[Signing] Gaudreau re-signs (6 yrs, $6.75 mil AAV) - Page 27 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

GranteedEV · 10-11-2016, 02:04 AM

Re: the Gio Cap. It is not a new concept. The Red Wings had the precedent-setting Lidstrom cap that kept the pay of hall lf fame locks like Zetterberg and Datsyuk paid below their worth, until they became the true leaders on their teams. They then earned contracts that then have them making more than their worth in their twilight years, as is the case with Gio right now. Will a 36 year old Gaudreau be worth more than a 27 year old Gaudreau? No but he will undoubtably make more. These sorts of things balance out in the long run for the player and the team. There is no such thing as win-win or lose-lose with star players. Let's enjoy the next six years. If Tre and co show competency once the Engellands and Widemans are off the proverbial books, then Johnny will re-sign again, because winning is what matters to a guy like him, not time zones.

Re: "Six years is not long enough." I wanted eight badly. I proposed a Tarasenko deal when much of this board was insisting on Johnny being worth less than Monahan. But you know what? Six years is still a long time. I look at NBA deals where star players are signing two-three year deals with annual player opt-out clauses... fans have to deal with "is he staying or going" on a cyclical basis in a league where stars outside of high draft picks are even more difficult to luck upon. With this signing we have six years of stability barring more Smid type cap space killer contracts / Raymond type buyouts.

P.S. my guess was close.. That suggests to me neither side fleeced the other.

DeluxeMoustache · 10-11-2016, 02:14 AM

Great deal. Term an AAV are spot on.

6 years is a long time. Dollars on FA years punish the team in the near term.

Lots of other contracts upon which to debate their merits over the next 5 years +.

Glad you are here, Johnny. Let's drop the puck!

SebC · 10-11-2016, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGG

That is a big win for the agent. 6 mil per RFA year plus 10.5 for the UFA year. If 8 X 7.25 was on the table this was a poor decision.

1 year 0.9 QO + 6x4 RFA + 15.6 UFA?

DeluxeMoustache · 10-11-2016, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SebC

1 year 0.9 QO + 6x4 RFA + 15.6 UFA?

You know that is not reality

ditty · 10-11-2016, 02:21 AM

The best thing that may come out of the World Cup for me is that Gaudreau should be about as ready as anyone who was in Flames camp. If there was no World Cup last month, his holdout would be more of a problem right now.

TheoFleury · 10-11-2016, 02:21 AM

Such a great deal, BT does it again. A SC window of 5-6 years will suffice. Get it done.

FireGilbert · 10-11-2016, 04:25 AM

Awesome news, I am so excited. I thought it would be $7M+ for sure so this is incredible value.

I predict some growing pains this season but after that the Flames are looking at a 5 year cup window.

Cali Panthers Fan · 10-11-2016, 05:22 AM

Just to add to what Jiri and other's were saying about not keeping score, I think it's especially important in this case where there was little to no actual facts about the negotiation. That led to a LOT of speculation, and whenever you do that, there are bound to be some more extreme opinions that are going to be wrong. Most of the time there were reasons to back up those thoughts, sometimes not. In the absence of hard facts, you need to allow for a range of thoughts on the same subject.

The only issue I had with this whole thing was the general tone and mood of posts. People were very quick to argue and mock other people's opinions. Some were like a dog on a bone when it came to certain points, and wouldn't even acknowledge other people's opinions. That's where you get a lot of contentiousness from, and it's easy to fix if you just ignore those who aren't willing to have a reasonable conversation.

AltaGuy · 10-11-2016, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

...and a few of the old guard "Lanny McDonald" posters around to smack things down every so often. He was a great nuclear deterrent.

On to the real topic. Happy it's done and the deal seems reasonable to me. I like the flexibility for both team and player. Given Johnny is a little squirt I always worry about his longevity and if he can keep the pace up. I hope he can.

Lanny would have made Gaudreauvertime sound like the voice of reason. Now that guy could troll!

devo22 · 10-11-2016, 05:44 AM

The more I think about it, the more I like the term. Not having his and Monahans contract expire at the same time again is probably not a bad idea and a 8 year contract would have limited flexibility because of the higher AAV. All things considered it really seems like a great deal.

It really hit me today that there's real Flames hockey tomorrow with Johnny in the lineup and it makes me giggle like a girl. So excited!

calgaryboy · 10-11-2016, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devo22

The more I think about it, the more I like the term. Not having his and Monahans contract expire at the same time again is probably not a bad idea and a 8 year contract would have limited flexibility because of the higher AAV. All things considered it really seems like a great deal.

It really hit me today that there's real Flames hockey tomorrow with Johnny in the lineup and it makes me giggle like a girl. So excited!

It is a great deal. I am looking forward to today´s press conference. I think it will be all about the smiles :-)

CliffFletcher · 10-11-2016, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If this was your first thought, Jiri, then this encapsulates everything that is wrong with modern fandom. And I know you weren't the only one to think this.

Honestly, the first thought should have been relief and excitement that we have one of the game's best young players in the line-up on Wednesday.

As Jiri said, this team has been burned again and again with bad asset management. Fans who enjoy mulling over salary caps, trades, free agency, and other kinds of asset management are naturally going to look at this deal through that lens. And you can do that while still being excited about the signing. Some people will buy a new car and even as they're driving it off they lot they'll already be thinking about payments, depreciation, and when the best time to trade it in for a replacement will be. Doesn't mean they aren't enjoying the new car.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I just think it is goofy that the most important thing you take away from this signing is the need to trade Gaudreau when he is 28 years old. I mean, I get your thought process, and I am really only calling you out because your post was the first along these lines. But at some point, we all forgot the point of being a sports fan. Now it's all spreadsheets and the players have stopped being people and became assets. And as a result, you are already mentally dismantling a team that is only in the early stages of its rebuild.

And I think it's goofy that some fans feel the need to tell other fans how to be fans. Some fans use these boards to share virtual high-fives. Others use them to have more analytical conversations. And most do some of both. Why not let everyone be a fan and use these boards in whatever way they enjoy? Speculating about this signing in terms of long-term asset management is just another way of being a fan. It's not badwrongfun.

Gaudreauvertime · 10-11-2016, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

Lol!

You wrote post after post about how foolish it would be if management implemented the Gio cap and now that it's done, you're calling it a great deal?

Your posts couldn't be more of a joke...

I personally am thrilled that this is all over. Mostly so the level of incompetency in some posters might finally die down.

In this case the Gio Cap cost us 2 years of prime Johnny. Yes, I think its foolish, and I mentioned that I thought that was what was going to happen.

Earlier, I posted the question 'which would you prefer 6x6.7 or 8x7.5'. I know I would have preferred the latter. Don't get me wrong, 6 years at that cap is fine, I just don't like leaving that many UFA years on the table.

Alberta_Beef · 10-11-2016, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

$513k with 14f/7d/2g. I think Vey ($700k) and/or Bollig($950k) gets sent down to create a bit more.

Players on non-roster IR count against the cap, so Pribyl will count. My math has the Flames over the cap by a little more than a million. Two of Vey, Bollig or Kulak need to be send down to be cap compliant and all 3 if the Flames wanted the option to put in a waiver claim.

PsYcNeT · 10-11-2016, 06:37 AM

Where's that GIF of a superlarge rolleyes smiley at

Ah here

Alberta_Beef · 10-11-2016, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

In this case the Gio Cap cost us 2 years of prime Johnny. Yes, I think its foolish, and I mentioned that I thought that was what was going to happen.

Earlier, I posted the question 'which would you prefer 6x6.7 or 8x7.5'. I know I would have preferred the latter. Don't get me wrong, 6 years at that cap is fine, I just don't like leaving that many UFA years on the table.

Do you have proof of this "Gio cap"? Just because the numbers match doesn't mean that was their limit.

Resolute 14 · 10-11-2016, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And I think it's goofy that some fans feel the need to tell other fans how to be fans. Some fans use these boards to share virtual high-fives. Others use them to have more analytical conversations. And most do some of both. Why not let everyone be a fan and use these boards in whatever way they enjoy? Speculating about this signing in terms of long-term asset management is just another way of being a fan. It's not badwrongfun.

Yes Cliff, I am well aware that you are always open to discussion, but only if the viewpoints agree with yours. I am also aware, however, that Jiri can handle a discussion that challenges his position.

Resolute 14 · 10-11-2016, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Do you have proof of this "Gio cap"? Just because the numbers match doesn't mean that was their limit.

This is one of the very rare cases where he isn't entirely wrong. It was frequently commented on by insiders that the Flames didn't want to go past what they are paying Gio. Friedman also noted that there was pressure on the Flames to avoid allowing the cost of second contracts to get even more out of hand than they already are. And undoubtedly, the NHLPA wanted Johnny to push the envelope from his side.

Alberta_Beef · 10-11-2016, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

This is one of the very rare cases where he isn't entirely wrong. It was frequently commented on by insiders that the Flames didn't want to go past what they are paying Gio. Friedman also noted that there was pressure on the Flames to avoid allowing the cost of second contracts to get even more out of hand than they already are. And undoubtedly, the NHLPA wanted Johnny to push the envelope from his side.

It was said by Francis, Friedman said the Flames wanted to keep it under 7

Gaudreauvertime · 10-11-2016, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Do you have proof of this "Gio cap"? Just because the numbers match doesn't mean that was their limit.

Wasn't it reported earlier in this thread that they didn't want to go over Gio's 6.75?

Regardless, I'd say 6.75 is a not where I'd draw the line for elite players. In this case I do believe it cost us 2 years of Johnny, which is a lot considering that's his entire career to date.