10-01-2021, 11:25 AM
|
#61
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
Markstrom had a bad season...he was elite when he signed the deal. Ask NHL GMs who rated him one of the best goalies in the game.
You can ask team Sweden too
|
I brought Markstrom into the discussion as an example of the Flames paying him into his mid-30's. His performance is irrelevant to the discussion. Why do you have to go to such extents to prop up the Flames? Sometimes it feels like you are on the Flames payroll or something.
|
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
10-01-2021, 11:29 AM
|
#62
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sec206
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stillman16
If Tkachuk gets offer sheeted next season, this may offer the best scenario.
The negotiation is done, and if overpay, let him go, and you get compensation (likely 2x1st, 2nd and 3rd—due for any contract $8.23MM to $10.27MM), if not an overpay, thanks for the contract.
Right now, the worry is the acceptance just of the qualifying offer, with no extra years or extension; a hefty contract that may be hard to deal for any real value…and then he walks for nothing.
|
There will be no offer sheet.
Flames have to qualify him, he accepts it, goes to UFA after that.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to theslymonkey For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
10-01-2021, 11:57 AM
|
#63
|
|
Franchise Player
|
this reminds me of the ####ty contract Brad signed with Tkachuk. I like it!
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2021, 02:05 PM
|
#64
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeoff
this reminds me of the ####ty contract Brad signed with Tkachuk. I like it!
|
Pretty much. I see this as Petterson leaving the door open for him to be able to leave ASAP if he chooses, just like Tkachuk will have that option. It severely decreases the player's trade value as there is limited player control. The player has all the leverage next negotiation as well and likely gets way overpaid.
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2021, 02:31 PM
|
#65
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
I brought Markstrom into the discussion as an example of the Flames paying him into his mid-30's. His performance is irrelevant to the discussion. Why do you have to go to such extents to prop up the Flames? Sometimes it feels like you are on the Flames payroll or something.
|
I said Markstrom was the best goalie in the NHL his last season in Vancouver before he was with the Flames so this isn't a homer thing. You said he wasn't elite so performance is absolutely relevant.
Guys like you always do a drive by to bash Flames players though
Markstrom was the top goalie FA, he contract is actually pretty reasonable considering. He turned down a higher annual salary elsewhere by all accounts.
__________________
GFG
Last edited by dino7c; 10-01-2021 at 02:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2021, 02:31 PM
|
#66
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackey
Pretty much. I see this as Petterson leaving the door open for him to be able to leave ASAP if he chooses, just like Tkachuk will have that option. It severely decreases the player's trade value as there is limited player control. The player has all the leverage next negotiation as well and likely gets way overpaid.
|
Plus, he's missing training camp too, so he'll probably get off to a bad start.
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2021, 02:48 PM
|
#67
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeoff
Plus, he's missing training camp too, so he'll probably get off to a bad start.
|
It seems that many players "miss" training camp, whether they are there or not.
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2021, 02:49 PM
|
#68
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by theslymonkey
There will be no offer sheet.
Flames have to qualify him, he accepts it, goes to UFA after that.
|
I seem to remember someone saying that the Flames could offer him arbitration instead of the QO?
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2021, 03:15 PM
|
#70
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cobra
I seem to remember someone saying that the Flames could offer him arbitration instead of the QO?
|
Yes, the team can file for what they call "cut down" arbitration without giving a QO. With that, they can request a reduced arbitration award down to 85% of the player's QO ($7.65 million, in Tkachuk's case).
Doing so would almost-certainly do permanent damage to the relationship between the team and player.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
|
|
|
|
10-01-2021, 04:23 PM
|
#71
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeoff
this reminds me of the ####ty contract Brad signed with Tkachuk. I like it!
|
It is similar, and probably stems from the same cap issues.
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2021, 04:28 PM
|
#72
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvitaly
|
Alright this is actually quite a bit better than the 3x8 or 3x7.7 initially reported. It's at least justifiable in comparison to Barzal.
Really smart to leak a higher number like that... well played.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2021, 04:48 PM
|
#73
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
Markstrom had a bad season...he was elite when he signed the deal. Ask NHL GMs who rated him one of the best goalies in the game.
You can ask team Sweden too
|
Markstrom didn’t have a bad year.
He had a rough return from injury when the entire team was awful.
His GAA was his best in 5 years.
4th best quality start % (0.535) of his career.
Career-high 3 shutouts in a short season.
Lots of things didn’t go right for the whole team. Markstrom wasn’t perfect.
But he didn’t have a “bad year”.
__________________
”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
Rowan Roy W-M - February 15, 2024
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
10-01-2021, 07:58 PM
|
#74
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
Markstrom didn’t have a bad year.
He had a rough return from injury when the entire team was awful.
His GAA was his best in 5 years.
4th best quality start % (0.535) of his career.
Career-high 3 shutouts in a short season.
Lots of things didn’t go right for the whole team. Markstrom wasn’t perfect.
But he didn’t have a “bad year”.
|
I meant below his potential...I bet his numbers are ridiculously good this season.
This is the most expensive bridge deal in league history, I don't think its a steal...IF Pettersson scores 80+ and stays healthy its a good deal
__________________
GFG
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-2021, 01:22 PM
|
#76
|
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canada 02
|
no. The new rules say the QO is capped to 120% of the AAV if the last year's salary is more than 120% of the AAV.
QO will be 8.82 million
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
10-04-2021, 12:36 AM
|
#77
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canada 02
|
Trying to avoid escrow as much as possible
|
|
|
|
|
10-04-2021, 12:42 AM
|
#78
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss
no. The new rules say the QO is capped to 120% of the AAV if the last year's salary is more than 120% of the AAV.
QO will be 8.82 million
|
Is that new rule, retro-active? Tkachuk? I imagine no…..
|
|
|
|
|
10-04-2021, 01:33 AM
|
#79
|
|
UnModerator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Vancouver, British Columbia.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cam_wmh
Is that new rule, retro-active? Tkachuk? I imagine no…..
|
It is new and it is not retroactive.
__________________
THANK MR DEMKOCPHL Ottawa Vancouver
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Blaster86 For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
10-04-2021, 09:34 AM
|
#80
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canada 02
|
Is that structure even allowed. I thought the lowest year couldn't be greater than 50% of the highest year. Or did they change that?
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:18 AM.
|
|
