[CP Story] Bridge over Troubled Water: Gaudreau Contract

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Is it? As a fan we finally have a dynamic, young, top-scorer to build around and we are somehow concerned about a fair deal for the Flames? Personally, I want to see the best team on the ice and care very little if the Flames owners and our team payroll are out an extra $.5M - $1M in the process.

If BT can't manage the cap after already signing a number of players to big, multi year deals, I would be pretty disappointed. The Flames are hardly a struggling franchise that needs to be concerned about paying their best player. A player that will sell a lot of tickets, merchandise and quite frankly single handedly put the teams offensive game back on the map after some pretty bleak years.

Winning will sell a lot more tickets and merchandise then any one star player will.

Also signing a number of player to big, multi year deals eats up the cap rather quickly. It's not about caring if the owners spend another million or so, it's about making sure that extra million or so can be saved for the cap, and doesn't push up the contract for the next couple of potential stars that will want long term deals (Bennett, Tkachuk, Gillies(?)).

Wideman, Smid, Engelland, Stajan, Bouma.. all off the books within a season or two, Treliving has to be very careful where that money will go. An extra half million is a lot to both the Flames and Gaudreau and they each should be fighting for it but I hope the Flames win that battle.

Teams aren't built around young dynamic wingers either, if Gaudreau and his team want a deal that potentially breaks the Flames cap well, so long and thanks for all the fish.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Winning will sell a lot more tickets and merchandise then any one star player will.

Also signing a number of player to big, multi year deals eats up the cap rather quickly. It's not about caring if the owners spend another million or so, it's about making sure that extra million or so can be saved for the cap, and doesn't push up the contract for the next couple of potential stars that will want long term deals (Bennett, Tkachuk, Gillies(?)).

Wideman, Smid, Engelland, Stajan, Bouma.. all off the books within a season or two, Treliving has to be very careful where that money will go. An extra half million is a lot to both the Flames and Gaudreau and they each should be fighting for it but I hope the Flames win that battle.

Teams aren't built around young dynamic wingers either, if Gaudreau and his team want a deal that potentially breaks the Flames cap well, so long and thanks for all the fish.

Sure, winning will absolutely sell more tickets/merch than one star player, but the problem with the Flames is that winning anytime soon is pretty much entirely tied to having Johnny under contract. The team is certainly not loaded with legitimate top 6 talent yet so I'm not really sure where you would expect his PPG scoring to be picked up from if he is not in the fold and simply sent packing as you suggest? You definitely aren't winning multiple cups in Chicago with Toews and no Kane on the wing either. It's about having real, high-end talent. Period.

Currently, the Flames attack starts and ends with Johnny and until players like Tkachuk and Bennett are ready to prove otherwise, there isn't much point in worrying about those deals. Team payroll is cyclical and by that time other deals will be coming off the books. There's always room for a GM to maneuver.....see Stan Bowman.

If this was all about cap management as many suggest, I would not be as irked by this situation. This is clearly not the only or main issue at play though. If it were the case, BT/the Flames would not have offered a generous, long term deal to Troy Brouwer in July and certainly would not have been so active with other long term extensions the last couple of off seasons.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Sure, winning will absolutely sell more tickets/merch than one star player, but the problem with the Flames is that winning anytime soon is pretty much entirely tied to having Johnny under contract. The team is certainly not loaded with legitimate top 6 talent yet so I'm not really sure where you would expect his PPG scoring to be picked up from if he is not in the fold and simply sent packing as you suggest? You definitely aren't winning multiple cups in Chicago with Toews and no Kane on the wing either. It's about having real, high-end talent. Period.

Currently, the Flames attack starts and ends with Johnny and until players like Tkachuk and Bennett are ready to prove otherwise, there isn't much point in worrying about those deals. Team payroll is cyclical and by that time other deals will be coming off the books. There's always room for a GM to maneuver.....see Stan Bowman.

If this was all about cap management as many suggest, I would not be as irked by this situation. This is clearly not the only or main issue at play though. If it were the case, BT/the Flames would not have offered a generous, long term deal to Troy Brouwer in July and certainly would not have been so active with other long term extensions the last couple of off seasons.

I don't at all agree with your assesment on things being tied to Johnny. Johnny is key no doubt, but he needs to be well complimented for the Flames to be a winner. Overpay for Johnny (or any key player) even by $1M a season and it could be the difference between being a cup champion and a consistent playoff team but never a threat for (Flames 06 to 09) for Johnny's entire tenure here.

You are kidding yourself if you don't think this is about cap management, and your Troy Brouwer example couldn't be more off base. You don't have to like the Brouwer deal, but it's the type of move the team needs flexibility cap wise to make if we want our young core to be able to deliver championships.

This deal isn't likely outstanding because BT is being super stingy with a talent like Gaudreau. It's likely not happening because Gaudreau's camp is asking for money at this point that puts BT in a spot where he's concerned about his ability to finish building a winner after all the other key young player deals get done over the next few years.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

No not you, article was fine, though that exact contract would be way off from a value perspective.

sorry ... what do you mean?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Winning will sell a lot more tickets and merchandise then any one star player will.

Also signing a number of player to big, multi year deals eats up the cap rather quickly. It's not about caring if the owners spend another million or so, it's about making sure that extra million or so can be saved for the cap, and doesn't push up the contract for the next couple of potential stars that will want long term deals (Bennett, Tkachuk, Gillies(?)).

Wideman, Smid, Engelland, Stajan, Bouma.. all off the books within a season or two, Treliving has to be very careful where that money will go. An extra half million is a lot to both the Flames and Gaudreau and they each should be fighting for it but I hope the Flames win that battle.

Teams aren't built around young dynamic wingers either, if Gaudreau and his team want a deal that potentially breaks the Flames cap well, so long and thanks for all the fish.

Disagree with this for sure. Rather overpay for Gaudreau than have Treliving hand out $4.5M for guys like Frolik and Brouwer. All the contracts you state that are coming off the books are the reason we are up against it right now. My thoughts are you pay for your stars and don't overpay for support players.

I agree that we have some young players that need to be paid down the road but Gaudreau is not the pkayer that goes because he wants more money than what the Flames perceive too much. I know you don't build around wingers but we have our top centre and top 3 D signed for the next 4-7 years. Gaudreau is the face of the franchise and our line superstar. You pay him and of worrying about money for Bennett, Tkachuk, Gillies etc then worry about the Brouwer's, Frolik's, Engellend type deals that get done on July 1

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Disagree with this for sure. Rather overpay for Gaudreau than have Treliving hand out $4.5M for guys like Frolik and Brouwer. All the contracts you state that are coming off the books are the reason we are up against it right now. My thoughts are you pay for your stars and don't overpay for support players.

I agree that we have some young players that need to be paid down the road but Gaudreau is not the pkayer that goes because he wants more money than what the Flames perceive too much. I know you don't build around wingers but we have our top centre and top 3 D signed for the next 4-7 years. Gaudreau is the face of the franchise and our line superstar. You pay him and of worrying about money for Bennett, Tkachuk, Gillies etc then worry about the Brouwer's, Frolik's, Engellend type deals that get done on July 1

Your argument never got off the ground. Overpaying for anyone is a bad idea.

Brouwer and Frolik were UFAs. The Flames didn't overpay for them, they paid fair market price. And a team needs players like that.

It also needs star players like Gaudreau.

But there is a cap. So if you want to have enough money to build a winner, you have to manage EVERY contract with that in mind. The Flames need to pay Gaudreau fairly, not overpay him, or they will have less room left over to build a competitive team around him.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Just curious as to why you think there is a lack of mutual faith. Is it because a deal hasn't been signed yet or is there something else that has been said or reported?

Faith probably isn't the right word but something like that.
I don't know that Johnny wants to be here forever. There's some smoke there.
I don't know that the Flames believe that Johnny should be paid truly elite dollars. Questions around road/home splits may cause them to wonder if they know enough about the player to commit a long-term deal where he is amongst the highest paid in the league.

I think the two parties like each other a lot, and are going steady. Not sure if they are ready to get married.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

I'm confused, do 3-3 points not help a team make the playoffs? And isn't making the playoffs a requirement for winning the cup? It would seem that you're very much under valuing Gaudreau's contributions to getting a team into the playoffs.

Am I?

Did we make the playoffs last year while Gaudreau led or nearly led the league in 3-on-3 points?

Playoffs are locked by having strong special teams and 5-on-5 play. Two things where Tarasenko has out performed Gaudreau thus far offensively. At best 3-on-3 is a tiebreaker/wildcard for a bubble team, like shootouts... you don't pay Joe Colborne. a million extra dollars for being good at shootouts.

These were the teams with positive 5-on-5 goal differentials:

Washington
Florida
NYR
Pittsburgh
L.A.
STL
Minnesota
Dallas
San Jose
NYI
Boston
Nashville
Philadelphia
Ottawa
Winnipeg

Only three of these fifteen teams missed the playoffs. Ottawa and Winnipeg had awful special teams and Boston was a lone outlier.

It's really simple. The worst 3-on-3 team in the league can contend for a cup but the worst 5-on-5 team can win all their 3-on-3 matches and still be the worst team in the league.

Gaudreau's value at everything outside of 3-on-3 is below that of Tarasenko. To pay him more than Tarasenko by any meaningful amount would be over-valuing 3-on-3 - a type of play that does not resemble playoff hockey. You need to value 5-on-5, PP, PK. Playoffs can have some 4-on-4 so that is fair game.

3-on-3 is a pleasant bonus that might help a bubble team squeeze in only to be first round fodder, but it should not be dictating multi million dollar contracts. Because it is simply never played in the playoffs. You're more likely to see a penalty shot than 3-on-3.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Your argument never got off the ground. Overpaying for anyone is a bad idea.

Brouwer and Frolik were UFAs. The Flames didn't overpay for them, they paid fair market price. And a team needs players like that.

It also needs star players like Gaudreau.

But there is a cap. So if you want to have enough money to build a winner, you have to manage EVERY contract with that in mind. The Flames need to pay Gaudreau fairly, not overpay him, or they will have less room left over to build a competitive team around him.

My argument is quite valid I feel. What you may presume is and overpayment for Gaudreau someone else may feel that is market value

I don't disagree but I would rather overpay for Gaudreau than lose him in a trade that we almost certainly would lose (unless we lucked into a Kessel type deal the Bruins pulled off). You typically only get players like Gaudreau by drafting him. He hits the open market and the contract is a definite overpay. I would rather pay more to keep our drafted superstar here than pay over $4M for second/third liners that are paid until their mid 30's.

My point is the cap issues the Flames have now are due to the Wideman's, Engellend's, Stajan's, Bouma's. Either free agent signings or overpaying for support players. If the Flames are going to pay top dollar for someone I hope it would be their 23 year old who has scored at an elite pace wherever he's played.

If we are talking 2-3 years down the road and have trouble signing Tkachuk and Gillies I think fans will point to the Frolik and Brouwer contracts that make up nearly $9M of cap rather than a $9M per Gaudreau.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I don't at all agree with your assesment on things being tied to Johnny. Johnny is key no doubt, but he needs to be well complimented for the Flames to be a winner. Overpay for Johnny (or any key player) even by $1M a season and it could be the difference between being a cup champion and a consistent playoff team but never a threat for (Flames 06 to 09) for Johnny's entire tenure here.

You are kidding yourself if you don't think this is about cap management, and your Troy Brouwer example couldn't be more off base. You don't have to like the Brouwer deal, but it's the type of move the team needs flexibility cap wise to make if we want our young core to be able to deliver championships.

This deal isn't likely outstanding because BT is being super stingy with a talent like Gaudreau. It's likely not happening because Gaudreau's camp is asking for money at this point that puts BT in a spot where he's concerned about his ability to finish building a winner after all the other key young player deals get done over the next few years.

I'm confused.

So you're saying that it was good for BT pay Brouwer; an aging player with a very limited skill set, a ton of money (which always happens in FA so not holding that against BT at all) long term but somehow it's not good to pay Johnny what could end up being a little too much per year as well?....I get that you need to be able to function as a GM and sort out the rest of the roster but if you don't have your best player on said roster, overpriced players like Brouwer, or whoever else you bring in to compliment the stars mean nothing.

It's quite amusing that some fans are insinuating the team let Johnny go or play hard ball over what is likely a 1M AAV at the expense of what should be a long career as a Flame. A few years ago this would have been blasphemy when Iginla was entering or in his prime years. Two very different players/teams but let's not pretend like either are all that different until we know what we have for sure in the promising supporting cast that includes youngsters like Bennett, Tkachuk, Hamilton etc.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

My argument is quite valid I feel. What you may presume is and overpayment for Gaudreau someone else may feel that is market value

I still Enoch has it right ... you don't overpay for anyone.

And every 100K counts. It's so easy to say what's 500K on a 8M contract, but in the end that's the same 500K that may be given away on a 1M contract. It adds up.

If you get everyone on fair contracts the effects will be noticed down the road.

If you've hired people that don't know what "fair" is, or purposely low ball every player than you have another problem.

But I think the Monahan contract proves the Flames are at market. If I had to bet on one side or the other right now I'd say that Gaudreau's camp isn't.

The team and the GM have to wait until they move into that range.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Faith probably isn't the right word but something like that.
I don't know that Johnny wants to be here forever. There's some smoke there.
I don't know that the Flames believe that Johnny should be paid truly elite dollars. Questions around road/home splits may cause them to wonder if they know enough about the player to commit a long-term deal where he is amongst the highest paid in the league.

I think the two parties like each other a lot, and are going steady. Not sure if they are ready to get married.

Gotcha. I think its fair for the Flames to be asking themselves just how good is he? Let's be honest, you can only prove so much in 2 years and the team hasn't been good in that span either. Its entirely possible that more of the "lack of faith" is coming from the Flames.

I could not agree more with the posters that you don't want to overpay any player. But there's also comes a point where you have to examine your BATNA. Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.

Its rare to get fair value when trading a star, so at some point Flames may decide that overpaying is better than the alternative. Now presumably we are nowhere near that point since the bridge deal is still an option. Or maybe they can't agree on that either.

Everything I've read indicates that both sides want "term". That gives me confidence Johnny wants to be here and the issue is just about finding the right price.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I still Enoch has it right ... you don't overpay for anyone.

And every 100K counts. It's so easy to say what's 500K on a 8M contract, but in the end that's the same 500K that may be given away on a 1M contract. It adds up.

If you get everyone on fair contracts the effects will be noticed down the road.

If you've hired people that don't know what "fair" is, or purposely low ball every player than you have another problem.

But I think the Monahan contract proves the Flames are at market. If I had to bet on one side or the other right now I'd say that Gaudreau's camp isn't.

The team and the GM have to wait until they move into that range.

Who says the Flames are going to be overpaying though? No one has come out and said anything regarding where dollars are at. If the team is trying to sign him to Monohan money that really isn't fair at all. If Johnny is demanding Nash or Voracek money that probably isn't fair either.

One thing for sure is that this conversation could really suck in a few years after a bridge deal if the ask is now $10M per after a few more dominant seasons.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I still Enoch has it right ... you don't overpay for anyone.

And every 100K counts. It's so easy to say what's 500K on a 8M contract, but in the end that's the same 500K that may be given away on a 1M contract. It adds up.

If you get everyone on fair contracts the effects will be noticed down the road.

If you've hired people that don't know what "fair" is, or purposely low ball every player than you have another problem.

But I think the Monahan contract proves the Flames are at market. If I had to bet on one side or the other right now I'd say that Gaudreau's camp isn't.

The team and the GM have to wait until they move into that range.

We already overpaid for players this summer. Brouwer didn't cost an asset but he is overpaid considering he is a 15-20 goal 30-40pt winger getting $4.5M per on a long term deal. Frolik making north of $4M to provide 20 goals-40pts and PK ability. Those contracts are overpaid because the only asset used was cap space. The Flamea JVR had Johnny in the organization for 5 years and he played on the team for 2 with incredible results. While $8-$9M may be perceived an overpay by you (example) there could be several people that think that is fair value for a player that has Gaudreau's abilities and numbers.

My arguement lies with the fact you don't get players like Gaudreau very often and if you do typically you pick that player in the top 5 of the draft. MMF mentioned if Gaudreau wasn't going to fit in the flames cap we should move him. My thoughts are paying Johnny more than what the team perceived his value today is a better risk than trading him and plugging holes with UFA's. We would never win a trade involving Gaudreau IMO

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I'm confused.

So you're saying that it was good for BT pay Brouwer; an aging player with a very limited skill set, a ton of money (which always happens in FA so not holding that against BT at all) long term but somehow it's not good to pay Johnny what could end up being a little too much per year as well?....I get that you need to be able to function as a GM and sort out the rest of the roster but if you don't have your best player on said roster, overpriced players like Brouwer, or whoever else you bring in to compliment the stars mean nothing.

It's quite amusing that some fans are insinuating the team let Johnny go or play hard ball over what is likely a 1M AAV at the expense of what should be a long career as a Flame. A few years ago this would have been blasphemy when Iginla was entering or in his prime years. Two very different players/teams but let's not pretend like either are all that different until we know what we have for sure in the promising supporting cast that includes youngsters like Bennett, Tkachuk, Hamilton etc.

I'm saying it's not good to pay anyone $1M more than they should be paid. The fact that we paid Brouwer is not some indication that we shouldn't worry about overpaying Johnny. I'm not trying to debate whether Brouwer's contract is good or not, it's kind of irrelevant to the argument, because even if your stance is it's bad, that's not a reason to overpay a different player or sign another bad deal.

My point was, you need to ensure you have flexibility to make moves like Brouwer, or something else down the road to be able to win with Johnny once he's signed. We can debate until the cows come home whether Brouwer and his contract was the "right" complimentary move at this point, my point is simply that you need room to make moves like that one. Winning teams are so tight to the cap that even overpaying one core player by $1M per season could be the difference, and it makes a huge difference if you do it on every core contract (Gaurdreau, Monahan, Bennett, etc...).

It's not as simple as just give him the money, he's important, it's much more complicated.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

We already overpaid for players this summer. Brouwer didn't cost an asset but he is overpaid considering he is a 15-20 goal 30-40pt winger getting $4.5M per on a long term deal. Frolik making north of $4M to provide 20 goals-40pts and PK ability...

That is the going rate for middle-six forwards in today's NHL. If two of the Flames' middle-six wingers are earning the going rate, then they are not overpaid.

My arguement lies with the fact you don't get players like Gaudreau very often and if you do typically you pick that player in the top 5 of the draft. MMF mentioned if Gaudreau wasn't going to fit in the flames cap we should move him. My thoughts are paying Johnny more than what the team perceived his value today is a better risk than trading him and plugging holes with UFA's. We would never win a trade involving Gaudreau IMO

Perhaps not directly in terms of what the return in a Gaudreau trade would amount to, but the team very well could win in terms of the flexibility such a deal could potentially provide for the long-term future. I personally think that it is within the Flames' best interest to have Gaudreau under contract for the next 6–8 years, but I think you are badly undermining the importance of ensuring that his next deal—which is likely to be the most valuable contract ever written by the Calgary Flames—is one that is manageable in the long term and compliant with the goal of building a championship team.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

We already overpaid for players this summer. Brouwer didn't cost an asset but he is overpaid considering he is a 15-20 goal 30-40pt winger getting $4.5M per on a long term deal. Frolik making north of $4M to provide 20 goals-40pts and PK ability. Those contracts are overpaid because the only asset used was cap space. The Flamea JVR had Johnny in the organization for 5 years and he played on the team for 2 with incredible results. While $8-$9M may be perceived an overpay by you (example) there could be several people that think that is fair value for a player that has Gaudreau's abilities and numbers.

My arguement lies with the fact you don't get players like Gaudreau very often and if you do typically you pick that player in the top 5 of the draft. MMF mentioned if Gaudreau wasn't going to fit in the flames cap we should move him. My thoughts are paying Johnny more than what the team perceived his value today is a better risk than trading him and plugging holes with UFA's. We would never win a trade involving Gaudreau IMO

First off the Flames have to treat the player and his agent with class.

I think when things get to the Risebrough point and you lose a Nieuwendyk you've blown it. A hard line is a hard line but it doesn't have to be with insults.

I don't think Gaudreau is an overpayment based on skill. But if he is looking for 8 years and 8.5M (example, don't know) he's asking for Steven Stamkos number without having two very important things

1. A history of production (2 years isn't 8)
2. the ability to solicit offers from the other 29 teams

The structure of his contract just doesn't get them there.

Treliving has to continue to point that out in the classiest way possible.

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I'm confused.

So you're saying that it was good for BT pay Brouwer; an aging player with a very limited skill set, a ton of money (which always happens in FA so not holding that against BT at all) long term but somehow it's not good to pay Johnny what could end up being a little too much per year as well?....I get that you need to be able to function as a GM and sort out the rest of the roster but if you don't have your best player on said roster, overpriced players like Brouwer, or whoever else you bring in to compliment the stars mean nothing.

It's quite amusing that some fans are insinuating the team let Johnny go or play hard ball over what is likely a 1M AAV at the expense of what should be a long career as a Flame. A few years ago this would have been blasphemy when Iginla was entering or in his prime years. Two very different players/teams but let's not pretend like either are all that different until we know what we have for sure in the promising supporting cast that includes youngsters like Bennett, Tkachuk, Hamilton etc.

One thing people have to understand/accept is that, as an RFA, you have limited options. Once you are UFA, you have options.

Brower's money as an RFA would be an overpay, but Brower's money as a UFA is just not really out of line. Sure, we could have traded some assets that another team wants to get a Brower kind of player (under a slightly better salary), but are we going to want to move those assets? Now you may be overpaying on that side of things.


I'll be honest - I definitely want the Flames to get Gaudreau signed. I want him signed for the same years at Monahan, and for a fair dollar figure for both sides (Bingo's article is brilliant for explaining what the number really should be around, and why), but I understand the uniqueness of the contract situation is making that harder than usual.

If Treliving is being unreasonable, I believe the agent would have broken his silence and said "...the Flames are only offering us 5M...".
If the agent is being unreasonable, I believe the Flames would keep their traps shut and work through it (seems the current regime likes to work that way), instead of saying, "... Johnny wants 8M over 5 (or more) years..."

As such, the last thing I want, and this will not be popular to everyone, is if the agent/Johnny are being unreasonable, then I want the Flames to hold their ground. The Calgary Flames are much bigger than just the one player, and I think the Flames are further ahead in the long run missing a month of Johnny, and maybe the playoffs one more time, than paying him an unjustified amount of money just to have him in the lineup.

But maybe that's just me.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I'm saying it's not good to pay anyone $1M more than they should be paid. The fact that we paid Brouwer is not some indication that we shouldn't worry about overpaying Johnny. I'm not trying to debate whether Brouwer's contract is good or not, it's kind of irrelevant to the argument, because even if your stance is it's bad, that's not a reason to overpay a different player or sign another bad deal.

My point was, you need to ensure you have flexibility to make moves like Brouwer, or something else down the road to be able to win with Johnny once he's signed. We can debate until the cows come home whether Brouwer and his contract was the "right" complimentary move at this point, my point is simply that you need room to make moves like that one. Winning teams are so tight to the cap that even overpaying one core player by $1M per season could be the difference, and it makes a huge difference if you do it on every core contract (Gaurdreau, Monahan, Bennett, etc...).

It's not as simple as just give him the money, he's important, it's much more complicated.

To me it seems like a lot of people are stuck in the mindset of signing player x to compliment your stars - which is pretty oldschool. The good teams today rarely do this anymore and if they do it's more of a one off to put them over the top when they feel they have a legitimate shot. All the model franchises pay 3-4 of their top forwards well and surround them with good, young, affordable talent. It's not like BT is going to need to go out and constantly sign 4M dollar FA deals if he's done his job right in another few seasons. It shifts to next man up mentality instead of let's go shopping.

The Flames are developing a steady line of prospects/homegrown talent that can come in and play for reasonable money so the franchise can afford to pay the likes of Monohan and Guadreau. It doesn't happen overnight, obviously, but why even rebuild if you are going to potentially alienate one of the leagues star players that can make the franchise great over a few dollars and cents?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

Brower's money as an RFA would be an overpay, but Brower's money as a UFA is just not really out of line.

On the flip side, such money as an RFA is lower risk because the player is in their prime, while the same money as a UFA is high risk because regardless of history, the player is past his prime production years.


Paying a 23 year old Johnny a so-called overpayment is a good gamble if it ensure you have him through age 30. Paying a 28 year old Johnny so-called market value is a likely losing one in its later years.

Market value is not Good Value.
Above Market Value is not Poor Value either.