[Signing] Sens sign Brady Tkachuk (7 yrs, $8.214 mil AAV)

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

per Seravalli no signing bonuses in this contract

Pagnotta says there is a full NMC in the last 3 years

I guess some players don’t hate playing in small Canadian markets.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Actually gives me hope Tkachuk stays with us for at least 6 years.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Much better work than Treliving's bridge deal with Matthew. Not dumping Frolik and doing that bridge deal was just bad work on Tree's front, especially with the fact that we later dumped Frolik for a 4th. It would have been better to pay a 3rd or a 4th or something if needed to get rid of Frolik and get Tkachuk under contract long term.

I look at this and see the same thing - a huge and really inexcusable miss to not get a long term deal done at the time. If Tre didn't want to pay him for a long term commitment at the time, he's certainly going to do it now or watch him walk very soon.

Instead of screwing up on pricey UFA signings for the umpteenth time or hanging onto short term stop gaps, he should have worried more about his own backyard first.

[agulati]

Pretty good deal for the Sens. B. Tkachuk also benefits by earning that extra little bit every year, and being a free agent at 29 as opposed to 30

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I look at this and see the same thing - a huge and really inexcusable miss to not get a long term deal done at the time. If Tre didn't want to pay him for a long term commitment at the time, he's certainly going to do it now or watch him walk very soon.

Instead of screwing up on pricey UFA signings for the umpteenth time or hanging onto short term stop gaps, he should have worried more about his own backyard first.

How much cap was there at the time? You act like Treliving deliberately decided to go for a shorter term because he “didn’t want to pay”. The reporting was different at the time.

[SuperMatt18]

I find it funny that people called Suzuki and overpayment but are calling Brady Tkachuk’s deal good value for Ottawa.

There are some concerns with Brady’s game to be honest. He’s not nearly as strong defensively as his brother and is actually poor in his own zone. And his point production has been stagnant from a PPG perspective.

He’s great at generating chances, and plays a physical game, but this is an overpayment unless he takes steps offensively.

And with Matthew signing a bridge instead of a long term deal it all comes back to the poor signing of James Neal…that was always a mistake to lock in that cap but when you had Matthew as an RFA in 12 months. It put the squeeze on the Flames.

[442scotty]

Good on Ottawa. It looks like they stood their ground and got a reasonable deal for both sides. And here we have Tkachuk in the driver’s seat because our GM couldn’t or wouldn’t do the same. If Tkachuk walks Treliving needs to be fired.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I look at this and see the same thing - a huge and really inexcusable miss to not get a long term deal done at the time. If Tre didn't want to pay him for a long term commitment at the time, he's certainly going to do it now or watch him walk very soon.

Instead of screwing up on pricey UFA signings for the umpteenth time or hanging onto short term stop gaps, he should have worried more about his own backyard first.

The revisionist history on this is ridiculous.

The Flames negotiated with Tkachuk during a time the assumption was the cap would explode with the new TV deal. Matthews set a precedent signing a huge money deal with the Leafs for only 5 years.

Tkachuk was in line to ask for over $10M per on a 6-8 year deal that summer. This board completely $hit on him for his performance at $7M last year. Imagine if he made an additional 3-4M?

If the Flames didn’t want a bridge I don’t think they were getting more than 5 years of term with Matthew

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

I think Ottawa is the winner here IMO.

I think it is fair to say that everyone won in this negotiation.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[GioforPM]

I know one thing - Matt is competitive with his brother so he’s gonna want more $

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

The revisionist history on this is ridiculous.

The Flames negotiated with Tkachuk during a time the assumption was the cap would explode with the new TV deal. Matthews set a precedent signing a huge money deal with the Leafs for only 5 years.

Tkachuk was in line to ask for over $10M per on a 6-8 year deal that summer. This board completely $hit on him for his performance at $7M last year. Imagine if he made an additional 3-4M?

If the Flames didn’t want a bridge I don’t think they were getting more than 5 years of term with Matthew

And again, even with the short deal the Flames were right at the cap. Sign a long $10M deal and there’s no Tanev or Markstrom and Gaudreau’s deal gets pretty tough

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

The revisionist history on this is ridiculous.

The Flames negotiated with Tkachuk during a time the assumption was the cap would explode with the new TV deal. Matthews set a precedent signing a huge money deal with the Leafs for only 5 years.

Tkachuk was in line to ask for over $10M per on a 6-8 year deal that summer. This board completely $hit on him for his performance at $7M last year. Imagine if he made an additional 3-4M?

If the Flames didn’t want a bridge I don’t think they were getting more than 5 years of term with Matthew

Also people talk about Matthew and Brady like they are actually comparable players at this point of their careers:

Matthew was coming off a 0.96 PPG season, and 0.78 PPG for his career while also being a strong defensive play driver, Brady is coming off a 0.64 PPG season, and 0.63 PPG for his career while being poor defensively.

A long term deal around $9M still would have been the right move for Matthew, but I get why Flames went with a bridge to try to be able to add more pieces around this core and keep the team that just finished first in the conference together.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I find it funny that people called Suzuki and overpayment but are calling Brady Tkachuk’s deal good value for Ottawa.

There are some concerns with Brady’s game to be honest. He’s not nearly as strong defensively as his brother and is actually poor in his own zone. And his point production has been stagnant from a PPG perspective.

He’s great at generating chances, and plays a physical game, but this is an overpayment unless he takes steps offensively.

And with Matthew signing a bridge instead of a long term deal it all comes back to the poor signing of James Neal…that was always a mistake to lock in that cap but when you had Matthew as an RFA in 12 months. It put the squeeze on the Flames.

I think the main reason this is being deemed as a win for Ottawa is they got the term when a lot of people were drawing conclusions the Tkachuk’s were trying to get out of Canada ASAP.

Also the Neal signing was terrible but justified at the time. The Flames were an incredibly low scoring team in 17/18 and swapped 20 goal Ferland for 16 goal Lindholm. I remember thinking the Flames really needed another scoring winger and they got Neal. Bad move but made sense at the time

[Fischy13]

8.5-9 on a long term deal with Matty will be about right. Give him the C and it's a done deal. Johnny at 8.5-9 as well, Eichel at 10. Cheap entry level contract prospects to learn the ropes on lines 3/4.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Treliving has his work cut out for him. I think that deal puts Matthew closer to $10M a season over the same term.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Treliving has his work cut out for him. I think that deal puts Matthew closer to $10M a season over the same term.

Who knows if that ends up being Treliving's work. If the Flames have another down season he's going to be gone.

[genetic_phreek]

I may be in the minority on this one but $8+ mill for a 50 point player.....

[csnarpy]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Treliving has his work cut out for him. I think that deal puts Matthew closer to $10M a season over the same term.

Not if he plays like last year.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

I may be in the minority on this one but $8+ mill for a 50 point player.....

I agree with you, but the contract that have been handed out lately, that is total in alignment with the insanity that has been going on.

What this does do is force teams into a situation of economic disparity on the hockey team, and making sure they pay the big salaries to the guys that are definitely going to produce. You don't feel bad about paying McDavid $12M+ a season, because he's going to produce. You have to be concerned about paying the Matthew Tkachuks out there the $9-10M a season because their production is not a sure thing.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

I may be in the minority on this one but $8+ mill for a 50 point player.....

I mentioned this in the Suzuki signing thread, but $8.0 m does not buy nearly as much as it once did. I think this is probably the going rate for a 65-75 pt. top-line player, which is what B. Tkachuk projects to be. $10.0 m probably gets you a +80-pt. player; upwards of $12.0 m is likely what it will cost going forward for 100-pt. players.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk