Matthew Tkachuk & Johnny Gaudreau Signing Watch Thread

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Considering how his trajectory went up the moment Darryl put together the new first line I'm confident he would be having the same season. Tkachuk is having an even better season over last year and he's not a UFA at the end of the season.

Not have Richie on the wing seems to have helped JG's performance. Who would have thunk it

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Actually, teams that properly manage their assets stay away from the rebuild scenario. Sure, there are teams that lose players to free agency, but many times that is by choice because they have the players in their system that can step in and help absorb the loss. The Flames are NOT one of those teams. This team is pretty asset poor and does not have a single prospect to step in and backfill the loss of one of their top line players. Gaudreau walks away and a gaping hole in the team is exposed. The Flames need to manage this situation extremely carefully, otherwise it sets the team back for years.



I'm not sure that is a very good example to use. The Islanders did everything humanly possible to resign Tavares and were not expecting him to leave. They were extremely disappointed when he left and it did leave a significant hole in their team. They survived for a couple of seasons, but now they are being exposed for not having the talent to back up that loss. Mange that situation right and they would have had some more bodies in the pipeline that could be helping a struggling team right now.



Not even remotely close to the same level of player. Zach Hyman is middle tier player that you should be able to easily backfill. Every team should have a potential Zach Hyman or two in the system. Losing Hyman is akin to the Flames losing Mangiapane for nothing. It hurts, but you should have a player of that level in the system at any given time. He isn't a star player and you shouldn't have as many concerns about that level of loss. I still think the smart move is to manage those assets accordingly and make sure you never lose anything of value for nothing, but that's my philosophy. I'd rather see the team be self-sustaining rather than have major ebbs and flows in performance.



Sharks did lose Pavelski, but he was an older player where the risk of resigning him was substantial. He was going to be a 35 year old and was still looking for big money, taking $7M per season from the Stars. The Sharks made the right decision IMO, as Pavelski went from scoring 38 goals and 64 points to 14 goals and 31 points the following season. Pavelski was NOT their leading scorer or best player, so the potential loss and return was marginal. This is one of those free agency losses that you actually don't think twice about as the player was heading into a retirement decline.

Pietroangelo was a situation like Tavares, where the Blues were not expecting him to walk. They tabled a number of deals and did everything they could to keep Pietroangelo in the fold. When he did walk, they went out and grabbed Torey Krug to replace him. The loss of Pietroangelo was also minimized when the Blues did some good succession planning and used the loss of Bouwmeester's salary to sign Faulk, having another top talent on the blueline to make the loss not quite as impactful. Then when the big salary walked, they backfilled it with a capable player in Krug. The loss of Pietroangelo was still substantial, but good asset management by the Blues made that bearable.



And look at the state of that organization. What a gong show.



Yes, they should. The writing is on the wall. Try and make a hockey trade.
Get something for him to keep the team chugging along. They're about to feel the pinch from the failed 2018 draft, so a lateral move or some prospects/picks may be beneficial long term. They should have a succession plan in place to deal with the potential loss of Forsberg, so they should execute it.



That's pretty much a lateral move. One player in, one player out. If you knew Brodie was not in the plans, then deal him and have the assets from that deal as a bonus. Tanev + two prospects is better than Tanev alone.



Cap space only has value if you use it. The Flames are sitting on cap space. Is that really helping right now? No. The same holes exist. Sure, the Flames have some cap space to address it, but Treliving can't seem to make a deal to use that space.

Losing Brodie for nothing was another mistake in Treliving's reign of error. Sure, we were able to grab Tanev, but the loss of Brodie really hurt Giordano and made him a lot less effective, to the point where the team decided to not protect him and instead protect Tanev, a player many thought would be exposed in the expansion draft. I'm not suggesting the Flames should have resigned Brodie - I was happy they didn't - but they did make a mistake in not dealing him for assets when it was obvious he was an after thought in their signings. The Flames signed Tanev when Brodie was still available, so that should give you an idea where they ranked Brodie on their priorities list. This was a missed opportunity to recoup assets.

Bottom line here is Treliving should have had a deal in place with Gaudreau before his NTC kicked in, or had a trade in place. Gaudreau is a player the Flames cannot replace from within. The Flames are a one line team and are facing losing the play driver on that line for nothing. The hole that will leave in the roster is obvious and inexcusable. The team should have a succession plan in place for every player on the roster and know exactly what they are going to need in return to replace that player. They should know where the line in the sand is, and what conditions force their hand. There is the problem. I don't think Treliving has such plans to deal with succession and potential loss. It's why the Flames have been and will continue to be a middling team. Losing Gaudreau for nothing moves this team from middling into bottom feeder status, now and for the foreseeable future.

Few things:

Dismissing the comparisons doesn't really add up to a whole lot. Every ufa is different; different players, different people, different markets, different time, different cap, different circumstances all together. Seems like your argument basically amounts to Monday is different than Tuesday. The point being made is teams lose ufa's. That's it, and that won't change. The Flames are not the only team that loses players 'for nothing'. They are not the first, nor will they be the last.

The loss of Brodie may have resulted in a downgrade of Gio's play but on the flip side you could say the addition of Tanev appears to be of great benefit to Hanifin and Kylington and, in my mind, the Flames are better off today than they would be with a Gio-Brodie tandem. So, what are we bemoaning? the lost step of a, at the time, 37 year old D? Okay. I will go out on a limb and say that had the Flames resigned Brodie Treliving would still be getting pinned to the wall here for one reason or another. You suggest the Flames should have dealt Brodie at the TDL but, as pointed out by JayDub, Brodie was hurt at the time. So what were the offers on Treliving's table? Neither you or I know that. Did Treliving even have license to sell at that deadline? Was this his own decision? What else don't we know?

Regarding Tanev-Brodie, what I recall is that the Flames were in conversations with Brodie on a new deal but when they prioritized Markstrom, Brodie took what he had on the table with the Leafs. The Flames then signed Tanev. Not bad work for a guy who I am told doesn't have a plan, repeatedly.

Pretty easy to say things like "Treliving should have had a deal in place before Gaudreau's NTC kicked in". I'm fairly sure everything you say in your last paragraph Treliving understands. You might not like him, but he is not an idiot lost in the woods. You point to him not having a plan, yet wouldn't the Tanev signing suggest he absolutely had a plan in the event Brodie left? Lets also bare in mind that your heavy criticism on a supposed lack of foresight should be balanced with other previous statments we've seen from yourself. What was that trade you were advocating for so strongly summer of '20? Gaudreau to Philadelphia for Voracheck, Frost and a 1st? Woof. Talk about inexcusable. We can say these things, Flames should have traded Gaudreau, but we don't know what deals could have been had. We don't know how other GM's valued Gaudreau. I do think it is a reasonable assumption that if Treliving was presented with a deal he couldn't refuse, he would have moved him.

You're not alone but I don't understand why some people around here assume Treliving hasn't thought of the things they seem to get hot and bothered by. Fairly sure Treliving knows what is at stake. Why would he behave any differently than any other reasonable person would? In my profession, which is regulated by law, I am held to a standard of reasonable care. What would have other registered professionals have done in my shoes? Did I meet that standard? I have a hard time believing Treliving isn't held to standard himself. He is employed by some fairly intelligent people with experience. I doubt very much Treliving is acting as a rouge agent and on the brink of losing, arguably, the organizations most prized on ice asset without discussing all scenarios extensively with his staff and employers.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by jaydub74

I didn’t read this entire thread but if memory serves me correct Broadie was injured at the time of the deadline. Can you trade an injured player?

I agree that cap space has value, I think the loss here is the fact the didn’t trade him for picks. Could have had Tanev and some magic beans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, you can trade an injured player (see Eichel), but it’s not common especially as a TDL deal.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So you are saying he shopped Gaudreau over the summer?

By all accounts Johnny was shopped to see what the market was. It wasn't what Treliving wanted.

Monny was also shopped and there was zero market except for bad contracts coming back. Teams needed to see a healthy and productive Monny.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Few things:

Originally Posted by TOfan

Dismissing the comparisons doesn't really add up to a whole lot. Every ufa is different; different players, different people, different markets, different time, different cap, different circumstances all together. Seems like your argument basically amounts to Monday is different than Tuesday. The point being made is teams lose ufa's. That's it, and that won't change. The Flames are not the only team that loses players 'for nothing'. They are not the first, nor will they be the last.

The point being that good teams manage their assets well and don't let their top talent walk without a contingency plan in place. Losing a top player for nothing is crippling blow to the team, especially one as asset poor as the Flames. With the conditions under which the Canadian teams are forced to play, they can't afford to let their best players walk away for nothing.

The loss of Brodie may have resulted in a downgrade of Gio's play but on the flip side you could say the addition of Tanev appears to be of great benefit to Hanifin and Kylington and, in my mind, the Flames are better off today than they would be with a Gio-Brodie tandem. So, what are we bemoaning? the lost step of a, at the time, 37 year old D? Okay. I will go out on a limb and say that had the Flames resigned Brodie Treliving would still be getting pinned to the wall here for one reason or another. You suggest the Flames should have dealt Brodie at the TDL but, as pointed out by JayDub, Brodie was hurt at the time. So what were the offers on Treliving's table? Neither you or I know that. Did Treliving even have license to sell at that deadline? Was this his own decision? What else don't we know?

A little window dressing. The fact is that Treliving allowed Brodie and Hamonic to walk for zero return. What were considered two of the top four/five defensemen were removed from the team with no assets to show for it. That is a mistake.

Regarding Tanev-Brodie, what I recall is that the Flames were in conversations with Brodie on a new deal but when they prioritized Markstrom, Brodie took what he had on the table with the Leafs. The Flames then signed Tanev. Not bad work for a guy who I am told doesn't have a plan, repeatedly.

Considering the time frame of the signings, and the small gap between the two, it is unlikely that the Flames made a snap offer to Tanev. They obviously saw him as a priority player and were focused on he and Markstrom first and foremost. This is also kind of the point. If you aren't sold on a player on your roster, and making him a priority to sign, then you should be making a move to recoup assets.

Pretty easy to say things like "Treliving should have had a deal in place before Gaudreau's NTC kicked in". I'm fairly sure everything you say in your last paragraph Treliving understands.

Does he though? Because there doesn't seem to be any indication that he does. Zero urgency allowed a very important date to slide by. This isn't just some bull#### self-imposed date, this is a date where the team loses all control over the player and where he can possibly be traded to. Instead of a 31 team trade pool, the number s trimmed to five. All control is now in the player's hands. The teams return is now dictated to them. Again, a big mistake.

You might not like him, but he is not an idiot lost in the woods. You point to him not having a plan, yet wouldn't the Tanev signing suggest he absolutely had a plan in the event Brodie left?

I would say just the opposite. He had Markstrom and Tanev as the priorities, and Brodie as the backup plan. He had months to make a move on Brodie, but kept him on hold. That means his priorities were focused elsewhere. That was more of his plan. If he knew that Brodie was a second or third tier concern, then deal the soon to be UFA and get something out of the mix.

Lets also bare in mind that your heavy criticism on a supposed lack of foresight should be balanced with other previous statments we've seen from yourself. What was that trade you were advocating for so strongly summer of '20? Gaudreau to Philadelphia for Voracheck, Frost and a 1st? Woof. Talk about inexcusable.

And I stand by that deal (there was retention suggested as well). At the time we saw Gaudreau headed in a flat to negative direction. There were strong rumblings of him being interested in getting back east. His value was based solely on his potential performance, which we were concerned about.
There was no way we could have predicted this season and it was trying to look down the line and see what the future would look like without Gaudreau. That deal would have accrued a top line RW playmaker with size, and then two quality youngsters to supplement our think prospect pool. Was t perfect? No. But it beats the hell out of what we're likely looking at if we're forced to trade him now. As it currently sits, Gaudreau controls if he will sign, and if he won't, who we get to trade him to. Because of the limited pool of teams, three assets in return is likely a pipe dream. The team's hands are now tied.

We can say these things, Flames should have traded Gaudreau, but we don't know what deals could have been had. We don't know how other GM's valued Gaudreau. I do think it is a reasonable assumption that if Treliving was presented with a deal he couldn't refuse, he would have moved him.

I disagree. What we have learned about Treliving is he tends to over-value his players and what they should likely return. We've heard about lots of players being dangled, but no deals being made. I think that is indicative of a guy who thinks his guys are worth more than the market will bear.

You're not alone but I don't understand why some people around here assume Treliving hasn't thought of the things they seem to get hot and bothered by. Fairly sure Treliving knows what is at stake. Why would he behave any differently than any other reasonable person would? In my profession, which is regulated by law, I am held to a standard of reasonable care. What would have other registered professionals have done in my shoes? Did I meet that standard? I have a hard time believing Treliving isn't held to standard himself. He is employed by some fairly intelligent people with experience. I doubt very much Treliving is acting as a rouge agent and on the brink of losing, arguably, the organizations most prized on ice asset without discussing all scenarios extensively with his staff and employers.

Desperation? Incompetence? Both? Because he is on the brink of losing, arguably, the organizations most prized on ice asset. I don't care who else he's discussed this with, the bottom line is he is responsible and accountable for managing the team's assets. No one else. Brad Treliving. Letting it get to this point does not instill confidence this is going to play out well for the team. Gaudreau is now on the radar of every team in the league and will only drive up the cost of the contract come July 1st (or whenever free agency is this summer).

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

There was no way we could have predicted this season and it was trying to look down the line and see what the future would look like without Gaudreau. That deal would have accrued a top line RW playmaker with size, and then two quality youngsters to supplement our think prospect pool. Was t perfect? No. But it beats the hell out of what we're likely looking at if we're forced to trade him now. As it currently sits, Gaudreau controls if he will sign, and if he won't, who we get to trade him to. Because of the limited pool of teams, three assets in return is likely a pipe dream. The team's hands are now tied.

And Gaudreau is playing the best hockey of his life, FOR THIS TEAM. Evidently that is a consideration of no value to you.

The game is called ‘hockey’, not ‘hoard assets for the sake of hoarding them’.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Few things:



The point being that good teams manage their assets well and don't let their top talent walk without a contingency plan in place. Losing a top player for nothing is crippling blow to the team, especially one as asset poor as the Flames. With the conditions under which the Canadian teams are forced to play, they can't afford to let their best players walk away for nothing.




A little window dressing. The fact is that Treliving allowed Brodie and Hamonic to walk for zero return. What were considered two of the top four/five defensemen were removed from the team with no assets to show for it. That is a mistake.



Considering the time frame of the signings, and the small gap between the two, it is unlikely that the Flames made a snap offer to Tanev. They obviously saw him as a priority player and were focused on he and Markstrom first and foremost. This is also kind of the point. If you aren't sold on a player on your roster, and making him a priority to sign, then you should be making a move to recoup assets.



Does he though? Because there doesn't seem to be any indication that he does. Zero urgency allowed a very important date to slide by. This isn't just some bull#### self-imposed date, this is a date where the team loses all control over the player and where he can possibly be traded to. Instead of a 31 team trade pool, the number s trimmed to five. All control is now in the player's hands. The teams return is now dictated to them. Again, a big mistake.



I would say just the opposite. He had Markstrom and Tanev as the priorities, and Brodie as the backup plan. He had months to make a move on Brodie, but kept him on hold. That means his priorities were focused elsewhere. That was more of his plan. If he knew that Brodie was a second or third tier concern, then deal the soon to be UFA and get something out of the mix.



And I stand by that deal (there was retention suggested as well). At the time we saw Gaudreau headed in a flat to negative direction. There were strong rumblings of him being interested in getting back east. His value was based solely on his potential performance, which we were concerned about.
There was no way we could have predicted this season and it was trying to look down the line and see what the future would look like without Gaudreau. That deal would have accrued a top line RW playmaker with size, and then two quality youngsters to supplement our think prospect pool. Was t perfect? No. But it beats the hell out of what we're likely looking at if we're forced to trade him now. As it currently sits, Gaudreau controls if he will sign, and if he won't, who we get to trade him to. Because of the limited pool of teams, three assets in return is likely a pipe dream. The team's hands are now tied.



I disagree. What we have learned about Treliving is he tends to over-value his players and what they should likely return. We've heard about lots of players being dangled, but no deals being made. I think that is indicative of a guy who thinks his guys are worth more than the market will bear.



Desperation? Incompetence? Both? Because he is on the brink of losing, arguably, the organizations most prized on ice asset. I don't care who else he's discussed this with, the bottom line is he is responsible and accountable for managing the team's assets. No one else. Brad Treliving. Letting it get to this point does not instill confidence this is going to play out well for the team. Gaudreau is now on the radar of every team in the league and will only drive up the cost of the contract come July 1st (or whenever free agency is this summer).

Certainly don’t disagree in principle that teams should never let their top talent leave for nothing. All I know is if I were in Treliving’s shoes and it was my ass/reputation on the line, I would have a plan one way or the other or at the very least ownerships backing to have let the situation get to the point they find themselves in now. Based on the vast majority of comments so would most people. So why do would someone assume Treliving doesn’t? Doesn’t make sense. I doubt very much it has to do with desperation or incompetence. I’m a bit surprised you would suggest as such, really. Labelling people as incompetent when you are making these judgments from 35,000 feet is a pretty uninformed take. None of us know what conversations have been had between Gaudreau’s camp and the Flames. Seems to me Treliving has a lot more skin in the game than we do as fans, yet the fans seem to be the ones on the verge of panic attacks. What we do know is the Gaudreau family has been supportive/appreciative of the Flames and Gaudreau himself has come out publicly saying he would like to resign. Personally, I’m more concerned about Tkachuk and his motivations than Gaudreaau.

On Gaudreau’s season; ‘there was no way we could have predicted this season’ seems to be laying it on a little thick. Gaudreau is three seasons removed from finishing 4th in Hart voting and 99 points. He had a strong finish to last year, was headed into his UFA season, and, without question, playing with better line mates. Surprised it has been as good as it has? Yes. But shocked? No. I’m not suggesting I predicted this but we always knew Gaudreau was one of the leagues premier point producing/play driving LW’s. And he is still at an age where production is not expected to drop. Put in the right situation, he is elite.

I like you’re posts, Lanny, but I will say I think you’re way off on laying this solely at the feet of Treliving. You don’t think Edwards, or any of the owners for that matter, have ever picked up the phone to say ‘what’s going on with Gsudreau?’ Does Treliving just tell them ‘F off, I got this’? I find that extremely unlikely. Is Treliving running the Flames like Logan Roy runs Norstar??

After all, more than a few here believe it was the owners who hired Sutter because Treliving couldn’t have possibly done that. If that stands to reason, I’m sure they are negotiating with Gaudreau’s agent now. Then again, these guys just walked away from $290M of tax payers dollars, do maybe they are prepared to let Gaudreau leave for nothing.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I'm not sure that is a very good example to use. The Islanders did everything humanly possible to resign Tavares and were not expecting him to leave. They were extremely disappointed when he left and it did leave a significant hole in their team. They survived for a couple of seasons, but now they are being exposed for not having the talent to back up that loss. Mange that situation right and they would have had some more bodies in the pipeline that could be helping a struggling team right now.

Pietroangelo was a situation like Tavares, where the Blues were not expecting him to walk. They tabled a number of deals and did everything they could to keep Pietroangelo in the fold. When he did walk, they went out and grabbed Torey Krug to replace him. The loss of Pietroangelo was also minimized when the Blues did some good succession planning and used the loss of Bouwmeester's salary to sign Faulk, having another top talent on the blueline to make the loss not quite as impactful. Then when the big salary walked, they backfilled it with a capable player in Krug. The loss of Pietroangelo was still substantial, but good asset management by the Blues made that bearable.

Thought I would circle back to this. In both cases, Tavares and Pietroangelo, the players left their teams to go to cup contenders with heavy paydays. Where does that scenario exist for Gaudreau? Philadelphia? Hell no. New Jersey? Promising but haven’t proven anything.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Thought I would circle back to this. In both cases, Tavares and Pietroangelo, the players left their teams to go to cup contenders with heavy paydays. Where does that scenario exist for Gaudreau? Philadelphia? Hell no. New Jersey? Promising but haven’t proven anything.

You could say the same about Calgary. Promising? Absolutely. But they have proven nothing.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Certainly don’t disagree in principle that teams should never let their top talent leave for nothing. All I know is if I were in Treliving’s shoes and it was my ass/reputation on the line, I would have a plan one way or the other or at the very least ownerships backing to have let the situation get to the point they find themselves in now. Based on the vast majority of comments so would most people. So why do would someone assume Treliving doesn’t? Doesn’t make sense. I doubt very much it has to do with desperation or incompetence. I’m a bit surprised you would suggest as such, really. Labelling people as incompetent when you are making these judgments from 35,000 feet is a pretty uninformed take. None of us know what conversations have been had between Gaudreau’s camp and the Flames. Seems to me Treliving has a lot more skin in the game than we do as fans, yet the fans seem to be the ones on the verge of panic attacks. What we do know is the Gaudreau family has been supportive/appreciative of the Flames and Gaudreau himself has come out publicly saying he would like to resign. Personally, I’m more concerned about Tkachuk and his motivations than Gaudreaau.

Treliving's competence definitely has to be under consideration at this point, especially based on the points you're trying to make in building a defense of him (points to follow).

I agree with you that the Tkachuk scenario is much more concerning, but could be a huge opportunity for the team if they play it right. The problem there is the same guy that is handling the Gaudreau situation could be the same one to handle the movement of Tkachuk. Doesn't instill much confidence.

On Gaudreau’s season; ‘there was no way we could have predicted this season’ seems to be laying it on a little thick. Gaudreau is three seasons removed from finishing 4th in Hart voting and 99 points. He had a strong finish to last year, was headed into his UFA season, and, without question, playing with better line mates. Surprised it has been as good as it has? Yes. But shocked? No. I’m not suggesting I predicted this but we always knew Gaudreau was one of the leagues premier point producing/play driving LW’s. And he is still at an age where production is not expected to drop. Put in the right situation, he is elite.

Yes, three seasons away from that magical 99 point season. Three seasons of trending in the wrong direction and looking completely disinterested in playing for the Flames and Darryl Sutter. Three seasons that established a not very pretty trend. So thinking he was going to experience this resurgence in his production would be living on the fringe of expectations setters. I can't think of anyone that would have looked at previous two seasons, the addition of Sutter and his preference to heavy hockey, the additions made in the off-season to play the aforementioned heavy hockey, and then throw out on the table and expectation for Gaudreau to be a top five scorer. Rotowire had him at 87 (an outlier), NHLtraderumors and NHL.com had him at 69 points, fantasypros had him at 67, and thehockeyfanatic had him at 65. This performance by Gaudreau has been surprising and no one expected this, or anything close to it. Gaudreau is elite but looking at this roster it was lacking that elite talent expected to support him.

I like you’re posts, Lanny, but I will say I think you’re way off on laying this solely at the feet of Treliving. You don’t think Edwards, or any of the owners for that matter, have ever picked up the phone to say ‘what’s going on with Gsudreau?’ Does Treliving just tell them ‘F off, I got this’? I find that extremely unlikely. Is Treliving running the Flames like Logan Roy runs Norstar??

This narrative that the Flames owners are looking over the shoulder of everyone in the Flames' organization is tiring. I worked for Edwards and Markin back in the day and they were nowhere near as hands on as is suggested. They hired people and let them do their jobs, not micro-manage the crap out of them. Sure, when things looked to be going sour they would express concern, but they were not puppet masters who would pull the strings to meet their personal feelings or beliefs. I think Edwards' involvement is limited to his regularly cadence of updates and meetings with the team's leadership, as part of the ownership group. Treliving has performance measures he's expected to meet, and unless some serious red flags keep coming up (like a cycle of firing coaches) the ownership remains involved on the periphery.

After all, more than a few here believe it was the owners who hired Sutter because Treliving couldn’t have possibly done that. If that stands to reason, I’m sure they are negotiating with Gaudreau’s agent now. Then again, these guys just walked away from $290M of tax payers dollars, do maybe they are prepared to let Gaudreau leave for nothing.

See above. The owners all have other interests and other businesses that need their attention. They don't negotiate with players or get involved in the day-to-day operations. That is why they have guys like Brad Treliving. If they have to negotiate deals with players, then Treliving should be long gone. That means he's not competent in the execution of his duties.

I think Treliving is on his last chance with the owners. I actually do think they stepped in and made a recommendation of a hiring as Treliving had buried his wedge on three consecutive attempts as pitching it close. This is one of those measures that jumps out and suggests there may be some correction or assistance required in hitting the mark. Are they keeping an eye on this negotiation? Most definitely. This will be a franchise altering outcome, one way or another, so there is going to be some interest. Are they going to get involved? Other than approving the largest contract in team history, probably not. Nothing screams Mickey Mouse organization than having your ownership get involved in hockey operations.

Now, to Treliving's competence and the defense you've built up. If Treliving were one of these really smart guys who saw this incredible explosion in scoring, why didn't he push harder to get the deal done prior to the execution of the NTC? He should have recognized that he was in a position of strength and then get the player on the cheap to a long-term deal. For some reason he didn't do that, nor show much urgency to get the deal done prior to the imposition of the NTC. Seems to indicate he was looking for another low scoring season to drive the contract value down? That would be the only explanation for giving up all control the team had in negotiations? I don't know how or why a GM would do what Treliving did - surrendering the only leverage and control the team had - and then think it was the competent move. Because if he saw this season coming, and surrendered the only control the team had, he just cost the team another $2-3M a season. How do you explain this?

Originally Posted by TOfan

Thought I would circle back to this. In both cases, Tavares and Pietroangelo, the players left their teams to go to cup contenders with heavy paydays. Where does that scenario exist for Gaudreau? Philadelphia? Hell no. New Jersey? Promising but haven’t proven anything.

As the Jack Eichel scenario showed, the salary cap is something teams can manipulate. If Gaudreau makes it to the open market, there will be 31 other teams making inquiries and trying to make the cap work. Just like if McDavid made it to the open market, every team would be submitting a contract offer and then making the moves after the fact to accommodate the league's biggest flopper and his salary cap hit. I would not discount anyone. The Flyers are a natural to watch (lots of smoke) but I would also keep an eye on Pittsburgh and Boston. Teams with some good talent and big expiring contracts.

[dino7c]

Gaudreau was on fire in the last 20 or so games last year under Sutter once he had the proper linemates

[Bingo]

Just hilarious how long a topic can drag on with zero information about the topic whatsoever.

Treliving could have offered Gaudreau the moon and he refused to sign no matter how high the offer got.
Treliving could have nickel and dimed the player and was told to go to hell.
Treliving could have completely forgotten that Gaudreau is up because he's too busy playing mindcraft every day in his office.

But without knowing what was offered and countered from both sides it's just silly to try and suggest the GM knows what he's doing or has completely botched it.

[Jimdon]

If people want to complain about Treliving and the Flames letting assets walk away with no return that's one thing, but imo the bigger problem is the fact that this is a one line team and we are spending 22 million in cap space for 4 forwards not named gaudreau, tkachuk or lindholm.

[dustygoon]

The player and team said they won’t talk about the contract status. But why doesn’t Eric Francis ask anyway? TFB if they don’t want to talk about it. Fans who pay their wages do. It’s important. They won’t answer but they will start to feel some pressure to comment either way. Isn’t this kind of key for some who are thinking of renewing season tickets?

[442scotty]

Sometimes it’s best not to know. Especially if there’s a probability of both leaving. It would be a bitter pill and hard to enjoy watching this year knowing the two best players will be moving on

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

The player and team said they won’t talk about the contract status. But why doesn’t Eric Francis ask anyway? TFB if they don’t want to talk about it. Fans who pay their wages do. It’s important. They won’t answer but they will start to feel some pressure to comment either way. Isn’t this kind of key for some who are thinking of renewing season tickets?

Nothing but my general sense of negotiations but I would think that negotiations in public would tend to bring with it lots of entrenchment and hurt feelings, the exact thing that the team and player do not want if they want an ongoing relationship.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by NegativeSpace

Nothing but my general sense of negotiations but I would think that negotiations in public would tend to bring with it lots of entrenchment and hurt feelings, the exact thing that the team and player do not want if they want an ongoing relationship.

That presumes they are negotiating at least a little bit. That in itself would be good news and can be communicated with a "we are in dialogue and have nothing further to say on it" ad infinitum. Problem is season ticket holders are not hearing anything and have a right to be angry at the "don't ask me any questions" stance.

[robbie111]

Hope we can get Gaudreau signed. His play on both ends of the ice has been very impressive this year. Don't know where we'd be without him.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by robbie111

Hope we can get Gaudreau signed. His play on both ends of the ice has been very impressive this year. Don't know where we'd be without him.

It is plain for all to see at this point. Flames are heavily reliant on one line and one player is really driving that line.

I didn't see this coming. I wish I were a fly on the wall in BT's office.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It is plain for all to see at this point. Flames are heavily reliant on one line and one player is really driving that line.

I didn't see this coming. I wish I were a fly on the wall in BT's office.

Perhaps it was the fly that offered advice on James Neal.
#blamethefly