[Rumour] UPD: Friedman: Thinks a deal will get done between Gaudreau and the Flames in the next week

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by getbak

In a Salary Cap system, that's certainly not true for all players.

I didn't say it was true - I said it's what they think when they see a player salary go up. No one thinks they are the one who's salary will go down (or they will get Glencrossed) as a result.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

Monahan isn't holding out for 8 million dollars a year.

I would hope not. He's never scored 65 points. But he signed a 7 year deal on the highest end of his comp range. But I guess his road production isn't concerning because he's not that much better at home?

Both guys had bad road numbers.
Monahan had good home numbers.
Gaudreau was the best home player in the league.

"But look at Gaudreau's splits! He's awful on the road"

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

He generated the same amount of scoring chances on the road. He was essentially unlucky on the road, and lucky at home (6% vs 20% shooting percentages)

this is where all these stats make little to no sense, at least to me. How does this prove he was just unlucky on the road?

Couldn't the conclusion be that on the road, johnny was unable to get to high scoring places to generate higher % scoring chances compared to home, where he saw more enviable matchups?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

I would hope not. He's never scored 65 points. But he signed a 7 year deal on the highest end of his comp range. But I guess his road production isn't concerning because he's not that much better at home?

Both guys had bad road numbers.
Monahan had good home numbers.
Gaudreau was the best home player in the league.

"But look at Gaudreau's splits! He's awful on the road"

Ha, I love how you'll constantly bump Gaudreau up to a PPG player but "Sean Monahan's never hit 65 points!". We aren't so liberal with our point calculations anymore, are we?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

I would hope not. He's never scored 65 points. But he signed a 7 year deal on the highest end of his comp range. But I guess his road production isn't concerning because he's not that much better at home?

Both guys had bad road numbers.
Monahan had good home numbers.
Gaudreau was the best home player in the league.

"But look at Gaudreau's splits! He's awful on the road"

True, because his comp range is RFAs (and he has better stats than all of his comparables from his draft year so he should want that kind of money). You seem to want Gaudreau signed with UFA comps, or ignore the factors which reduce Gaudreau's bargaining power (and therefore his contract value).

I won't mention that Monahan plays in all situations and is a centre with a winning faceoff percentage

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

If its true that the Flames have not moved from their original position then as a season ticket holder for 20 years I am angry. But the JG camp has to show some movement as well.

There is absolutely zero evidence to show that the Flames haven't moved from their original position.

[Flash Walken]

Maybe the Flames are insistent on 10 but Johnny thinks that's too high and he would prefer to take less.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

You want to call it random variance? Would that make you feel better?

I'll call it variance, but I'm not prepared to call it exclusively random. And personally I don't care about home/road splits -- it just illustrates how you're thinking about things:

Statistic that supports my point? FACT!
Statistic that undermines my point? LUCK!

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

There is absolutely zero evidence to show that the Flames haven't moved from their original position.

So do you think they started lower than ~6.5? Or do you not believe media reports is evidence?

[wingmaker]

nm

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

I'll call it variance, but I'm not prepared to call it exclusively random. And personally I don't care about home/road splits -- it just illustrates how you're thinking about things:

Statistic that supports my point? FACT!
Statistic that undermines my point? LUCK!

20% at home and 6% on the road is a large variance from where we'd expect to see moving forward. Maybe like 14% at home and 12% on the road. I'm not advocating that the % splits should be equal. But a 14% span will not sustain.

[PsYcNeT]

I can't believe you guys have been arguing with this homer for like 6 weeks now.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

What is your deal? The criticism of Monahan is rampant on this board. On the thread regarding his deal, there were plenty of people questioning the amount of money. He is constantly being undersold and his success attributed to being on Johnny's line. So what point is there bringing him up? As far as I can tell, there is a universal consensus that Gaudreau should and will get more money than Monahan.

Monahan getting paid more than Barkov, Scheifele, and Mackinnon is a bit of an overpayment. And much of his success is objectively a result of playing with Johnny.

There aren't many legitimate claims against Johnny. Everything that's been brought up tends to be about how he's one dimensional (false), is easy to shut down (false), his size makes him injury prone (false), or is unproven.

Fact is, he's far more proven than Monahan and less of a risk to regress because he has shown the ability to maintain productivity independent of line mates, a claim Monahan can not make.

[theslymonkey]

I come here for a possible update on the situation and I leave thinking.....

[wingmaker]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

There aren't many legitimate claims against Johnny. Everything that's been brought up tends to be about how he's one dimensional (false), is easy to shut down (false), his size makes him injury prone (false), or is unproven.

Well, from what I can see, nobody is making "claims against Johnny". You've made that narrative up all by yourself.

The arguments made in favour of giving him a lower contract offer actually have to do with RFA years, his lack or arbitration rights, and the relatively small number of games he has played in the NHL, not criticisms of his play. Somehow, you seem to ignore these facts or simply don't understand them, and have once again not addressed them in your post. You are living a false narrative. Nobody is belittling Johnny...you're just so fast to jump to his defence that you don't seem to notice that you are arguing with yourself.

[FBI]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I can't believe you guys have been arguing with this homer for like 6 weeks now.

I can't believe I've been reading everybody arguing with him for 6 weeks now

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

So do you think they started lower than ~6.5? Or do you not believe media reports is evidence?

I've made it abundantly clear that I think Eric Francis is not a reputable source. This is the guy that claimed the Flames had contacted Boudreau, said he was their top choice as coach before they had even begun their coaching search. IIRC he also insinuated the Flames fired Hartley because Boudreau had been let go in Anaheim. The guy is a hack who only has a job because of his mother.

I have also made it clear that I think the hangup isn't AAV but rather signing bonus money in years we could see a lockout.

Fact of the matter is the Flames are a very tight lipped organization who doesn't leak very much information.

[jaikorven]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

I come here for a possible update on the situation and I leave thinking.....

SOO much this ^^^

[dash_pinched]

Maybe this will be like the Coyotes saga and will end on Monday.

[sec304]

I am such a sucker checking this thread twice a day for updates, sigh, when will I learn... see you guys twice tomorrow!