It's certainly possible that this was the only type of extension he was interested in signing here. I wouldn't be at all surprised. If that is true, though, I think the best option was to flip him for other assets.
Which is a reasonable position if the organization is committed to a rebuild. Which is also a reasonable and probably preferred position.
Apologies for my ignorance here, but does the signing bonus / salary split figure into the cap hit? Or is it just players trying to get more of their money up front every year rather than wait for a paycheck like us plebes?
Which is a reasonable position if the organization is committed to a rebuild. Which is also a reasonable and probably preferred position.
Except they aren't
I don't even think it necessarily has to be a rebuild - it depends what the assets are that you're trying to get back for him, and what you then do with those assets. The only thing it probably would rule out is a "we're pushing all our chips in right now and if we don't win it all in the next couple of years we're going to be the next Sharks", which, as I mentioned, is not a strategy I'm in favour of.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Apologies for my ignorance here, but does the signing bonus / salary split figure into the cap hit? Or is it just players trying to get more of their money up front every year rather than wait for a paycheck like us plebes?
Lockout and buyout protected cheques.
The Following User Says Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
Flames were going to throw $10.5M at Gaudreau. So happy to get a player who will likely hold up better with similar production over the next eight years for the same price.
The Following User Says Thank You to cannon7 For This Useful Post:
Apologies for my ignorance here, but does the signing bonus / salary split figure into the cap hit? Or is it just players trying to get more of their money up front every year rather than wait for a paycheck like us plebes?
No, it doesn't. If it did, every GM would be handing out bonus heavy contracts.
The Following User Says Thank You to cannon7 For This Useful Post:
Apologies for my ignorance here, but does the signing bonus / salary split figure into the cap hit? Or is it just players trying to get more of their money up front every year rather than wait for a paycheck like us plebes?
Counts the same, otherwise it would make a mockery of the cap.
It does get paid regardless of lockout though. Make it essentially buyout proof also.
The Following User Says Thank You to The Cobra For This Useful Post:
It's certainly possible that this was the only type of extension he was interested in signing here. I wouldn't be at all surprised. If that is true, though, I think the best option was to flip him for other assets.
I'd agree if not for the current position of the team. Markstrom/Backlund/Tanev in the final years of their prime, Lindy on an amazing deal, and questionable prospect pool.
Also, 'having' to flip him based on untenable contract demand doesn't do a ton for his value (probably rental value). It is possible, albeit difficult to move him in a few years for positive value (see Kessel)...hopefully we avoid retaining any money though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
I don't even think it necessarily has to be a rebuild - it depends what the assets are that you're trying to get back for him, and what you then do with those assets. The only thing it probably would rule out is a "we're pushing all our chips in right now and if we don't win it all in the next couple of years we're going to be the next Sharks", which, as I mentioned, is not a strategy I'm in favour of.
As long as we don't trade an unprotected 1st, two 2nds, Zary (Norris), Dubé (Tierney), Ruzicka (Balcers), and Valimaki(?) (Demelo) to sign another 29 year old to an even worse contract, we should be okay.
MIN and DAL might be better situations to compare...though both of them have two big deals lingering, and we'll have to find our own Kaprizov/Heiskanen/etc. in the next few years for Huby to come back to bite us.
Which I am surprised that the 7th year has such a high bonus.
Trend looked like it was going to be decreasing at the end but that 7th year it kicks back up.
Would have been nicer to have it lower so that there would still be some buyout opportunity if the deal does not age well.
__________________ 'Skank' Marden: I play hockey and I fornicate, 'cause those are the two most fun things to do in cold weather. - Mystery Alaska
If anyone's looking for a 10min distraction from work on a Friday...
Why do NHL highlights packages only ever show the player scoring goals? Most of those were pretty easy goals from in close. Where are the playmaking and passing highlights?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Maybe, but losing a 24 year old #### disturber that can play for a guybthat can play but is heading into his twilight doesn't seem like much of a win too me. Like I said, first few years will be fine but if they don't win in these first few years its going to be bad. I'm a die hard fan and I love this team, I just don't much care for this decision.
Tkachuk didn’t want to be here anymore. We have to move on
I think when you lose two 100+ points players in the same off-season, a rebuild is a reasonable consideration.
Would a rebuild be preferable? Had ownership gone scorched earth, 50% salary retained trades of several players may have paid huge dividends.
Whichever strategy allows the Flames to truly contend for the cup (and not just for the playoffs) is preferable to me. So now that the course is set, Treliving still has a lot of work to, and I am excited to see how it turns out!
The Following User Says Thank You to EldrickOnIce For This Useful Post:
What in the blue hell is going on there? The guy looks like he's still dancing in front of the fire as he tries to put it out? Intentionally set himself a blaze? Then the lady runs by him to grab a drape either to try and put out the fire (good luck there) or to save the drape (I get she wants to stop the fire from spreading. I think.)
Which I am surprised that the 7th year has such a high bonus.
Trend looked like it was going to be decreasing at the end but that 7th year it kicks back up.
Would have been nicer to have it lower so that there would still be some buyout opportunity if the deal does not age well.
