[Signing] Lightning sign Point (3yrs, $6.75 mil AAV)

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Itse

Getting a player like Tkachuk on a reasonable deal for three years is not a damned disaster, for many reasons.

First of all, we don't know what his real value is. Is he really a consistent 70-80 point player? Too soon to say. If he ends up being a 60 point winger and kind of eases off on the edginess, but gets paid 9M per year for 8 years, THAT'S a disaster.

If he ends up being an 80+ point player for us for less than 7M for three seasons, that's a fantastic situation for us while it lasts. Also, most potential UFA's end up signing for the team they've been playing for. Some even for quite reasonable contracts. They can also get traded for a good haul.

There are upsides and downsides in a three year contract vs a longer contract, and while a longer contract might be better for the team overall, the difference between them is NOT a disaster.

Worrying about potential "disasters" four years down the road is ridiculous anyway. We don't know how things will play out. We don't know where the team is at that point. Maybe we'll win a cup in that window.

If players want to make it to UFA sooner, it's not the end of the damned world. It's their right, and that's just a variable in building a team. Nothing more.

You're missing the point. Give him 3 years and you've lost any leverage for the next contract. From asset Management, that's a disaster

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Maybe, but while the new landscape will have a significant affect on older UFAs, I still think that any top player in his mid-twenties is going to get maximum value.

It's also difficult to imagine the future because of what an outlier this year has been. There has never been a RFA class this good, and I think that has strained the market as much as anything.

I think there be more player movement - similar to other sports.

Guys won't be resigning as UFA's because of the lack of money.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

That's interesting. If I'm a TB fan I have mixed feelings.

Still would like MT locked up for six years around $8m.

3 yrs @ 6.75 uses up 20.25 of the 48 M over 6 leaving 27.25 for the last 3 years. 9.1 x 3.

That takes the threat of the Qualifying offer over 9M out of it.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Maybe, but while the new landscape will have a significant affect on older UFAs, I still think that any top player in his mid-twenties is going to get maximum value.

It's also difficult to imagine the future because of what an outlier this year has been. There has never been a RFA class this good, and I think that has strained the market as much as anything.

Effect*

[Rando]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What??

There were rumours out there last summer for sure, can't remember the exact details.

That deal sounds golden now and maybe Treliving should've went for it but it's massive hindsight. Tkachuk was coming off a 49 point season, second year in the NHL, that would've been the biggest contract in Flames history. That's a tough sell.

And of course we don't know the full details.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It doesn't. It assumes that Tkachuk is intent on maximizing his leverage and his value, which means getting to UFA as soon as possible. I suspect that Tkachuk would probably happily sign a 6-year deal @ Marner's number to play in Calgary.

McDavid would have happily signed Marner's deal (or even more likely Matthews) if he actually thought it was an option. Of course it was an option all along, but it seems he didn't want to be the first to disrupt 'the way things are done'.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You're missing the point. Give him 3 years and you've lost any leverage for the next contract. From asset Management, that's a disaster

You can still trade him, or re-sign him long term anytime starting July 1, 2021. At that point it's not necessarily a 1 year risk vs. reward calculation for MT, but 2 years. If he's lights out for the next two seasons, he cashes in immediately.

He might still want to wait to see what's happening with the TV deal, but everyone might already have a good sense of it by that summer. As an organization, you will have a much better idea of where you're going, and what you want to do with Johnny and Tkachuk...

If he has struggles or injury issues, it's probably mutually beneficial to see how the final year of his bridge and/or QO year go.

3x6.75 makes tons of sense to me (perhaps with a lower 3rd year compared to Point to retain some more leverage).

[bettercallbettman]

Damn that’s a nice deal.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

3 year bridge would be an unmitigated disaster. That gives him arb rights and 1 year from ufa. A smart player would just go to arb sign the one year award regardless of dollars and become a UFA the next year. Flames would have zero leverage. 2 year bridge or 5-8 year deal is all I'd consider from the flames perspective

i don't understand this. If the Flames don't win the cup in the next three years, its back to the drawing board anyways because all of these current deals will be expiring with players looking for huge raises. Why saddle yourself to an anchor contract with Tkachuk if all the other stars have left?

[Corral]

Great contract. I hope the Flames and MT sign the same deal and we can get on with things.

[The Cobra]

Older UFA's will feel the pinch, but premium young UFA's will get paid. Which is why players like Point/Tkachuk want to become UFA's when they are young and generally as soon as possible.

It will take a huge premium for premium UFA's in the future to delay UFA for even a few years, as it would likely effect their third contract.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Corral

i don't understand this. If the Flames don't win the cup in the next three years, its back to the drawing board anyways because all of these current deals will be expiring with players looking for huge raises. Why saddle yourself to an anchor contract with Tkachuk if all the other stars have left?

If we're just assuming that by 2022 the Flames have lost everyone else but Tkachuk, that just means it's all the more important to get Tkachuk signed long-term in my opinion. Either build around him or trade him but letting him leave as UFA would be a disaster.

However, if Point is making this much, Tkachuk should come at a pretty significant discount and if it means getting him signed or not, I guess I'd finally relent and give him a 6M for 3 year type contract. Still hope 1-2 or 6-8.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Treliving has a full year to resign him next time around and Tkachuk still takes on risk signing 1 year contract too. Imo tre biggest mistake was being so cheap last summer. Rumor was tkachuk wanted 7 per on long term deal. That would have been better than this

I doubt there was one person on this board who would have approved a long term deal with Tkachuk last year at $7M. After a 49 pojnt season.

There's plenty here that don't want to pay him that now LOL.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Rando

There were rumours out there last summer for sure, can't remember the exact details.

That deal sounds golden now and maybe Treliving should've went for it but it's massive hindsight. Tkachuk was coming off a 49 point season, second year in the NHL, that would've been the biggest contract in Flames history. That's a tough sell.

And of course we don't know the full details.

Right but the rumour was never that Tkachuk was clamouring to sign. Just that they were discussing it. Why would Tkachuk sign something like that?

The opinion of “Treliving should have went for it” is irrelevant. I’m sure he would have. (Especially if the rumour was 7, because it’s always less than the rumour)

[GioforPM]

Well, we at least know that Tkachuk at 3 years is below 6.75. Point has more goals, points and plays a more important position.

As for 3 years being a terrible term, doesn’t it depend on structure? Isn’t the loss of leverage about what the QO has to be?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You're missing the point. Give him 3 years and you've lost any leverage for the next contract. From asset Management, that's a disaster

I'm not.

You're ignoring that players are more than assets.

They also play hockey. For money. Which the team pays. And paying less money for three years is a good thing in itself.

Negotiation leverage for the next contract is also a good thing, but it isn't everything.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, we at least know that Tkachuk at 3 years is below 6.75. Point has more goals, points and plays a more important position.

As for 3 years being a terrible term, doesn’t it depend on structure? Isn’t the loss of leverage about what the QO has to be?

We don't know anything of the sort

Calgary is not Tampa...team, weather, taxes ect.

Sure Flames could point (no pun) to that contract but the player could use others

There are tons of players with worse stats that will make more than Point

[Fire]

Originally Posted by dino7c

We don't know anything of the sort

Calgary is not Tampa...team, weather, taxes ect.

Sure Flames could point (no pun) to that contract but the player could use others

Tkachuk might want more but I don't see any way Treliving would pay him more than $6.75/yr on a 3 year deal. Everything we've seen from Treliving previous RFA negotations tell us it won't happen.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dino7c

We don't know anything of the sort

Calgary is not Tampa...team, weather, taxes ect.

Sure Flames could point (no pun) to that contract but the player could use others

There are tons of players with worse stats that will make more than Point

Taxes are the only factor in your list that I think matter at this point. But it is admittedly a big one.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Fire

Tkachuk might want more but I don't see any way Treliving would pay him more than $6.75/yr on a 3 year deal. Everything we've seen from Treliving previous RFA negotations tell us it won't happen.

He said we now know Tkachuck will be BELOW $6.75M

I highly doubt it...a match is the best we can hope for. Getting a 92 point player for under 7M is not the norm nor market value.

Calgary plays more than Tampa/SJ ect.

It is what it is

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dino7c

He said we now know Tkachuck will be BELOW $6.75M

I highly doubt it...a match is the best we can hope for. Getting a 92 point player for under 7M is not the norm nor market value.

Calgary plays more than Tampa/SJ ect.

It is what it is

Market value is what the market pays. An NHL team paid a centre with more points and goals than Tkachuk $6.75. I don't see why a match is “the best we can hope for”.