01-17-2019, 10:18 AM
|
#41
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoFleury
Rittich 4 × 3.25m, Tkachuk 7 x 7.5m and call it a day
|
Not sure if I like 4 years for Rittich.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to flamesfan55 For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-17-2019, 10:22 AM
|
#42
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Flames Town
|
I think the Flames should wait on re-signing Rittich until the off-season. Or do a 2 year deal to figure out if he can sustain what he has been doing.
|
|
|
01-17-2019, 10:22 AM
|
#43
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2016
Location: ATCO Field, Section 201
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by flamesfan55
Not sure if I like 4 years for Rittich.
|
I wonder if this is a situation where term lowers the cap hit or not.
|
|
|
01-17-2019, 10:23 AM
|
#44
|
Scoring Winger
|
RIttich should be 3yrs at 3MM AVV at best.
|
|
|
01-17-2019, 10:45 AM
|
#45
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
Anyone who thinks Tkachuk's next contract does not start with at least an 8 is really fooling themselves.
|
|
|
01-17-2019, 10:45 AM
|
#46
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaskal
It isn't exactly news that your team ownership has insanely deep pockets and isn't shy about handing big-ass contracts out.
But oh no, let's throw a hissy fit over being ribbed over it. That really works!
|
You know very well that wasn’t the implication.
My policy is anyone who brings up Buffalo randomly off-topic in a way that’s obviously just trolling goes on the ignore list. It makes Fire on Ice much more enjoyable for me.
|
|
|
01-17-2019, 10:46 AM
|
#47
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmike
I have a feeling Tkachuk's camp is going to wait and see what Marner gets and base their negotiations around that deal. It would be great to get him signed earlier, but I'm not sure it happens.
|
be smart of his representation to look at the market and not be too hasty.
you'd think his ask would be over 8.
I think he'd be dumb to sign for less than Nylander, for example. that would be leaving way too much money on the table.
just as things sit right now without knowing what others are going to sign for, I'd think something around 7.5 x 6 years would be fair for both sides.
you want 8 years, it would be 8.5 for a fair deal.
|
|
|
01-17-2019, 10:47 AM
|
#48
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Anyone who thinks Tkachuk's next contract does not start with at least an 8 is really fooling themselves.
|
It depends on the term though doesn’t it? I don’t think he gets that much on say a 5 year deal.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-17-2019, 10:59 AM
|
#49
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Anyone who thinks Tkachuk's next contract does not start with at least an 8 is really fooling themselves.
|
Could have said the same thing (and people did) about all 3 of Gio, Monahan and Johnny under 7.
I think BT gets Tkachuk in under 8.
__________________
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-17-2019, 11:00 AM
|
#50
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
It depends on the term though doesn’t it? I don’t think he gets that much on say a 5 year deal.
|
Well no but that would make him eligible as a UFA at his earliest opportunity. If BT gives him that he should be fired. Either 7 or 8 years or bridge him. I guess on a bridge he could come in at around 6.5 but I would rather we lock him up for 8.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-17-2019, 11:06 AM
|
#51
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Anyone who thinks Tkachuk's next contract does not start with at least an 8 is really fooling themselves.
|
In Brad We Trust.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-17-2019, 11:18 AM
|
#52
|
Pent-up
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Plutanamo Bay.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
In Brad We Trust.
|
Put me down as someone who doesn’t think it will start with an 8.
Not too worried about being wrong though. Just want him signed.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-17-2019, 11:20 AM
|
#53
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers
Put me down as someone who doesn’t think it will start with an 8.
Not too worried about being wrong though. Just want him signed.
|
Ditto man, I dont think so either.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
01-17-2019, 11:39 AM
|
#54
|
First Line Centre
|
Rittich gets 2 years max if north of 3 mil. Risk is less for losing goalies getting huge pay days unless your considered elite.
Tkachuk would probably be better off waiting for the summer. Can't see it getting done now unless he isn't greedy and gives bt a break. But rumors were bt offered 4.5 and tkachuk wanted 7 in summer. Those numbers have gone up considering Matt already had a career high in points and is looking to be a lock to get opportunity to shine in playoffs.
Rittich 2 years 2.75
Tkachuk 6 years 7.75
That's my guess if it happens now.
|
|
|
01-17-2019, 11:45 AM
|
#55
|
Franchise Player
|
I also hope that Rittich doesn't get signed for a contract longer than 2/3 years based on this years performance. It will depend on the contract amount though.
|
|
|
01-17-2019, 11:45 AM
|
#56
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Red Deer
|
All projected contracts in the Calgary Flames system must account for the Treliving Modifier.
C'mon people, this is simple mathematics!
__________________
"It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm."
-Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
|
|
|
01-17-2019, 11:59 AM
|
#57
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Well no but that would make him eligible as a UFA at his earliest opportunity. If BT gives him that he should be fired. Either 7 or 8 years or bridge him. I guess on a bridge he could come in at around 6.5 but I would rather we lock him up for 8.
|
Why is everyone so intent on locking up players for the maximum time, even potential Franchise ones like Tkachuk? I understand the benefits, but I think the move you make really needs to depend on the teams sittuation.
If the Flames are truly in year one of a legitimate window, which I believe they are, you have to look at your other core pieces, how long they are locked up for, how long you think the window will be, and try your best to get Chucky in at a manigable number for the duration of that window, that you think will give you the most chance of succeeding and giving you your best chance to win a cup during that window.
Anything beyond that, too many variables to really be concerned about. Worrying whether Tkachuk will be a Flame in 2026 is a problem for another day. BTs priority should be doing what's best for the team in the next 5 years..........I'm not saying an 8 year deal should be considered (and might be important to the player) I'm just saying it shouldn't be viewed as a failure should we lock him up for less at a good number.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cleveland Steam Whistle For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-17-2019, 12:03 PM
|
#58
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle
Why is everyone so intent on locking up players for the maximum time, even potential Franchise ones like Tkachuk? I understand the benefits, but I think the move you make really needs to depend on the teams sittuation.
If the Flames are truly in year one of a legitimate window, which I believe they are, you have to look at your other core pieces, how long they are locked up for, how long you think the window will be, and try your best to get Chucky in at a manigable number for the duration of that window, that you think will give you the most chance of succeeding and giving you your best chance to win a cup during that window.
Anything beyond that, too many variables to really be concerned about. Worrying whether Tkachuk will be a Flame in 2026 is a problem for another day. BTs priority should be doing what's best for the team in the next 5 years..........I'm not saying an 8 year deal should be considered (and might be important to the player) I'm just saying it shouldn't be viewed as a failure should we lock him up for less at a good number.
|
Its all about contractual control.
The entire Hamilton trade was about contractual control.
The thing thats often misunderstood about contracts is that very same control. You want good players under contract, but they sell themselves short at times, but thats the cost of the Guarantee, especially within the context of a sport where injuries are common.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
01-17-2019, 12:05 PM
|
#59
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Its all about contractual control.
The entire Hamilton trade was about contractual control.
The thing thats often misunderstood about contracts is that very same control. You want good players under contract, but they sell themselves short at times, but thats the cost of the Guarantee, especially within the context of a sport where injuries are common.
|
I totally get that, I'm just saying, it might be fine to give some of that up, depending on what your think your teams needs and window is.
|
|
|
01-17-2019, 12:09 PM
|
#60
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle
Why is everyone so intent on locking up players for the maximum time, even potential Franchise ones like Tkachuk? I understand the benefits, but I think the move you make really needs to depend on the teams sittuation.
|
Because long-term contracts tend to be cheaper in the long run.
i) UFAs tend to make more than RFAs because there is more competition for their services. Those extra years not added to his RFA contract become UFA years unless it's short enough to be a bridge contract to his last RFA year.
ii) Average salaries have been increasing consistently.
iii) Players like the security of the long-term contract, so you will usually get a lower AAV on the longer term contract.
So if you sign him for 6 years and then re-sign for 2, you will end up paying much more than if you sign him for 8 now. Long-term thinking is a better recipe for sustained success.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:59 PM.
|
|