Friedman: Gaudreau negotiations will be put on hold during World Cup

[polak]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Why would you feel like that's the case? Burke has stated that the Flames organization won't "nickel" and "dime" players and would pay them what they were worth, and so far that seems to be the case.

Look at Monahan. We were expecting 6-6.5. He signed for pretty much exactly what he's worth in terms of market value, having higher goal totals than other comparables. A market-value deal would have been offered to Johnny as well, not a lowballing one.

Because there still hasn't been anyone that signed for more than Gio.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by polak

Nice crystal ball. Why can't you tell us what Johnny is going to do then?.

You DID just compare him to Iginla and Theo which he hasn't come close to reaching or earning, so I think it's fair that Nik makes a prediction too.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by polak

Nice crystal ball. Why can't you tell us what Johnny is going to do then?

You want to know the amount of rookies who scored 36 points in their rookie years and didn't become PPG players?

This team has no one that is a sure thing to be as good as Johnny. There were only 5 players that were as productive as him in the entire league last year.

If Johnny is serious about sitting, the Flames have a long shot of replacing that level of talent.

If he's serious about sitting, then he's an idiot.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Sitting for a good part of the year would hurt the Flames playoffs chances a good amount. Which hurts the team financially.

Well yeah, so you weigh that against long term effects of overpaying and hurting your cap for eight seasons.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

"Hey this thread is pretty active, let's go check it out..."



WTF, everyone.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by polak

Nice crystal ball. Why can't you tell us what Johnny is going to do then?

lewl.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Player A scored 30 goals, player B scored 40. They are separated by four points.

You tell me who is more productive.

Wait, are we basing this on only 1 year? Because I keep hearing that 2 seasons is not enough to prove his value. But in his two seasons, he's scored at a 28 goal, 73 point pace vs Tarasenko, who in his two seasons prior to his contract, scored at a 34 goal 67 point pace. I'll take the guy who scores 6 less goals but adds 11 more assists because he produces more offense.

Originally Posted by Frequitude

There is nothing overly unrealistic about the Tarasenko comparable. What is unrealistic though is saying that 8x$7.5M for Tarasenko is the same as 8x$7.5M for Gaudreau. Tarasenko's contract was 4 RFA + 4 UFA years, Gaudreau's would be 5 RFA +3 UFA years.

Do you acknowledge that that is the case?

If so, do you acknowledge that Tarasenko at 8x$7.5M is approximately equal to Gaudreau at 8x$7.1M? (assumes their RFA years are worth $6M and their UFA years are worth $9M).

I do, I've brought this fact up many times before. Do you acknowledge (1) that cap inflation has averaged about 5.5% per year and (2) that Gaudreau has been the superior offensive player at the same stage of their careers, despite getting significantly less sheltered minutes.

Inflation alone would bring his contract to 7.5 AAV. Then add the fact that he's produced more points at every stage of their respective careers, and a 7.5M+ AAV valuation becomes extremely realistic.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You DID just compare him to Iginla and Theo which he hasn't come close to reaching or earning, so I think it's fair that Nik makes a prediction too.

Gaudreau compared to Iggy and Fleury makes more sense than comparing Bennett to Gaudreau. I love Bennett but he could be a 45 point middle 6 C just as easily as he could be a 70 point 1C. It's too early to tell, meanwhile Gaudreau would have to regress to be a 70 point player. Obviously there are differences between Bennett and Gaudreau that go beyond points, all I'm trying to say is that Bennett is mostly just potential at this point.

[Frequitude]

1) Point taken on inflation, but cap growth has slowed to around 2.9% the past couple years. Those years are far more relevant than what happened in the mid 2000s. It is also widely acknowledged that there is no sudden growth coming. So let's give you the benefit of rounding and say 3%.

2) I acknowledge that Gaudreau has produced more points, but disagree strongly that points are the be all and end all. Tarasenko is bigger, stronger and scores more goals. That is worth value. To keep it easy I propose we call it a wash.

So assuming Tarasenko got $6M for RFA and $9M for UFA and factoring in inflation, Gaudreau's Tarasenko equivalents would be:

8x$7.3M
7x$7.1M
6x$6.7M

Do you agree?

[Manhattanboy]

When has a credible source ever suggested that JG would be prepared to sit out the start of the season? People need to chill.

[Ryan Coke]

The inflation number should only be added for years beyond tarasenkos deal in that case, not the whole term. 5% of 7 million is about 350k per year, for 1 year.

It doesn't add anywhere close to 3 million over the course of the contract.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

2) I acknowledge that Gaudreau has produced more points, but disagree strongly that points are the be all and end all. Tarasenko is bigger, stronger and scores more goals. That is worth value. To keep it easy I propose we call it a wash.

That was pretty much the case with Monahan vs MacKinnon as a contract comparable - Monahan's ended up being worth slightly more despite having less point totals, because he's had more goals scored. Goals definitely count for a lot in terms of player value.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

The inflation number should only be added for years beyond tarasenkos deal in that case, not the whole term. 5% of 7 million is about 350k per year, for 1 year.

It doesn't add anywhere close to 3 million over the course of the contract.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. The increasing cap gives GMs increasing ability to give out more per year. It's not like any GMs are saying on July 1 "well these three long term contracts from like 6 years ago valued next year's UFA year as X, so I propose you only get X next year".

I'm willing to give Gaudreauvertime credit for saying inflation should apply to all years.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

1) Point taken on inflation, but cap growth has slowed to around 2.9% the past couple years. Those years are far more relevant than what happened in the mid 2000s. It is also widely acknowledged that there is no sudden growth coming. So let's give you the benefit of rounding and say 3%.

2) I acknowledge that Gaudreau has produced more points, but disagree strongly that points are the be all and end all. Tarasenko is bigger, stronger and scores more goals. That is worth value. To keep it easy I propose we call it a wash.

So assuming Tarasenko got $6M for RFA and $9M for UFA and factoring in inflation, Gaudreau's Tarasenko equivalents would be:

8x$7.3M
7x$7.1M
6x$6.7M

Do you agree?

3% is fine on inflation, I was running scenarios that had it stretch anywhere from 2.5% - 5.5%.

I don't necessarily agree that being bigger and stronger add value, or else Benn wouldn't have made so much less than Pat Kane. Also, is their any evidence that suggests goal scoring drives up player value more than points? I agree in the general case that players of identical point production, goal scoring matters. But when a player has significantly outscored the other over their respective careers, I wouldn't call it a wash. One last factor is injury history, where Tarasenko's is pretty extensive compared to Johnny's (concussions especially scare me because it makes the risk of future injury that much worse).

In the end of the day, Gaudreau is probably about 2-10% more valuable than Tarasenko IMO. On a 8 year deal, that puts him anywhere between 7.5M and 8M.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

The inflation number should only be added for years beyond tarasenkos deal in that case, not the whole term. 5% of 7 million is about 350k per year, for 1 year.

It doesn't add anywhere close to 3 million over the course of the contract.

That's not how inflation works, run the discounted cash flows yourself. Essentially it's the difference between Tarasenko's year 0 payment vs the discounted value Gaudreau's year 8 payment. The years 1-7 net out, you're right, but then you're comparing 7.5M in year 0 vs 7.5M in year 8, which is worth 5.1M in year 0 dollars at 5%. So that's 2.4M difference, but you need to inflate that back out to the midpoint of the term (4 years) to normalize like the AAV. 2.4*1.05^4 = 3.5M.

Make sense?

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

"Hey this thread is pretty active, let's go check it out..."



WTF, everyone.

so frigin true.

Just finished 4 hours straight of back to back meetings, come to CP, click on 'last page' of this thread with numerous "if gaudreau were to sit" related posts. went back to the first post in this thread made today, and skimmed each page for any actual news or statements about this, just to realize that the thread is going all over the place.

[Rick M.]

We'll all need ulcer medication if this drags out much longer!

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

so frigin true.

Just finished 4 hours straight of back to back meetings, come to CP, click on 'last page' of this thread with numerous "if gaudreau were to sit" related posts. went back to the first post in this thread made today, and skimmed each page for any actual news or statements about this, just to realize that the thread is going all over the place.

Originally Posted by Rick M.

We'll all need ulcer medication if this drags out much longer!

I feel so sorry for you guys

Spoiler!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

so frigin true.

Just finished 4 hours straight of back to back meetings, come to CP, click on 'last page' of this thread with numerous "if gaudreau were to sit" related posts. went back to the first post in this thread made today, and skimmed each page for any actual news or statements about this, just to realize that the thread is going all over the place.

I fear that this is probably my fault by suggesting that Gaudreau's only leverage in this negotiation is to withhold services, which—as StrangeBrew has concurred—is no real leverage at all in the light of how badly it hurts the player.

My point was actually to show how highly probable it is that Gaudreau is signed to a long-term deal before the start of the season.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

...His leverage is in refusing to sign a long term deal and leaving at his earliest opportunity. Forcing the Flames to lose him for nothing or trade him and likely not get full value. If the Flames want a long term deal, which they should, they are ceding some leverage here.

Of course they are, but I still maintain that the counter offer of a short term deal is also not a significant amount of leverage for Gaudreau. This is precisely because he is five years removed from unrestricted free agency: a "short-term" contract that carries him to free agency is actually a long-term deal that covers the bulk of his prime-playing years, and a shorter, two or three year deal still leaves him in restricted free agency.

The reason this is dragging on seems to be Gaudreau's inordinately high number of remaining RFA years, which are effectively controlled by the Flames.

[Steveyoto]

What if we just give him a 1 or 2 year deal? A "show me" contract. Give him 6M per. See if he can keep up with his own hype for a couple years. If so, pay him well. If not you we are in a good spot.