Matthew Tkachuk & Johnny Gaudreau Signing Watch Thread

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

I'm just a realist. I don't understand the optimism of most of the people on this message board. The Flames are currently sixteenth overall in the standings in a thirty-two team league, and on pace to get 101.5 points. A small losing skid could easily see us out of the playoff picture. I'm not impressed at all with our asset management skills, as we seem to constantly wind up with bloated contracts that we're unable to move, or let players walk for nothing when they won't re-sign.

Really, nobody should give a crap about that.

A team doesn't have to worry about where they are in the overall standings, but placing in their division, and the flames seem to be doing just fine.

With the goaltending an underlying numbers, they're probably just a goal scorer away from being a serious contender.

In that context, Tkachuk and Gaudreau are going nowhere.
regardless of their contract status, a team isn't going to get rid of the best players on a contender.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

Really, nobody should give a crap about that.

A team doesn't have to worry about where they are in the overall standings, but placing in their division, and the flames seem to be doing just fine.

With the goaltending an underlying numbers, they're probably just a goal scorer away from being a serious contender.

In that context, Tkachuk and Gaudreau are going nowhere.
regardless of their contract status, a team isn't going to get rid of the best players on a contender.

Just out of curiosity, if the Flames make the playoffs and lose in the first round are they still a contender? Because the previous iterations of this team have shown an inability to have success in the playoffs.

I'm not trying to poke holes in your logic, I just have a hard time gauging what a contender means for each person. For example Moneypuck has us as the best team in terms of their power rankings, but only gives us a 54.7% chance to get out of the first round.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Just out of curiosity, if the Flames make the playoffs and lose in the first round are they still a contender? Because the previous iterations of this team have shown an inability to have success in the playoffs.

I'm not trying to poke holes in your logic, I just have a hard time gauging what a contender means for each person. For example Moneypuck has us as the best team in terms of their power rankings, but only gives us a 54.7% chance to get out of the first round.

...and, by comparison, they give TBL a much more impressive 55.6% probability of making the second round.

When I look at it, their model is so biased toward the home team winning that their playoff predictions are more or less the probability that the team with home ice advantage will lose one of their home dates, and they assume that the other team will almost automatically win all of theirs.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

...and, by comparison, they give TBL a much more impressive 55.6% probability of making the second round.

When I look at it, their model is so biased toward the home team winning that their playoff predictions are more or less the probability that the team with home ice advantage will lose one of their home dates, and they assume that the other team will almost automatically win all of theirs.

Yes that's why I used it as an example, because being a contender can mean being one of the top 4 teams for some, and it could be being a top 10 team for others.

As for Tampa's odds that's because they are likely facing one of Florida, Toronto, or Boston in the first round. All are pretty decent teams. In comparison Colorado, Minnesota, and Carolina get better odds.

Playing against Edmonton, Ananheim, or LA seems like an easier series for the Flames. That said I don't use their odds as a bible just as a quick reference with a grain of salt added.

[gvitaly]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1490706076752392196

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by browntrout

Why is it so hard for some to just acknowledge that our GM has done a good to very good job overall. I just don't get it. If you are going to post points about his bad performance, then why is it so hard for you to at least acknowledge some good signing and draft picks that he is responsible for.

Just so we can clear the air, would you extend his contract if in some magical world you were able to do this. Tell me who would do a better job?

Would it be Ken Holland?, a hall of fame inductee who right now is getting so much flack for not getting a good goaltender.

So much of your arguments are based upon hindsight, and how he should be able to predict everything.

Grade him against all the other GM's in the league and you tell me where he rates.

Looking forward to your answer

Because not everyone has the same opinion of what constitutes success. As I’ve said many times before, he’s done good things as GM here and I don’t think there’s a harder worker human in the business than him. But at the same time, it’s more than fair to point out the mistakes and be critical of some of his execution. After all, it’s been 8 years and where are we?

Perhaps I’m just being a hard marker compared to others, but honestly, this organization and fanbase could use some harder marking. Should success at the end of a rebuild really just be making the playoffs and getting out of the first round? Those are some low standards in my opinion and shouldn’t be tolerated for a team that spends to the cap and has spent big on its operational staff.

Also, you’ve got it wrong, you don’t need to ask me who should take over his job because I’m not one who has been constantly advocating for his dismissal. In fact, i didn’t vote for him to be fired in that big poll a few months ago because I still think there are chapters that have yet to be written. He can still redeem himself.

But that also doesn’t mean he’s spared from criticism just like anybody else around here, players, coaches, executives, it’s all fair game and I would hope that John Bean, Murray Edwards and the fans are scrutinizing his work too. Heck, coaches get routinely destroyed around here and nobody bats an eye, so why is the GM who has had 5 different coaches under his watch get off scot-free?

Lastly, just because people like myself have been critical doesn’t mean we all believe he should be fired or should have been fired, it’s not black and white, there’s lots of grey in this business. You make good moves, you make bad moves and you live with your mistakes and hope in the end, all your good covers up all the bad. So far, the team’s results would suggest his performance has been pretty uneven.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by bax

Which was it? A guy who should be eager to accept a long term, cheap deal or a guy with 30 goal scorer written all over him?

Odds are if you could see it, then Mangiapane/his agent did too.

Well why does any guy sign a long term deal then when they can bet on themselves? You do it because you want to be rich now. You do it because this league is unpredictable. You do it because you might get injured “betting on yourself.” You do it for your family. There are lots of reasons why players or even people take the money instead of waiting.

It’s about risk and reward. He only had one full NHL season at the time, if you shove a long term contract and in essence, guarantee him a full time roster spot. I’m sure he would’ve taken a team friendly deal. I'm not saying he would’ve signed a Calle Jarnkrok type of deal, but something more palatable than what he’s gonna want now.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Well why does any guy sign a long term deal then when they can bet on themselves? You do it because you want to be rich now. You do it because this league is unpredictable. You do it because you might get injured “betting on yourself.” You do it for your family. There are lots of reasons why players or even people take the money instead of waiting.

It’s about risk and reward. He only had one full NHL season at the time, if you shove a long term contract and in essence, guarantee him a full time roster spot. I’m sure he would’ve taken a team friendly deal. I'm not saying he would’ve signed a Calle Jarnkrok type of deal, but something more palatable than what he’s gonna want now.

Not a chance. Mangiapane was already having tough negotiations with Treliving, because he believed he deserved more opportunity, and more money, than he was seeing.

It is laughable that you think he had 30 goal scorer written all over him, and yet you continue to believe he - and his agent - would have accepted a long term deal instead of betting on himself.

You got that wrong. Let it go.

[Moneyhands23]

Nope

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Nope

Why the edit? bad info?

[Gaskal]

Personally expect Breadman to take a 1 yr to bet on himself on getting paid even more the following year, seems like Ritch Winter-y advice.

Probably not a good gamble to ask for a bucketload of money the same offseason as the Gaudreau and Tkachuk negotiations and with gate revenues not where they could be to line the pockets of ownership. Better to wait until the following offseason when Monahan and Lucic are off the books.

So I also think we'll see Kylington do the same, take a decent bump in pay for the year and go big the following offseason negotiations.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Not a chance. Mangiapane was already having tough negotiations with Treliving, because he believed he deserved more opportunity, and more money, than he was seeing.

It is laughable that you think he had 30 goal scorer written all over him, and yet you continue to believe he - and his agent - would have accepted a long term deal instead of betting on himself.

You got that wrong. Let it go.

You wouldn’t know whether it’s right or wrong because you weren’t at the negotiating table. The majority of players want long term deals so they have the security and added bonus of not having to deal with negotiations every summer. If the number was right, he probably would’ve signed on the dotted line. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

Sure, I may have seen 30 goal potential, but did anyone else? Did Mangiapane or his agent definitively know too? It wasn’t really until Andrew went to the World Championships in last year where he truly understood where he stood in relation to the rest of the league. He was so good, even Team Canada was talking about him playing in the Olympics.

Lastly, Treliving has always been an extremely difficult negotiator. He uses leverage whenever he’s had a chance and that’s why he’s come out on top with his RFA signings.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Personally expect Breadman to take a 1 yr to bet on himself on getting paid even more the following year, seems like Ritch Winter-y advice.

Probably not a good gamble to ask for a bucketload of money the same offseason as the Gaudreau and Tkachuk negotiations and with gate revenues not where they could be to line the pockets of ownership. Better to wait until the following offseason when Monahan and Lucic are off the books.

So I also think we'll see Kylington do the same, take a decent bump in pay for the year and go big the following offseason negotiations.

Well his agent did say much the same last month. Sounds more like a leveraging tool against the ever stingy Treliving who he’s had to deal with couple times already. Although being 1 year from UFA would help severely in terms of leverage, so I don’t blame him. I could see him and Tkachuk being very tough negotiations this summer since they’re in the same boat.

But if I’m Treliving, I’m opening the checkbook for Mangiapane because he’s exactly the type of player this organization likes. Extremely competitive and non stop motor. Treliving even traded for a guy who he hopes could end up being another Mangiapane in Emil Heineman.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

You wouldn’t know whether it’s right or wrong because you weren’t at the negotiating table. The majority of players want long term deals so they have the security and added bonus of not having to deal with negotiations every summer. If the number was right, he probably would’ve signed on the dotted line. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

it is your opinion but it's not one that is well founded and you are using it to then draw conclusions about the GM.
I think more players, in Eat Bread's situation, are betting on themselves rather than committing to long-term deals at low rates.
I bet if you had asked him at the time if he could score 25-30 goals in the NHL with greater opportunity he would have said yes. NHL players are a confident bunch .

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

it is your opinion but it's not one that is well founded and you are using it to then draw conclusions about the GM.
I think more players, in Eat Bread's situation, are betting on themselves rather than committing to long-term deals at low rates.
I bet if you had asked him at the time if he could score 25-30 goals in the NHL with greater opportunity he would have said yes. NHL players are a confident bunch .

Of course it’s going to be unfounded, how easy is it to ever find this information? In the end, only Treliving and the players’ side is going to know what really happened, so in here, it’s all guesswork. Maybe Tkachuk and Mangiapane only wanted short term deals to bet on themselves, maybe it was Treliving.

At this point, we’re not going to find the actual answer. So for anyone with contrasting opinions, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree because it’s just going around in circles and we’re talking about the past, so nothing can be changed anyway.

[GreenLantern2814]

If you were Johnny Gaudreau, why would you sign any deal that paid you less than Mitch Marner?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

You wouldn’t know whether it’s right or wrong because you weren’t at the negotiating table. The majority of players want long term deals so they have the security and added bonus of not having to deal with negotiations every summer. If the number was right, he probably would’ve signed on the dotted line. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

You are likely right.

But I assume that Treliving's view and Magiapane's view differed on what the right number was.

I do know that Magiapane was not very happy with the way negotiations went so I expect no favours from him this go around.

[Bourque's Twin]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

If you were Johnny Gaudreau, why would you sign any deal that paid you less than Mitch Marner?

100%. This is also Johnny's biggest career opportunity to secure term and money. His deal will be 8 figures and will last a long time.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

I can’t understand how someone sees this roster as a roster trying to just get in and ride a hot goalie at just the right time. 9 shutouts isn’t a goalie stat, it’s a team stat…

Pretty much all goalie stats ARE a reflection of a team's stats. Even the SA stat. If a team is just poor defensively and the opposition gets like tons of shots your goalie will likely gonna end up with a lower SA. The SA is also misleading if the team is defensively sound and the only shot on the net are easy saves. People look at stats as if they're baseball hitting averages and forget the Flames of the past were allowing tons of quality shots at their own goalies. This season, they've been playing a lot more zone time on the other end of the ice - which is like a 180* turnaround from the previous seasons. Heck, if the goalie keeps making saves from pucks shot in from the centerline, his save percentage can be like 100%! This is why I kept saying a team does not need a high priced Kipper-type goalie to win games. They need a team to play better in front of a goalie - and they've done that a lot more this season than most seasons.

[robertsfanatic]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

If you were Johnny Gaudreau, why would you sign any deal that paid you less than Mitch Marner?

why did other players sign for less than Marner? i think it is a pretty safe bet that he signs for less than Marner.