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

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yes, not sure of the small group of people who don't "believe" in discounted RFA years.

It's not a matter of belief. It is fact.

It's not that people don't believe that, I think the contention lies with how much some say they should be discounted. Like Ricardo saying 1m for 1 year or even 3m aav for 2. Not going to happen in a million years, pretty much as out to lunch as predicting an 8 year/68m deal.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

It's not that people don't believe that, I think the contention lies with how much some say they should be discounted. Like Ricardo saying 1m for 1 year or even 3m aav for 2. Not going to happen in a million years, pretty much as out to lunch as predicting an 8 year/68m deal.

The person who posted about them basically said there should be no discount at all.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Why not? Gaudreau is a better player then Ekblad. Developing into a bigger star. No one except few Canadians will care for Ekblad wheres Gaudreau will be coveted by US markets.

Is Gaudreau a better player than Ekblad? Right now it's debatable, in 2 years I say no question Ekblad.

Gaudreau: puts up lots of points, sells tickets

Ekblad: #1 Defenseman at 20 years old. Puts up points. Stud 200 foot game. Future captain. Sells tickets.

I would trade Gaudreau for Ekblad straight up no questions asked.

[Southside]

So over 75% of those voting have the 7 year AAV topping out at $7.5. That seems like a good deal to me 7xsomething under, or up to $7.5.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

It's not that people don't believe that, I think the contention lies with how much some say they should be discounted. Like Ricardo saying 1m for 1 year or even 3m aav for 2. Not going to happen in a million years, pretty much as out to lunch as predicting an 8 year/68m deal.

Agreed that there are some people grossly undervaluing RFA value, but as GioforPM just said, there have been multiple people who just don't believe there should be a discount at all or that the days of RFAs making less than UFAs are over.

It's just not factual at all.

[CroFlames]

I bet if Johnny wasn't so razzle dazzle with the puck but still put up 78 points, Flames fans would be clamoring to sign Johnny to the same extension Monahan signed.

That little wizard put a spell on you people. Snap out of it.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I bet if Johnny wasn't so razzle dazzle with the puck but still put up 78 points, Flames fans would be clamoring to sign Johnny to the same extension Monahan signed.

That little wizard put a spell on you people. Snap out of it.

So, if he was a different player we would have a different opinion on his worth? That seems like a reasonable, but pointless, stance to take.

[Bingo]

I always go back to Kane's 2nd contract.

they bought 4 RFA years and one UFA year and the average was 6.3. Playing with numbers it's 5.75x4 +8x1 (close)

Then you can adjust that up for inflation or down because Gaudreau hasn't been quite as productive, but it's a decent guess of a shorter deal.

Gaudreau would be 5.75x5 + 8x1 which would only be 6.125 AAV

it's not insulting Gaudreau to drive his contract value down. It's just the situation he's in with 5 RFA years, and I'm valuing them at 5.75 not 3 or 1.

[Da_Chief]

Some ppl are really selling Gaudreau short, he drives the Flames offence. It will struggle w/o him, big time no doubt in my mind.

I, for one will not trade him for a guy like Ekblad.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I always go back to Kane's 2nd contract.

they bought 4 RFA years and one UFA year and the average was 6.3. Playing with numbers it's 5.75x4 +8x1 (close)

Then you can adjust that up for inflation or down because Gaudreau hasn't been quite as productive, but it's a decent guess of a shorter deal.

At the time Kane signed his contract, he had 0.923 PPG (168GP) in a higher scoring era (more power plays back then). Gaudreau has 0.894 PPG (160 GP) which adjusted to the decrease in power plays is pretty much just as productive (compare leaguewide scoring)

So keeping the numbers the same, those numbers adjusted to today's cap ceiling would be:

7.07 x 5 (RFA)
9.83 x 2 (UFA)

= 55M x 7Y
= 7.86M AAV

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I always go back to Kane's 2nd contract.

they bought 4 RFA years and one UFA year and the average was 6.3. Playing with numbers it's 5.75x4 +8x1 (close)

Then you can adjust that up for inflation or down because Gaudreau hasn't been quite as productive, but it's a decent guess of a shorter deal.

Gaudreau would be 5.75x5 + 8x1 which would only be 6.125 AAV

it's not insulting Gaudreau to drive his contract value down. It's just the situation he's in with 5 RFA years, and I'm valuing them at 5.75 not 3 or 1.

Kane's second contract was worth 11.09% of the Cap when it was signed. That would be $8.1 million under today's Cap.

[Hockeyguy15]

How many points did Johnny have in 3 on 3 overtime? I think that should also be looked at if you want to adjust Kane's contract.

[Ashasx]

I think you also need to consider age. Chicago was probably more willing to pay for the potential of a 21 year old Kane. Gaudreau is 23.

Of course it's not huge, but something I'd consider.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I always go back to Kane's 2nd contract.

they bought 4 RFA years and one UFA year and the average was 6.3. Playing with numbers it's 5.75x4 +8x1 (close)

Then you can adjust that up for inflation or down because Gaudreau hasn't been quite as productive, but it's a decent guess of a shorter deal.

Gaudreau would be 5.75x5 + 8x1 which would only be 6.125 AAV

it's not insulting Gaudreau to drive his contract value down. It's just the situation he's in with 5 RFA years, and I'm valuing them at 5.75 not 3 or 1.

The cap has risen 23% since 2010 when Kane signed that contract ($59.4M to $73.0M) which means Kane's contract was pretty damn big for the time. Using your RFA/UFA assumptions and 23% cap inflation, it basically translates to RFA=$7.1M and UFA=$9.8M for an AAV of $7.7M.

We'd all be crapping our pants if Johnny signed 6x$7.7M!

Now you do qualify it with Johnny being less productive than Kane, but just want to point out that Kane's contract was mighty rich for a RFA.


edit: looks like I'm the third to reply with the same concept! And we all have somehow different numbers! I think it's because I just chose to anchor it off of the actual 10-11 salary cap which was Kane's contract's first year.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

At the time Kane signed his contract, he had 0.923 PPG (168GP) in a higher scoring era (more power plays back then). Gaudreau has 0.894 PPG (160 GP) which adjusted to the decrease in power plays is pretty much just as productive (compare leaguewide scoring)

So keeping the numbers the same, those numbers adjusted to today's cap ceiling would be:

7.07 x 5 (RFA)
9.83 x 2 (UFA)

= 55M x 7Y
= 7.86M AAV

Well put. So for the extra 140k on his aav, give him the 8x8 and be done with it.

Just make sure it's a limited NTC in his UFA years. Not a full NTC.

[Bingo]

I said you could adjust for inflation, or reduce for productivity, but really it comes down to a view of the future.

If the Flames think we are going back to a 6% or so rise in the cap every year there isn't much risk in just getting 8 years done. But with a 1.315 exchange rate there's a lot of danger in the Canadian teams have a reduced role in carrying the mail and the cap reducing going forward.

Will it? Don't know but I wouldn't be comfortable adjusting upward with an assumption of growth. Sounds like the US mortgage crisis all over again.

[IgiTang]

Let's say Johnny stays on his current production rate over 8 years and then compare what what inflation could do to his earnings for the last 4 years of an 8 year deal.

If his production remained the same, would he not likely be earning $8m+ if he signed a new contract in 2020? I would say yes, he would be earning more.

So to save money on future value, give him above market value now so that he is below market value when his UFA years hit.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Its amazing the lengths some here have gone in an attempt to discredit Gaudreau.

Do you guys really believe that he is a good comparable to Eberle? That he's all razzle dazzle? That he's unlikely to continue being a top scorer?

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I always go back to Kane's 2nd contract.

they bought 4 RFA years and one UFA year and the average was 6.3. Playing with numbers it's 5.75x4 +8x1 (close)

Then you can adjust that up for inflation or down because Gaudreau hasn't been quite as productive, but it's a decent guess of a shorter deal.

Gaudreau would be 5.75x5 + 8x1 which would only be 6.125 AAV

it's not insulting Gaudreau to drive his contract value down. It's just the situation he's in with 5 RFA years, and I'm valuing them at 5.75 not 3 or 1.

There really can't be anyone arguing that 20 year old Kane with 40 goals and 116 pts in 104 games AND a SC ring in his last elc year >>> Gaudreau.

[2macinnis2]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

There really can't be anyone arguing that 20 year old Kane with 40 goals and 116 pts in 104 games AND a SC ring in his last elc year >>> Gaudreau.

>>> is strong. I would leave it at a simple >.

Gaudreau is dripping with potential just as Kane was then. A comparable contract seems fair.