[Signing] Lightning sign Point (3yrs, $6.75 mil AAV)

[bax]

While I agree 3 years isn't ideal, it sure seems like that's the only way to go if you can't get a long term deal done.

Provorov - 6 years
Konecy - 6 years
Marner - 6 years

I don't think the philly guys are really in the same class as Tkachuk and Toronto had to go huge money to lock up Marner.

Aho - 5 years
Matthews - 5 years

Matthews got huge money and is also a first overall pick so I can sort of rationalize it- Aho was an offer sheet so different situation.

Point - 3 years
Boeser - 3 years
Mcavoy - 3 years
Werenski - 3 years

Everyone else is doing 3 year deals with huge QO in the final year. The only guy that signed for 2 years is Carlo and I don't think he is in that class of players either. The framwork is there now- time to get this done.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by bax

While I agree 3 years isn't ideal, it sure seems like that's the only way to go if you can't get a long term deal done.

Provorov - 6 years
Konecy - 6 years
Marner - 6 years

I don't think the philly guys are really in the same class as Tkachuk and Toronto had to go huge money to lock up Marner.

Aho - 5 years
Matthews - 5 years

Matthews got huge money and is also a first overall pick so I can sort of rationalize it- Aho was an offer sheet so different situation.

Point - 3 years
Boeser - 3 years
Mcavoy - 3 years
Werenski - 3 years

Everyone else is doing 3 year deals with huge QO in the final year. The only guy that signed for 2 years is Carlo and I don't think he is in that class of players either. The framwork is there now- time to get this done.

It's a small point, but the big difference between Boeser and McAvoy and Point and Werenski is that they are both five years away from UFA. Point and Werenski can accept their QOs and then become UFAs the following year; McAvoy and Boeser cannot.

[Fire]

Be interesting to see how much he is making in the final year.

[Manhattanboy]

That's interesting. If I'm a TB fan I have mixed feelings.

Still would like MT locked up for six years around $8m.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It's a small point, but the big difference between Boeser and McAvoy and Point and Werenski is that they are both five years away from UFA. Point and Werenski can accept their QOs and then become UFAs the following year; McAvoy and Boeser cannot.

Interesting, I didn't realize that. Tkachuk would be able to simply accept his QO I'm assuming?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by bax

The framwork is there now- time to get this done.

There are a few workable frameworks that have been applied to RFAs in the same tier as Tkachuk. Both short term and long term contracts. Honestly, the numbers should be obvious to both sides.

Unless the Flames are low-balling, which I doubt, then I have to question Tkachuk's thinking at this point.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I think their non-existent state taxes could provide an advantage.

That's a good point.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by bax

Interesting, I didn't realize that. Tkachuk would be able to simply accept his QO I'm assuming?

Yeah, as Street Pharmacist points out, a three-year deal for Tkachuk is essentially no different from a four-year deal that walks him straight to UFA...

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

3 year bridge would be an unmitigated disaster. That gives him arb rights and 1 year from ufa. A smart player would just go to arb sign the one year award regardless of dollars and become a UFA the next year. Flames would have zero leverage. 2 year bridge or 5-8 year deal is all I'd consider from the flames perspective

[bax]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yeah, as Street Pharmacist points out, a three-year deal for Tkachuk is essentially no different from a four-year deal that walks him straight to UFA...

Yeah definitely not ideal, but I can understand why these young stars are pushing for these contracts. I think this is the most likely scenario still. Have him at a great cap hot for 3 years and then it will be time to really pay up.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

BUT Tkachuk's agent isn't an idiot and knows about the 2 v 3 year trade-off. If Flames want 2, it will cost more per year than 3 years I bet.

Accept Tkachuk's agent also knows that Treliving isn't an idiot, and knows that they won't get more money on a two-year deal.

[sureLoss]

A 2 year deal is not much different from a 3 year deal.

If Tkachuk wants he can take 2 year deal, 1 year arbitration award, 1 year arbitration award to free agency.

It is essentially what Trouba planned to do with Winnipeg.

[1_Flames_Fan]

I love Chucky, but no way he deserves more than Point, especially on a Bridge deal. Hopefully this gets his agent to come down a bit on their ask.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yeah, as Street Pharmacist points out, a three-year deal for Tkachuk is essentially no different from a four-year deal that walks him straight to UFA...

It depends somewhat on whether the last year would have a higher cap hit or not - especially if 3 years from now is when the new US TV deal money gets added to the salary cap calculation.

Taking 1 year @ 6.75M might not be very attractive if there’s a big money deal available.

However, if its 4 years from now when the US TV deal adds to the cap, any 1 year deal could be very attractive.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Accept Tkachuk's agent also knows that Treliving isn't an idiot, and knows that they won't get more money on a two-year deal.

No, it's a negotiation - you trade leverage for cash. For example, I am sure Tkachuk would so a 3 @ 6.5 with the last year being 8 or 8.5, so that he can walk to UFA. However, I think a 2 would be in the 7-7.5 range (maybe even more - thinking about it, maybe more like 7.5-8.5). There are all sorts of balls in the year and all sorts of pressure points. I kind of hope he signs a 2 or Rantanen does just to see how that plays out...

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

A 2 year deal is not much different from a 3 year deal.

If Tkachuk wants he can take 2 year deal, 1 year arbitration award, 1 year arbitration award to free agency.

It is essentially what Trouba planned to do with Winnipeg.

Fair point, but it also gives you an extra year to negotiate a new deal or a trade, so less pressure.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

No, it's a negotiation - you trade leverage for cash. For example, I am sure Tkachuk would so a 3 @ 6.5 with the last year being 8 or 8.5, so that he can walk to UFA. However, I think a 2 would be in the 7-7.5 range (maybe even more - thinking about it, maybe more like 7.5-8.5). There are all sorts of balls in the year and all sorts of pressure points. I kind of hope he signs a 2 or Rantanen does just to see how that plays out...

Oh, it's a negotiation!

He is not getting a two year deal with a 7 handle. Not happening.

[dino7c]

Lol Leafs and their division rivals

[1qqaaz]

This is why I'd rather have a 7 or 8 year deal at all cost. Don't care as much about AAV.

And in terms of the players, I think Point is a lot closer to Gaudreau than he is to Tkachuk. Point is so much better than Tkachuk that they're hardly comparable.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Valid points, but Tampa has always gotten by with weirdly low RFA contracts. I think their non-existent state taxes could provide an advantage...

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

That's a good point.

It is, insofar as explaining how and why TB gets good value on their FA contracts. However, I also think this helps for other NHL teams in their own RFA negotiations. Say for example that Calgary or Colorado makes the same AAV offer on a two-year deal for Tkachuk or Rantanen, and his response is to point out that Point's is tangibly considerably higher because of State tax laws. Teams can rightly counter by telling the player to go and sign the same deal in TB or Miami and keep more of his money, but that this is the face-value for his services. Teams in locations with small tax burdens probably get some advantage when it comes to signing UFAs, but its doesn't work with RFAs the same way.

[Manhattanboy]

Yup you're right Text - more relevant in the case of UFA negotiations....