The Matthew Tkachuk contract negotiations

[browna]

Originally Posted by Fire

Yeah I doubt that signing bonuses is a major sticking point for the Flames. I'm sure they don't like the large signing bonues but I would think the actual cap hit is the main issue.

Well, a say $4m SB, paid Jul 1 or Sept 1 each year, as opposed to it being $500k spread over 8 months, is not insignificant value to the player and the team, given that time value of it being in the Flames account, or the player's account.

Affects the Flames internal budgeting and finances, as those are paid before ticket revenue and ad revenue and TV revenue etc have been received and or realized for that upcoming year.

Also affects insurance. If a player gets hurt longer term, I believe the insurance the team carries on the player only pays his salary while on IR, during the season, and this that wouldn't include covering the SB he got in the summer of that year so the Flames wouldn't have protection there if the entire players annual amount was in weekly salary and not a SB.

And, as mentioned I think only JG and SM have that perk of a decent sized SB(and only 1 or 2 in the lives of their contract) so do you want to go and give a Tkachuk a big SB as a perk every year for 7 years that no one else has, in addition to maybe being the top paid player, as far as how that all is compared to the rest of the roster?

Also related, BT doesn't want to set a precedence going forward.
It's of course not up there with term or cap hit, but it's not far behind and not insignificant for a number of reasons.

[Nelson]

I don’t know if this was mentioned, but, on Sportsnet 650, Friedman said Laine is the most likely to pull a Nylander. He also mentioned Tkachuk as someone he though might pull a Nylander because there’s a gap between the Flames and Tkachuk.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by 868904

If it were me, I set a hard deadline with 2 preseason games left to go. if he doesn't get that in time, he's going to be crap like Nylander was and you aren't getting full value for the first year of the contract.



At that point, he either sits the whole season or he gets traded. You can't be giving away a free season when the money is that significant, it's just not good value.

It’s never good to draw a line in the sand when negotiations always need to be fluid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Itse]

I'm perfectly fine with Tkachuk taking as long as it takes, as long as he does not get an outrageous contract or paid for games not played.

Unless the goalies crap the bed I think we're a playoff team regardless.

(I fully expect Talbot to be crap though.)

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

It’s never good to draw a line in the sand when negotiations always need to be fluid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yep. Ultimatums rarely work out when you need to work with the other party going forward.

[MissTeeks]

I imagine all the agents are saying this about their RFA clients now:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1174319750656036866

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm perfectly fine with Tkachuk taking as long as it takes, as long as he does not get an outrageous contract or paid for games not played.

Unless the goalies crap the bed I think we're a playoff team regardless.

(I fully expect Talbot to be crap though.)

I think there has to be an estimate of diminishing returns. IMO Dubas would have been as well off leaving Nylander for the year. At what point Nylander could have been signed and still had a good season - I don't know (IMO it's not two preseason games - it's into the regular season).

There's also the aspect of not caving because of time.

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

I imagine all the agents are saying this about their RFA clients now:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1174319750656036866

That one seems fair IMO. They have similar stats, and Rantanen actually had a higher points per game the last two years.

[The Fonz]

####ing Dubas.

Those Marner & Matthews contracts are baaaad. On 5/6 year deals? Should have been Matthews @ 10.5M, and Marner @ 9.5M, if we're going to compare them to the McDavid & Draisaitl 8yr deals.

[GioforPM]

The Avs have the cap space for that deal, so the argument "we can't afford it" isn't available. Rantanen has two seasons of well over PPG production under his belt (one more than Marner).

All the Avs can say is "that was a crap deal and I don't consider it a comparable for that reason).

The Avs are pretty lucky to have signed Mackinnon off of a 52 point season.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The Avs have the cap space for that deal, so the argument "we can't afford it" isn't available. Rantanen has two seasons of well over PPG production under his belt (one more than Marner).

All the Avs can say is "that was a crap deal and I don't consider it a comparable for that reason)..

Exactly. I think this helps to show that the holdup in Calgary is not because of a shortage of cap space. I expect that Treliving is determined to get to a number that makes sense, and this would not change even with an extra $5 m of room.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[868904]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

It’s never good to draw a line in the sand when negotiations always need to be fluid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In yesterday’s sportsnet article, Rich Winter, Mangiapane’s agent thinks hard deadlines are necessary too. Even he admits that players who miss training camp and the start of the season waste the first year, which I’m surprised to hear from an agent. I mean what should the player and agent care if the first year sucks, they get paid regardless.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by 868904

In yesterday’s sportsnet article, Rich Winter, Mangiapane’s agent thinks hard deadlines are necessary too. Even he admits that players who miss training camp and the start of the season waste the first year, which I’m surprised to hear from an agent. I mean what should the player and agent care if the first year sucks, they get paid regardless.

Each situation for each player is different, and for Mangiapane missing TC would have been a disaster since he needs this season to get himself a better deal in the summer.

But I do agree with Winter on one thing: the signing deadline should be in September.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GioforPM]

Winter's statement for holdouts was that he figured teams needed an internal deadline they stuck with (as opposed to the CBA deadline).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Winter's statement for holdouts was that he figured teams needed an internal deadline they stuck with (as opposed to the CBA deadline).

That's not how I understood him. It came up when mention was made of the December signing deadline, and Winter said he thought the deadline should be before TC. Or am I misremembering?

[DeluxeMoustache]

I wonder. Do GMs actually have enough supporting data points to have a legitimate case about reduced player productivity if they sign after the season starts?

Enough to put a stake in the ground and insist on a 1 year deal at a reduced amount?

It may be an interesting team policy.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's not how I understood him. It came up when mention was made of the December signing deadline, and Winter said he thought the deadline should be before TC. Or am I misremembering?

No, that's what I heard as well.

It was one of the few things I agreed with tha he was rambling on about.

Sign by Sept. 1 or don't play that season...makes a lot more sense than Dec.1 which he seemed to indicate was just some arbitrary date that had nothing to do with anything related to league/team deadlines about anything else.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's not how I understood him. It came up when mention was made of the December signing deadline, and Winter said he thought the deadline should be before TC. Or am I misremembering?

IIRC he likely said both. He definitely talked about internal deadlines. He may also have talked about the CBA, but that of course requires an amendment.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I wonder. Do GMs actually have enough supporting data points to have a legitimate case about reduced player productivity if they sign after the season starts?

Enough to put a stake in the ground and insist on a 1 year deal at a reduced amount?

It may be an interesting team policy.

That is an interesting thought. This would put a tonne of pressure on the player, since without the option of a multi-year deal it is absolutely incumbent upon him to perform at a high level for the year in order to guarantee a strong negotiating position for his next contract.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That is an interesting thought. This would put a tonne of pressure on the player, since without the option of a multi-year deal it is absolutely incumbent upon him to perform at a high level for the year in order to guarantee a strong negotiating position for his next contract.

If Winter is representative, agents will concede there's a drop off in general for any lengthy holdout. That said, how does it play into a multi-year contract, since the drop-off would be supposedly for the first year only?