[CP Story] Bridge over Troubled Water: Gaudreau Contract

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Does he have the ability to play center at the NHL level or not?

I'll rely in Joel Quenneville and Paul Maurice's determination of that over someone who apparently never watched him before becoming a Flame

No.

Don't complain about strawmen and then whip out an appeal to authority.

Is there actual evidence that he's ever been consistently trusted to play centre? You know what there is evidence of? Him be acquired by a team who think he can play centre and then his faceoffs dropping dramatically the very next season.

Seems as though, like you, a few coaches falsely believe he can play centre and then realise "Oh, I was wrong."

If Frolik can play centre, than so can basically every winger in the NHL.

[cam_wmh]

How many of those draws, were when the actual center was tossed out of the draw?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Does he have the ability to play center at the NHL level or not?

No, but he was excellent at face-offs.

[442scotty]

I thought this was a Gaudreau contract thread.... yes he is, no he's not, yes he is, no he's not ...wash rinse repeat...... Take it out back in the alley guys

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

It's ok to be wrong.

...a bunch of posts proving you wrong...

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Does he have the ability to play center at the NHL level or not?

I'll rely in Joel Quenneville and Paul Maurice's determination of that over someone who apparently never watched him before becoming a Flame

please take your own advice, and stop trying to prove every single point in a vain attempt to validate your credibility

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Does he have the ability to play center at the NHL level or not?

I'll rely in Joel Quenneville and Paul Maurice's determination of that over someone who apparently never watched him before becoming a Flame

Frolik played center in Junior and has played LW or RW for his entire NHL career.

Could he "play centre"? Sure.

But Frolik is a centre only in the same sense that Alex Tanguay is a centre. Or Lance Bouma is a centre. Or Joe Colborne is a centre. Or Jiri Hudler is a centre. Or Tyler Toffoli is a centre. Or Blake Wheeler is a centre. Academically speaking yes Frolik can give you spot minutes down the middle and probably not even embarass himself. But you can't let the success of an entire season be pissed away based on that gamble.

The number of active top 9 calibre players who have played much of their careers at wing yet can slide back into the middle successfully is limited. We're talking Jeff Carter, Joe Pavelski, Ryan O'Rielly, and Henrik Zetterberg. And even these players have played 40-60% of their careers down the middle.

The positioning to play centre is different from the positioning to play wing. You need to cover the low slot, the corners, and know where your defenseman are on the ice in order to cover for what they do. This needs to be instinctive. I would sooner trust a career minor leaguer like Freddie Hamilton to play those spot minutes at centre than to throw a career winger there and hope he remembers quickly.

Not that taking Bennett out of the 3C spot is necessary or any good for his development. I am not Galchenyuk-ing the best young centre this team has had in ages. Backlund can drive his own line and Monahan should be able to drive his own if he's worth anything in this league. Neither needs Bennett nor Gaudreau on their wing to be competent.

[cannon7]

I haven't read Bingo's article yet, so if he touches on this then disregard. But I think in the case of a bridge deal the hope is that Gaudreau grows more attached to the city, making a long-term extension more likely. This might happen should he develop some roots in Calgary and continues to mature and become more independent from his family. That, of course, may not happen and in that case you hope for a king's ransom in return.

[Stillman16]

The way I see it, a bridge deal happens if the Flames believe the Gaudreau camp is over valuing itself and/or the Gaudreau camp feels low balled.

The risks of a bridge deal fall mostly in the Gaudreau camp in my opinion. As I believe the Flames have no problem paying him if he proves durability and consistency, or will get a good return trading him after the deal if he is upset by the process, and wants out soon after the deal expires (ie. refuses to sign long term after the bridge).

If Johnny proves durable and consistent, he gets paid, how much is the question. Will the cap keep going up, and he can command 10+ for UFA years? or will it stagnate, or possibly drop, and he left money on the table that he might have gotten now? Also, this contract after UFA could be the last big money one he gets, since it could reach into his mid-thirties.

If Johnny gets "figured out", takes a bad hit, or just somehow "hits a wall" he could be looking at even more money lost. The only downfall for the Flames is the increase cap hit of the next contract if Johnny hits the jackpot (less/no RFA years to keep AAV down), and that might be workable with future cap numbers and creative contracts.

If the two parties involved could reach a long term deal, it's best for Johnny, in my opinion, and I'm sure with the creative structuring of deals happening lately, he could have a lot of money in hand (signing bonus) to work for him regardless of how the term of the deal goes hockey wise, and he'll still be relatively young when the deal ends, so can still get another big contract. The Flames are taking more risk in a long term deal, since they are paying for potential, but the reward is equal if he remains at the top of the league, since they'd get a lower cap hit in those bought UFA years.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I haven't read Bingo's article yet, so if he touches on this then disregard. But I think in the case of a bridge deal the hope is that Gaudreau grows more attached to the city, making a long-term extension more likely. This might happen should he develop some roots in Calgary and continues to mature and become more independent from his family. That, of course, may not happen and in that case you hope for a king's ransom in return.

It was not mentioned, in large part I think because of numerous reports about both sides wanting a long-term deal. A bridge deal does not seem to be the first option from either party, and is likely in play only as a final solution if there is no resolution on a long-term contract.

[TheScorpion]

I love how this thread regarding Bingo's excellent article on a potential Gaudreau bridge deal managed to turn into an argument about faceoffs.

[Strange Brew]

There are a few positives here. I have not heard a single report that doesn't say both sides want term. So that is a clear indication to me that Johnny doesn't have his heart set on playing elsewhere. Of course it could be a ploy, but this has been a constant theme. Let's say we focus on that.

Also you have to admit the evidence shows BT is a plodding negotiator when he has the luxury of time. The Monahan deal wasn't that hard and it took all summer. The Gio deal took all summer. This one is harder so any surprise it's not done yet? Maybe it's always the other side that drags it out, or maybe it is BT's process.

I have yet to see any legitimate evidence that Johnny wants to leave or that his agent is the sticking point. Despite some theories to the contrary. Even his agent's statement that he won't negotiate during World Cup may simply be an attempt to speed things along.

[Bear]

Darren Haynes take on the likely contract value:

http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2016/...r-all.html?m=1

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Bear

Darren Haynes take on the likely contract value:

http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2016/...r-all.html?m=1

He also divides the contract up into RFA years versus UFA years bought.

If the Gaudreau camp can't get the number they want for eight years term and given the self-belief Gaudreau has always had to have to overcome skeptics his whole career, I can envision a scenario where the compromise in the end is six or seven years of term and with a lower AAV.

For a guess because if you've read this far, you deserve it, I'll say seven years at $50 million. That's an AAV of around $7.15 million. Monahan is content as the gap of $765,000 is acceptable. Calgary can live with it as they buy out two years of UFA and have the diminutive dynamo until the summer of 2023.

[Bear]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

He also divides the contract up into RFA years versus UFA years bought.

I find the ongoing negotiations very interesting.

I remember Johnny's agent saying that when he made the all star team and subsequently triggered some significant bonus money that he left Johnny a voicemail telling him the good news and never got any reply.

That story, combined with his all round humility, suggest that Johnny is definitely one of the players who need their agent to ensure they get paid market value. Left to his own devices Johnny likely signs his qualifying offer and is beyond grateful in the process.

Obviously pure conjecture on my part but my guess is Johnny is as anxious as any of us to get a deal signed and get back to normality.

[Enoch Root]

Good article. Comparing all those contracts side by side adds great context.

Given the choice, would you rather have Ekblad or Tarasenko? I have said in the past that I think Tarasenko is overpaid. When you put him side by side with Ekblad, it seems pretty obvious. I think Ekblad's contract is warranted. For me, it's no contest who I would rather have. I think STL will regret that contract and I don't ever want to see the Flames in the position that they regret Johnny's contract.

For me, Johnny's contract should be a bit less than Ekblad's for 2 reasons: hardware (Calder), and age - Ekblad doing what he has done as a teenager is pretty impressive. So maybe 1 or 2 hundred K less for those reasons.

Then there is the issue of one less year of UFA. Haynes values that at $375k. That is probably about right. Let's say $250k to be conservative.

So let's take Ekblad's contract, and factor in those things. Call it $100k for the first two items, and $250k for the extra RFA year and you get:

8 x $7.15M (7.5 - 0.25 - 0.1)

To me, that sounds just about right, and sounds like about what Tarasenko should have gotten. It also puts him higher than Monahan and Forsberg but lower than Ekblad, which also sounds about right.

[browna]

Really tough call.

I think the JG camp wants to be handsomely compensated for giving up years of UFA, under the "threat" that he wants to play on the East coast, or at least have that option in 4-5 years time. Someone out there will pay him, and pay him well.

Likely the truth that at some point he'll want to play closer to his parents, and much more of a flight risk in that regard than Monahan is (right now). So much so that the extra they want pushes them above the Gio cap, which is the stumbling block.

Flames don't want a shorter term, both for not having the player, and the distraction 2 or so years sooner, being asked if he's going to re-sign. Then cap considerations down the road etc, and the potential eroding of goodwill as this process stretches out...

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Good article. Comparing all those contracts side by side adds great context.

Given the choice, would you rather have Ekblad or Tarasenko? I have said in the past that I think Tarasenko is overpaid. When you put him side by side with Ekblad, it seems pretty obvious. I think Ekblad's contract is warranted. For me, it's no contest who I would rather have. I think STL will regret that contract and I don't ever want to see the Flames in the position that they regret Johnny's contract.

For me, Johnny's contract should be a bit less than Ekblad's for 2 reasons: hardware (Calder), and age - Ekblad doing what he has done as a teenager is pretty impressive. So maybe 1 or 2 hundred K less for those reasons.

Then there is the issue of one less year of UFA. Haynes values that at $375k. That is probably about right. Let's say $250k to be conservative.

So let's take Ekblad's contract, and factor in those things. Call it $100k for the first two items, and $250k for the extra RFA year and you get:

8 x $7.15M (7.5 - 0.25 - 0.1)

To me, that sounds just about right, and sounds like about what Tarasenko should have gotten. It also puts him higher than Monahan and Forsberg but lower than Ekblad, which also sounds about right.

Get it done Brad!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by browna

Really tough call.

I think the JG camp wants to be handsomely compensated for giving up years of UFA, under the "threat" that he wants to play on the East coast, or at least have that option in 4-5 years time. Someone out there will pay him, and pay him well.

Likely the truth that at some point he'll want to play closer to his parents, and much more of a flight risk in that regard than Monahan is (right now). So much so that the extra they want pushes them above the Gio cap, which is the stumbling block.

Flames don't want a shorter term, both for not having the player, and the distraction 2 or so years sooner, being asked if he's going to re-sign. Then cap considerations down the road etc, and the potential eroding of goodwill as this process stretches out...

lol, this Gio Cap nonsense has likely come up a total of zero times in contract negotiations, just on message boards.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by browna

Really tough call.

I think the JG camp wants to be handsomely compensated for giving up years of UFA, under the "threat" that he wants to play on the East coast, or at least have that option in 4-5 years time. Someone out there will pay him, and pay him well.

Likely the truth that at some point he'll want to play closer to his parents, and much more of a flight risk in that regard than Monahan is (right now). So much so that the extra they want pushes them above the Gio cap, which is the stumbling block.

There is nothing likely about this—at least in so far as this hypothetical desire compares to virtually every other NHL player. I might agree with you if not for the absence of any evidence to suggest that Gaudreau is thinking in these terms. We can only speculate about the holdup at this point, but it has been widely reported that both sides are pursuing a long-term deal, which I think effectively undermines the "likelihood" that Gaudreau is negotiating off of a desire to play on the East Coast.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Gaudreau's desire to play close to his parents (regardless of where he's playing) will likely never be higher than it is now. As time passes, other things will likely increase in importance to JG, new things will enter his life he cares about. Which is why worrying about where Johnny wants to play 5 years from now is dumb.