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

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

4) This sounds a lot like the executive oversight that green lighted the Brad Richards offer, the ROR offer and signing Bouwmeester.

Drink!!

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Johnny was 3rd best player in NHL last season, statistically, which means the ask is respective of that;

If the Flames think that Johnny was the 3rd best player in the NHL last year:

1) Just pay him the league max. The max was designed for the top 3 in the league.

2) If the Flames secret stats have Johnny Gaudreau's 2015-16 performance as the 3rd best in the NHL it would go a long way to explain the Flames success over the last 10 years being in the Canes, Leafs area in the bottom 4 of the league.

3) If the Flames have the #3 best player how bad are his supporting players: Gio, Brodie, Hamilton, Frolik, Bennett, Monahan.

4) This sounds a lot like the executive oversight that green lighted the Brad Richards offer, the ROR offer and signing Bouwmeester.


The role that King has with the Flames seems to be one of owners representative. Imagine the blowback if Chipman (Jets faux owner) came out and said that Trouba was the best under 24 d-man in the NHL last year.

King is the constant that has been with the Flames for this last decade in the desert. Maybe the Flames need rebuild at the top..... the Oilers are pretty much Lowe-free

If Johnny was the third best forward you mention how bad the support players
must be. In my opinion Treliving addressed the reasons this team was so bad last year. He fired a coach who could not adjust his system from the previous year when a lot went right for them to shock many hockey fans and make the playoffs. He couldn't adjust in the defensive zone and continued to pursue risky stretch passes and rushing with 4 attackers which resulted in high risk scoring chances against

Then he also replaced the goaltending which was historically bad last year. When Ramo played half decent in December last season the Flames won 7 in a row. That play was never duplicated and the Flames sunk further in the standings.

i like everyone else here am interested in the context tha where King said that. Considering Johnny finished 6th in scoring I don't see what he could have done to finish on their top 3 in the league. You are spinning this as an indictment of Gio (56pts), Brodie (45pts), Hamilton (43pts), Monahan (63pts). I think it is clear that Treliving felt that coaching and goaltending were the biggest reasons the Flames missed the playoffs by 10pts


Also point 4 about RoR, Bouw, and Richards's those were all moves that previous GM's sold to ownership. The owners and King let their hoockey ops make decisions that hopefully move the team forward. Are you suggesting that King and Edwards block these moves and become more involved? I personally am glad they let their guys do their thing. If anything for and Richards are 2 strong reasons Feaster was fired. Bouwmeester? You are arguing it was a bad play to sign a 25 year old 6'4 Dman who has 2 straight 40+OT seasons? It didn't work out in hindsight but was a good move at the time. Where Sutter failed was not turning around and moving at least one of Regehr, Sarich, or Phaneuf so they could have retained Cammelleri and not started the season with Tene Bourque at $1.4M as the 4th highest paid forward.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

...When you negotiate with a strategic partner, you don't need to 'win' the negotiation to 'win' the partnership. You're not buying a car, low ball offers are not constructive, especially when you have said partner over a barrel. You want your partner to feel the terms of the deal are reflective of his value in the relationship and to feel motivated to continuing delivering value to the relationship. The last thing you want to do is short change him. That's the moment when relationships move from strategic to tactical, and even adversarial.

The fact that you think a $6.5 m ask from the Flames is an "insulting" low ball offer, coupled with your very strange emotional attachment to the numbers makes me think that if you are a professional negotiator, then you must not be a very experienced one.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for overpayment. I'm advocating for paying him fair market value. Just because there are special circumstances that allow us to hold our strategic partner hostage, doesn't mean it's wise to exercise that power. $1M in cap space is hardly worth a disgruntled player.

What if that difference has a significant impact on the team's budgeting projections over the course of several more seasons? So long as you insist on treating "market value" in a vacuum I will continue to remind you that there actually is a real, significant difference on what Gaudreau's next contract will be worth by virtue of his 10.2(c) status.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

The fact that you would compare bargaining for a car (a one and done purchase) vs negotiations with a star player (essentially a strategic business partner) tells me all I need to know about your negotiation skills/experience. Never mind that I have led paid seminars teaching fortune 500 executives how to negotiate.

When you negotiate with a strategic partner, you don't need to 'win' the negotiation to 'win' the partnership. You're not buying a car, low ball offers are not constructive, especially when you have said partner over a barrel. You want your partner to feel the terms of the deal are reflective of his value in the relationship and to feel motivated to continuing delivering value to the relationship. The last thing you want to do is short change him. That's the moment when relationships move from strategic to tactical, and even adversarial.

One of my favorite quotes is from John Ruskin - it's not completely relevant but it kind of fits. He was a big "pay for quality" advocate.

"It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better."

To be clear, I'm not advocating for overpayment. I'm advocating for paying him fair market value. Just because there are special circumstances that allow us to hold our strategic partner hostage, doesn't mean it's wise to exercise that power. $1M in cap space is hardly worth a disgruntled player.

Does that make sense? And can we please limit the personal attacks? This goes for me as well, though I have been trying to not retaliate to all the crap people are spewing about me because it fills the thread with garbage. It would be nice if those who felt the need to throw out personal attacks would make the same effort.

Two things I disagree with, 1M in cap space is a huge gap and the part about dealing with the lowest bidder.

Due to Johnnys RFA status, there is only 1 bidder, which changes the whole scope of the negotiations. And if you start paying players a million over in each contract, you aren't going to build a championship team.

You'd think someone with as much negotiating skills as you would know this, since I do and my only experience is buying houses and cars.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

The fact that you would compare bargaining for a car (a one and done purchase) vs negotiations with a star player (essentially a strategic business partner) tells me all I need to know about your negotiation skills/experience. Never mind that I have led paid seminars teaching fortune 500 executives how to negotiate.

................

Does that make sense? And can we please limit the personal attacks? This goes for me as well, though I have been trying to not retaliate to all the crap people are spewing about me because it fills the thread with garbage. It would be nice if those who felt the need to throw out personal attacks would make the same effort.

I guess...starting now!

[Macho0978]

Based on where they were at from the last reports the Flames need to budge first. It's ridiculous to think Gaudreau can't make want Gio makes.

1. Gio got less per year cause of his age and getting paid big money at age 37-38 lowered his AAV
2. It's a trend around the league and good teams don't do this as the cap goes up every year. Malkin has higher cap hit than Crosby. Kopitar over Doughty.
3. Offering 6.5 shows they still have old school thinking. Watching team NA play they were the 2nd most dominate team during the round robin despite having kids that were talented yes but supposedly can't handle pressure, not having a 200 foot game or any experience. Johnny was for sure their best player too and you can win with young players and you can win with guys like Johnny because the NHL is nowhere near as physical as it once was

Is Johnny worth 8 as an RFA? No imo but 8 is closer to what he is worth than the 6.5 the Flames are offering. I hope the Flames do well and every dollar matters but if they can get him down to 7.25 - 7.5 its a good deal and they need to get this done now so he can get on the ice and we don't have another year of bad pre-season decisions costing us early in the season

[BrownDrake]

The art of any deal is the point at which both sides are a bit uncomfortable.

I doubt Gaudreau, considering his limited history, well known short comings and contract status would be uncomfortable at 8.0 million per year.

I doubt the Flames, considering Gaudreau's achievements in 2 years and potential game breaking style would be uncomfortable signing him at 6.5 per year.

So neither of those numbers are going to work would be my guess.

Make no mistake about it though, the Flames have their high, uncomfortable number in mind and that probably hasn't changed and won't, question is - is that number at Johnny's low.

That Flames number will be pitched with a caveat shortly, probably something like here is our top number, we do a deal by October 12th or you have played your last game in Calgary. We have done our market analysis and considering your RFA dynamics this is where we slot you in. If this is not acceptable we will begin finding a trading partner, you will sit until we feel we have a deal that gives us reasonable return for our asset. This will be made public so it is not a distraction in our dressing room as to when or if you will be coming back.

[MissTeeks]

Uh oh. The vultures are circling.

[SportsJunky]

I'm not expecting anything now until next week. Even if they sign a deal today I think these things rarely get announced on Fridays. Or has that changed?

[Drak]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Uh oh. The vultures are circling.

Ugh.

[ToraToraTora]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Uh oh. The vultures are circling.

Sadly for the Canucks, they lack the assets to trade for Gaudreau.

[FlamesAddiction]

The answer to that question from their perspective is yes, they should. Flames would never trade him to a rival... this isn't Bert Svenchi or whatever his name is.

Plus, they have nothing we would want.

[OmegaV4]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Uh oh. The vultures are circling.

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaa.......a hgahahahahahaahahaha....ahahahaha...

ha....

This guy.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Not to take too much away from your post, but we've got a brand new coach and systems this season. Many teams struggle out of the gate with these changes. Training camp and pre-season are pretty critical to getting everyone on the same page and ready to gel on opening night.

I'm asking because I am honestly curious about this: is it a fairly common occurrence that many teams struggle out of the gate with a new coach? It seems pretty random to me, and I can think of a half dozen instances from the past decade where the opposite has happened.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Uh oh. The vultures are circling.

I'll trade Johnny to Vancouver if they agree to keep Benning for the next three decades.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Uh oh. The vultures are circling.

David Pratt might be the dumbest guy in sports media.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

I'm not expecting anything now until next week. Even if they sign a deal today I think these things rarely get announced on Fridays. Or has that changed?

Monahan's contract was announced on a Friday.

I don't think they would delay the announcement if something was done today because they'll want him in town and on the ice ASAP.

[Vinny01]

What would the Canucks even have to offer? Horvat, Juolevi, 2 1st round picks?

[GioforPM]

As a complete aside I think King meant 3rd best winger.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

What would the Canucks even have to offer? Horvat, Juolevi, 2 1st round picks?

Flames don't need a 2nd/3rd line center or another young defenseman project although two first round picks may be temping as there's first overall potential for both of them.