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

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

You do know that MVP just stands for most valuable player, and doesn't imply an award of any sort.

Do you not agree that he was the team's MVP during the playoff run? Or that he was the MVP of his world cup team? Most people agree with both.

That and $6 will get you coffee at Starbucks.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Do you not agree that he was the team's MVP during the playoff run?

TJ Brodie was by far the team's MVP during the playoff run. There is absolutely zero argument that can be made for any other player including Gaudreau.

Or that he was the MVP of his world cup team?

He was the best scorer at special teams situations (5-on-4, 3-on-3).
He was also the fourth oldest player on that team.
He was not as effective 5-on-5 as Auston Matthews, Nathan McKinnon, or even McDavid.
He did not kill penalties.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

He was the best scorer at special teams situations (5-on-4, 3-on-3).
He was also the fourth oldest player on that team.
He was not as effective 5-on-5 as Auston Matthews, Nathan McKinnon, or even McDavid.
He did not kill penalties.

Are you kidding? Please be kidding. He was much better than Mathews and McDavid 5 on 5 even though those two got all the offensive zone starts and very favorable minutes 5 on 5.

He was without a doubt the best player on North America in every situation.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GGG

Wasn't Mackinnon pretty clearly the best player in the tournament. I mean everyone wanted to choose between McDavid, Matthews, or Johnny but the older guys on the team were better.

I wouldn't say that MacKinnon was "pretty clearly" the best player. Yes, he was one of the best from a small group of players that included Gaudreau, Nugent-Hopkins (blech), Gostisbehere, etc., but it was not a slam dunk by any stretch.

[polak]

We lost in 5 Games... I don't feel like anyone should be getting credit for that series. Including TJ Brodie and Johnny Gaudreau.

That Getzlaf goal where Brodie tried to hit him and he literally just bounced off Getzlaf who walked in and scored, that's when I knew we were toast.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by polak

We lost in 5 Games... I don't feel like anyone should be getting credit for that series. Including TJ Brodie and Johnny Gaudreau.

That Getzlaf goal where Brodie tried to hit him and he literally just bounced off Getzlaf who walked in and scored, that's when I knew we were toast.

There were two series in the Flames' 2015 playoffs.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by polak

We lost in 5 Games... I don't feel like anyone should be getting credit for that series. Including TJ Brodie and Johnny Gaudreau.

That Getzlaf goal where Brodie tried to hit him and he literally just bounced off Getzlaf who walked in and scored, that's when I knew we were toast.

That was the 2nd round. We also played in the first round and won in 6. Or does that not count because it took too many games to win?

[polak]

Originally Posted by Buff

That was the 2nd round. We also played in the first round and won in 6. Or does that not count because it took too many games to win?

It doesn't count cause beating Vancouver is easy

[Ryan Coke]

Just wanted to point out to the people that think the Flames shouldn't be utilizing the leverage they have via the CBA to ensure the team gets a fair deal (or as polak puts it, to 'pound sand').....would anyone expect a player to ignore his free agency when negotiating a deal? You know, because they wouldn't want to offend the team or fan base? Of course not, and the idea that the Flames should ignore his RFA year, no arb rights, is absolutely ludicrous.

I'm willing to play ball with the Ekblad and Tarasenko comparables to try to get a deal, but it has to be adjusted for the lack of CBA rights. On an 8 year I could see the 7.25 at most, or 7 on a 7 year deal.

Those are the numbers that I'd use to judge who is being reasonable. If Johnnys camp isn't in that range, then they can sit for as long as he wants. If the Flames refuse to see a 7 on an 8 year contract, then I will start to be critical of them. But 6.5-7.25 on a 7-8 year deal is totally fair, and anything starting with an 8 is completely nuts.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Mike Johnson said $8M

Really? Is that story framed for your bedroom wall? And how did he get to that number? Just because it's what JG asked for?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Are you kidding? Please be kidding. He was much better than Mathews and McDavid 5 on 5 even though those two got all the offensive zone starts and very favorable minutes 5 on 5.

They got offensive zone starts and favorable minutes because they were completely hemming the other team's top shut down lines in. Yes they took shifts that were too long but they still had dominant shifts.

In game 1 against Finland, Matthews was probably the best forward. Gaudreau had a sweet goal though.

In game 2 against Russia (the game they lost) Gaudreau was guilty of too many turnovers.

In game 3 against Sweden, Gaudreau was the best player on the ice.

[bigrangy]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

This is the exact reason why this thread keeps going around.

The contract negotiation is not about what Gaudreau is worth. He does not have any bargaining power. Yes, he can sit out games, but that means he really only has one card to play and the Flames can call his bluff. Other than that he has no power to force the Flames' hand. If he does sit out, there is risk on his side, as well. Not just on the Flames side.

We can all sit around and discuss his worth, 8 million, 9 million, whatever. I am sure Johnny and his agent would love this conversation. But because of the CBA, the Flames are not offering him what he is worth, they are offering what makes sense in their cap structure. Obviously, they want to be fair so that the relationship remains good, but they are not going to offer him what UFA free agent players have signed for. Not only would it be bad from a cap perspective, but it would be very dangerous from an owner's perspective.

This is the reality. Like it or not. Perhaps this issue will lead to another stalemate at the end of the current CBA. Who knows. But for now, that is the deal. The entire structure of player salaries is based on them having to take smaller contracts earlier in their careers and the teams that drafted them having a lot of power to ensure that this happens.

Perhaps, as Bingo has suggested, they will reach a bridge deal and revisit this again in the near future, when Johnny has more options at his disposal. But either way, worth is not really what is on the table, at least not if your in management's seat.

If Treliving does cave and give him a big contract, you will see a lot more RFA's sitting out in the future. It will mean a complete change in how business in the NHL is conducted.

Very good post. The value that Gaudreau brings to the Flames is commensurate with that of an 8 to 9 million dollar player. He's in the same tier as Stamkos, but definitely a tier below Benn, Kopitar, Toews, Kane. I think everyone can agree on this.

However, Johnny's contract situation is quite different from those other players. They were all proven elite NHL players before they signed their contracts. Stamkos had some Rockets, Benn won the Art Ross, etc. only 13 players make 8 million plus as an AAV. All but two of them (Giroux and Voracek, and Voracek is severely overpaid) have won a major award or several cups. Also, all of these contracts take up a hefty chunk of each players' UFA years.

Hypothetically If Gaudreau was 27 and had 4 or 5 years of experience, maintaining his current level of play (~top 5 in league scoring), he would only get a 9x8 deal (similar to Benn, but less because he never lead the league in scoring). With Johnny's contract situation, where he has basically no rights for 1 year, RFA rights for 4 and UFA rights for only up to 3 years, the AAV of that contract must be significantly reduced.

Valuation can be done as follows:

Year 1: no rights, sign or play in the KHL, basically worth his QO, so 1 million. Bump it up to 3 million just to be in good faith.

Years 2-5: top winger, but still an RFA. The best young scorers' RFA years have been worth about 10% of the Cap, historically. 7.3 per year.

Years 6,7,8: he's good, but not 2014-16 Jamie Benn good, but we'll give him 9.5 million per year anyways.

So, 3+7.3x4+9.5x2 or 3, gives a total contract value of 51.2 million over 7 years, or 60.7 over 8 years.

This leads to an AAV of 7x7.31 or 8x7.6.

Asking for 8 million (even though he brings a level of play consistent with that of an 8 million dollar player, we all accept that) is an excessive ask for his agent.

Likewise, an offer under 7 by the Flames is pretty pathetic for a player of Johnny's caliber, even in a situation where they have most of the leverage.

I think both AAV's I proposed will come in within 150k of the final contract.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Just wanted to point out to the people that think the Flames shouldn't be utilizing the leverage they have via the CBA to ensure the team gets a fair deal (or as polak puts it, to 'pound sand').....would anyone expect a player to ignore his free agency when negotiating a deal? You know, because they wouldn't want to offend the team or fan base? Of course not, and the idea that the Flames should ignore his RFA year, no arb rights, is absolutely ludicrous.

A fair deal is fair if it's fair for both sides. Using Gaudreau's lack of leverage to force him to cave and sign for well below his true value (ignoring FA status) is bad relationship management with your best player. Now I'm not saying that's what the Flames are doing. Just saying that it's a bad idea.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by polak

Fair deal is fair if it's fair for both sides. Using Gaudreau's lack of leverage to force him to cave and sign for well below his true value (ignoring FA status) is bad relationship management with your best player. Now I'm not saying that's what the Flames are doing. Just saying that it's a bad idea.

So it's a bad idea for a player to use their UFA status to extract as much as the market will allow?


I don't see the difference.

[GioforPM]

In 2015 it'd be hard to say anyone was the PO MVP. Gaudreau led in points but only by one over Hudler and two over Russell (!) and Wideman (1). Brodie was a beast as far as minutes go - ATOI of over 27 minutes. Ferland and Bennett had huge impact in the series they won. Everyone sucked in the one they lost, including Johnny, who was very much off his game.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

TJ Brodie was by far the team's MVP during the playoff run. There is absolutely zero argument that can be made for any other player including Gaudreau.

Do the Flames win their first playoff series in 11 years the Canucks without Ferland playing like he did ?? He made every Flame Player better and every Canuck player worse.

[Toonage]

I'm turning this into a prediction thread. For one post.

I say Gaudreau signs on the 5th, (the day of the 2nd last pre season game) and plays in the last pre season game on the 6th.

And now, back to the eternal struggle.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by polak

A fair deal is fair if it's fair for both sides. Using Gaudreau's lack of leverage to force him to cave and sign for well below his true value (ignoring FA status) is bad relationship management with your best player. Now I'm not saying that's what the Flames are doing. Just saying that it's a bad idea.

You understand how negotiations work yeah? The party who holds leverage usually exerts it to get the best deal possible for itself. It's poor negotiating tactics to not use that leverage. Plus there's the whole danger of setting a precedent that can lead to more of these types of negotiations in the future. Just be patient, this will work itself out and it won't cause any long term damage. There have been significantly harsher negotiations that ended with the player being there for years. Assuming the worst is what makes for bad negotiating.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

So it's a bad idea for a player to use their UFA status to extract as much as the market will allow?


I don't see the difference.

A player going to UFA means that they're not invested in the team they're currently on long term. Hard to compare. If the Flames have no interest in trying to keep Johnny after his UFA years then yeah, go nuts, force him to take whatever offer you want. Obviously I don't think that's the case so relationship management is just as important as cap management here.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You understand how negotiations work yeah? The party who holds leverage usually exerts it to get the best deal possible for itself. It's poor negotiating tactics to not use that leverage. Plus there's the whole danger of setting a precedent that can lead to more of these types of negotiations in the future. Just be patient, this will work itself out and it won't cause any long term damage. There have been significantly harsher negotiations that ended with the player being there for years. Assuming the worst is what makes for bad negotiating.

The part that is unfortunate is that the Flames season becomes a casualty the longer this plays out. This in itself could very likely put pressure on BT to cave in.