[Signing] Devils sign Bratt (8 yrs, $7.875M AAV)

[Moneyhands23]

What a great contract. Just think we would have Tkachuk for 3 more years at basically this number

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

What a great contract. Just think we would have Tkachuk for 3 more years at basically this number

On what planet?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

What a great contract. Just think we would have Tkachuk for 3 more years at basically this number

WTF are you talking about? This contract comes pretty much at the same time as Tkachuk’s last year in Calgary career wise. You think Tkachuk takes $7.9 (a cut in annual pay from his previous year) when his QO is $9M and he can walk to UFA?

Bratt’s QO was something like $5.5. They played him pretty much just like Tkachuk, contract progression wise, except they didn’t give him as big a payday on his last deal.

[Hackey]

I'm assuming he means if they would have locked him up long term from the start like they should have. Brad definitely fumbled that one.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Hackey

I'm assuming he means if they would have locked him up long term from the start like they should have. Brad definitely fumbled that one.

That's just false though.

Bratt was bridged even worse than Tkachuk was. Got 2 years coming off his ELC, and then a 1 year deal coming off a 73 point season last year.

This is comparable to if Tkachuk would have taken the 8 year contract that was on the table for him before he demanded a trade.

It's hilarious seeing people applaud this signing as a counter point to not signing Tkachuk long term when both guys had 3 years of contracts post ELC.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Hackey

I'm assuming he means if they would have locked him up long term from the start like they should have. Brad definitely fumbled that one.

Yup, basically an unforgivable strategy that no GM in league would have done with any other player.

Except Point. and Werenski. and Boeser and Laine and McAvoy and Binnington and Meier and Carlo and Fiala.

...and that's just from that same off-season.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

That's just false though.

Bratt was bridged even worse than Tkachuk was. Got 2 years coming off his ELC, and then a 1 year deal coming off a 73 point season last year.

This is comparable to if Tkachuk would have taken the 8 year contract that was on the table for him before he demanded a trade.

It's hilarious seeing people applaud this signing as a counter point to not signing Tkachuk long term when both guys had 3 years of contracts post ELC.

Yup. The only difference between this contract and Tkachuk's is that Tkachuk said no. And was coming of a 100+ point season to boot.

[DoubleK]

LFG!!!!

Now sign Meier.

[FlamesAddiction]

There is an obvious difference in how a smaller market Canadian team has to approach things, compared to one in a large American market. The allure of free agency has different gravity and it's no secret that the risk of walking a player to the door step of unrestricted free agency in different markets isn't the same.

If you have a chance to lock down a player in Calgary, especially one that was drafted high and has shown every sign of meeting or exceeding expectations at a young age, you have to take it. With Bratt, he is a smaller player and drafted in the 6th round. The Devils and other NHL teams probably had concerns about how his future would play out, so he had to really prove to them that he was worth it, even after one good season. With Tkachuk, I don't think the same risk was ever there to warrant a bridge if there was an alternative on the table.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

There is an obvious difference in how a smaller market Canadian team has to approach things, compared to one in a large American market. The allure of free agency has different gravity and it's no secret that the risk of walking a player to the door step of unrestricted free agency in different markets isn't the same.

If you have a chance to lock down a player in Calgary, especially one that was drafted high and has shown every sign of meeting or exceeding expectations at a young age, you have to take it. With Bratt, he is a smaller player and drafted in the 6th round. The Devils and other NHL teams probably had concerns about how his future would play out, so he had to really prove to them that he was worth it, even after one good season. With Tkachuk, I don't think the same risk was ever there to warrant a bridge if there was an alternative on the table.

Which is fine.

But don't point to Bratt being an example of that then, because he wasn't given 8 years coming off his ELC.

He was given a 2 year and then a 1 year bridge.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

That's just false though.

Bratt was bridged even worse than Tkachuk was. Got 2 years coming off his ELC, and then a 1 year deal coming off a 73 point season last year.

This is comparable to if Tkachuk would have taken the 8 year contract that was on the table for him before he demanded a trade.

It's hilarious seeing people applaud this signing as a counter point to not signing Tkachuk long term when both guys had 3 years of contracts post ELC.

Bratt is irrelevant. They didn't need to bridge Tkachuk and it was a mistake that bit them hard.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Bratt is irrelevant. They didn't need to bridge Tkachuk and it was a mistake that bit them hard.

He says - in a thread about Bratt and about a post comparing the Bratt contract to Tkachuk's situation.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

There is an obvious difference in how a smaller market Canadian team has to approach things, compared to one in a large American market. The allure of free agency has different gravity and it's no secret that the risk of walking a player to the door step of unrestricted free agency in different markets isn't the same.

If you have a chance to lock down a player in Calgary, especially one that was drafted high and has shown every sign of meeting or exceeding expectations at a young age, you have to take it. With Bratt, he is a smaller player and drafted in the 6th round. The Devils and other NHL teams probably had concerns about how his future would play out, so he had to really prove to them that he was worth it, even after one good season. With Tkachuk, I don't think the same risk was ever there to warrant a bridge if there was an alternative on the table.

The year Tkachuk signed his 3 year dealhe came off a 77 point season and 49 the year before. The year Bratt signed his last one year deal before the present one he'd just come off of a 73 point season (and 30 points in 46 games the year before).

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

He says - in a thread about Bratt and about a post comparing the Bratt contract to Tkachuk's situation.

Here maybe I can lay it out for you to follow. Bratt is a young player that is expected to improve and every year of this contract is in his prime age window. These are the players you bet long term on and hand out long term deals to. The Flames should have done the same with Tkachuk. He was a young player you'd expect to improve and many saw as the future captain. His numbers improved over each of his first 3 years and the final year before the contract he put up 77pts. The option to sign him long term was there and they didn't take it. Just because Bratt signed a bridge doesn't change the fact that we're talking about this contract and the fact the Flames had the option so sign a similar contract with Tkachuk and didn't get it done. Fail.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Claes

O900ååå99äppppåää0ääåpp0ååäå0äää0

Skickat från min SM-A526B via Tapatalk

I couldnt agree more.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Here maybe I can lay it out for you to follow. Bratt is a young player that is expected to improve and every year of this contract is in his prime age window. These are the players you bet long term on and hand out long term deals to. The Flames should have done the same with Tkachuk. He was a young player you'd expect to improve and many saw as the future captain. His numbers improved over each of his first 3 years and the final year before the contract he put up 77pts. The option to sign him long term was there and they didn't take it. Just because Bratt signed a bridge doesn't change the fact that we're talking about this contract and the fact the Flames had the option so sign a similar contract with Tkachuk and didn't get it done. Fail.

8 years was never on the table.

Flames probably could have done something like 6x9M. Cool. We’d have 2 years left assuming he didn’t ask for a trade the moment his NTC kicked in (this off season I think).

There is no obviously better path between bridge/long term…each has pros/cons, each can blow up in your face.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Here maybe I can lay it out for you to follow. Bratt is a young player that is expected to improve and every year of this contract is in his prime age window. These are the players you bet long term on and hand out long term deals to. The Flames should have done the same with Tkachuk. He was a young player you'd expect to improve and many saw as the future captain. His numbers improved over each of his first 3 years and the final year before the contract he put up 77pts. The option to sign him long term was there and they didn't take it. Just because Bratt signed a bridge doesn't change the fact that we're talking about this contract and the fact the Flames had the option so sign a similar contract with Tkachuk and didn't get it done. Fail.

Lol. People were comparing the Bratt approach to the practically identical Tkachuk approach, and some people seemed to assume Bratt was just give a long term contract at the first opportunity. This is not the case at all.

And Tkachuk was signing for 6 years tops. Plus who knows, absent Covid and maybe Sutter, perhaps Tkachuk does exactly what Bratt did.

BTW, save the condescension for someone who cares. No fail.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Lol. People were comparing the Bratt approach to the practically identical Tkachuk approach, and some people seemed to assume Bratt was just give a long term contract at the first opportunity. This is not the case at all.

And Tkachuk was signing for 6 years tops. Plus who knows, absent Covid and maybe Sutter, perhaps Tkachuk does exactly what Bratt did.

BTW, save the condescension for someone who cares. No fail.

Ya there is no comparison. One guy is a 6th round pick and the other was a 6th overall pick. The Devils bridging Bratt makes a bit of sense. There is far more uncertainty there. The Flames bridging Tkachuk made no sense. Massive fail.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Ya there is no comparison. One guy is a 6th round pick and the other was a 6th overall pick. The Devils bridging Bratt makes a bit of sense. There is far more uncertainty there. The Flames bridging Tkachuk made no sense. Massive fail.

Tampa is so ####ing stupid winning those cups with Vasilevskiy and Point and Sergachev and Cirelli and Cernak on bridge deals.

And it really blew up in their face when they bridged Kucherov and then he scored 100 pts before they had to extend him.

It's amazing Tampa made the playoffs at all with all of those fails.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Ya there is no comparison. One guy is a 6th round pick and the other was a 6th overall pick. The Devils bridging Bratt makes a bit of sense. There is far more uncertainty there. The Flames bridging Tkachuk made no sense. Massive fail.

Draft position doesn’t matter 3-5 years later, after years of production and observation. There was not “far more uncertainty” in year 5 of Bratt.

The only fail is you not knowing what Bratt’s history and production was. Complain all you want about Tkachuk not getting a six year deal. Bratt’s contractual dealings aren’t any different.