The Matthew Tkachuk contract negotiations

[Oling_Roachinen]

I keep my original position that Treliving should avoid a 3 year (or 4) contract at all costs. Make it a bridge or a long-term, not a straight to UFA (via QO if 3 years) contract.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I keep my original position that Treliving should avoid a 3 year (or 4) contract at all costs. Make it a bridge or a long-term, not a straight to UFA (via QO if 3 years) contract.

So you're still interested in a marner type deal?

You do realize the player still has to accept qo? Good chance the way contracts are now he doesn't get that much more in 3 years than the current demand. Might as well try to win now with a good contract than give him a marner type deal

[Vinny01]

I am hoping for a 2 year deal if it is a bridge and 6-8 long term.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

So you're still interested in a marner type deal?

You mean 6 years? Hell yeah, I would be interested in a 6 year contract.

1, 2, 6, 7 or 8. I don't want 3 or 4. Too much risk that you lose Tkachuk as a UFA for nothing with 3 or 4. At least a a 2 year bridge let's them reassess in less than a year from now.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I am hoping for a 2 year deal if it is a bridge and 6-8 long term.

I'm hoping for 6 to 8 at 8 or less but not holding my breath on that. 2 would be better than 3 but expect Tkachuk to be more interested in 3. Would love 3 years less than 6.75. Considering Boessers deal I'd have to think 3 at 6.5ish is fair

[dammage79]

Ive been thinking 3 or 4 years for Tkachuk would be optimal. Gives the team a little freedom of direction down the road.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Ive been thinking 3 or 4 years for Tkachuk would be optimal. Gives the team a little freedom of direction down the road.

4 years is the worst term possible.

Then 5, then 3

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You mean 6 years? Hell yeah, I would be interested in a 6 year contract.

1, 2, 6, 7 or 8. I don't want 3 or 4. Too much risk that you lose Tkachuk as a UFA for nothing with 3 or 4. At least a a 2 year bridge let's them reassess in less than a year from now.

Why is 3 years such a risk? Still rfa after the 3rd year.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

Why is 3 years such a risk? Still rfa after the 3rd year.

The Flames give him his qualifying offer to keep his rights, he accepts the offer, he's a UFA the next summer. Three year deal is a four year deal that walks him to free agency effectively.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

Why is 3 years such a risk? Still rfa after the 3rd year.

Three years is a risk because, after that, he could just accept the QO on a 1-year deal, and then he's a UFA

Especially if year 3 of the 3-year deal has a huge bump

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Rando

The Flames give him his qualifying offer to keep his rights, he accepts the offer, he's a UFA the next summer. Three year deal is a four year deal that walks him to free agency effectively.

That’s worse case scenario, and would mean he doesn’t want to be here. That scenario rarely plays out. For me anything but a 4 or 5 year deal.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

That’s worse case scenario, and would mean he doesn’t want to be here. That scenario rarely plays out. For me anything but a 4 or 5 year deal.

I'll bet that with all these 3-year deals with a big number in year 3, that at least someone takes the one year after it.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I'll bet that with all these 3-year deals with a big number in year 3, that at least someone takes the one year after it.

Possibly, but I’m sure most players will want to cash in on a big long term deal on their 3rd contract. Way less risk involved.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Has there actually been a 3 year contract signed that brings the player to their last year of RFA? McAvoy and Boeser are different in that a 3 year contract + acceptance of qualifying offer doesn't lead to UFA, they still need another year.

Meier's is the closest with his 4 year contract (5 years to be UFA) and that 10M in the last year gives him a lot of leverage.

[Macho0978]

So many like to talk the risk in 3 years but not factor in the risk now. Based on current deals to get him for 6 years it's close to or over 9. Sure you can dump frolik and get under cap but what happens next year? Rasmus has a good year or jankowski are we forced to lose hamonic and Brodie and looking to dump backlund? Look at the leafs. They have 12 players at less than 800k. Is there risk having 12 no name players around league minimum and still being over the cap? What if lilegren is good enough but cant play because hes over league minimum? There is risk over paying guys same as there is signing shorter term deals

[Enoch Root]

Yes, that's why you need a GM like Treliving, so you don't overpay those longer contracts.

But yes, the player has to sign it.

[PugnaciousIntern]

I love the idea that Peters raised, about the possibility of Tkachuk playing 1st line RW and Lindholm at center. It would open up two potentially legitimate scoring lines, and Backlund could then be on a true shut-down line. Reduces Backlund's potential impact but has potential to be a net win.

Anyways, I wonder if Bill is throwing things like this out there as a bit of a tease for Tkachuk, to entice him to get himself to camp. "Maybe you could play on the first line if we can build some chemistry during preseason, but not if you aren't here".

[Flash Walken]

Wrong thread

[blender]

On the topic of the 3 year deals, using them as a second contract template hasn't hurt the Lighting in building their team

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

I love the idea that Peters raised, about the possibility of Tkachuk playing 1st line RW and Lindholm at center. It would open up two potentially legitimate scoring lines, and Backlund could then be on a true shut-down line. Reduces Backlund's potential impact but has potential to be a net win.

Anyways, I wonder if Bill is throwing things like this out there as a bit of a tease for Tkachuk, to entice him to get himself to camp. "Maybe you could play on the first line if we can build some chemistry during preseason, but not if you aren't here".

Maybe that is what Peters is trying to do but I can't imagine how bad the lines look if you give Tkachuk 9 mil and dump Frolik with that first line.

Gaudreau - Monahan - Tkachuk
Bennett - Lindholm - Mangipane
Jankowski - Backlund - Dube
Lucic - Ryan - Czarnik

IMO those are 3 bad lines and a first line that might not be better than last years first line.

If Lindholm moves to center, Tkachuk needs to pair up with him.

Unless you sign Tkachuk for 3 years @ 6.5 and potentially make a move to strengthen your forward group