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

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Flames wouldn't be able to protect all their dmen if they got Lindholm. It is a dumb deal on multiple levels

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but if the Flames did that, it would be deal one of a two parter where one of our top end D talent would have to be on the way out for another young talent up front. As you suggest, we could't protect all the D talent and even if we could, it would be poor cap management to be that stacked on the backend.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but if the Flames did that, it would be deal one of a two parter where one of our top end D talent would have to be on the way out for another young talent up front. As you suggest, we could't protect all the D talent and even if we could, it would be poor cap management to be that stacked on the backend.

Maybe we could trade for Gaudreau!

[Enoch Root]

You don't give up a top line player for a #4 defenseman, no matter how good that defenseman is.

Not to mention, defense is already the Flames strongest position for prospects

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Just embrace the fact that we have a truly elite player, and hopefully we'll have him locked up for 8 years at a very reasonable rate.

I don't get it. Why won't people just accept that we have an actual elite forward - that's a great thing! This isn't a very good player, this is an elite player.

We do. And it's awesome. However we also embrace that we don't have to pay him like one yet.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Maybe we could trade for Gaudreau!

LOL. Just flip him back. Of course you only consider any trade of JG in my opinion (assuming someone isn't coming to your door offering the moon and the sun) if you get to a point where the reason the deal can't get done is because JG doesn't want to be here or his demands are bat #### crazy that you'll never get it done.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Flames wouldn't be able to protect all their dmen if they got Lindholm. It is a dumb deal on multiple levels

They'd just have to go 4/4/1.

Protect Gio, Brodie, Lindholm, Hamilton, Monahan, Bennett, Backlund and Brouwer, and Elliott.

Vegas takes either Frolik or Kylington.

I still wouldn't do it.

[Freeway]

"Just thinking outside the box" is code for "This isn't a good hockey deal for one side and it has zero chance of happening," isn't it?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Why would I disagree to a good deal for the Flames?

But why on earth would Bennett sign right now?

If he signs, he won't get nearly what he would get after a good season.

And if he doesn't have a breakout season, he is better off signing a bridge deal than a long term deal.

There is no reason for him to sign now.

So you don't think there's a fair deal, right now that makes sense for the Flames long term and Bennett long term right now that takes away the risk if Bennett having too strong a 2017 season (risk for Flames) or too weak (risk for Bennett)? I suppose that is a reasonable position but I don't think a bridge is in the Flames' best interests as I see ROR/Subban type risk there (worst case scenario) and I don't think you are getting anything below exact market value if you let his final ELC year play out and it is successful.

[Freeway]

Kylington's not eligible to be exposed because he'll have only completed two pro seasons. Same boat as Jon Gillies, I believe.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

They'd just have to go 4/4/1.

Protect Gio, Brodie, Lindholm, Hamilton, Monahan, Bennett, Backlund and Brouwer, and Elliott.

Vegas takes either Frolik or Kylington.

I still wouldn't do it.

Which essentially makes the trade Gaudreau + Kylington for Lindholm and RR

Pushes the rebuild back 2 years

Edit: right - Kylington can't be claimed

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

So you don't think there's a fair deal, right now that makes sense for the Flames long term and Bennett long term right now that takes away the risk if Bennett having too strong a 2017 season (risk for Flames) or too weak (risk for Bennett)? I suppose that is a reasonable position but I don't think a bridge is in the Flames' best interests as I see ROR/Subban type risk there (worst case scenario) and I don't think you are getting anything below exact market value if you let his final ELC year play out and it is successful.

You proposed this - what do you think is fair? Propose a deal that the Flames and Bennett would both be interested in.

[bigrangy]

8*5 million.

It's pretty hard to turn down 40 million dollars when you've been in the league for all of 100 games. He might even bite down to 8*4.5.

If he doesn't pan out the Flames won't be competing anyways so it wouldn't be that big of a whiff.

[Weitz]

There is no way he would sign that. Not with offer sheet and arb rights next year.

[ClubFlames]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

8*5 million.

It's pretty hard to turn down 40 million dollars when you've been in the league for all of 100 games. He might even bite down to 8*4.5.

If he doesn't pan out the Flames won't be competing anyways so it wouldn't be that big of a whiff.

Nvm. Thought you were talking about Johnny.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

8*5 million.

It's pretty hard to turn down 40 million dollars when you've been in the league for all of 100 games. He might even bite down to 8*4.5.

If he doesn't pan out the Flames won't be competing anyways so it wouldn't be that big of a whiff.

if you were Bennett, would you sign that?

It basically says: I think I am going to be a middling player for the next 8 years

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You proposed this - what do you think is fair? Propose a deal that the Flames and Bennett would both be interested in.

Barkov's contract seems a good comparable. Maybe add a year to compensate for the lack of service and adjust for inflation. So 42M over 7 years.

Why for Bennett - If he only has, oh, 49 points next year, he will lose money on a bridge deal long term. He knows he is not getting term unless he breaks the 60pt barrier and even then might need to "prove" it was not a fluke. If he signs a 7M x 2Y bridge which is very likely in that scenario, he will need to make up 35 million over the final 5 years of that span. Even with cap inflation, he has no guarantee he can earn a 7x5 on his third contract.

Why for Flames - First of all the above third contract 7x5 will be a cap killer without actually saving you real dollars over the same span. Bridge is high risk for a high end piece. Second if this year Bennett has 60, 65 pts, afterwards you either have sign him to reduced term (5-6years), a slightly higher cap hit to get term (See Scheifele and then inflate for cap) or an expensive bridge (5.0+M) which will likely be followed by the same third contract.

Just my opinion, but while Gaudreau would have still been expensive after his rookie season, I think he would nonetheless have been cheaper than he will be after his Sophomore season. I imagine the Flames did offer a lowball extension, but beyond that I believe a fair extension would have been cheaper than a fair contract will be now.

[Enoch Root]

Well, if he were going to sign something now, it would have to be in that ballpark - I think you have that right.

But for me - if I'm either party - I would rather wait and see how this season goes. Gambling with contracts is not good risk management.

I would rather wait for more clarity. If he becomes a superstar this season, then so be it.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You don't give up a top line player for a #4 defenseman, no matter how good that defenseman is.

Not to mention, defense is already the Flames strongest position for prospects

Not unless your name is Tobias Fünke Peter Chiarelli!

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Well, if he were going to sign something now, it would have to be in that ballpark - I think you have that right.

But for me - if I'm either party - I would rather wait and see how this season goes. Gambling with contracts is not good risk management.

I would rather wait for more clarity. If he becomes a superstar this season, then so be it.

Well, what is the greater risk:

A) Losing Matthew Tkachuk at the end of his Cbecause you can't afford him in 2020 becuse Sam Bennett has a 7.0+ Million Cap hit to go with Gaudreau's likely 7.5M cap hit and TJ Brodie is up for his final contract.

B) Slightly overpaying a disapointing Sam Bennett in his prime who is maybe worth 5.0M (which by then has inflated to 6.0M anyways) by giving him a bit too much

I mean last season Bennett was performing as a 40pt top six winger at worst on Backlund's line. Inflate the cost of a guy 45pt winger four years from now, in an assumption Bennett mostlyplateaus, and the only scenario Bennett is poor value is one where the cap has completely stagnated.

[Enoch Root]

You're making up scenarios. We don't know what Bennett OR Tkachuk will become.

If they're both worth it, the team will fit them into the cap. Or they will have a star to trade.

Gambling with unknowns is not how you manage risk.