[Rumour] UPD: Friedman: Thinks a deal will get done between Gaudreau and the Flames in the next week

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Agree to disagree I suppose. I think Johnny is a potential generational player and I want him to be a flame as long as possible. If signing Johnny to more money costs this team a guy like Lance Bouma so be it

It's simple to say it'll just cost us a Bouma, but just because they sign JG to 8x8 doesn't mean they suddenly have a revelation and don't overpay for bottom guys.

This is the problem, the people who are happy to pay Johnny his money think he's generational and the rest of the roster will just get figured out no problem. If you overpay for one guy (whether it's Johnny or Bouma) you didn't fix the situation, you continued, so you can't just keep expecting it to fix itself next time.

There is the distinct and realistic possibility that Johnny isn't generational. That he's a 70-80 point dynamic winger who hits a PPG a couple times and never overcomes matchups. That's not even the worst case, that's just the more likely case. He's 23 years old, not 20 (the age when actual generational talents like Crosby and Ove were already putting up 100 point seasons).

[djsFlames]

Overpaying by half to three-quarters of a million, which is essentially what it may take, for the team's best player for the next 5-10 years should not be the ultimate back breaker for the team. If that's the case then you sign one less Bollig, and the problem takes care of itself.

I have all the hope in the world for Bennett, but I seriously doubt he'll outperform Gaudreau before going into his next contract. So if they're worried about setting a precedent for RFAs, wtf is the difference between Gaudreau having signed at 7.25 mil vs 6.75? Totally different players that I doubt will be comparable when it comes time for Bennett. Gaudreau is on another level from the rest of the forwards on the team and getting paid as such won't mean others after him can demand much more, unless they perform at a top 5 forward/absurd pace like he has in order to make themselves comparable, which isn't happening.

It'll only set a worse precedent for RFAs like the McDavids and Matthews, which tbf I have zero problem with.

[PepsiFree]

I'd actually be curious to see how common it is for top players to improve significantly over their first two seasons.

I know Crosby's best seasons were at 23, 24, and 25, but were all close in PPG to his second season, while Ovechkin's were 22, 23, and 25 all close to his first season.

Either way, both players experienced their 4th best production season at 19/20, both within their first two seasons in the league.

Crosby has never had more points than the 120 in his second season, and Ovechkin has beat his first season total of 106 three times, with 109, 110, and 112.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Overpaying by half to three-quarters of a million, which is essentially what it may take, for the team's best player for the next 5-10 years should not be the ultimate back breaker for the team. If that's the case then you sign one less Bollig, and the problem takes care of itself.

I have all the hope in the world for Bennett, but I seriously doubt he'll outperform Gaudreau before going into his next contract. So if they're worried about setting a precedent for RFAs, wtf is the difference between Gaudreau having signed at 7.25 mil vs 6.75? Totally different players that I doubt will be comparable when it comes time for Bennett. Gaudreau is on another level from the rest of the forwards on the team and getting paid as such won't mean others after him can demand much more, unless they perform at a top 5 forward/absurd pace like he has in order to make themselves comparable, which isn't happening.

It'll only set a worse precedent for RFAs like the McDavids and Matthews, which tbf I have zero problem with.

You don't just 'sign one less Bollig'

It's a 23 man roster. Period. You don't just go without a player.

And if you want to win, you need good players. You need to be able to add depth to the roster.

This idea that we can just suck up the dollars somewhere else is ludicrous. It doesn't work that way (in fact the opposite is true). And I'm guessing the people saying it aren't people who are responsible for budgets.

[Conroy4Mayor]

If I were Johnny, I would hold out for at least $7 Million. In my imaginary superstar hockey player fantasy world, I'd have a hard time getting by on $6.75 Million.

The taxes. The rooftop parties. The car payments. The occasional trips back to New Jersey. The all you can eat sushi. The girlfriends' apartments. The yaught fuel. The unicorn ranch. It would really add up. I'd probably be working paycheck to paycheck.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

of course Johnny cares about the money. I'm sure it's not the only thing he cares about but I'm sure it ranks very highly on things to care about here.

For anyone unsure, ask yourself a question. Would you care about a difference of $1.5MM/year? And if you never really thought you could get it, but by holding my position you could squeeze another $0.5-0.75MM/year would you do it? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmm

Personally I would, but then again I may just be scrooge mcduck over here I guess.

What that difference matters depends how much you're getting anyways, IMO.

Of course WE all would like an extra $1.5 or $.75, or $.5. Most of us make maybe a little over a 10th of $.5 per year. So yeah if you're asking would I like an extra $500,000 on top of $50,000, you're effing right I would hold out. That would change my life.

When you're talking about $6.5 million dollars vs $8 million dollars, how much is that extra $1.5 per season going to change your life? When you're talking about those numbers, personally, I wouldn't care. If the extra $1.5 meant I'd have to play somewhere I didn't want to, or leave somewhere I didn't want to.

But those last two sentences may not be the case for JG.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's simple to say it'll just cost us a Bouma, but just because they sign JG to 8x8 doesn't mean they suddenly have a revelation and don't overpay for bottom guys.

This is the problem, the people who are happy to pay Johnny his money think he's generational and the rest of the roster will just get figured out no problem. If you overpay for one guy (whether it's Johnny or Bouma) you didn't fix the situation, you continued, so you can't just keep expecting it to fix itself next time.

There is the distinct and realistic possibility that Johnny isn't generational. That he's a 70-80 point dynamic winger who hits a PPG a couple times and never overcomes matchups. That's not even the worst case, that's just the more likely case. He's 23 years old, not 20 (the age when actual generational talents like Crosby and Ove were already putting up 100 point seasons).

My point has been clear. The bad money on this team since Treliving has taken over is at the bottom of the roster. For instance Johnny is making his $8M and Ferland has a 18 goal 35pt season and wants Bouma money. This is a player that is 25 and outside of one good playoff series and a good (hypothetical) season wants to be paid. I am okay letting him walk and fill that spot with a cheaper vet or prospect.

Is it also shocking that it toons player drafted at 5'6 135lbs a few years to develop outside the NHL before he made the league? If you think he is a 70-80pt winger I understand why you are okay with 6 years. I think he is Art Ross, Hart trophy candidate so I want to lock him up full term and if it costs $8M per then I would be happy if the Flames do it.

The whole notion of paying your superstars money and we can't keep the band together has some merit. When I look at a roster that has Stajan, Wideman, Bouma, Bollig, Engellend, Smid chewing up ~$17M in cap space and 2 useful 40pt wingers in Brouwer and Frolik eating almost $9M I am not pointing at Gaudreau and his $8M as the reason we can't sign Bennett or Tkachuk.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You don't just 'sign one less Bollig'

It's a 23 man roster. Period. You don't just go without a player.

And if you want to win, you need good players. You need to be able to add depth to the roster.

This idea that we can just suck up the dollars somewhere else is ludicrous. It doesn't work that way (in fact the opposite is true). And I'm guessing the people saying it aren't people who are responsible for budgets.

Yes. You sign one less overpriced UFA bottom six/bottom pairing guy, and you find cheaper alternatives that probably don't offer you that much of a difference in terms of performance and being that it's a depth role, including perhaps playing your most NHL ready kid(s) that will only cost you ELC money.

Chicago which has probably been the most cap challenged successful team of late has brought in a new kid or two every year as an alternative and lucky for them many have flourished. But that's a way that they've managed to save on the cap, as opposed to going out and signing big contracts for roster fillers when they have home grown ones.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'd actually be curious to see how common it is for top players to improve significantly over their first two seasons.

I know Crosby's best seasons were at 23, 24, and 25, but were all close in PPG to his second season, while Ovechkin's were 22, 23, and 25 all close to his first season.

Either way, both players experienced their 4th best production season at 19/20, both within their first two seasons in the league.

Crosby has never had more points than the 120 in his second season, and Ovechkin has beat his first season total of 106 three times, with 109, 110, and 112.

There is the simple fact scoring league wide has gone down. Pat Kane the player Gaudreau is most commonly compared to had by far his career season this year at 26

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

My point has been clear. The bad money on this team since Treliving has taken over is at the bottom of the roster. For instance Johnny is making his $8M and Ferland has a 18 goal 35pt season and wants Bouma money. This is a player that is 25 and outside of one good playoff series and a good (hypothetical) season wants to be paid. I am okay letting him walk and fill that spot with a cheaper vet or prospect.

Is it also shocking that it toons player drafted at 5'6 135lbs a few years to develop outside the NHL before he made the league? If you think he is a 70-80pt winger I understand why you are okay with 6 years. I think he is Art Ross, Hart trophy candidate so I want to lock him up full term and if it costs $8M per then I would be happy if the Flames do it.

The whole notion of paying your superstars money and we can't keep the band together has some merit. When I look at a roster that has Stajan, Wideman, Bouma, Bollig, Engellend, Smid chewing up ~$17M in cap space and 2 useful 40pt wingers in Brouwer and Frolik eating almost $9M I am not pointing at Gaudreau and his $8M as the reason we can't sign Bennett or Tkachuk.

The fact that there are bad contracts on the roster does not justify more bad contracts.

Those contracts you listed will be gone soon. If you want to be a contender in a cap world, you can't afford bad contracts. Period.

Continuing to hand them out is not the best way to eliminate the problem, IMO.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

What do you if Bennett has a break out year and scores 70? What about Tkachuk in 3 or 4 years? All of the sudden you have 5 RFAs making 8 million and you are totally effed.

Sounds terrible having all those great players. I would deal with each one as it comes up - but it seems far more likely that Bennett and Tkachuk will be Monahan comparables than Gaudreau comparables.

What I know right now is that we have one great player who needs a contract and appears uninterested in signing for less than his closest league-wide comparable in Tarasenko. Gaudreau is better than Tarasenko, and I think that is enough to pay him comparably.

To me, the risk of damaging this relationship and our tentative rebuild by hardballing our best player is silly. Gaudreau is good enough to build a team around. We would not get value in any realisitic trade.

I'd sign the guy (if we, in fact, can) for a high dollar amount at 8 years and move on.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Yes. You sign one less overpriced UFA bottom six/bottom pairing guy, and you find cheaper alternatives that probably don't offer you that much of a difference in terms of performance and being that it's a depth role, including perhaps playing your most NHL ready kid(s) that will only cost you ELC money.

Chicago which has probably been the most cap challenged successful team of late has brought in a new kid or two every year as an alternative and lucky for them many have flourished. But that's a way that they've managed to save on the cap, as opposed to going out and signing big contracts for roster fillers when they have home grown ones.

You do that anyway. But you still have to add good support players to be competitive.

Chicago does not support your point.

1) they are fortunate that they signed key players under the prior CBA on declining contracts - no way they could afford that roster otherwise

2) they are fortunate that guys like Panarin keep signing with them (the Flames won't have that luxury), and

3) despite those points, they are now, and will continue going forward, to really struggle to be able to afford supporting players.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The fact that there are bad contracts on the roster does not justify more bad contracts.

Those contracts you listed will be gone soon. If you want to be a contender in a cap world, you can't afford bad contracts. Period.

Continuing to hand them out is not the best way to eliminate the problem, IMO.

So you are of the belief paying a winger who was top 6 in league scoring at 22 years old $8M per season is a bad contract? I think if that was the deal the Flames signed off on we as a fanbase would never say it is a bad deal

[UnitedFlames]

Maybe his father is driving this. Get Agent to ask for more than they know Calgary wants to pay, or can pay, thus hoping to force a trade closer to home. Crazy? Probably. but, maybe not.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Sounds terrible having all those great players. I would deal with each one as it comes up - but it seems far more likely that Bennett and Tkachuk will be Monahan comparables than Gaudreau comparables.

What I know right now is that we have one great player who needs a contract and appears uninterested in signing for less than his closest league-wide comparable in Tarasenko. Gaudreau is better than Tarasenko, and I think that is enough to pay him comparably.

To me, the risk of damaging this relationship and our tentative rebuild by hardballing our best player is silly. Gaudreau is good enough to build a team around. We would not get value in any realisitic trade.

I'd sign the guy (if we, in fact, can) for a high dollar amount at 8 years and move on.

I'm sorry but hoping that these players don't become superstars is kind of a silly way to build your team.

You are suggesting that the team paint itself into a corner and not be able to handle contingencies where other players like Bennett and Tkachuk become stars as well.

Extremely short-sighted, IMO

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's simple to say it'll just cost us a Bouma, but just because they sign JG to 8x8 doesn't mean they suddenly have a revelation and don't overpay for bottom guys.

This is the problem, the people who are happy to pay Johnny his money think he's generational and the rest of the roster will just get figured out no problem. If you overpay for one guy (whether it's Johnny or Bouma) you didn't fix the situation, you continued, so you can't just keep expecting it to fix itself next time.

There is the distinct and realistic possibility that Johnny isn't generational. That he's a 70-80 point dynamic winger who hits a PPG a couple times and never overcomes matchups. That's not even the worst case, that's just the more likely case. He's 23 years old, not 20 (the age when actual generational talents like Crosby and Ove were already putting up 100 point seasons).

Not too many people are calling him generational. I don't think he needs to be generational to get $7.5-$8 million. I wouldn't pay him that much but it's not the end of the world if they do.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by UnitedFlames

Maybe his father is driving this. Get Agent to ask for more than they know Calgary wants to pay, or can pay, thus hoping to force a trade closer to home. Crazy? Probably. but, maybe not.

Let's stop the mindless and baseless speculation. Guy Gaudreau is a god damn saint.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Let's stop the mindless and baseless speculation. Guy Gaudreau is a god damn saint.

People are saying though.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Those contracts you listed will be gone soon. If you want to be a contender in a cap world, you can't afford bad contracts. Period.

I'm all for a lower contract for Gaudreau, but to say that no contenders today have bad contracts is flat-out wrong.

IMO, at the moment, the six teams with the best chance at winning the Stanley Cup are Pittsburgh, San Jose, Washington, Dallas, Los Angeles, and Chicago. I can name at least two overpaid/overlong contracts from every single one of those teams:

Pittsburgh: Trevor Daley ($3.3 million until 2017), Marc-Andre Fleury ($5.75 million until 2019)

San Jose: Paul Martin ($4.85 million until 2019), Mikkel Boedker ($4 million until 2020)

Washington: Lars Eller ($3.5 million until 2018), Brooks Orpik ($5.5 million until 2019)

Dallas: Jason Spezza ($7.5 million until 2019), Kari Lehtonen ($5.9 million until 2018), Antti Niemi ($4.5 million until 2018)

Los Angeles: Dustin Brown ($5.875 million until 2022), Marian Gaborik ($4.875 million until 2021)

Chicago: Marian Hossa ($5.275 million until 2021), Jonathan Toews ($10.5 million until 2023), Brent Seabrook ($6.875 million until 2024)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

So you are of the belief paying a winger who was top 6 in league scoring at 22 years old $8M per season is a bad contract? I think if that was the deal the Flames signed off on we as a fanbase would never say it is a bad deal

Yes I believe $8M is a bad contract.

Hall had 50 points in 45 games (shortened season) in the 3rd year of his ELC at the age of 20. Had he not missed 3 games, he probably would have been top 5 or 6 in the league in scoring (missed top 6 by 3 points).

Every Oiler fan would have said at that point that he was a certainty to be a league star for the next 10-15 years.

There is always risk.