Matthew Tkachuk & Johnny Gaudreau Signing Watch Thread

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Beet sales alone probably helped a lot lol.

But really it's the new us tv deal

Seattle plays a part in this too so will be interesting to see how much more revenue they generated

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

They negotiated that. What’s going to happen is 3 seasons of $1M increase and then a big, big jump in 24/25 (I think?)

It’s actually not a bad time to lock players into a big deals, because they’ll begin to look like brilliant value in the very near future.

3 years is what I last saw but it’s also a projection.

Record revenue this year but also extra team. 5.2 billion revenue for 32 teams is 81.5 mil cap. Does this mean if revenue is less than $5.2 billion then no money was actually paid back?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Seattle plays a part in this too so will be interesting to see how much more revenue they generated

Excellent beets in Seattle.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[Heavy Jack]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Excellent beets in Seattle.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

The beets!

[Heavy Jack]

I now find myself pondering what a heroin beet would be… then I searched inexplicably for ‘the worlds largest beet’ hahahahaha

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Same with Anders Lee (as I said in that post). The list is UFA eligible players who sign for 7-8 years AFTER their final TDL. Which applies to Lee and Duchene,

I think you might be getting Duchene confused. Maybe mixing him up with other Columbus to Nashville player in Ryan Johanson.

Duchene was traded from Colorado to Ottawa, deadline deal from Ottawa to Columbus and then signed as a UFA with Nashville. He hadn’t played with Nashville before the deal.

[TapeToTape]

I think Gaudreau and Tkachuk would be happier and more satisfied with their careers if they signed for less money. They are both lined up for a massive fortune anyway, what difference can it make to have 80 million instead of 60 million? Wouldn't it be far better to take less and give your team room to add other players to win?

What would you want your legacy to be? Winner of money, or winner of a Stanley Cup?

[TapeToTape]

Also, they would do well to sign 3-4 year deals too. Give themselves windows of opportunity to pick where they play, or to have leverage to make sure their team is run honourably.

[Vinny01]

Pretty nuts to suggest players leave $20M on the table and then to suggest they take half the term being offered. Tkachuk has a case for a 3-5 year deal for sure but Johnny is 29 this summer he should be maxing the term out because he is being paid on a career season. He likely earned an additional $2M AAV after the past season which is $16M on an 8 year deal

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by TapeToTape

I think Gaudreau and Tkachuk would be happier and more satisfied with their careers if they signed for less money.

What would you want your legacy to be? Winner of money, or winner of a Stanley Cup?

I think they would be less happy and less satisfied if they signed for less.

And most importantly, signing for less would guarantee them nothing, much less a Stanley Cup.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TapeToTape

I think Gaudreau and Tkachuk would be happier and more satisfied with their careers if they signed for less money. They are both lined up for a massive fortune anyway, what difference can it make to have 80 million instead of 60 million? Wouldn't it be far better to take less and give your team room to add other players to win?

What would you want your legacy to be? Winner of money, or winner of a Stanley Cup?

I'll take your questions in order:

1. 20 million dollar difference.
2. No. Would you forego 25% of your salary to make your workplace better?
3. Winner of money.

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

I think you might be getting Duchene confused. Maybe mixing him up with other Columbus to Nashville player in Ryan Johanson.

Duchene was traded from Colorado to Ottawa, deadline deal from Ottawa to Columbus and then signed as a UFA with Nashville. He hadn’t played with Nashville before the deal.

Yup. Forgot just how all-in CBJ went that year. I suppose one thing you can say about guys like Duchene/Panarin and even somewhat Bobrovsky is that they'd already moved around a little bit in their careers and wouldn't have nearly us much connection with one franchise.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by TapeToTape

I think Gaudreau and Tkachuk would be happier and more satisfied with their careers if they signed for less money. They are both lined up for a massive fortune anyway, what difference can it make to have 80 million instead of 60 million? Wouldn't it be far better to take less and give your team room to add other players to win?

What would you want your legacy to be? Winner of money, or winner of a Stanley Cup?

It’s all relative, would you take less money for probably the rest of your career so your company can be better? How much?

Or would you go somewhere that pay you better?

[TapeToTape]

The point is that 10 million dollars is plenty to buy a nice house, travel wherever you want, support some cause you believe in and to live a generous life. Every dollar above what you need to be comfortable and self directed has diminishing returns in terms of how it affects your life. Other factors are bound to become more important.

And no, there is no guarantee that you'll win a cup, but they could definitely increase their chances. Not to mention winning more games every season.

[PepsiFree]

While I agree that Gaudreau and Tkachuk are unlikely to take much of a discount to stick around, I also think it’s pretty ineffective to use office jobs as a comparable as to whether someone would or would not take a discount to stay.

They’re playing professional hockey in the NHL. Unlike accounting or whatever, it is, in fact, a team sport with a salary cap. You having to consider taking less so your company can hire Jan instead of Phil just means your company probably sucks.

[TapeToTape]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

It’s all relative, would you take less money for probably the rest of your career so your company can be better? How much?

Or would you go somewhere that pay you better?

Yes, I've probably left 30% or more on the table by not pushing for raises and moving from company to company. I've done that to keep a good work / life balance.

[TapeToTape]

Nathan MacKinnon : 6.3 million.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by TapeToTape

Nathan MacKinnon : 6.3 million.

Coming after seasons of 63, 38, and 52 points. MacKinnon didn’t take off until year 2 of the extension. Signed at market value at the time similar to Monahan, and Schiefele

[TapeToTape]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Coming after seasons of 63, 38, and 52 points. MacKinnon didn’t take off until year 2 of the extension. Signed at market value at the time similar to Monahan, and Schiefele

I remember it looking like a bargain then too. 1/12th of the salary cap. He was on the rise.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by TapeToTape

Yes, I've probably left 30% or more on the table by not pushing for raises and moving from company to company. I've done that to keep a good work / life balance.

You admit you did it to keep a good work/life balance.

Essentially trading dollars for less demanding work and perhaps less pressure.

Which is completely difference than simply asking for less. Do you really think Johnny should say, when offered $10M per season for 8 years, "No, I'll take $5M over 4 years please"?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by TapeToTape

Nathan MacKinnon : 6.3 million.

McKinnon did not take less money, that was his market at the time.