ECSF: Toronto Maple Leafs [ATL2] vs Florida Panthers [WC2] - Florida Wins 4-1

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

A 3 year bridge is the dumbest thing a team can do for a top three player on their team, it's essentially telling the player we're not sure your game is worthy of a long term contract so show us for the next 3 years. of course Treliving was dumb enough to back load it to a $9m QA and a walk into the sunset

2 year bridge or long term, nothing in between is acceptable

It’s almost like there were two sides negotiating.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It’s almost like there were two sides negotiating.

True, but there is no indication that Tkachuk was insisting on a bridge deal or nothing. Tkachuk said he was willing to sign long term. Treliving said that bridge idea was something that worked for the team at that point and was decided on for cap reasons. Treliving also seemed surprised and caught off guard that Tkachuk said he wouldn't sign a long term deal last summer. There is evidence to suggest that a longer term deal was a possibility at one point and he was still in the long term plans.

The team also had leverage even if Tkachuk was the one insisting on the bridge. Let him hold out and play hardball. It was a different regime, but the Flames even did that with Iginla back in the day.

[jayswin]

With that contract one of two things is true, either a) Tkachuck would have signed longer and Treliving therefore signed one of the worst star player contracts in NHL history, walking him right to free agency before he even hit his prime

or b) Tkachuck purposely negotiated the deal that way and wouldn't entertain anything longer, which means Tkachuk had already planned to leave 3 years ago, and then lied to the media and fans about how the deal came to be, and his desire to stay.

[jayswin]

If I had to guess I'd lean heavier to the "Tkachuck was mapping his future outside of Calgary" with that contract, and feel like Brad wouldn't make that poor of a judgement call in not going longer to save $1m-$1.5m a year on AAV.

The Frolik thing wasn't the roadblock many think it was, imo. I feel like if Treliving negotiated say a $8.5m 5/6 year deal, he would have done what was necessary to be cap compliant.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jayswin

With that contract one of two things is true, either a) Tkachuck would have signed longer and Treliving therefore signed one of the worst star player contracts in NHL history, walking him right to free agency before he even hit his prime

or b) Tkachuck purposely negotiated the deal that way and wouldn't entertain anything longer, which means Tkachuk had already planned to leave 3 years ago, and then lied to the media and fans about how the deal came to be, and his desire to stay.

There is a 3rd option. Treliving's own hubris. He may have thought that because a long term deal on possible at one point, that he could offer a more team friendly bridge deal then give him the long term offer later. He may have been gambling that Tkachuk would settle in as a 70 point player and not a 100 point player, and then have some leverage at the end of the bridge. When I see bridge deals, it suggests to me that the player is betting on himself and the team is betting the other way. Tkachuk won that bet.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by jayswin

With that contract one of two things is true, either a) Tkachuck would have signed longer and Treliving therefore signed one of the worst star player contracts in NHL history, walking him right to free agency before he even hit his prime

Which really wouldn't be fair.

Pettersson, Barzal, Point, Robertson, Debrincat, Meier, Boeser, Werenski, McAvoy have all signed similar 3 or 4 year deals coming off their ELCs.

That was actually the trend in those 2019/2020 offseasons for RFAs.

In the end if Tkachuk really wanted to re-sign here long term he could have for 8 x $10.5M.

And really 3 x $7M followed up by 8 x $10.5M would have been better for both sides than going right to 8 x $9M in 2019.

Tkachuk just decided he didn't want to be here anymore - and he could have demanded a trade even if he were under contract still too and we'd be in the exact same spot.

[Saqe]

Hard to imagine a player turning down something like 8x8.5 and instead taking a risk with injuries and what not. As a 21 year old, that's lifetime security right there. I mean Brady didn't turn down Ottawa.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Hard to imagine a player turning down something like 8x8.5 and instead taking a risk with injuries and what not. As a 21 year old, that's lifetime security right there. I mean Brady didn't turn down Ottawa.

Brady was offered 7 x $8.2M coming off a 36 point in 56 game season (52 point season prorated - $158k per point)

Tkachuk was coming off a 77 point in 80 game season...the equivalent type of contract based on only points per game would have been a $12M contract for Tkachuk.

Brady signed his contract because $8.2M was worth way more than Brady had proven he was worth at that time. That wouldn't have been the case with a $8.5M contract for Tkachuk.

The only two longer term RFA deals that the top RFAs signed that offseason were Marner at 6 x $10.9 and Rantanen at 6 x $9.250M.

The rumor I've heard is the only longer term deal that Tkachuk would have accepted at the time was 6 x $9.5M - which personally I get why you'd go 3 x $7M with him being an RFA at expiry instead of 6 x $9.5M where you only are buying 2 UFA years. The real issue is the Flames blew the 19-20 and 20-21 seasons which should have been their window to contend with Monahan, Tkachuk, Gaudreau, Lindholm, Hanifin and Bennett all on great contracts.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Didn't our local on-site insider suggest that it was Edwards that blocked a longer deal for Tkachuk?

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Brady was offered 7 x $8.2M coming off a 36 point in 56 game season (52 point season prorated - $158k per point)

Tkachuk was coming off a 77 point in 80 game season...the equivalent type of contract based on only points per game would have been a $12M contract for Tkachuk.

Brady signed his contract because $8.2M was worth way more than Brady had proven he was worth at that time. That wouldn't have been the case with a $8.5M contract for Tkachuk.

The only two longer term RFA deals that the top RFAs signed that offseason were Marner at 6 x $10.9 and Rantanen at 6 x $9.250M.

The rumor I've heard is the only longer term deal that Tkachuk would have accepted at the time was 6 x $9.5M - which personally I get why you'd go 3 x $7M with him being an RFA at expiry instead of 6 x $9.5M where you only are buying 2 UFA years. The real issue is the Flames blew the 19-20 and 20-21 seasons which should have been their window to contend with Monahan, Tkachuk, Gaudreau, Lindholm, Hanifin and Bennett all on great contracts.

I don't think you can quarterback contracts by looking at different players and calculating what their cost/point -value is the previous year and define their value in the future. A lot more goes into it and there are talent evaluators in the team who should know better than the fans.

And even if it was 9.5 M x 6 that was a lot better than the three year deal. That is if you believe in the guy. If you don't, well I guess it's even a bigger indictment of the pro scouts.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Saqe

I don't think you can quarterback contracts by looking at different players and calculating what their cost/point -value is the previous year and define their value in the future. A lot more goes into it and there are talent evaluators in the team who should know better than the fans.

And even if it was 9.5 M x 6 that was a lot better than the three year deal. That is if you believe in the guy. If you don't, well I guess it's even a bigger indictment of the pro scouts.

My point was Brady got about a $3M per year over payment vs what he was likely worth on a bridge, and that's why he went long term.

Brady wouldn't have likely gotten more than $5.5M on a bridge based on his performance to date. So for him getting $8.2M long term makes a ton of sense - he didn't have to bet on himself because Ottawa was already paying for potential.

For Matthew that was trickier.

He was already worth $7M on a bridge, and his value was closer to $9.5-$10M on a long term deal based on potential.

So for Treliving at the time if it was 3 x $7M (RFA at expiry) vs 6 x $9.5M (UFA at expiry) then I think he actually made the right bet.

If Tkachuk really wanted to be here long term he could have re-signed the 8 x $10.5M deal as an RFA or even just have signed his offer sheet to walk him to UFA.

Barzal re-signed, Point re-signed, Mcavoy re-signed...all these other guys re-signed and are locked into their teams for 8 years now instead. Just because Tkachuk decided he wanted to leave doesn't mean it was the wrong strategy, just shows what Tkachuk's true intention was IMO.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

My point was Brady got about a $3M per year over payment vs what he was likely worth on a bridge, and that's why he went long term.

Brady wouldn't have likely gotten more than $5.5M on a bridge based on his performance to date. So for him getting $8.2M long term makes a ton of sense - he didn't have to bet on himself because Ottawa was already paying for potential.

For Matthew that was trickier.

He was already worth $7M on a bridge, and his value was closer to $9.5-$10M on a long term deal based on potential.

So for Treliving at the time if it was 3 x $7M (RFA at expiry) vs 6 x $9.5M (UFA at expiry) then I think he actually made the right bet.

If Tkachuk really wanted to be here long term he could have re-signed the 8 x $10.5M deal as an RFA or even just have signed his offer sheet to walk him to UFA.

Barzal re-signed, Point re-signed, Mcavoy re-signed...all these other guys re-signed and are locked into their teams for 8 years now instead. Just because Tkachuk decided he wanted to leave doesn't mean it was the wrong strategy, just shows what Tkachuk's true intention was IMO.

Oh I agree that after he signed that three year deal he was gone because he knew he had the option at that point to basically force a trade. But if we are talking about him signing long term I think he would've before the bridge. It's too much money to turn down imo.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The team also had leverage even if Tkachuk was the one insisting on the bridge. Let him hold out and play hardball. It was a different regime, but the Flames even did that with Iginla back in the day.

Let him hold out? Calgary was coming off a pretty good year. I think it was suicide to have Tkachuk hold out. And playing hard ball would make a future long term contract unlikely.

The mistake Treliving made was to not sign him to a long term contract and simply let Frolik go to afford it.

[FanIn80]

I remember Tkachuk saying very distinctly at the time, that he wanted a long term deal and would have signed it in a heartbeat. He said they wanted him to accept a short term deal to try to keep the team together longer. He said be didn't want to be the reason someone else had to leave, so he agreed to sign their 3-year offer.

Treliving even praised Tkachuk's willingness to put keeping the roster together over his own needs.

Fast forward to this season, and there's a Tkachuk quote saying he was just essentially returning the favour of not wanting to lock him up long term when they had the chance. Something like, "they only wanted to give me three years back then, so I decided to take advantage of that and return the favour." (paraphrased from memory)

I look at it as it was Tree's job to make the hard decision at the time, and make room to sign Tkachuk long term. By asking him to sign a shorter deal, using "keep the team together" as the excuse, it put him in a corner. If he said no and forced a max term deal, he'd essentially be kicking someone off the team. Who wants that on their shoulders? If Tree just does his job and makes enough room for a long term offer, then it still might be the same result, but it's different when the GM decides to do vs making a player decide.

Like in the Roman coliseum... It's one thing if the Emperor gives you the signal to kill a guy vs saying, "hey man, it's your call." The first option is you obeying your Emperor while the second is you murdering someone.

[FanIn80]

Kypreos: The Maple Leafs can reach the conference finals. But they’ll need to solve the Matthew Tkachuk problem

Before the 2016 NHL draft, Matthew Tkachuk was asked by an executive where he ranked himself among the top prospects.

Without hesitation, he said “Auston Matthews will go No. 1.”

Then Tkachuk said Patrik Laine would go second because he had the ability to score 40 goals in his rookie season. Then he added, “I should go No. 3. I won’t score 40 next year but I will eventually get there when I improve.”

When it comes to overall leadership — in the form of compete level, toughness and scoring on a nightly basis — not many in the NHL can touch this kid.

The style of play Tkachuk has built for himself started from his first memory of watching his dad come home from a hard-fought NHL game. Keith Tkachuk often talks about getting phone calls after midnight from Matthew while he played junior for the London Knights in the OHL. The 18-year NHL veteran’s teenage son was looking for feedback on how he could improve.

We can marvel at the many things Tkachuk brings to a hockey game, including the fact that he’s a Hart Trophy candidate and his 40-goal prediction came true this season. But it’s his intellect that may be sitting highest on that list right now. He’s proven to be a student of the game. And all the lessons he’s learned over his first seven NHL seasons seem to be coming to fruition in these playoffs.

https://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs...k-problem.html

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I remember Tkachuk saying very distinctly at the time, that he wanted a long term deal and would have signed it in a heartbeat. He said they wanted him to accept a short term deal to try to keep the team together longer. He said be didn't want to be the reason someone else had to leave, so he agreed to sign their 3-year offer.

Treliving even praised Tkachuk's willingness to put keeping the roster together over his own needs.

Fast forward to this season, and there's a Tkachuk quote saying he was just essentially returning the favour of not wanting to lock him up long term when they had the chance. Something like, "they only wanted to give me three years back then, so I decided to take advantage of that and return the favour." (paraphrased from memory)

I look at it as it was Tree's job to make the hard decision at the time, and make room to sign Tkachuk long term. By asking him to sign a shorter deal, using "keep the team together" as the excuse, it put him in a corner. If he said no and forced a max term deal, he'd essentially be kicking someone off the team. Who wants that on their shoulders? If Tree just does his job and makes enough room for a long term offer, then it still might be the same result, but it's different when the GM decides to do vs making a player decide.

Like in the Roman coliseum... It's one thing if the Emperor gives you the signal to kill a guy vs saying, "hey man, it's your call." The first option is you obeying your Emperor while the second is you murdering someone.

He also said he wanted to sign long term in may 2022 so take it with a grain of salt

[tvp2003]

In an alternate universe, Treliving signs Tkachuk for 8 years.

Gaudreau still leaves last offseason, and Tkachuk enters this season in year 4 of that deal (which expires after the 2026/27 season). Do we see the Tkachuk that we see today? I think he'd be a very good player, but I'm not sure we see that version of Tkachuk, especially under Sutter.

I would also say, Tkachuk absolutely would have known about where he stood at the end of his bridge deal. Maybe not to leave but to leverage the $9M QO and maximize his pay day, which he did after his career season last year. Does he have that career season if he's in year 3 of his 8-year deal. Perhaps yes, but I've also seen Tkachuk when he's not fully engaged and it's not pretty (i.e. post-Muzzin, although Covid evidently had something to do with that too).

What seems safe to say is that he's a very good player that has found a great landing spot for him personally where he can really elevate his game (which he has). To Tkachuk's credit, he's always said the right things and never was one to avoid the spotlight so hockey people are just eating it up right now.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by dino7c

He also said he wanted to sign long term in may 2022 so take it with a grain of salt

Fair, but in the vein of "benefit of the doubt" maybe he really did want to re-sign long term here. He still talks about how much he loved it here and how awesome all the guys on the team were.

Maybe (between Garbage Bag Day interviews and the decision not to re-sign) he had a conversation either with Treliving about Sutter's future or with Sutter himself about his own future (Captaincy, icetime, giving him his own line, using him in OT, etc).

Maybe one of those conversations led him from "I want to stay" to "well I guess nothing's gonna change here, so I might as well take advantage of my contract situation and go somewhere I might be more useful."

I mean, I'm not saying he's irreproachable... just suggesting he could have been sincere and then changed his mind.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ Exactly. Things change

I viewed the 3 year bridge as an act of good faith by Tre. A fair bridge under a cap crunch, which allowed them to use a couple million of cap space short term to keep players, with a guaranteed 9 as the starting point for the QO. Keep Tkachuk on the ice and kick the can down the road

It had risk and blew up spectacularly.

Tkachuk can’t have it both ways. He can’t not want to be responsible for someone leaving, then throw shade at them for not committing (if that’s what he did. I am not sure him saying he would have loved to sign long term (albeit lip service, perhaps) equates to ‘3 years? #### you for not believing in me’)

I really think there were a lot of factors. Gaudreau, Covid, and Sutter being top 3. Not in that order


At any rate, it’s over. He is gone. The GM is gone. The coach is gone

I will enjoy the work he is doing now, and look forward to a better Flames team next year

[JohnnyB]

Here we go! Leafs up by one.