Matthew Tkachuk & Johnny Gaudreau Signing Watch Thread

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Dentoman

You know the thread is reaching it's peak when Murray Edwards is brought into the conversation

Just people noticing a trend that has existed since he took the team over.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

I never said you were mean spirited or doing personal attacks.

What are you going on about? Calm down.

I mentioned taking pokes then wished you a good day.

I'm pretty calm.

You suggested I did a drive by. Not the case at all.

Simple sarcasm to a silly suggestion isn't a drive by.

[GKDarts]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Just people noticing a trend that has existed since he took the team over.

Murray Edwards wasn't an owner when the Flames were mismanaging assets. Letting assets walk out the door for nothing or next to nothing pre-dates Edwards. Rej Lemelin for nothing, goes on to win the Jennings and plays 6 more years as a 1 or 1a goalie with the Bruins. Hrdina for Jim Kyte, (aka, Dave Brown's punching bag). HOF Joe Mullen for a 2nd, Doug Gilmour, Marc Savard for Zoolander, etc...

[PeteMoss]

Another week of this!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by really?

They could have dealt him rather than face the barrel of this gun. Not an easy decision, but that was the leverage they had. They couldn't force or compel him to sign on their terms, but they did have control over an asset. That control has long since gone.

Originally Posted by GKDarts

They had ALL the leverage before Johnny's limited NTC kicked in, this past season.

As I said previously, Either prior to the '21 trade deadline or prior to the '21 draft at latest, The Flames should have put their best offer to Johnny. If he refused, you trade him and get assets back. If he takes it, great.

It's a colossal failure to find yourself in this situation. Not only with Johnny but an inability to do other business while this plays out.

Neither of these are an example of leverage, they’re examples of options. Or, as one of you put it, control of the asset (which is distinct from leverage).

Being able to trade Johnny for other assets doesn’t make him more or less likely to sign. Whether he has a NTC clause or not is leverage that can be used against the Flames in trade negotiations, but it has nothing to do with leverage in contract negotiations approaching UFA. At this rate, people are just throwing the word “leverage” around like it was the word of the day on dictionary.com. The Flames NEVER had all the leverage.

If Gaudreau is fine going UFA and truly desires playing closer to home, the Flames never had leverage. You could argue the 8th year is leverage, but that’s maybe it. Johnny holds all the power, always has.

And, as far as asset control goes, if you reasonably believe you can keep the asset but it comes with a risk of losing it for nothing, and the alternative is losing it for a significantly reduced value, choosing the first option isn’t a “colossal failure,” it’s riskier, but a lot smarter if it pays off.

[Bonded]

There is also the context that Gaudreau probably would have fetched a mid first and meh prospect after the covid seasons. I didn't mind giving him another chance.

[GKDarts]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Neither of these are an example of leverage, they’re examples of options. Or, as one of you put it, control of the asset (which is distinct from leverage).

Being able to trade Johnny for other assets doesn’t make him more or less likely to sign. Whether he has a NTC clause or not is leverage that can be used against the Flames in trade negotiations, but it has nothing to do with leverage in contract negotiations approaching UFA. At this rate, people are just throwing the word “leverage” around like it was the word of the day on dictionary.com. The Flames NEVER had all the leverage.

If Gaudreau is fine going UFA and truly desires playing closer to home, the Flames never had leverage. You could argue the 8th year is leverage, but that’s maybe it. Johnny holds all the power, always has.

And, as far as asset control goes, if you reasonably believe you can keep the asset but it comes with a risk of losing it for nothing, and the alternative is losing it for a significantly reduced value, choosing the first option isn’t a “colossal failure,” it’s riskier, but a lot smarter if it pays off.

I disagree. Being able to freely trade Johnny to every other team in the league is leverage, vs. Johnny being able to submit a list of 5 teams. I do agree with you on the distinction of leverage vs. asset management/maximization. In this case, the Flames had paths to achieve both and blew both opportunities and are left in purgatory, unable to move on with other business, hoping Johnny stays.

[Ferarri]

Wonder if Johnny is getting pressure from guys like Lindholm and Backlund. Got to think they want Gaudreau back badly. Interesting to see how his current teammates factor into this. The team seems tight so I would assume they are lobbying hard.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The oilers are a profitable franchise in a city with less people. The math that the flames put out consistently makes no sense; it leaves out revenue sources and purposely paints the woe is me picture. I'm tired of listening to billionaires say they're getting a raw deal on the team: no one is forcing you to keep it. If it's such a lemon then get rid of it.

What makes you think the Oilers are profitable?

[Sec214]

"Time to come home John"

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by GKDarts

I disagree. Being able to freely trade Johnny to every other team in the league is leverage, vs. Johnny being able to submit a list of 5 teams. I do agree with you on the distinction of leverage vs. asset management/maximization. In this case, the Flames had paths to achieve both and blew both opportunities and are left in purgatory, unable to move on with other business, hoping Johnny stays.

Asset management is not the end goal of GMs though. The end goal is the cup. I think if there was a trade out there that made the team better than Treliving would have pulled the trigger. Trading Gaudreau for a package of prospects and a 1st doesn't align with anything but a rebuild and the Flames won't do that.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GKDarts

I disagree. Being able to freely trade Johnny to every other team in the league is leverage, vs. Johnny being able to submit a list of 5 teams. I do agree with you on the distinction of leverage vs. asset management/maximization. In this case, the Flames had paths to achieve both and blew both opportunities and are left in purgatory, unable to move on with other business, hoping Johnny stays.

That’s leverage in trade negotiations, not contract negotiations, though, so it has nothing to do with the current situation since a trade is almost entirely off the table. If Johnny wants to go UFA then he’s not signing with Calgary just to avoid being traded to Arizona (or whatever) for a year. Selling Johnny last year would have been underwhelming, so I’m not too worried about it, personally.

The whole idea of them being in “purgatory” seems to have come up because they didn’t make a trade into the first round of the draft and said their focus is solely on signing Gaudreau and Tkachuk. I wouldn’t take it too literally.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

What makes you think the Oilers are profitable?

The same type of self reporting the flames do. So if you don't believe theirs, why would you believe ours?

[powderjunkie]

Sell low on Gaudreau last summer
+
Tkachuk value probably a lot lower than present

Vs

Possibly no return for 13
+
Probably better return for 19
+
The funnest season in a loooong time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm pretty calm.

You suggested I did a drive by. Not the case at all.

Simple sarcasm to a silly suggestion isn't a drive by.

I had no issues with your comment whatsoever. Now maybe I need to brush up on my lingo, but didn't you just define a drive by?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I would say the following.

1. It is a consistent pattern regardless of the GM. The owners are the consistent variable
2. Being smart at business doesn't make them smart at running a hockey team. In fact at times they are at odds. Squeaking into the playoffs to get some home playoff dates maximizes revenue at the time of the year where costs are at the lowest.

Owning a sports franchise is not about making a profit, it's about long-term capital appreciation.

With respect to operating profit, the Flames tend to oscillate around breaking even, not running large profits for the owners - in fact, I strongly suspect any any year-to-year profits they do generate, tend to stay in the business.

So suggesting that the owners want to 'get in the playoffs and get some additional revenue' just doesn't wash, IMO. If your concern/goal is long term capital appreciation, then the best way to run the franchise is to focus on being the strongest franchise possible, to grow the fanbase as much as possible. And the way to do that is playoff success. In other words, be a well managed franchise. (A strong fanbase and stable organization, along with a good building, also solidifies and maximizes regular season revenue, which is also vital.)

If their goal / business model is to sneak into the playoffs whenever possible, in order to get a few home dates of revenue, frustrating the fanbase, and limiting their long term success along the way, then they are idiots, because that is a lousy way to grow the franchise.

Spoiler: they are not idiots.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

What makes you think the Oilers are profitable?

Wit the immense increase in franchise values, all these clubs are profitable ventures.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The oilers are a profitable franchise in a city with less people. The math that the flames put out consistently makes no sense; it leaves out revenue sources and purposely paints the woe is me picture. I'm tired of listening to billionaires say they're getting a raw deal on the team: no one is forcing you to keep it. If it's such a lemon then get rid of it.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. The Oilers are profitable because Katz negotiated a terrific arena deal (for him) with the city. That has nothing to do whatsoever with how the Oilers are run, however.

As for the Flames owners, they are FAR more concerned about also negotiating a favorable arena deal than they are about 'squeaking into the playoffs' next year.

[JD]

Originally Posted by really?

As an aside, given the cap, if you're going to commit McDavid/Draisaitl money to players, they better be commensurate talents. Gaudreau and Tkachuk are rock solid players, but not sure they are enough to carry the team to anything beyond good. If you can't sign them without leaving room to pursue high end players, these signings will likely result in the Flames being Oilers-light. (pained me to type that)

This is the thought process I keep coming back to. But I think we have to be careful who we're comparing these players to. McDavid and Draisaitl are consistently in the top 3 in scoring in the league, meaning you're unlikely to acquire a similar or better pair. Our two guys, while not at that level, have shown they can perform as top 5-10 players in this league. If you have those kinds of guys, it's better to try to keep them. But I'd be careful with adding the phrase "no matter the cost" to the end of that. At some point, salvaging what you can and building from the ground up could be a better option.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. The Oilers are profitable because Katz negotiated a terrific arena deal (for him) with the city. That has nothing to do whatsoever with how the Oilers are run, however.

As for the Flames owners, they are FAR more concerned about also negotiating a favorable arena deal than they are about 'squeaking into the playoffs' next year.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...rating-income/

Everything i can find online shows that the Oilers posted a positive operating income in every year except the covid season. Including net franchise valuation gains independent of the arena deal, I would say they are profitable over the same period.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...U.S.%20dollars.

Same graph of publicly available information for the flames.

The oilers are in a worse market than the flames by many measures. Smaller city, less corporate revenue. They did get the arena deal from the city but as i have shown above, they already seemingly were operating at a better level than the flames prior to that deal. They have built their fan base better over nothern alberta and saskatchewan. But, my point is that the conditions our owners claim are insurmountable have been surmounted by other business people elsewhere. If they don't think they can do it, they should sell the team to someone who can.