[Signing] Senators extend C Josh Norris (8 years, $63.6M, $7.95M AAV)

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I think every Flames fan would have preferred if Johnny was signed for 8 years at 7.5 million in 2016 instead of 6 years at 6.75. So I agree with you that we should have signed him longer.

The reason why the Flames will pay Mangiapane 5.5 million next year instead of 4 million is they could not sign him to a long term contract two years ago because they did not have the cap space. Teams like Ottawa and Calgary will always have a hard time attracting quality free agents, thus why they sign Brouwer’s and end up with Lucic because they sign Neal’s. Contracts like those are absolute killers when a team like the Flames should be trying to lockdown RFA’s longterm every single time.

Well Gaudreau didn't want to sign it...you can't force a guy to sign an 8 year deal. These deals are also risks for a reason, not every player gets better every season...many have one or two good seasons in their career.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Well Gaudreau didn't want to sign it...you can't force a guy to sign an 8 year deal. These deals are also risks for a reason, not every player gets better every season...many have one or two good seasons in their career.

After the first contract is when the teams have the most leverage

Throw big $$ and term the the player doesn’t really have options . Plus it sets them up

Only Toronto and Calgary seem to have messed this up

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Well Gaudreau didn't want to sign it...you can't force a guy to sign an 8 year deal. These deals are also risks for a reason, not every player gets better every season...many have one or two good seasons in their career.

Did he tell you he did not want to sign or was it some weird Giordano cap that prevented an 8 year deal at a number higher than what Giordano made? You may be right, Johnny may have turned down a higher AAV because he told them there is a Giordano cap and I can’t make more than Mark.

[yourbestfriend]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

That’s so stupid.

One 35g season (with 20 assists lmao) gets you $64M.

Unreal.

Way to ignore all context with the situation. The guy just turned 23 and put up 55pts in 66games. His contract buys the maximum UFA years at this point. Assuming he progresses linearly and that the cap increases after 2025, this deal will only get better.

The Flames only wish they ponied up and made similar type deals with Tkachuk and Gaudreau when they signed their RFA extensions.

[SuperMatt18]

My guess is 6 was the max for Gaudreau based on his age when he signed that deal.

8 put him a UFA at 31. Being a UFA at 29 is much more attractive.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

My guess is 6 was the max for Gaudreau based on his age when he signed that deal.

8 put him a UFA at 31. Being a UFA at 29 is much more attractive.

It was almost universally known that Treliving would not pay more than what Giordano made. Thus the 6.75 million, which conveniently was the exact same number as Giordano. At that point in time I suspect Gaudreau would have taken another two years for an extra million a year.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Did he tell you he did not want to sign or was it some weird Giordano cap that prevented an 8 year deal at a number higher than what Giordano made? You may be right, Johnny may have turned down a higher AAV because he told them there is a Giordano cap and I can’t make more than Mark.

Well, seeing as how Monahan signed for longer, albeit not 8 years, at the exact same time, I’m willing to bet that the shorter term was about Gaudreau/Gross’ wishes and not the Flames. And now we know why.

Why did Toronto only sign Matthews to 5 years. Did they not want to wrap him up? Why Marner for 6? Kaprizov for 5? Rantanen and Makar for 6? Somehow those teams also neglected to think about an 8 year term.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, seeing as how Monahan signed for longer, albeit not 8 years, at the exact same time, I’m willing to bet that the shorter term was about Gaudreau/Gross’ wishes and not the Flames. And now we know why.

Why did Toronto only sign Matthews to 5 years. Did they not want to wrap him up? Why Marner for 6? Kaprizov for 5? Rantanen and Makar for 6? Somehow those teams also neglected to think about an 8 year term.

You are right, I am misremembering the Giordano cap.

https://flamesnation.ca/2016/09/09/t...au-no-excuses/

But via Eric Francis, Gaudreau’s camp and the Flames may be about $1.5 million apart, with Gaudreau wanting $8 million, and the Flames preferring to sandwich him in between Giordano and Monahan.

https://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2016...fedotenko.html

Given that the team was adamant Gaudreau’s new deal not exceed that recently signed by top defenseman Mark Giordano – $6.75MM annually…..While Gaudreau may have backed off his salary demands somewhat, the Flames had to give in other areas as well to get the deal done. Gaudreau received a partial no-trade clause in the final year of the arrangement and the contract buys out only one year of unrestricted free agency. It was thought Calgary was pushing for a max contract of eight years but that would have bought out three seasons of free agency and likely would have justified a higher average annual salary demand.

[iloveicedhockey]

So what do people think about the Josh Norris deal then?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by yourbestfriend

Assuming he progresses linearly and that the cap increases after 2025, this deal will only get better.

That first assumption is pretty weak. Hockey players almost never progress linearly.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Did he tell you he did not want to sign or was it some weird Giordano cap that prevented an 8 year deal at a number higher than what Giordano made? You may be right, Johnny may have turned down a higher AAV because he told them there is a Giordano cap and I can’t make more than Mark.

Well he held out...it's also apples and oranges considering ages. Gaudreau was an older, more points, team success

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by iloveicedhockey

So what do people think about the Josh Norris deal then?

Time will tell, that is a PPG type contract

Sens better have a good season, a "nice try" isn't going to cut it this year

[yourbestfriend]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That first assumption is pretty weak. Hockey players almost never progress linearly.

Fair point - can do some sensitivity analysis. Assuming 10% changes in performance from his last year.

Unfavorable: 61pts
Base case: 68pts
Favorable: 75pts

A regression means you're paying $7.9M for a 60pt player. Not ideal, but also not the worst thing in the world. For reference, we are paying Coleman $4.9M for 33pts.
The analysis also doesn't take into account that he's going to be playing with some combination of Stutzle, Tkachuk, Batherson, Debrincat or Giroux. Playing with talent like that, on a PPG basis, it would be surprising if he didn't at least replicate this past years performance.
Is this deal a gamble? Absolutely. But IMO it's going to pay off for Ottawa. I guess we'll see what happens.

[Hugh Jahrmes]

Andrew Mangiapane has entered the chat

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by yourbestfriend

Fair point - can do some sensitivity analysis. Assuming 10% changes in performance from his last year.

Unfavorable: 61pts
Base case: 68pts
Favorable: 75pts

A regression means you're paying $7.9M for a 60pt player. Not ideal, but also not the worst thing in the world. For reference, we are paying Coleman $4.9M for 33pts.
The analysis also doesn't take into account that he's going to be playing with some combination of Stutzle, Tkachuk, Batherson, Debrincat or Giroux. Playing with talent like that, on a PPG basis, it would be surprising if he didn't at least replicate this past years performance.
Is this deal a gamble? Absolutely. But IMO it's going to pay off for Ottawa. I guess we'll see what happens.

The Flames are not paying Coleman $4.9M any more than they are paying Tanev 4.5 for 28 points or (to make a point) Markstrom $6M for 3 assists. They are paying Coleman to be a decent offesnive middle six player who is an elite PK and checking player, with Stanley cup experience.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by yourbestfriend

Fair point - can do some sensitivity analysis. Assuming 10% changes in performance from his last year.

You're barking up the wrong tree. It often turns out that a young player's first productive season is an outlier, and he regresses towards what eventually turns out to be his career mean (pattern #1, a.k.a. the Jonathan Cheechoo Plan). It also may turn out that he jumps from a low level to a higher plateau and more or less stabilizes thereafter (pattern #2).

What rarely happens is that a player makes a large jump in production from year N to year N+1, and then follows it up with an equally large jump in year N+2 (pattern #3). That's what linear progression would look like.

Your sensitivity analysis is based on pattern #2. That's an overoptimistic assumption in the absence of a great deal of extra information, since players fall short of that much more often than they exceed it. It's a risky bet, and if a GM makes that bet too often, he is certain to saddle himself with buyouts and other cap inefficiencies over time.

Short form: Just because a guy is still quite young, doesn't mean you won't end up overpaying him after what turns out to be his career year.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

After the first contract is when the teams have the most leverage

Throw big $$ and term the the player doesn’t really have options . Plus it sets them up

Only Toronto and Calgary seem to have messed this up

Or it could go the way of Monahan, I'm glad he only has one year left

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by yourbestfriend

Fair point - can do some sensitivity analysis. Assuming 10% changes in performance from his last year.

Unfavorable: 61pts
Base case: 68pts
Favorable: 75pts

A regression means you're paying $7.9M for a 60pt player. Not ideal, but also not the worst thing in the world. For reference, we are paying Coleman $4.9M for 33pts.
The analysis also doesn't take into account that he's going to be playing with some combination of Stutzle, Tkachuk, Batherson, Debrincat or Giroux. Playing with talent like that, on a PPG basis, it would be surprising if he didn't at least replicate this past years performance.
Is this deal a gamble? Absolutely. But IMO it's going to pay off for Ottawa. I guess we'll see what happens.

Points aren't everything...Coleman brings a lot more to the table.

He was also a UFA with no acquisition cost. If/When the Sens are actually good they will want to bring in a Coleman. Heck they just gave a guy 6.5M/year until he is 38

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The Flames are not paying Coleman $4.9M any more than they are paying Tanev 4.5 for 28 points or (to make a point) Markstrom $6M for 3 assists. They are paying Coleman to be a decent offesnive middle six player who is an elite PK and checking player, with Stanley cup experience.

and scoring game 5 winning goals to turn the tide in the Oilers series

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I think every Flames fan would have preferred if Johnny was signed for 8 years at 7.5 million in 2016 instead of 6 years at 6.75. So I agree with you that we should have signed him longer.

The reason why the Flames will pay Mangiapane 5.5 million next year instead of 4 million is they could not sign him to a long term contract two years ago because they did not have the cap space. Teams like Ottawa and Calgary will always have a hard time attracting quality free agents, thus why they sign Brouwer’s and end up with Lucic because they sign Neal’s. Contracts like those are absolute killers when a team like the Flames should be trying to lockdown RFA’s longterm every single time.

Or maybe Calgary isn't all as great that lifers claim?
It's got it's charm but overall it's not a a great city . Industrial looking low options for night life, chain shops rule with little diversity for shops... etc etc . . I've lived on on off half my life between Calgary and other towns and Calgary v kamloops was more access to chain stores . There's IMO little going on in Calgary for local growth. Columbus ( I've been there) goes have innovative growth albeit smaller.