[Rumour] Giordano Extension. Kypreos: Starting point is $72 million over 8 years

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

If it's 4 years, Gio is getting $8 million.
5 years, $7.5 million.
6 years, less than $7 million.

I think that's fair.

Sounds about right... structure it like O'Reilly's deal (paid out principally in signing bonuses), if it's a 5/6 year deal give him the NMC he'll be looking for except on the last year (so that in the event that age catches up with him we can trade him July 2 of that year to a team that is cap rich but cash poor).

Everybody wins... Gio get's paid a lot of money, much of it escrow protected, the team has some small insurance against age related decline, all at a managable cap level.

[T@T]

I know I'm in the minority but if Giordano wants 8 years ..trade him. you can count with a few fingers how many Dman are effective past 38 and not many past 36 for that matter.

My take it or leave it deal would be:

9
9
6
6
5
4.9

$6.66m, a devil of a deal for both sides.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by T@T

I know I'm in the minority but if Giordano wants 8 years ..trade him. you can count with a few fingers how many Dman are effective past 38 and not many past 36 for that matter.

My take it or leave it deal would be:

9
9
6
6
5
4.9

$6.66m, a devil of a deal for both sides.

The longer this discussion goes it seems the lower the general opinion becomes. Think the agent might has messed up by leaking this when the contract talks don't seem all that serious yet.

[bax]

Originally Posted by DJones

The longer this discussion goes it seems the lower the general opinion becomes. Think the agent might has messed up by leaking this when the contract talks don't seem all that serious yet.

I don't think Internet forum discussion plays any part in determining contracts

[heep223]

Originally Posted by T@T

I know I'm in the minority but if Giordano wants 8 years ..trade him. you can count with a few fingers how many Dman are effective past 38 and not many past 36 for that matter.

My take it or leave it deal would be:

9
9
6
6
5
4.9

$6.66m, a devil of a deal for both sides.

Of course he wants 8 years. If he's unwilling to sign a 5 or 6 year deal then yes you have to look at trading him. Your offer above makes sense, ideally only 5 year deal though.

I trust Treliving to get this done in a way that makes sense for both sides.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Toonage

It will be 8x8 and this site will have a meltdown.

Probably.

In Treliving we trust. He can do what he wants.

Mark had better hope that Brad feels like paying him at all.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by bax

I don't think Internet forum discussion plays any part in determining contracts

But when media blowhards like Kypreos start reporting it...it gets irritating for the GM.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Locke

In Treliving we trust. He can do what he wants.

Mark had better hope that Brad feels like paying him at all.

Careful, this was the Darryl Sutter defense for 5 years.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Everybody wins... Gio get's paid a lot of money, much of it escrow protected, the team has some small insurance against age related decline, all at a managable cap level.

I'm not sure how they do the accounting on bonuses paid between seasons, but all money paid to the players, salary and bonuses, are subject to escrow.


CBA Article 50.4 (d)(i)

Each Club shall withhold from each Player who is party to an SPC with that Club (and current Players who retire or otherwise cease playing in the NHL to the extent such Players continue to be paid under an SPC with that Club, including, without limitation, Players who were party to SPCs that have been bought out) an amount of each payment of the Player's Player Salary and Bonuses for that League Year. The amount of each payment to be so withheld shall be calculated by multiplying the portion of each Player's Player Salary and Bonuses to be paid during a pay period by the applicable Escrow Percentage that is then in effect during that pay period.

[killer_carlson]

has there been any other actual news or tweets about this since Kypreos' (unconfirmed) tweet?

[Dr. Doom]

I'm not normally a pessimist around here...

And I understand the points about Gio having to "start somewhere."

But I don't see this working out very well.

The term is a full 4 years too long.
Making the dollars like 30 million over...

Some serious discrepancy right there...
And if this passes into the regular season I can see it becoming a trading point, easily.

No news is not good news in this example.

[puckedoff]

Trade him

[Dr. Doom]

One of my buddies non-Flames fan says from an outsiders perspective it looks clear the Hamilton signing was a shot across the bow at the Gio camp, that they would have known of his demands then, and it also gives them contingency should he not sign. Also reiterated we did quite well without him getting to and in the playoffs and don't think management didn't notice that.

When he was saying that I couldn't help but wonder why I hadn't thought of that? Because I like Gio the player but the business side of me wasn't coming to terms...

If this is hardball, don't think business sense won't take over. We got a good thing going here with or without him.

[starseed]

Is it cap circumvention if you sign him to an $11m or $12m 1yr extension, then a 5-year $6.5-$7m aav when that expires? (essentially having a bit more than Bennett's potential raise impact the team's cap space next year rather than in two years time)

You would need to trade Wideman after signing 13 and 23, but it could save us a lot of headaches when the team's cup window is wide open!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Dr. Doom

One of my buddies non-Flames fan says from an outsiders perspective it looks clear the Hamilton signing was a shot across the bow at the Gio camp, that they would have known of his demands then, and it also gives them contingency should he not sign. Also reiterated we did quite well without him getting to and in the playoffs and don't think management didn't notice that.

I think it's pretty clear the Hamilton signing wasn't a shot across the bow, but rather a standard contract negotiation.

Calling it a shot across the bow would be suggesting that Dougie's contract would have been higher expect the Flames decided to send a message to Mark Giordano and is agent and colluded with Dougie Hamilton to sign a cheaper deal.

[AcGold]

The Hamilton signing was because we wanted him signed asap, he was not our player, we only attained his rights.

Risking losing Gio at this point in time isn't worth it. He's one of the best players in the NHL, we want him on the team. Next season he probably does make 9 million, maybe the cap won't demonstrate that but he is getting paid big time here.

[Dr. Doom]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I think it's pretty clear the Hamilton signing wasn't a shot across the bow, but rather a standard contract negotiation.

Calling it a shot across the bow would be suggesting that Dougie's contract would have been higher expect the Flames decided to send a message to Mark Giordano and is agent and colluded with Dougie Hamilton to sign a cheaper deal.

Obviously you're not getting the point

High level they signed a younger, hyped up DMAN with solid potential at far less term and money than and I dont want to put Gio down cuz I love him but he's aging and he hasn't strung together enough in his career to warrant the money he's asking for, period.

Even if they didn't intend to send that message, they just did... it's business

[Hackey]

I think it's obvious that the Hamilton signing was done strictly because he is one of the best young dmen in the game and that was something we desperately needed. While I don't think it was a warning I think it definitely helps us in the negotiations. While Gio is an integral part of the team I think he loses a bit of negotiating power seeing that one yes the Flames performed well without him and two now that we just landed one of the best young dmen for the next 6 years. I just really hope both sides can be fair and come to something that is good for both of them. Trading Gio probably isn't Treliving's first choice but at the same time I'm sure he realizes that he has that option if it comes to it. If Gio want's something unreasonable I think we would be better off taking the assets and avoiding the contract burden later as well.

[Knut]

The Flames are notoriously tight lipped. Only one source has said anything and it could really just be idle speculation.


I expect a 7M x 4 or 5 year or a trade will happen.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I think it's pretty clear the Hamilton signing wasn't a shot across the bow, but rather a standard contract negotiation.

Calling it a shot across the bow would be suggesting that Dougie's contract would have been higher expect the Flames decided to send a message to Mark Giordano and is agent and colluded with Dougie Hamilton to sign a cheaper deal.

I think shot across the bow is the wrong terminology, but it certainly removes a TON of leverage from the Giordano camp.

Calgary went out and grabbed a young top pairing defender. Now that they have Brodie AND Hamilton, their need for top pairing defenders is significantly reduced.

Calgary has also set the rate for their top pairing players: Under 6 million for both Hamilton and Brodie, inspite of their term.

If Giordano is looking for 25% more cash, well, he'd better be 25% better of a player.

Make no mistake about it, Calgary acquired Hamilton because guys like that just aren't available very often, but they also acquired him they are less dependent on Giordano now and in the future.