Mathew Tkachuk and other key RFA signing watch thread

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

We can get a great return for Tkachuk regardless of the one year left. Why? Tkachuk is not stupid, he is going to sign a big ticket deal this summer no matter where he is because there is no chance he is going to risk having a bad year. Tkachuk's are money savvy, he is going to cash in and GMs know this. Anyone trading for Tkachuk is getting him for 6-8 years for sure so stop thinking we are going to get a lowball return. No matter where he is he is signing a big deal with that team this offseason.

This is a really good point.

Why would he sign 1 year when you can guarantee he's not hitting 100 points next season.

If he seeks his Dad's counsel on this stuff which he probably does, Keith would tell him to cash in now.

Might not be 8 years in length. But 5 or 6? Could be.

If next year is a disaster then they can get their kings random going into the Bedard draft.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

If you can only keep Tkachuk by vastly overpaying him, why do it,?

They were going to do it for Gaudreau. Treliving really likes his guys.

[MissTeeks]

Well he liked the Flames’ thank you Instagram so …

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

They were going to do it for Gaudreau. Treliving really likes his guys.

Paying 10.5 for Gaudreau is different than paying that or more for Tkachuk

[Flamesfan05]

Tkachuk can have a bad year and still get a big contract

[djsFlames]

I never got the impression Chucky was that close to John outside of being linemates. Probably on good terms but not that close personally.

So I don't think John going changes much for Matthew and his own agenda.

[memphusk]

I hope they sign Tkachuk, give him the C, and then he just goes all face licking Marchand style crazy.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I never got the impression Chucky was that close to John outside of being linemates. Probably on good terms but not that close personally.

So I don't think John going changes much for Matthew and his own agenda.

Maybe not personally close, but losing Gaudreau potentially changes Tkachuk from a 100 point player to a 70-80 point player, which can affect his future negotiating power and earning potential. Point production is one of the main comparables players and agents use when negotiating contracts.

Whether he was buddies with Gaudreau or not, I imagine Tkachuk is probably not happy at all.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by tony-soprano

We were optimistic about Johnny, we might see the reverse here with Chucky.



If he commits, make him the captain and lets roll!

With all that’s just happened, it would be tough to justify not giving Tkachuk the C after committing to Calgary for 8 years.

[SuperMatt18]

I still think 3 years is the right term for Tkachuk.

8 years buys his 24 to 32 year old season - which is risky for a guy like him because no guarantee he's still productive at 32 with his style of game - so you might not get another lucrative contract.

If I'm Tkachuk I'd take $10M x 3 from the Flames.

That would take me to the 2025 offseason when the COVID impacts are expected to be declining and the cap is supposed to explode.

And he would still only be 27 - so still young by normal UFA standards.

At that point he could sign an 8 year contract which would expire at 35, which is probably a better age to just start signing one year veteran contracts.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I still think 3 years is the right term for Tkachuk.

8 years buys his 24 to 32 year old season - which is risky for a guy like him because no guarantee he's still productive at 32 with his style of game - so you might not get another lucrative contract.

If I'm Tkachuk I'd take $10M x 3 from the Flames.

That would take me to the 2025 offseason when the COVID impacts are expected to be declining and the cap is supposed to explode.

And he would still only be 27 - so still young by normal UFA standards.

At that point he could sign an 8 year contract which would expire at 35, which is probably a better age to just start signing one year veteran contracts.

I think a 5-6 year contract is probably better for him. All he has to do and look at Monahan to see the risks of a three year contract.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Maybe not personally close, but losing Gaudreau potentially changes Tkachuk from a 100 point player to a 70-80 point player, which can affect his future negotiating power and earning potential. Point production is one of the main comparables players and agents use when negotiating contracts.

Whether he was buddies with Gaudreau or not, I imagine Tkachuk is probably not happy at all.

I hope he is not happy with Gaudreau and not the team because the team did everything they possibly can and did not low ball Gaudreau.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Paying 10.5 for Gaudreau is different than paying that or more for Tkachuk

Gaudreau getting $9.75M, it’s gonna be tough for Tkachuk’s camp to argue he’s worth much more.

But I’d open with $9.76M. I think this is a Werenski situation, you almost can’t let him go to prevent the embarrassment.

You’d have 8 years to get it right, in any case, and I think you’d have a decent chance at re-signing Lindholm if Tkachuk is in it for the long haul.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I still think 3 years is the right term for Tkachuk.

8 years buys his 24 to 32 year old season - which is risky for a guy like him because no guarantee he's still productive at 32 with his style of game - so you might not get another lucrative contract.

If I'm Tkachuk I'd take $10M x 3 from the Flames.

That would take me to the 2025 offseason when the COVID impacts are expected to be declining and the cap is supposed to explode.

And he would still only be 27 - so still young by normal UFA standards.

At that point he could sign an 8 year contract which would expire at 35, which is probably a better age to just start signing one year veteran contracts.

Even if he falls off a cliff, it’s maybe for a year or two. 32 isn’t that old, and his game is too smart to just evaporate.

You don’t want to give him this deal at 27 or 29.

[butterfly]

Lindholm is critical to this offseason. The most valuable player the Flames have.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Lindholm is critical to this offseason. The most valuable player the Flames have.

You what?

Lindholm is under contract for two more years. They can't even sign an extension until next July.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

If you can only keep Tkachuk by vastly overpaying him, why do it,?

Fights
Hits
Agitates
Plays down low
Wins battles
Leads

152 goals
382 points
431 games

6'2"
210 lbs
24 years old

and he's one of the smartest players in the game

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You what?

Lindholm is under contract for two more years. They can't even sign an extension until next July.

If we are going to “blow it up”, Lindholm has way more value than Tkachuk or anyone else.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by butterfly

If we are going to “blow it up”, Lindholm has way more value than Tkachuk or anyone else.

Well, blowing it up does not appear to be on the table, so that's a moot point.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by jay random

well, blowing it up does not appear to be on the table, so that's a moot point.

🐮.