wow.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Sam Gagner also scored 8 points against Chicago once. Does that really mean anything?

Yes, it means hes the greatest player to ever lace them up and at the moment they're working on the Gagner statue to be erected outside of The Mullet.

Solid Platinum.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Yoho

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

a bad one? Last year no goals in 4 games against LA -3.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

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

Tarasenko, yes - bad contract.

Ekblad is a different case. At 15, he was the #1 rated 15 year old and got exempt status. At 17, he was #1/#2 rated prospect and was taken 1st overall. At 18, he played a top pairing role. At 20, he was still considered the best player in his draft class, and had firmly established himself as the top pairing guy he was projected to be.

In other words, he has been one of the top 2 or 3 rated players of his age every year for the last 6 or more years. The risk that he suddenly won't be a top player is very, very low.

Gaudreau was drafted in the 4th round for a reason. He has proven that he can be a star in the NHL, and has 2 solid seasons to back that up. Great. But his future is still less certain. The NHL history books are littered with forwards that hit top 6 in scoring once or twice.

I am not saying that Johnny isn't likely to be a top point producer. I am saying that there is a little more risk, and the likely possible scenarios (distribution of outcomes) for the future are more varied. That means a little more risk and a lower expected mean outcome.

The problem you and the Gaudreau camp are ignoring is that an NHL contract is guaranteed. The player gets paid, no matter how the future unfolds.

So a long term contract has some risk. And as a result, it has to be balanced. You can't simply say that a player is going to be this good for 8 years, so pay him the best case scenario. You have to factor some likelihood of less-optimistic scenarios.

And Johnny has a bit more risk in that regard than Ekblad does.

Also, you continue to ignore that very real issue that Gaudreau's contract has 5 RFA years, while Tarasenko's and Ekblad's only have 4. Normalizing for that automatically takes Johnny down to maybe $7.2M, just to be equal (ignoring the differences in risk).

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".

I could just as easily paint a scenario where he signs a one year deal, has a weak season, or gets injured, and ends up missing out on millions.

You are simply guessing how the future will unfold (and using the most optimistic scenario). I am saying that a contract has to balance more than just the optimistic projection.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Tarasenko, yes - bad contract.

Yeah, I'm sure St. Louis is regretting it, especially after he managed a measly 40 goals last season.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yeah, I'm sure St. Louis is regretting it, especially after he managed a measly 40 goals last season.

And was benched in the playoffs

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And was benched in the playoffs

Exactly ...

now they're paying a one trick pony close to franchise money and he can't be deployed when you need him the most.

you just can't throw money at every "good to great" player.

[Weitz]

And led his team in playoff goals and (tied) points..

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And was benched in the playoffs

I agreed with you post, it was a good one, but come on. That was Hitchcock actively hurting his team's chances (and the results matched). Doesn't mstter if Tarasenko is making 5 million less, that was just dumb coaching. As were all the times Elliott was benched in the playoffs by Hitchcock.

[GioforPM]

I think a player could be the best in the world and you could still regret the contract, depending on the contract.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Weitz

And led his team in playoff goals and (tied) points..

but got 7 of those points in the Dallas series against shooter tutors. He was held back against Chicago because of his two way play and was ineffective as hell against San Jose when they bowed out.

[Weitz]

I think it was more poor deployment from Hitchcock but to each their own.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Yoho

I do agree with this, but the same could be said for Connor Mcdavid. It doesn't diminish his value.

The original point was that Gaudreau had excelled against "the best in the world". Read the responses, including mine, in that context. Yes he excelled, but in a pre-tournament exhibition game, against the worst team in the tournament, and that particular team played a style well suited for his game.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I think it was more poor deployment from Hitchcock but to each their own.

I think both can be true.

I think a player can make offensive leanings against a defensive system that both pisses off the coach and puts his team in jeopardy. As a result the coach can lose it and bench him or let it go and risk losing the rest of the team.

Anyone watching the games can see the guy blows the zone regularly and doesn't tend to pick any one up on the way back. Twice in the Hawks series he took the puck to the high slot and then turned it over creating odd man chances.

Pretty frustrating from a coaching standpoint.

[Monahan For Mayor]

Tarasenko has a bad contract ? Hahahaha... Wow.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The original point was that Gaudreau had excelled against "the best in the world". Read the responses, including mine, in that context. Yes he excelled, but in a pre-tournament exhibition game, against the worst team in the tournament, and that particular team played a style well suited for his game.

Everyone read the responses, including yours.That team (Europe) played a style well suited to anyone's game. When you intimated Johnny was at a disadvantage against hard checking defensively sound teams I wanted to point out he still generally seems to find a way to get it done and contribute regardless of opponent.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Bingo

but got 7 of those points in the Dallas series against shooter tutors. He was held back against Chicago because of his two way play and was ineffective as hell against San Jose when they bowed out.

He got 6 points against Chicago though...The guy had 9 goals in 20 games in the playoffs despite having a bad Conference Finals. St. Louis is not regretting that contract, despite one time playing him for 15 minutes because of a bad game.