Mathew Tkachuk and other key RFA signing watch thread

[Hockey_Ninja]

If Chucky doesn’t want to sign long term then you have to trade him. Johnny 2.0 would be disastrous for this franchise

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I see it as a path to get him inked to a new deal but giving him one more big contract to cash in on. Win-win.



If it were me? I would trade him and hit the reset button.

I just don't see the org doing that.

Why would you trade Tkachuk?

My choice would be to sign him long term. Players like him don't come around often and I think he's proven now that his skating doesn't impact his ability to produce. Also don't think he needs Johnny to produce - he produced for years without being on that line, albeit less.

[The Fonz]

I don't think Tkachuk or his agent would entertain a short term deal after he just put up a 104pt and +57 season, and has now lost Gaudreau as a linemate. It's highly likely he never hits either of those numbers again; he needs to lock in value on that season.

Say the top line next season is Tkachuk Lindholm Toffoli/Mangiapane - what are the odds Tkachuk exceeds 90pts? 15%?

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Why would you trade Tkachuk?

My choice would be to sign him long term. Players like him don't come around often and I think he's proven now that his skating doesn't impact his ability to produce. Also don't think he needs Johnny to produce - he produced for years without being on that line, albeit less.

The problem is that signing Tkachuk long term now means you're likely paying him as a 100 point player for the next 8 years.

I don't know if Tkachuk is that without Gaudreau.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Why would you trade Tkachuk?

My choice would be to sign him long term. Players like him don't come around often and I think he's proven now that his skating doesn't impact his ability to produce. Also don't think he needs Johnny to produce - he produced for years without being on that line, albeit less.

Again, ignoring the fact that I don't think the organization and ownership would do this - I would simply use this as a moment to say that the current rebuild didn't work. Use Tkachuk to replenish the asset base and initiate a proper rebuild that allows this team to be a contender for an extended window.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by NOISIA

Either a long term deal in the next week or so or deal him. Simple as that.
They can’t let it drag on.

Echo this.

The immediate future of the club basically hinges on Chucky... we need that sorted out ASAP. Without Chucky signed longterm the team needs to leverage it's assets in a full rebuild, With Chucky signed longterm it can responsibly continue to "go for it".

[Jore]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Why would you trade Tkachuk?

My choice would be to sign him long term. Players like him don't come around often and I think he's proven now that his skating doesn't impact his ability to produce. Also don't think he needs Johnny to produce - he produced for years without being on that line, albeit less.

I don’t think Tkachuk can be the centerpiece of a championship, and attempting to sign him to a large contract (which he will want after a 100 point season) means that he will be paid like the centerpiece.

If he agrees to sign, I see the org trying to spend to the cap around him, probably consigning us to the bubble-tier for the length of his contract.

[activeStick]

Fair comments, I think. There's the current window the Flames are in, now minus Gaudreau, but still with Lindholm, Hanifin, Andersson, Tanev on great deals and a number one goalie in Markstrom. Should the Flames flip the switch and "rebuild" (which I agree Flames management isn't interested in)? Or does it make more sense to try and continue with this group despite losing Gaudreau, but still with the value contracts that Treliving put in place? Replacing how dynamic Gaudreau is isn't going to happen, but can someone slide into that spot and still end with Tkachuk getting 75-85? Lindholm is still a very good player.

[2macinnis2]

If they didn’t have Sutter they rebuild.

So long as you have the best coach in hockey and a good team you’re going for it

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

The problem is that signing Tkachuk long term now means you're likely paying him as a 100 point player for the next 8 years.

I don't know if Tkachuk is that without Gaudreau.

Shrug... He's produced without Johnny on the other wing. Sure not at the 100 point level but he was pretty darn close to being a PPG player on the 3M line which took the lions share of the hard competition minutes and, while I love Backs and appreciated Frolik, neither of them are as talented an offensive player as Lindholm. I feel pretty confident that he could be a 90 point player without Gaudreau... and that 10 points difference ain't enough for me to say that we shouldn't lock him down now.

We can weather losing Johnny... but I don't think we can weather losing Johnny and Chucky.

[Macman]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

If Chucky doesn’t want to sign long term then you have to trade him. Johnny 2.0 would be disastrous for this franchise

I think the Flames will be open and honest about that with Tkachuk especially now that Gaudreau is gone.

I was optimistic about Gaudreau staying but I think Tkachuk will actually. It’s really not about money as the Flames can pay just like any other team. Tkachuk is also younger and still has some ceiling in my view.

It’s going to be a different team without Johnny obviously but add another key player or two to what we already have and the Flames are still a good team, playoffs for sure.

[littlereddevil]

Originally Posted by NOISIA

Either a long term deal in the next week or so or deal him. Simple as that.
They can’t let it drag on.

I agree. Treliving and co. need to set a hard deadline and try their best to control the negotiations with Tkachuk and his agent. Don't let Tkachuk and his agent gain all the leverage here and have this turn into another Gaudreau situation.

If Treliving hasn't locked up Tkachuk on a long-term deal by that deadline (doesn't matter how long, 5-6 years should be good enough), you start entertaining trade offers.

[topfiverecords]

A two year deal at $9 is the best position.

- You don’t get completely gutted of offense for this coming season keeping him around but you don’t get stuck under a big long term contract off the back of his good year with Gaudreau.
- You’re still in a good position to trade him at the draft next year to St. Louis and he still has value with 1 year left on a deal.
- You’re clearer next year on what you have in Pelletier, Zary and Coronato.
- You get Monahan and Lucic off the cap so you’re in a great position to begin to remake the offensive side of the roster.
- If you decide to keep him long term, he’s probably had a down year after Gaudreau leaving and you don’t have to give him $11m.

[Red_Baron]

Getting back to Kylington, I think paying him 3mil/season is a huge risk.



His game came a long way but then after a couple injuries, his play became downright scary and without Tanev, I was hoping they'd scratch him for Mackey. We need players like him on value contracts until they can show consistency.

[Samonadreau]

When the flames offerred the qualifing offer to Tkachuk, what does that mean exactly? Whats the term and dollars associated with that?

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Why would you trade Tkachuk?

My choice would be to sign him long term. Players like him don't come around often and I think he's proven now that his skating doesn't impact his ability to produce. Also don't think he needs Johnny to produce - he produced for years without being on that line, albeit less.

The reason I'm considering a Tkachuk trade is the uncertainty with regard to his production. I don't see him signing below $9M on a long term deal. Is a 70 point Tkachuk worth $9M+? Jamie Benn seemed like a good signing at the time coming off an 89point season, but as his production dried up so did his value to the Dallas stars.

Gaudreau has shown over and over that players playing with him get career years offensively. Just ask Hudler, Monahan, Lindholm, Tkachuk, Colborne, and so on. Granted, Tkachuk was productive even without Gaudreau, but during his best season away from Gaudreau(34G, 77P) he still had 11PPG, and 24PPP with Gaudreau on the PP. That's why even though I like the player, I'm very weary of a huge contract thrown at Tkachuk.

[BlindMilwaukee]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

When the flames offerred the qualifing offer to Tkachuk, what does that mean exactly? Whats the term and dollars associated with that?

9M for the upcoming season and then UFA next summer

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

When the flames offerred the qualifing offer to Tkachuk, what does that mean exactly? Whats the term and dollars associated with that?

QO for Tkachuk was $9M and is there for the Flames to retain his RFA rights. The Flames and Tkachuk can continue to negotiate and agree to any contract terms until Tkachuk accepts the 1 year QO at 9M.

[TheIronMaiden]

If anything now you can over pay Tkachuk a little to entice him to sign 8 years.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

A two year deal at $9 is the best position.

Why would he take that deal when he can just accept his qualifying offer and go unrestricted next year? With Chucky it's either 1 year or 8 years. No inbetween.