Why? If the Flames offer him a UFA deal similar to others the Flames have as much of a chance as others. This rfa deal will have 0 effect on his decision. But it has a ton of effect on the Flames team for all those years.
Unless you are saying that JG feels cheated and is looking to screw Tre. In that case i think you are nuts.
All I was saying is that signing a player for a deal that seems like Treliving got a stinking good deal sometimes costs you later.
Thy original poster suggested that Treliving played hard ball with Johnny.
That doesn't always sit well with a player later on. It's not irrelevant.
I just think Johnny will end his career playing in the US. He signed a contract because he needed financial security, but he left himself in a situation where he's a UFA at a relatively young age.
All I was saying is that signing a player for a deal that seems like Treliving got a stinking good deal sometimes costs you later.
Thy original poster suggested that Treliving played hard ball with Johnny.
That doesn't always sit well with a player later on. It's not irrelevant.
I just think Johnny will end his career playing in the US. He signed a contract because he needed financial security, but he left himself in a situation where he's a UFA at a relatively young age.
I still believe that winning salves all wounds and trumps practically everything.
If the Flames are a contending team when Gaudreau is a UFA I don't see how that will not weigh heavily in their favour of re-signing him. It will have been six years since his RFA negotiation with Treliving, and he has already talked openly about understanding the situation behind the contract.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I'm sure Treliving is a tough negotiator. But Johnny's agent is no shrinking violet - ask the Leafs. Any tough feelings would have been put away for some time now. An extension will be based on the usual stuff, meaning money (including taxes), chance to win, city, etc.
The great save that Sportsnet has been fawning over is only great because Koskinen was in such a bad position (and that should have been a goal if the NHL used any type of 21st century tech).
The great save that Sportsnet has been fawning over is only great because Koskinen was in such a bad position (and that should have been a goal if the NHL used any type of 21st century tech).
TBF, a ton of great plays start off because of bad plays.
On the other hand, Koskinen reminded me of someone in that game. Tall goalie, made a bunch of good saves, but then let in Gaudreau's though a gaping 5-hole, was flat on his tummy for Gios, and backbreaker from the outside by Backlund.
The great save that Sportsnet has been fawning over is only great because Koskinen was in such a bad position (and that should have been a goal if the NHL used any type of 21st century tech).
Putting the paddle down was such a ####ty move. He’s lucky Johnny miffed it, the entire top half of the net was available.
Likely because you don’t understand the ramifications that present negotiations have on future negotiations.
Getting the best possible deal because you have the leverage on someone can come back to haunt you when the adverse party has the upper hand in future negotiations. There is a definite cost to “putting the screws” to someone just because you can.
Sometimes, a fairer deal might be, in fact, a better deal long term.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The Following User Says Thank You to The Cobra For This Useful Post:
TBF, a ton of great plays start off because of bad plays.
On the other hand, Koskinen reminded me of someone in that game. Tall goalie, made a bunch of good saves, but then let in Gaudreau's though a gaping 5-hole, was flat on his tummy for Gios, and backbreaker from the outside by Backlund.
Guess who?
Mike Smith as atrocious as he has been actually has a higher save percentage (.894) over the past 10 games than Koskinen at .877. Mike Smith lost the starter job and will not be signed by the Flames next year, he may even retire or be out of the league.
First of all, you are correct - it wasn't a goal. There is no way they could have reversed the call based on the evidence.
But if you look at where the webbing of the glove is (which is where the puck would have inevitably ended up), it looks like it might be fully in the net.
Again, no way they can call it a goal. But with proper technology, I think it is.
Koskinen's glove is white. Do you see any white at all after the goal post? I do see some orange visible behind the post. His whole mitt was behind the goal post.
It was inconclusive and called not a goal because the puck could not be seen, it's ruled a goal if the NHL used proper technology. If it was ruled a goal on the ice by the ref, chances are it would have stayed. Ruling on the ice always stands with inconclusive evidence. There has been precedent in the past (I remember a goal ruled against Luongo since his whole pad was behind the goal post), it just wasn't clear and obvious enough in this case to rule a goal.
Likely because you don’t understand the ramifications that present negotiations have on future negotiations.
Getting the best possible deal because you have the leverage on someone can come back to haunt you when the adverse party has the upper hand in future negotiations. There is a definite cost to “putting the screws” to someone just because you can.
Sometimes, a fairer deal might be, in fact, a better deal long term.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I dunno..."hey Johnny, remember 6 years ago when we gave you $500k / yr more than we probably had to? How about this time, you leave that on the table for us?"
It just doesn't work that way. For one thing, there's a good chance at least one of the key negotiators (agent or GM) will not be the same person next time. Everyone just has to make the best decision available to them at any given time. Everyone actually has pretty short memories when it comes to these things.
If you get a nice Christmas bonus at work every year...maybe more than you really deserve, how do you feel the one year it drops to $0? Probably at least a little resentful, even though it's irrational. The company might have thought it was being nice and building loyalty among its staff by being as generous as possible each time, but they would have been more prudent to pay smaller bonuses and save some extra cash for a rainy day.
First of all, you are correct - it wasn't a goal. There is no way they could have reversed the call based on the evidence.
But if you look at where the webbing of the glove is (which is where the puck would have inevitably ended up), it looks like it might be fully in the net.
Again, no way they can call it a goal. But with proper technology, I think it is.
No. I still don't think it is. Even if the entire pocket is inside the goal it remains most likely that at least part of the puck is touching the post, and thus also touching the goal line.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Koskinen's glove is white. Do you see any white at all after the goal post? I do see some orange visible behind the post. His whole mitt was behind the goal post.
It was inconclusive and called not a goal because the puck could not be seen, it's ruled a goal if the NHL used proper technology. If it was ruled a goal on the ice by the ref, chances are it would have stayed. Ruling on the ice always stands with inconclusive evidence. There has been precedent in the past (I remember a goal ruled against Luongo since his whole pad was behind the goal post), it just wasn't clear and obvious enough in this case to rule a goal.
The netcam on TV showed his glove was kinda gripping around the pole. I actually think the puck was probably pinned against the pol.
Koskinen's glove is white. Do you see any white at all after the goal post? I do see some orange visible behind the post. His whole mitt was behind the goal post.
This is a terrible view that communicates nothing meaningful about the location of the puck.
Quote:
It was inconclusive and called not a goal because the puck could not be seen, it's ruled a goal if the NHL used proper technology.
That is highly debatable.
Here is the replay of Koskinen's save.
· Koskinen gets the puck in his glove at the 0:27 mark, and traps it against the post at 0:28. If the puck is trapped against the post, then it is most likely touching the goal line. If it is touching the goal line it is not a goal.
· At the 0:57 mark from the above-camera angle you can see Koskinen catching the puck in line with the post, and then trapping the puck against the post. In this better view, the puck is not just touching the goal line, it is still on top of it.
Quote:
If it was ruled a goal by the ref, chances are it would have stayed. Ruling on the ice always stands with inconclusive evidence. There has been precedent in the past (I remember a goal ruled against Luongo since his whole pad was behind the goal post), it just wasn't clear and obvious enough in this case to rule a goal.
The goal-ruling on Luongo which I also remember was ruled a goal because his pad was clearly entirely inside the net with the puck underneath it. The puck—while not visible—could not have been anywhere but completely inside the goal.
This is entirely different from the situation on Saturday. The puck was inside the goal, inside Koskinen's glove, but also most likely trapped against the side of the post. Had this been ruled a goal on the ice, I am fairly confident it would have been overturned.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Likely because you don’t understand the ramifications that present negotiations have on future negotiations.
Getting the best possible deal because you have the leverage on someone can come back to haunt you when the adverse party has the upper hand in future negotiations. There is a definite cost to “putting the screws” to someone just because you can.
Sometimes, a fairer deal might be, in fact, a better deal long term.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
No, I do understand. But saying the best deal isn't the best deal makes no sense... the best deal is the best deal, hence why it is called the best deal. If it weren't the best deal, it would not be called the best deal. It would be called the good deal, or slightly worse than best deal, etc.
Edit: I do understand what you are saying, the initial wording seemed weird to me, that's all.
