[Signing] Sens sign Brady Tkachuk (7 yrs, $8.214 mil AAV)

[Monahammer]

I dont get some of the desire here to dangle matthew to Ottawa. They have very little of value on the whole roster and I don't love their prospects. I don't think they're willing to trade Stutzle or Sanderson for example.

I don't see a huge win for us as possible.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

I may be in the minority on this one but $8+ mill for a 50 point player.....

i am with you. so far in his career he is a .63 ppg. matty is .796 ppg.

i know ppg is a really simplistic way to look at it, but one would have to think this will cost the flames more.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I don't think this is true - Matthew is known league-wide as perhaps the best pest in the game right now. Brady does not have that reputation, even though he is bigger and stronger. No one would take Brady over Matthew.

That is not what I was saying. I think they share a lot of the same intangibles. Look how Sens fans talk about him. He is the heartbeat of their team just like Matthew.

If I am a Sens fan I am really happy with this deal today. Brady definitely needs to step it up offensively but when you hear that he wants a bridge so he can get to UFA then all of a sudden he is signed for 7 years I would be ecstatic.

If we heard tomorrow that Matthew was signing a 6-8 year deal at $9.5M per I would be pumped and would be full on board with giving him the C immediately

[Jacks]

Seems like about 1-2M more than it should have been.

[Zoller]

I wonder what veteran players are going to say about these RFA deals during the next CBA negotiations.

Guys who could secure 1 or 2 year contracts in the low millions are now settling for league min or getting pushed out all together.

I doubt the GMs like the situation either tbh.

[Monahammer]

I do agree, this puts Matt at ballpark 7 years 9.5 mil. If we are lucky 7 years 9 mil. More likely 5-6 years at 9.5 lol.

If Matt is getting 9.5 though, what does Johnny ask for?

[bdubbs]

Who cares what veteran players think about their contracts? Pay your young stars what they're worth. If the veterans are good enough, they'll get their money.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

Even if it's an overpay, I'd rather overpay a Tkachuk than spend $5-6 million on middling middle-six forwards with long term deals.

Identify your best players then pay them instead of losing them for nothing or getting 30 cents on the dollar. The Flames are terrible for this.

And what happens if he continues his disinterested play and becomes one of those middle-six forwards on a long-term deal? That's the whole point. Pay the guys that ARE going to produce all the time, and at a high level. If you're only getting 65 points out a Matthew Tkachuk, you may want to spend your money elsewhere.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

And what happens if he continues his disinterested play and becomes one of those middle-six forwards on a long-term deal? That's the whole point. Pay the guys that ARE going to produce all the time, and at a high level. If you're only getting 65 points out a Matthew Tkachuk, you may want to spend your money elsewhere.

Who is the "elsewhere"? This team doesn't have another player anywhere near the quality of Tkachuk buried somewhere in the system. Now if you're recommending that they trade Tkachuk and tank to draft a player potentially better than Tkachuk I suppose I could agree, but failing that there's no one available to us at this time or in the coming free agent pool that would deliver what Chucky can (and building teams through free agency doesn't work).

Tkachuk delivers a high end 200 foot game while scoring at a 0.8 PPG pace over his career so far. That's fantastic. One "off" year that wasn't even that bad (0.77 PPG) isn't a sign of long-term regression in my eyes, as his off year was not isolated to him - the entire team struggled last year.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

And what happens if he continues his disinterested play and becomes one of those middle-six forwards on a long-term deal? That's the whole point. Pay the guys that ARE going to produce all the time, and at a high level. If you're only getting 65 points out a Matthew Tkachuk, you may want to spend your money elsewhere.

I'd argue $8 mil is the going rate for 65 points these days.

[FlamesAddiction]

I am not surprised. Brady seems to like Ottawa. Seems like a fair deal.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

I'd argue $8 mil is the going rate for 65 points these days.

Bank of Canada has to get inflation under control.

[TheScorpion]

Hopefully the Flames can get Matt on a similar deal soon.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Hopefully the Flames can get Matt on a similar deal soon.

IMO, Brady has a higher ceiling and a better rounded player. If Matthew is offered a similar deal and turns it down, then that is a clear indication he doesn't see Calgary in his future. At that point, the Flames can't afford to drag their feet and need to move him.

[TheScorpion]

... What makes you say Brady has a higher ceiling? I don't see that at all. Matthew has been far more productive and way better defensively. Brady has a ton of holes in his game that Matthew doesn't have, IMO.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

IMO, Brady has a higher ceiling and a better rounded player...

How do you figure? M. Tkachuk has outproduced and out-shined B. at every level they have played since they were kids, and it has continued into the NHL. B. Tkachuk is bigger and a better skater, but he does not possess the vision and skill with which his brother is gifted. M. Tkachuk has a rarer and more highly coveted skillset.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

IMO, Brady has a higher ceiling and a better rounded player. If Matthew is offered a similar deal and turns it down, then that is a clear indication he doesn't see Calgary in his future. At that point, the Flames can't afford to drag their feet and need to move him.

What in your eyes gives Brady a higher ceiling?

First three season breakdown on traditional counting stats:

Brady - 198 GP, 60 G, 65 A, 125 P, 0.63 PPG, 250 PIM, -41
Matthew - 224 GP, 71 G, 103 A, 174 P, 0.78 PPG, 228 PIM, +27

Could it perhaps be a bit of the ol "grass is greener on the other side"?

[mile]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1448710100332449794

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Treliving has his work cut out for him. I think that deal puts Matthew closer to $10M a season over the same term.

There are 13 players in the NHL with an AAV of $10M or higher. Tkachuk isn't anywhere as good as any of them.

[TheScorpion]

I'd have no issue going up to $9.5 long-term for Matthew.