Sam Bennett contract negotiations.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Bennett is actually a fairly important part of this team as he fills a role that no other player can seem to fill. Hathaway has come the closest this year because he was able to contribute a few points but other than those two guys, there's really nobody else on the team that is consistently physical, can also contribute a little bit offensively, and is a PITA physically to play against from the opposition's perspective.

I'd be all for something longer term capped at 3.5 but as many have said, Bennett's going to want to give himself the chance to earn more so I think it'll be a 2 year deal max.

Matthew Tkachuk?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Matthew Tkachuk?

Does he ever lay anyone out with hits or punch someone in the face? Bennett is much more of a new age goon where Tkachuk is more of a pest.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Does he ever lay anyone out with hits or punch someone in the face? Bennett is much more of a new age goon where Tkachuk is more of a pest.

Uhh...well let's ask Drew Doughty shall we? MT lives rent free in that brain from an elbow 2 years ago.

MT 3rd on the team in hits....17 fewer than Sam.

Does MT fight as often? No, thank goodness. He is a MUCH better player and needs to be on the ice, though he will throw down when needed.

Bennett is good at these things, no question, and the team lacks what he brings throughout the lineup as well. That doesnt make Sam superhero fighting guy though. Just means BT needs to find some more of it at a reasonable cost.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Matthew Tkachuk?

I don't know what was going on in his head in the playoffs. I mean he should be solidly effective in the playoffs as the physical stuff goes up. But he was good in game one and then he was it seemed completely dis-engaged after that. In his first playoffs, it was similar but could be forgiven because he was a rookie.


Out of most of the Flames out there in the first round, he disappointed me the most, Not Johnny or Sean or even Gio. But Mathew, because in a time of the season that should be made for him to shine . . . he was just there.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know what was going on in his head in the playoffs. I mean he should be solidly effective in the playoffs as the physical stuff goes up. But he was good in game one and then he was it seemed completely dis-engaged after that. In his first playoffs, it was similar but could be forgiven because he was a rookie.


Out of most of the Flames out there in the first round, he disappointed me the most, Not Johnny or Sean or even Gio. But Mathew, because in a time of the season that should be made for him to shine . . . he was just there.

Agreed. Tkachuk is gonna be paid for a reputation as a pest or tough guy to play against.

He certainly was anything but for large stretches of the season, I frequently saw him turn early instead of finishing checks, and in the playoffs it showed... he didnt step up and wasn't engaged. Maybe he isn't fast enough to do it?

[dino7c]

If Mat wasn't playing with the Stone hands twins he would have set up two OT winners and this convo would be much different

[btimbit]

I like what Bennett brings, I just don't think that's worth more than 2.5m until he can step up his offensive game. No Tyler you don't let him walk, that's silly

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know what was going on in his head in the playoffs. I mean he should be solidly effective in the playoffs as the physical stuff goes up. But he was good in game one and then he was it seemed completely dis-engaged after that. In his first playoffs, it was similar but could be forgiven because he was a rookie.


Out of most of the Flames out there in the first round, he disappointed me the most, Not Johnny or Sean or even Gio. But Mathew, because in a time of the season that should be made for him to shine . . . he was just there.

For sure....all entirely accurate.

He is only 21 years old though and may need some more time to figure out the change of pace the playoffs bring.

He is just to smart not to figure things out IMO...my only "scare" with him is what he is going to be paid.

[Jaydee]

3x8

[Sylvanfan]

I think that Bennett has been plagued by the Flames inability to give him a more clearly defined role. I think Peters was able to this a bit better this past year, and hopefully Bennett can take it to another level. I think there is a spot in the top 6 to be had if he can rediscover the skills he flashed in his rookie season.

It's between the ears for Bennett, does he want to be a third line guy who runs around hitting everything like Cal Clutterbuck, or can he find a way to be that agitating physical type, but add some skill into the mix and be something more.

I think for that reason another 2 year deal is what him and the Flames should do. Yes it would be great to rope him in and get him on a value deal for term. But if he was to find that scoring form and be a 25 goal and 60 point guy who can play that gritty style...you can live with paying a 26 year old version of that player a few more dollars on term with some certainty to fall back on.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jaydee

3x8

I am a big Bennett fan, but not sure he is worth 8 million a year yet.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I think that Bennett has been plagued by the Flames inability to give him a more clearly defined role. I think Peters was able to this a bit better this past year, and hopefully Bennett can take it to another level. I think there is a spot in the top 6 to be had if he can rediscover the skills he flashed in his rookie season.

It's between the ears for Bennett, does he want to be a third line guy who runs around hitting everything like Cal Clutterbuck, or can he find a way to be that agitating physical type, but add some skill into the mix and be something more.

I think for that reason another 2 year deal is what him and the Flames should do. Yes it would be great to rope him in and get him on a value deal for term. But if he was to find that scoring form and be a 25 goal and 60 point guy who can play that gritty style...you can live with paying a 26 year old version of that player a few more dollars on term with some certainty to fall back on.

What on earth has Bennett shown since his draft year that would lead anyone to believe he’s capable of this?

Can’t it just be that Bennett isn’t that good and should be paid as such?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

What on earth has Bennett shown since his draft year that would lead anyone to believe he’s capable of this?

Can’t it just be that Bennett isn’t that good and should be paid as such?

Did you just choose to ignore the part about his showing during his rookie year? Bennett should not be paid to his potential but that potential is there still.He has all the tools to be an impact player, he just needs to clean out the toolbox GG filled with a pile of junk.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

What on earth has Bennett shown since his draft year that would lead anyone to believe he’s capable of this?

Can’t it just be that Bennett isn’t that good and should be paid as such?

In his first actual pro rookie season when he was playing with Backlund and Frolik as a 19 year old he was reasonably productive. It was after they moved him to Center that his production dropped off.

Elias Lindholm who is a year and a half older and has played 2 more full seasons than Bennett in the NHL just upped his previous career high by 33 points.

I still think that Bennett does have the skills to put up that type of production. Hence why I would be offering him a two year deal. If he continues to produce as a 26-30 point player and can't force his way up the lineup...than yeah maybe it's time to consider moving on for both parties two years from now. But I'm not so willing to do that with a player who hasn't turned 23 years old yet.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

In his first actual pro rookie season when he was playing with Backlund and Frolik as a 19 year old he was reasonably productive. It was after they moved him to Center that his production dropped off.

Elias Lindholm who is a year and a half older and has played 2 more full seasons than Bennett in the AHL just upped his previous career high by 33 points.

I still think that Bennett does have the skills to put up that type of production. Hence why I would be offering him a two year deal. If he continues to produce as a 26-30 point player and can't force his way up the lineup...than yeah maybe it's time to consider moving on for both parties two years from now. But I'm not so willing to do that with a player who hasn't turned 23 years old yet.

Does a 2 year deal not take him to UFA though?

Has to be a 1 or 3+ year deal imo.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Does a 2 year deal not take him to UFA though?

Has to be a 1 or 3+ year deal imo.

Isn't he that rare situation where he has had 5 years of contracts but only 4 accrued seasons. If Im not mistaken a player has to play 41 games of pro hockey the first year to accrue a season of service time. So in two years he would be 25 with 6 seasons of service.

[Jaydee]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I am a big Bennett fan, but not sure he is worth 8 million a year yet.

...8 years

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Isn't he that rare situation where he has had 5 years of contracts but only 4 accrued seasons. If Im not mistaken a player has to play 41 games of pro hockey the first year to accrue a season of service time. So in two years he would be 25 with 6 seasons of service.

Hmmm not sure on that one.

I assumed he burnt year 1 of his elc when he played that 1 game and then the playoffs, and 4 more since which would equal 5....and he needs 7 to reach UFA.

I could be completely out to lunch on that though.

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

3.5 x 7.5

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

Originally Posted by CanadaMatt

I really like how eloquently you addressed the post.

What happened to this place?

Uh oh, is "silly" a big bad word for you?

You're welcome to eloquently address Tyler's post if you'd like. There's no rule saying every reply must be a thoughtful essay.