[Signing] Ottawa signs Jake Sanderson ( 8 x $8.05M )

[DoubleK]

Good signing. Need to lock up your studs as early as you can vs giving out 8 year 3rd contracts to guys pushing 30.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

If he'd waited a year, I can't see how he would've gotten more. $8m for a player of Sanderson's track record, at this point, is bonkers.

Next year when the cap is much higher and projected to continue increasing?

When you play in a less desirable market, and you have a chance to get your star players signed for 8 years at a very young age, you jump at it.

Otherwise, if you wait a year, who knows what the mood of the player is next year? Minds can change. You only need to look at Tkachuk and Johnny to know that.

If teams know their players, go for it. Ottawa made spectacular decisions on their other young players, although many posters here criticized them at the time.

How are those deals looking now?

[ForeverFlameFan]

If a player is willing to lock up an 8 year contract at that age, you do it all day long.

Just ask how Anaheim is doing with Zegras.

[activeStick]

Agreed with those who are saying that this is a risk but it's also the only choice Canadian teams have. If you think you have a potential player blossoming and still have their rights, lock them up. The majority of the young stars in the NHL will leave for the US when given the chance otherwise, with the exception probably being Toronto.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

If a player is willing to lock up an 8 year contract at that age, you do it all day long.

Just ask how Anaheim is doing with Zegras.

When the Justin Holls and Erik Gudbransons of the world are getting $3-4million +.... yeah, you lock up Sanderson all day every day.

[Aarongavey]

Fantastic contract. The exact type of guy you give 8 million to on a long term contract.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Agreed with those who are saying that this is a risk but it's also the only choice Canadian teams have. If you think you have a potential player blossoming and still have their rights, lock them up. The majority of the young stars in the NHL will leave for the US when given the chance otherwise, with the exception probably being Toronto.

Yep. At the very least utilize that player you drafted for a decade, hope you have some decent playoff success with him, and then either trade him on the last year of the deal or let him walk (so you’re not burdened with the 7/8 year deal when they’re 29/30) since he likely doesn’t stay.

Drafting well should be every Canadian team’s priority

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Imagine going into the last year of Gaudreau's contract and year 5 of 8 for Tkachuk this year. Gaudreau at 8 and Tkachuk at what 8.5? Damn

What would have happened with Sam Bennett? Would he have been given a massive contract that he wouldn't live up to?

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Ottawa is doing what Canadian markets ought to do, and what Edmonton did with Draisaitl and McDavid.

You believe in the player and they’ve shown the promise? Lock up their core years and be done with it. Paying players in their prime is better than the alternative.

Buffalo looks to be doing the same. Pay young players what they’re worth today/tomorrow, and don’t grind them.

Agree. Especially about the Canadian market part.

We focused on staying below Gio's "cap" to save room for older mid's.

If we instead bet the farm on talent at younger ages, then we are in a different position. And it wouldn't have been that wild of a bet given how players were trending.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Agree. Especially about the Canadian market part.

We focused on staying below Gio's "cap" to save room for older mid's.

If we instead bet the farm on talent at younger ages, then we are in a different position. And it wouldn't have been that wild of a bet given how players were trending.

That would be false.

Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm, Hanifin, Andersson (and Hamilton before that) all got 6+ years. That was the majority of the young core at the time. This board acts like the Flames bridged their entire core, which wasn't the case at all.

The only "young" Flames that didn't were:

Bennett: Thankfully they didn't give him $7M+ after his rookie season

Tkachuk: Didn't work out, unfortunate to not get him on a 8 year deal but from what I heard the player didn't want that either. If Tkachuk wanted to be here, he would still be here, and nothing would have prevented him from demanding the trade even with a contract.

[Jordan!]

I have no idea who this guy is, seems like a TON of money.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That was reported to be the hold up signing him. He wanted a long term and Treliving wanted to bridge him.

I like what Ottawa is doing here. If you have young players that you are confident in, lock them up to the longest term possible. If you are not sold on them, then bridge them. Either way can be a risk, but players are going to be less forgiving if you offer shorter deals for less money if they end up proving they were worth the long term deal.

That is false.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

That would be false.

Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm, Hanifin, Andersson (and Hamilton before that) all got 6+ years. That was the majority of the young core at the time. This board acts like the Flames bridged their entire core, which wasn't the case at all.

The only "young" Flames that didn't were:

Bennett: Thankfully they didn't give him $7M+ after his rookie season

Tkachuk: Didn't work out, unfortunate to not just give him the 8 year deal but don't think the player wanted that either. If Tkachuk wanted to be here, he would still be here, and nothing would have prevented him from demanding the trade even with a contract.

That would be true in the case of Tkachuk, who is the key piece i'm talking about. And twice has said signing long term was possible.

And Bennett...what are you talking about? Why would they give him $7M (10% of the cap at the time) after that rookie season with another year to go?

"This board acts....." So painful.

[Mass_nerder]

Yeah, I thought we just didn't have the cap room to sign him long term? The bridge was just a necessary evil until some other contracts expired.
There's a situation in which I would have been happy to pay to dump a contract.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

What would have happened with Sam Bennett? Would he have been given a massive contract that he wouldn't live up to?

Who knows. Maybe if he got a big contract, the moronic coaching staffs wouldn’t have sank his career in Calgary with their idiocy.

On Tkachuk, we do know Matthew wanted a longer term deal - but we don’t know it was 8 years, although money talks. At the end of the day, just like Bennett, the moronic coaching staffs employed in Calgary suppressed Tkachuk’s impact in Calgary. Had he played with Gaudreau (and Lindholm) earlier, it’s likely he would have been producing significantly more much earlier in his time here.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

What would have happened with Sam Bennett? Would he have been given a massive contract that he wouldn't live up to?

Given the timing and his production he probably would have been 6mx 8 years. We would have simply lived with it and had playoff Sam Bennett as part of our core. I can think of worse things.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

What would have happened with Sam Bennett? Would he have been given a massive contract that he wouldn't live up to?

Yes, and one of these Ottawa guys likely ends up that way too.

I don't think they're going to hit 5 for 5, but even if they get 3or4 of 5 as star players, that's the strategy they're going for.
I don't think they have to get it 100% right to be a successful strategy in their difficult market.

[GioforPM]

With Tkachuk there are stories that they would have gone "long term" with him but the cap was an issue. But "long term" has never been defined by Tkachuk. I suspect it was 6 years, not 8. And sure, you could dump cap in order to get there. But it seems to me Tkachuk still ended up with a contract that made him the highest paid Flame for 3 years and guaranteed him $9M for a 4th year. So he got a 4 year deal and not a 6 year deal (which would have expired in the next season, puting him in the same crew as as Lindholm, Hanifin, Backlund, Zadorov and Tanev).

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

That would be true in the case of Tkachuk, who is the key piece i'm talking about. And twice has said signing long term was possible.

And Bennett...what are you talking about? Why would they give him $7M (10% of the cap at the time) after that rookie season with another year to go?

"This board acts....." So painful.

Your post said "Younger Talent" it didn't mention Tkachuk specifically, and the fact is the Flames did bet on the majority of their young core - with Tkachuk being the one exclusion.

In terms of Tkachuk he also said he wanted to stay here long term...two weeks before turning down 8 x $10.5M and demanding a trade. The signals point to him not wanting to be here long term, no matter what he said. Lots of rumors out there that even "long term" only meant 6 years - similar to Marner/Rantanen - and not 8 years.

And in terms of Bennett that is a good comparison because that is exactly what is happening with Sanderson.

Sanderson shows great potential but he has 1 year on his ELC left, has only played one season, and their is risk with the $8M deal.

It wouldn't be that dissimilar from giving Bennett a huge deal coming off the 15-16 season when he had 36 points in 77 games as a rookie, with one year left on his ELC. Would people have been applauding if the Flames gave Bennett 8 x $6M or 8 x $7M that offseason - because that is what Ottawa is betting on here.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Your post said "Younger Talent" it didn't mention Tkachuk specifically, and the fact is the Flames did bet on the majority of their young core - with Tkachuk being the one exclusion.

In terms of Tkachuk he also said he wanted to stay here long term...two weeks before turning down 8 x $10.5M and demanding a trade. The signals point to him not wanting to be here long term, no matter what he said. Lots of rumors out there that even "long term" only meant 6 years - similar to Marner/Rantanen - and not 8 years.

And in terms of Bennett that is a good comparison because that is exactly what is happening with Sanderson.

Sanderson shows great potential but he has 1 year on his ELC left, has only played one season, and their is risk with the $8M deal.

It wouldn't be that dissimilar from giving Bennett a huge deal coming off the 15-16 season when he had 36 points in 77 games as a rookie, with one year left on his ELC. Would people have been applauding if the Flames gave Bennett 8 x $6M or 8 x $7M that offseason - because that is what Ottawa is betting on here.

Note: For reference Fla gave Bennett 4x$4.25.