Matthew Tkachuk & Johnny Gaudreau Signing Watch Thread

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by flambers

Or they need to acquire a more offensive dman who can carry the puck.

This my guess what he was meaning

My thoughts as well.
I feel this is the one big thing the Flames lack (Thanks Fox)
All the top tier teams seem to have a highly offensive puck moving D man on the back end, but they don't grow on tree's so what if anything is even available?

Klingberg? But he's not in the Makar/Fox/Hedman/Josi/Ekblad realm of talent by any stretch.

[Lonestar]

Originally Posted by GS Skier

Gaudreau’s 50/50 huh

80 million over 8 years obviously is 10 mil a year.
To match in 7 is 11,428,000

Tax havens? Florida and Nevada are the best with NHL teams however most other states including New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, Washington are on the other end of the spectrum.

Do Florida and Tampa have cap space to acquire a Guadreau as a free agent so Johnny can pay less taxes? Vegas has a few cap issues to mull over as well. California is terrible for high taxes.

Buffalo, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Detroit, Ottawa etc could possibly afford the 11.5 mil however those teams were all out of the playoffs before Xmas. Does 7th game, series winning, overtime goal scorer, Johnny want to start over from scratch?

If Treliving offers the guy 10-10.5 I think he’s untouchable by anyone else.

I say 80/20

Don't forget about Dallas when talking about tax havens. They've got 14+ in cap space with no state income tax, although have some internal work to do with Robertson and Oettinger specifically. Most speculation has been East coast/family connection based which are teams that'll be losing for at least 3-4 years of his contract.



I don't see many winning teams (or teams on the cusp) in desirable markets out there with the space to shell out $11.4 million for a UFA. Place $80-$84 million on the table and make him tell you why that's not good enough to play in a city he "loves", with a winning team, in-front of fans that compare him to statue-worthy past Flames.



I agree with your points but to be the contrarian I'll say 70/30 he stays.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yes. When you hear players talk about a contract they talk much more often about how much it’s worth in total. Which makes sense. These guys are planning for retirement from very early in their career.

Doesn't make much sense to me. Their agents should at least be able to help with the basic math.

I can understand it for a retirement contract but only to an extent.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Royle9

My thoughts as well.
I feel this is the one big thing the Flames lack (Thanks Fox)
All the top tier teams seem to have a highly offensive puck moving D man on the back end, but they don't grow on tree's so what if anything is even available?

Klingberg? But he's not in the Makar/Fox/Hedman/Josi/Ekblad realm of talent by any stretch.

Heiskanen is in that group also, IMO.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Doesn't make much sense to me. Their agents should at least be able to help with the basic math.

I can understand it for a retirement contract but only to an extent.

I don’t understand what you mean…. The basic math is the 8th year lands you more money…

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Panarin was signed pre-Covid,

Gaudreau will be signed post-covid in my mind and what I assume many GM's will be thinking too.

These are NHL GM's who recognize they often have shelf lives less than the contracts they give out. As we have become "normal" is there much reasons for GM's not to assume that things are now back on pace? I see it as Panarin signing with a 81.5M cap and Gaudreau signing with 82.5M cap, near negligible difference. Yes, when Panarin signed they probably were expecting it to be 90M+ now, but I bet whoever signs Gaudreau will expect the cap to be 90M+ in three years from now as well.

Covid has some impact with stalling the cap as there would be a lot more space if the cap had kept going up until this off-season, but I think that matters more for short-term contracts, not 7 year ones.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It was also only 7 years, not 8, and he wasn't yet 28. He will be 34 in his final year. Johnny turns 29 this summer, and would be 36 in his final year.

Yes, for clarity, I was talking about them being comparables if Gaudreau made it to UFA and signed 7 years. I think then they are the clear and most obvious comparables to the other 31 teams. But mostly I was just disagreeing with the premise that Panarin was some unexpected outlier, a Jeff Finger type contract coming out of nowhere. By all accounts the Blue Jackets, Islanders and Avalanche had offered more than the Rangers. When there's four teams offering him at least the contract he signed, I don't know how we land on "everyone in the league sees that contract as being too high."

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If you think Panarin and Gaudreau are fair comparables, then something about $1-2M less would make sense.

So, again ignoring Calgary's 8 year signing ability, I would say "most" comparable but not entirely "fair". As good as Panarin was, he wasn't coming off a year Gaudreau had. Did everyone offering Panarin that 12.5M contract assume on a good team he would be a 110 point player like he almost instantly become? He was crushing it on a team without much firepower but he was still only 18th in scoring the off-season he signed (87 points in 79 games) I think he, somewhat and somehow, exceeded expectations immediately. Gaudreau on the other hand is a 110 point player already finishing tied for second.

But if there were four teams at least offering the 18th leading scorer winger Panarin 11.5M+ when the cap was 81.5M, why would there be no team offering Gaudreau, the second leading scorer, 11.5M+ when the cap is higher? Much like Panarin, I don't expect Gaudreau to sign with the team that simply offers him the highest AAV, but if he did, I would expect that to be at least 12M.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Doesn't make much sense to me. Their agents should at least be able to help with the basic math.

I can understand it for a retirement contract but only to an extent.

Because they’d rather know they have a guarantee of 50 million than 16 million to make an exaggerated point. And injuries are real so a shorter contract can mean no dollars in later years. Plus there’s buyouts. You want term and high total contract value for buyouts.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

RFA contracts are not the difference they used to be. Look at Marner. Taxes - if your agent is simple I suppose they make a difference. But it’s actually not. And none of the teams that can afford Gaudreau and would be interested in him are in tax havens as far as I can see anyway.

Anyway, like I keep saying, players care less about yearly salary than they do total contract value. That’s why year 8 is critical.

I completely agree with you that especially in this instance that 8th year is huge (which is why I think the Flames should be exploring sign-and-trade if they can't come to terms with Gaudreau) but I find the bolded far too contradictory.

With signing bonuses, like our buddy's Panarin contract that sees him making 1M a year in salary each year but signing bonuses as high as 13M, you can't go and say taxes don't matter and then argue that players only care about total contract value. They care about what goes into their pockets.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You want term and high total contract value for buyouts.

For buyouts you want signing bonuses more than anything else. Lucic is an obvious example but Panarin has 46M left on his contract. If he were boughout this off-season, he makes 41M still and could sign league minumum and make just as much. Easy to make buyout proof contracts if that's what a UFA is after. Not sure I'd want to be that team giving it though lol.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

I completely agree with you that especially in this instance that 8th year is huge (which is why I think the Flames should be exploring sign-and-trade if they can't come to terms with Gaudreau) but I find the bolded far too contradictory.

With signing bonuses, like our buddy's Panarin contract that sees him making 1M a year in salary each year but signing bonuses as high as 13M, you can't go and say taxes don't matter and then argue that players only care about total contract value. They care about what goes into their pockets.

I’m not saying taxes don’t matter. I’m saying they shouldn’t because the tax difference can be dealt with if they have smart planners. IOW they matter if the agent and player are superficially thinking about it.

Anyway, none of Fla, TB, or Dallas is likely to be a bidder. AZ is a little preoccupied at the moment too. The teams people talk about are not in tax havens.

[931228]

If Johnny is looking for 10 million a year, can we not offer him 1 year at 1 million for this coming year, and then immediately extend him for 89 million over 8 years? He will still get his 90 million over 9 years, and it solves our cap problem this year until Monahan and Lucic is off the books.

Same thing can apply to Tkachuk.

We will have the cap space to go all in this year.

Is there anything in the CBA that stops us from doing that?

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I’m saying they shouldn’t because the tax difference can be dealt with if they have smart planners.

Nah, there's no way a player making the same in Anaheim is going to be taking home the same as someone in Tampa. No tax planning can solve that unless you want to end up like Al Capone.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Anyway, none of Fla, TB, or Dallas is likely to be a bidder. AZ is a little preoccupied at the moment too. The teams people talk about are not in tax havens.

Sure. But it only became a topic because of players who signed in Florida, Tampa and Vegas were brought up as comparables. Players who would have had to sign much more to make the same if they had signed in other places.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by 931228

If Johnny is looking for 10 million a year, can we not offer him 1 year at 1 million for this coming year, and then immediately extend him for 89 million over 8 years?

No, need to wait until January 1st I believe. And would go against the spirit of the CBA (I believe explicitly outlined as an example).

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

No, need to wait until January 1st I believe. And would go against the spirit of the CBA (I believe explicitly outlined as an example).

Correct, and Johnny takes a huge risk that he gets seriously injured and flushes his career earnings down the drain.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I’m not saying taxes don’t matter. I’m saying they shouldn’t because the tax difference can be dealt with if they have smart planners.

If it was the easy to simply lower your taxes with "smart planners", presumably "smart planners" can lower them even more in the lower tax states. So, the taxes will always be lower with a smaller tax rate.

[Badgers Nose]

Dallas is scary possibility. With a re-tool they could be back to contender status. That would be appealing.

If they do have $14M in space, they could potentially move someone at the draft and keep their important free agents while signing Johnny.

His contract would net him a lot more in income-tax-free Texas. So 7 years form Dallas might be worth more to him than a max contract from Calgary.

And he would be away from a CDN market fishbowl, which might be a consideration.

The legacy stuff? I think 'even Gretzky got traded' is the answer to that. In the modern NHL players change teams and it has little or no bearing on their legacy. Great players are remembered everywhere they played and that will certainly be the case here if he leaves.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

Dallas is scary possibility. With a re-tool they could be back to contender status. That would be appealing.

If they do have $14M in space, they could potentially move someone at the draft and keep their important free agents while signing Johnny.

His contract would net him a lot more in income-tax-free Texas. So 7 years form Dallas might be worth more to him than a max contract from Calgary.

And he would be away from a CDN market fishbowl, which might be a consideration.

The legacy stuff? I think 'even Gretzky got traded' is the answer to that. In the modern NHL players change teams and it has little or no bearing on their legacy. Great players are remembered everywhere they played and that will certainly be the case here if he leaves.

Robertson eats up 7-8M if that cap space. Ottinger likely the rest

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

If it was the easy to simply lower your taxes with "smart planners", presumably "smart planners" can lower them even more in the lower tax states. So, the taxes will always be lower with a smaller tax rate.

That’s not entirely how it works. Smart planners can effectively reduce the overall tax rate by reducing, skirting, or eliminating certain taxes based on how the money moves and where it sits.

The less there is to reduce, skirt, or eliminate, the less there is that a smart planner could do.

For example, a smart planner could help you avoid an inheritance tax in a country that has one. In a country that doesn’t, however, there’s nothing to avoid. You can’t magically go less than the minimum.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

If it was the easy to simply lower your taxes with "smart planners", presumably "smart planners" can lower them even more in the lower tax states. So, the taxes will always be lower with a smaller tax rate.

Yeah, outside of some weird RCA planning there's not really anyway to get below the lowest State rates as an American citizen playing in Canada.

You can get close to them by using signing bonuses, not becoming a Canadian resident that year (183 days outside of Canada, so hoping against playoffs), not having a home in Canada, not having a Canadian significant other, not having your kids school in Canada, having your off-season residence in a low-taxed State, but all that work really only gets you closer and closer to the lower taxed States, not below.

Signing bonus is the easiest though. Article XVI of the Convention Between Canada and the United States of America more or less means you are taxed at a rate of where you call home (15% max by the contracting state residence means Alberta would get 15% of Gaudreau's signing bonuses and Pennsylvania 23.73%).

[rhino]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

9.5x8=76M. Another team would have to offer 10.86x7. Not impossible. Panarin makes more (and his was a 7 year deal). Marner makes a hair more but his contract was only 6 years ($65M). But they’re the only wingers (and only 3 centres make more). Panarin’s contract has always been a bit of an outlier.

So what teams can afford $11M, that JG wants to go to? As an opening offer, this is competitive and while I can see it going up a bit, say to 10 (which would make competitors have to pay 11.4) it shows they can win a bidding war.

Edit: Contenders generally are set at top end forwards. The flyers right now only have $5M in space and a bad team. NJD has space but is Gaudreau really in their wheelhouse?

The 8 year benefit only applies if he is signed pre July 13, if after even the Flames can only sign him to 7