Matthew Tkachuk & Johnny Gaudreau Signing Watch Thread

[Moneyhands23]

8x9.33 for johnny

[TheChief]

I'm actually surprised how little it has been talked about in the media (Johnny's extension). I know he came out and said he wouldn't talk about it during the season.


All that aside, I will be nervous come Jan 2022 if he isn't locked up. It would be a major distraction for the team because I believe the media would undoubtedly have to turn their attention to it whether Johnny wants them to or not. So far through 20 games this is the best I have ever seen him play in the Flaming C.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

THE prize of free agency in 2020 got less than $10 million a year. Same in 2021.



ESPN is paying $400 million a year to the league, TNT less. The difference between that and the old contracts doesn't offset the decline in gate receipts.



But in market after market, fans don't want to come to the building this year no matter who is playing. The cap should be going down, not up. If the league continues its agreement to keep propping up the cap regardless, that still will be of limited use, because team budgets are going down anyway.



Neither Seattle nor Detroit is a competitive team at this time. They are not looking for an $11 million star to put them over the top. The Ducks need to keep their powder dry, because they have some terrific players on ELCs who will command big pay rises in the near future.



If he can only get $9M to play in his own backyard, why do we have to pay him $11M?



That was the biggest contract handed out last off-season to any UFA who changed teams. The only higher cap hit went to Ovechkin, who is in a class by himself and can't be used as a comparable. And even he took a slight pay cut and remained under $10 million.



That's a nice theory. It's been shown repeatedly, and in many different sports, that fans don't pay money because their team signs a lot of stars; they pay the money because their team wins, and winning is what turns players into stars. The Devils are going to spend their money on what they think gives them the best chance to win. The sentimental value of having a local kid who grew up cheering for one of their most hated rivals is not going to count for much.

This is Eichel all over again.

If the Flames don’t want to pay for him, he’s not playing here.

He’s got no real reason to stay here. This isn’t an Ovechkin situation where a guy who already has his title is staying with his original team to make a run at a record many believe is unbreakable.

The $9M is only to illustrate that the Devils don’t need to alter their salary structure in any way to add Gaudreau.

If Johnny took $9M with the Devils, we would need to offer him a reason to stay. An extra million a year or $500k year isn’t going to do that - it’s going to disappear in taxes and escrow.

So again, he’s not getting $700k more than Brady Tkachuk.

There are two teams in the guy’s backyard who can pay him, plus us, plus a California team with a good young core.

An extra $2M or $2.5 on the other hand, in addition to an extra year, might.

[Macman]

The Flames are still very much Johnny's team. He's still the leading scorer.

I can see him possibly wanting to go to Philadelphia because that's his hometown team but would it be the same situation as he has here? I don't really see him going to any other team if he doesn't re-sign here.

Same with Tkachuk, what other team would he be going to besides the obvious one St. Louis?

I'm sure a lot of other teams would love to have either one of these players.

I think it's a good situation here for both of them and they can win here as good as anywhere else.

[activeStick]

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear how important Johnny is to the team's success. Playoff performance will be different under Sutter if they make it, I bet. In the latest article, it's clear Treliving believes in Johnny as well casting away the noise around Johnny's down years the last two. This is good news for those who want Johnny to stay as I don't see him saying no to a high offer, which I think Treliving will do if necessary to keep him here.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear how important Johnny is to the team's success. Playoff performance will be different under Sutter if they make it, I bet. In the latest article, it's clear Treliving believes in Johnny as well casting away the noise around Johnny's down years the last two. This is good news for those who want Johnny to stay as I don't see him saying no to a high offer, which I think Treliving will do if necessary to keep him here.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but if that is correct, why hasn't Treliving extended such an offer?

[activeStick]

I think he's being asked to give more

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but if that is correct, why hasn't Treliving extended such an offer?

what makes you think he hasn't?

[Mathgod]

@GreenLantern2814

How much success have the Hawks had since signing Kane & Toews to those monster contracts? It's a cautionary tale of what happens when a team concentrates too much of their cap structure on two players. I hope Johnny & Chucky stay long term, but it could be a double-edged sword if their cap hits are so massive they hamstring the team's ability to provide them with a strong supporting cast.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

@GreenLantern2814

How much success have the Hawks had since signing Kane & Toews to those monster contracts? It's a cautionary tale of what happens when a team concentrates too much of their cap structure on two players. I hope Johnny & Chucky stay long term, but it could be a double-edged sword if their cap hits are so massive they hamstring the team's ability to provide them with a strong supporting cast.

Chicago’s lack of success was based more on their core aging and decreasing their effectiveness.

If Calgary’s young players are instrumental in bringing us 3 Stanley Cups, we’ll end up with some bad contracts too.

Yes, signing Johnny and Tkachuk to huge contracts will effect their supporting cast. The alternative is letting them go so you are perpetually rebuilding. You just hope you win a cup along the way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

@GreenLantern2814

How much success have the Hawks had since signing Kane & Toews to those monster contracts? It's a cautionary tale of what happens when a team concentrates too much of their cap structure on two players. I hope Johnny & Chucky stay long term, but it could be a double-edged sword if their cap hits are so massive they hamstring the team's ability to provide them with a strong supporting cast.

So don’t sign Tkachuk. Trade him for some roster flexibility and pay for Mangiapane/Kylington.

There’s no functional difference in what you’re able to do with Johnny at $9.5M vs $11.5M. It’s an extra Gudbranson.

What continually sinks this team is giving 30+ wingers retirement contracts they’ll never live up to.

Chicago might just be an example of what happens when you win three ‘chips and then get an extra $80M.

Your motivation probably takes a hit knowing your legacy is (was) secure.

Or maybe it’s what happens when you trade Artemi Panarin for Brandon Saad.

Or when you pay Seabrook when you shouldn’t.

Could be a lot of things.

But having Kane and Toews at $10.5M is probably the least of your worries.

[Roof-Daddy]

Paying 3 LW's roughly $25 million AAV in the same off season probably isn't a very good idea.

Gaudreau is a huge wild card right now though as he's the only UFA. Losing him for nothing is going to hurt real bad, so hopefully they can get something done before that happens.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Macman

I can see him possibly wanting to go to Philadelphia because that's his hometown team but would it be the same situation as he has here? I don't really see him going to any other team if he doesn't re-sign here.

Same with Tkachuk, what other team would he be going to besides the obvious one St. Louis?

The situation would be back in the good old USA, less travel, more anonymity when outside the rink.

I mean there are obvious reasons that an American player especially would choose to go to an American team.

It seems like a 50-50 to me.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Chicago’s lack of success was based more on their core aging and decreasing their effectiveness.

Their lack of cap space hampered their ability to rectify the situation.

Or maybe it’s what happens when you trade Artemi Panarin for Brandon Saad.

I don't think the Chicago teams of the last 5 seasons were an Artemi Panarin away from being a contender. Besides, how would they have fit him under their cap anyway?

Or when you pay Seabrook when you shouldn’t.

That's just it, sometimes you sign players to big contracts expecting that they'll keep their current performance going for many years, but there's always a chance that things don't turn out the way you hoped they would. The risk is that you could find yourself with a giant contracts on your books and underperforming players, then your hands are tied for several years as you can't get those contracts off your books.

Johnny and Chucky are great players, but I don't see them as $11m+/year players. Hopefully they see the value in keeping this core group together, and see winning Stanely Cups as more important than tacking on an extra million or two to their annual salary.

Right now the Oilers big 2 have a combined cap hit of $21M/year. Compare that to having Johnny & Chucky at a similar combined cap hit. These two players, while great, aren't close to as talented as the two guys up north. I don't know if I'm comfortable with the idea of the Flames paying Johnny just $1M/year short of what McDavid is getting paid, on an 8 year deal...

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Chicago’s lack of success was based more on their core aging and decreasing their effectiveness.

If Calgary’s young players are instrumental in bringing us 3 Stanley Cups, we’ll end up with some bad contracts too.

The thing is, Chicago did all their winning before they signed those contracts. Every year during their window, they stayed competitive by moving out expensive players and bringing in cost-controlled assets to stay under the cap. From the moment they signed Toews and Kane for $21 million a year, they were in permanent cap jail, and they have not won a playoff round since.

There is no point in moving the Flames straight from 2008-09 Hawks to 2015-16 Hawks and skipping over the winning years.

[dustygoon]

I don’t see any chance he stays unless Calgary offers the 8th year and overpays for tax differences. Why would he?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The thing is, Chicago did all their winning before they signed those contracts. Every year during their window, they stayed competitive by moving out expensive players and bringing in cost-controlled assets to stay under the cap. From the moment they signed Toews and Kane for $21 million a year, they were in permanent cap jail, and they have not won a playoff round since.

There is no point in moving the Flames straight from 2008-09 Hawks to 2015-16 Hawks and skipping over the winning years.

So you’re saying we should have traded Johnny this summer?

(Because I’m with you, if that’s the case).

You have to sign him or he walks for nothing at this juncture.

You can always trade him in a couple years, but letting him go for free is not an acceptable outcome.

Kane, terrible human though he is, has been full value for his entire contract.

If anything, the mistake was paying Toews like he was Kane. Kane’s only non-PPG season since 2013 was 76 in 82.

And I actually do think that an extra 0.95 PPG superstar in his prime might have made a big difference in Chicago’s fortunes, especially if they hadn’t paid Seabrook

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The thing is, Chicago did all their winning before they signed those contracts. Every year during their window, they stayed competitive by moving out expensive players and bringing in cost-controlled assets to stay under the cap. From the moment they signed Toews and Kane for $21 million a year, they were in permanent cap jail, and they have not won a playoff round since.

There is no point in moving the Flames straight from 2008-09 Hawks to 2015-16 Hawks and skipping over the winning years.

Yup, let him walk and become the 2003-2004 BlackHawks instead

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Kane, terrible human though he is, has been full value for his entire contract.
If anything, the mistake was paying Toews like he was Kane. Kane’s only non-PPG season since 2013 was 76 in 82.
especially if they hadn’t paid Seabrook

That's the thing... assuming Kane gave full value for his contract, they signed 3 guys signed to big contracts and only 1 of them ended up being worth it. The end result was 6 years of either missing the playoffs or getting bounced in round 1.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

You can always trade him in a couple years

That's assuming he keeps producing at the pace he's producing at. If his production falls off, even a little bit, no one is going to want to touch his contract. For every Patrick Kane out there, there's a Jeff Skinner.

Unless you have a crystal ball, you can't know ahead of time who is going to be full value or their contract vs who is going to fall off in the early or middle part of the contract.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

but letting him go for free is not an acceptable outcome.

Neither is, imo, signing him to 8 x $11.5.

And I actually do think that an extra 0.95 PPG superstar in his prime might have made a big difference in Chicago’s fortunes

In both '15-16 and '16-17, the Hawks had all three of Kane, Toews, and Panarin, yet got bounced in the 1st round both times.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

That's the thing... assuming Kane gave full value for his contract, they signed 3 guys signed to big contracts and only 1 of them ended up being worth it. The end result was 6 years of either missing the playoffs or getting bounced in round 1.


That's assuming he keeps producing at the pace he's producing at. If his production falls off, even a little bit, no one is going to want to touch his contract. For every Patrick Kane out there, there's a Jeff Skinner.

Unless you have a crystal ball, you can't know ahead of time who is going to be full value or their contract vs who is going to fall off in the early or middle part of the contract.



Neither is, imo, signing him to 8 x $11.5.



In both '15-16 and '16-17, the Hawks had all three of Kane, Toews, and Panarin, yet got bounced in the 1st round both times.

We disagree.