[News] Tkachuk notifies Flames he won't sign long term (The Athletic)

[Calgary4LIfe]

I would welcome a NYR style rebuild - drafting 7th, 9th, 2nd and 1st. There won't be a Panarin trying to sign here either.


I guess we will know in what direction the team will be headed after the Tkachuk trade.



I don't think it will be 'star for star' - it is going to be difficult for Treliving to extract value from only 5 or 6 teams in that scenario. A 'hockey trade' would be tough to accomplish here. I think it is obvious for everyone that the package will be more of the blue-chip young player kind - established or not, with picks.



I am sure after that, then Treliving will hold a media availability, and then we can know what direction the Flames are going to be taken. Right now, we don't know for sure if the Flames are going to compete or retool, or rebuild (probably not rebuild). Treliving could use part or all of those assets and go try to make this team competitive after that. Not out of the question. It would be surprising to me, but not out of the question really if the intent is to try and win a cup with Sutter and the rest of the team.


We can better guess at the direction this team is headed from the trade, and I guess we will know for sure when Treliving tells us. I am really hoping for a tear down - rebuild personally, but at this point, I am open for anything.



In my opinion, a sports team has to be entertaining to have a chance at being successful. The players remaining are hardly garbage, don't get me wrong. There is still a very good supporting cast here. However, Flames lost (or will with Tkachuk) their two stars who were the more entertaining players to watch (especially Gaudreau). Flames can still be entertaining if they are winning, but that has become harder to do for this upcoming season, no matter how you slice it. Impossible? No, but definitely harder.


Hoping for a great return - whatever direction it goes. Flames at least should do a one-year retool I think. Sutter is the wrench in these plans, as I doubt he would want to be a part of this, and if he is a part of this, well, Flames won't be picking too high in the subsequent draft.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

Arbitration ruling can only be 1 year.

Unless he thinks he can put up another 100 point type season, I don't see why MT wouldn't want to lock up a massive deal now in a destination of his choosing. He is effectively a UFA today and his team deliberately structured his last deal to be in exactly this position. There is a real risk if he played this year without Johnny on a depleted Flames team that he ends up as a 75 point player and if that happens, then the offers may not be anywhere near the same.

If Tkachuks "list" is prohibive to getting a good return, I would consider telling Tkachuk that if he doesn't expand his list of teams that he's willing to sign long-term with, you are prepared to let the arbitrator give him his 1 year deal and he rolls the dice on what his next contract looks like come January (or later) of next year.

I'm sure someone can point out the flaws in that, and the risk, but its just a passing thought (I'm not married to it and won't argue with anyone that pokes holes in the idea LOL)

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Since he is one year from UFA, it's a max of 1 year.

My bad, sorry folks

[NilssonistheReal14]

Originally Posted by rhino

He actually never requested a trade, he told the Flames he would not sign long term (did he mean past the upcoming season or no more than 2 years?) and his group is working with the flames to move him to where he would sign long term.

Believe he was talking about Tarasenko having requested a trade. And, even though he has a no trade clause and likely wouldnt come to Calgary, he is suggesting Tarasenko might consider just to get out of St. Louis.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

If Tkachuks "list" is prohibive to getting a good return, I would consider telling Tkachuk that if he doesn't expand his list of teams that he's willing to sign long-term with, you are prepared to let the arbitrator give him his 1 year deal and he rolls the dice on what his next contract looks like come January (or later) of next year.

I'm sure someone can point out the flaws in that, and the risk, but its just a passing thought (I'm not married to it and won't argue with anyone that pokes holes in the idea LOL)

I agree, if the return is crap than may as well take a gamble on the trade deadline. If Kyrou or Bratt is on the table then the Flames should take it

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

If Tkachuks "list" is prohibive to getting a good return, I would consider telling Tkachuk that if he doesn't expand his list of teams that he's willing to sign long-term with, you are prepared to let the arbitrator give him his 1 year deal and he rolls the dice on what his next contract looks like come January (or later) of next year.

I'm sure someone can point out the flaws in that, and the risk, but its just a passing thought (I'm not married to it and won't argue with anyone that pokes holes in the idea LOL)

Depends how arrogant he is about his own skills. His contract post 100 point season is likely to be much better than post a 70ish point season.

[anyonebutedmonton]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

If Tkachuks "list" is prohibive to getting a good return, I would consider telling Tkachuk that if he doesn't expand his list of teams that he's willing to sign long-term with, you are prepared to let the arbitrator give him his 1 year deal and he rolls the dice on what his next contract looks like come January (or later) of next year.

I'm sure someone can point out the flaws in that, and the risk, but its just a passing thought (I'm not married to it and won't argue with anyone that pokes holes in the idea LOL)

I just don't think that is a realistic hammer for the Flames to play. It is far riskier for the Flames than it is for MT. This is such a unique situation. It would be incredibly interesting to have an inside look into what each party is thinking.

[iloveicedhockey]

Can we not threaten to play him with Brower and bring James Neal back to centre him?

[Icon]

Originally Posted by rhino

He actually never requested a trade, he told the Flames he would not sign long term (did he mean past the upcoming season or no more than 2 years?) and his group is working with the flames to move him to where he would sign long term.

I was talking about Tarasenko

[blankall]

Originally Posted by iloveicedhockey

Can we not threaten to play him with Brower and bring James Neal back to centre him?

We should bring those guys back just to troll the league for our tank job. I heard Theo Fleury still thinks he can play too. Jagr is tweeting about having some hockey left in the tank (only plays home games).

[OILFAN #81]

Man this 2016 draft class only has 4 of the top 10 players still with their original team (bolded), and 2 of them could be dealt within a week (Tkachuk and Puljujarvi) leaving only Matthews and Keller:

1. Matthews - Toronto
2. Laine - drafted by Winnipeg, now on Columbus
3. Dubois - drafted by Columbus, now on Winnipeg
4. Puljujarvi - Edmonton but rumored to be dealt
5. Juolevi - drafted by Vancouver, was on Detroit, now a free agent
6. Tkachuk - Calgary but should be dealt soon
7. Keller - Arizona
8. Nylander - drafted by Buffalo, now on Pittsburgh
9. Sergachev - drafted by Montreal, now on Tampa Bay
10. Jost - drafted by Colorado, now on Minnesota

[devo22]

personally I think there's zero chance that this goes to arbitration. Surely everybody involved would prefer a different outcome, so I fully expect this to get done pretty soon.

Looking at Rutherfords trade ideas, I'm not opposed to his first option of Kyrou + Krug + 1st. We don't need Krug, but they obviously need to shed cap in a deal for Tkachuk and Krug probably makes the most sense. I do think they need to add more here, but it's not that far off. Especially if we could find a taker for Krug and get more assets (questionable though).

[Icon]

I want the trade to happen today for something concrete to talk about! Don't make me do work!

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by devo22

personally I think there's zero chance that this goes to arbitration. Surely everybody involved would prefer a different outcome, so I fully expect this to get done pretty soon.

Looking at Rutherfords trade ideas, I'm not opposed to his first option of Kyrou + Krug + 1st. We don't need Krug, but they obviously need to shed cap in a deal for Tkachuk and Krug probably makes the most sense. I do think they need to add more here, but it's not that far off. Especially if we could find a taker for Krug and get more assets (questionable though).

Krug is a US player, just signed last year, and very unlikely to waive his NTC to come to Calgary.

Otherwise, we could use a guy like like to run our PP.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Bingo

A horrible GM that runs a team that lost it's two best players but is still contending for a playoff spot?

Head scratcher

CP logic

[blankall]

Originally Posted by NilssonistheReal14

Believe he was talking about Tarasenko having requested a trade. And, even though he has a no trade clause and likely wouldnt come to Calgary, he is suggesting Tarasenko might consider just to get out of St. Louis.

What does Tarasenko dislike so much about St. Louis?

Trade for Tarasenko or Laine and then sign Kadri?
Might make the Flames not horrible.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

Man this 2016 draft class only has 4 of the top 10 players still with their original team (bolded), and 2 of them could be dealt within a week (Tkachuk and Puljujarvi) leaving only Matthews and Keller:

1. Matthews - Toronto
2. Laine - drafted by Winnipeg, now on Columbus
3. Dubois - drafted by Columbus, now on Winnipeg
4. Puljujarvi - Edmonton but rumored to be dealt
5. Juolevi - drafted by Vancouver, was on Detroit, now a free agent
6. Tkachuk - Calgary but should be dealt soon
7. Keller - Arizona
8. Nylander - drafted by Buffalo, now on Pittsburgh
9. Sergachev - drafted by Montreal, now on Tampa Bay
10. Jost - drafted by Colorado, now on Minnesota

This is the future of the NHL. It's just like the NBA. Players just go where they want after becoming UFAs. No real loyalty to or from the clubs that drafted them.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I have mixed feelings on BT so this isn't complaining about him, but losing your 2 best players and going from division winner to competing for a playoff spot probably wouldn't be 2 points I'd argue to defend him.

What if they are competing for the division?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by keenan87

Are you going to start comparing this post to playing checkers and chess too lol

Doesn't really fit ... suggesting a team that lost two players but still ends up contending for a playoff spot has a terrible GM isn't really chess or checkers.

More like the game of War in my mind.

No thought required, just flip up the next card!

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by devo22

Especially if we could find a taker for Krug and get more assets (questionable though).

Lotta term and dollars left on his contract (so we can't eat it). Might be hard to find a taker even if he's still a skilled player (which he is). We really don't need another d-man either so he doesn't fit here (in the event that you can't find another taker). Have them find a third partner if they want him moved to make room.