The Matthew Tkachuk contract negotiations

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think realistically all these values are pretty much locked in at this point and it's a factor of term defining the AAV.

I think Tkachuk's camp probably gave The Flames contracts they would accept in for 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 year terms and it's up to the flames at this point to make space for whichever term gives them their desired AAV.

I think at this point Tkachuk's camp is starting to get antsy because there is a limited pool of cap dollars available that is dwindling by the day, so long terms with higher AAVs are getting harder and harder to sign.

More or Less I think Tkachuk has the Flames over a barrel. This is the first time they've been actually competitive since Treliving has arrived. For the ownership group it's the first competitive roster in close to 15 years, and tkachuk might be the difference between making the playoffs and not, so what do you do? Pay a bunch of money to buyout players just to let tkachuk hold out and not make the dance?

I think the Flames understand what it's going to cost to sign tkachuk at this point but they havne't been able to clear the necessary cap space to do so either because no one wants the players they are willing to move, or the flames don't want to give up players that teams actually want.

Specifically, I don't think the Flames want to retain enough salary on Frolik that would make him tradeable because it doesn't really help them hit term value for Tkachuk that they want.

I think the Flames want Tkachuk for Term and can't make enough space to get there and that is what is holding everything up.

The Flames can probably fit an 8.5x5 deal by retaining 1.5 million on Frolik, but they probably can't do a 10x7 deal that they really want without moving Frolik's entire cap hit. And I don't think anyone wants to take the full price on Frolik without a pick attached, which the flames ALSO don't want to have to do.

The Brouwer/Stone buyouts have eaten up the cap you could've used on Tkachuk, I'm sure there have been discussions between the GM and the owners about just how much cash they are going to have to spend to get Treliving out from under these mistakes. I don't think they want to pay 4.5 million dollars this year for 3 guys not to play for them.

All good thoughts, and could be.

Treliving either is being patient, or he's run himself out of options. He's certainly done that before in the three goalie season, so it's possible. Hopefully that's not the case and it's just a process.

I do think there's more of a seismic battle a foot though, a battle between these players and the league for what an acceptable second contract is. We saw that with the Bruins after Draisaitl got done and they held firm with Pastrnak.

Matthews is at least a first overall generational guy breaking the mold, if they can hold the line after that it's a decent argument.

If Calgary etc give non generational guys the "cake and eat it too" contract (big dollars on a short term) the squeeze for the NHL middle class will get even more pronounced.

[Bingo]

Oh and Treliving is hardly alone.

15 of 30 teams have buy outs on the books this year, for an average of $2.0M, Trelving is at $2.6 for the season.

25 teams have had buy outs in the window that Treliving has been a GM, with Calgary at 11th place for most expensive.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Oh and Treliving is hardly alone.

15 of 30 teams have buy outs on the books this year, for an average of $2.0M, Trelving is at $2.6 for the season.

25 teams have had buy outs in the window that Treliving has been a GM, with Calgary at 11th place for most expensive.

So 20 teams have a competitive cap advantage over Calgary.

not exactly something I would write home about.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Oh and Treliving is hardly alone.

15 of 30 teams have buy outs on the books this year, for an average of $2.0M, Trelving is at $2.6 for the season.

25 teams have had buy outs in the window that Treliving has been a GM, with Calgary at 11th place for most expensive.

The buyouts are a problem for this team and for me, makes it hard to consider Treliving any better than just an average GM.

Bottom third in dead money, which doesn't even factor in Lucic.

Really minimizes the value created from the deals that Gaudreau, Monahan and Lindholm have signed.

[Bingo]

I just said he's not alone, didn't say a glowing thing about his UFA/buy out record.

The UFA market has been his downfall for sure. Luckily he's improved drafting, signing his own and has done well in transactions as an average.

[Flash Walken]

Which GMs haven't bought out contracts?

[Beninho]

Haven’t been following the flames as intently as previous off seasons as the way last season ended really left a bad taste in my mouth, but what a brutal way to start the season if Tkachuk is holding out. First season in a while I am not looking Forward too. Brutal offseason, from the Lucic trade, to the failed Kadri trade, to the Valimaki injury, the inability to move frolik or Brodie and now Tkachuk seeming to go the hold out route, this offseason has been ####. Makes the way last season ended suck even more. At least we got a new stadium


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Which GMs haven't bought out contracts?

Decided to take a look myself. Here's a quick and dirty look at the dead cap around the league for the 2019/2020 season:

Atlantic Division

Boston
$1,166,667 in buyout
$1,900,000 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$3,066,667 in dead cap

Buffalo
$791,667 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$791,667 in dead cap

Detroit
$1,883,334 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$1,883,334 in dead cap

Florida
$1,233,333 in buyout
$562,500 in retained money
$1,094,128 in recapture penalties

$2,892,961 in dead cap

Montreal
$1,366,667 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$1,366,667 in dead cap

Ottawa
$729,167 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$729,167 in dead cap

Tampa Bay
$1,833,333 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$1,833,333 in dead cap

Toronto
$0 in buyout
$1,200,000 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$1,200,000 in dead cap

Metropolitan Division

Carolina
$8,583,333 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$8,583,333 in dead cap

Columbus
$2,708,333 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$2,708,333 in dead cap

New Jersey
$1,666,667 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$250,000 in recapture penalties

$1,916,667 in dead cap

New York Islanders
$0 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$0 in dead cap

New York Rangers
$5,394,444 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$5,394,444 in dead cap

Philadelphia
$2,066,667 in buyout
$1,005,000 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$3,071,667 in dead cap

Pittsburgh
$0 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$0 in dead cap

Washington
$0 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$0 in dead cap

Central Division

Chicago
$0 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$0 in dead cap

Colorado
$1,500,000 in buyout
$2,750,000 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$4,250,000 in dead cap

Dallas
$700,000 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$700,000 in dead cap

Minnesota
$1,216,667 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$1,216,667 in dead cap

Nashville
$0 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$0 in dead cap

St. Louis
$0 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$0 in dead cap

Winnipeg
$0 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$0 in dead cap

Pacific Division

Anaheim
$2,625,000 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$2,625,000 in dead cap

Arizona
$1,944,444 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$1,944,444 in dead cap

Calgary
$2,666,667 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$2,666,667 in dead cap

Edmonton
$4,133,333 in buyout
$750,000 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$81,500,000 in dead cap

Los Angeles
$2,187,500 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$1,320,000 in recapture penalties
$250,000 in terminated contract penalties

$3,757,500 in dead cap

San Jose
$1,416,667 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$1,416,667 in dead cap

Vancouver
$1,033,333 in buyout
$0 in retained money
$3,033,206 in recapture penalties

$4,066,539 in dead cap

Vegas
$0 in buyout
$500,000 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$500,000 in dead cap

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Decided to take a look myself. Here's a quick and dirty look at the dead cap around the league for the 2019/2020 season:


Edmonton
$4,133,333 in buyout
$750,000 in retained money
$0 in recapture penalties

$81,500,000 in dead cap

LOL - nicely done!

[Strange Brew]

There a few doozies out there. But also some of it is misleading. Carolina got a first round pick for taking on a year of Toronto’s problem contract.

I doubt any GM has bought out more contracts that they were responsible for signing than Treliving. But take away the decision to sign Neal and buy out Brouwer and he’d look a lot better.

[Enoch Root]

Yeah, Carolina is a bit misleading because they bought a bad contract from the Leafs, but I would say that Toronto is more misleading because they gave up a first to avoid the buyout.

Overall though, every team faces players that regress and aren't worth their contracts. Some prefer to find ways to move them in trade (even if it means giving up a 1st), others are willing to go the buyout route.

But simply stating that a bigger buyout number is worse, without looking at some of the other types of asset management, can definitely be misleading though.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

There a few doozies out there. But also some of it is misleading. Carolina got a first round pick for taking on a year of Toronto’s problem contract.

I doubt any GM has bought out more contracts that they were responsible for signing than Treliving. But take away the decision to sign Neal and buy out Brouwer and he’d look a lot better.

That's a pretty major thing to take out to make him look better. If you took out decisions that big from every GM's resume then almost every GM would look great

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by jayswin

That's a pretty major thing to take out to make him look better. If you took out decisions that big from every GM's resume then almost every GM would look great

I don’t disagree. And it was a truly great off season up to that point.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

LOL - nicely done!

I LOL'd for sure at this.

[Bingo]

Another interesting factor in this RFA bubble is the hold out and what it does to cap space.

Fiddled with Nylander's numbers a bit and tried to make sense of it, but it doesn't quite add up (must be a nuance I'm unaware of).

But the bottom line is this.

He signed December 1st missing 26 games.
His contract is listed as a 6 year deal with a 7.5 AAV
AAV in year one was 10.2
AAV in the final 5 years is 6.692

So it looks like a player that signs late results in a bigger cap hit in year one, and then a reduced cap hit the rest of the way.

That hurts a team without cap space.

But it also hurts the players, as they fit on less and less teams in the league as time goes by.

[Jiggy]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

LOL - nicely done!

Edmonton Is No Good!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Another interesting factor in this RFA bubble is the hold out and what it does to cap space.

Fiddled with Nylander's numbers a bit and tried to make sense of it, but it doesn't quite add up (must be a nuance I'm unaware of).

But the bottom line is this.

He signed December 1st missing 26 games.
His contract is listed as a 6 year deal with a 7.5 AAV
AAV in year one was 10.2
AAV in the final 5 years is 6.692

So it looks like a player that signs late results in a bigger cap hit in year one, and then a reduced cap hit the rest of the way.

That hurts a team without cap space.

But it also hurts the players, as they fit on less and less teams in the league as time goes by.

This was Nylander's intent.

He was too young to qualify for no-trade protection and so wanted his contract as tough to move as possible.

he didn't want to sign for ~6 and then get moved to Carolina for a defenseman.

By holding out he made his cap hit much harder to move. keeping him in Toronto.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This was Nylander's intent.

He was too young to qualify for no-trade protection and so wanted his contract as tough to move as possible.

he didn't want to sign for ~6 and then get moved to Carolina for a defenseman.

By holding out he made his cap hit much harder to move. keeping him in Toronto.

His cap hit the rest of the term went down because he held out. That doesn't make it harder to move, it makes it easier.

Or am I not getting what you're saying?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

His cap hit the rest of the term went down because he held out. That doesn't make it harder to move, it makes it easier.

Or am I not getting what you're saying?

If I'm recalling correctly I believe the concern was that Nylander would basically be moved right away if he had signed a favourable deal.

While his AAV over the contract was lowered, he also signed for less rumoured years than he was after and the first year AAV and the second year bonus structure made his contract virtually untradeable. Not because he's an unattractive player to have on your roster, but paying out big signing bonus dollars is unattractive.

He didn't get everything he wanted, but the leafs only bought a year of UFA, he has an NTC in that final year and is essentially guaranteed to stay in Toronto for at least the first 2 years of the deal. His signing bonus structure lockout protects him and he'll be up to sign a big money deal a year after the new CBA landscape.

With Marner a lot more likely to be traded today than he was a year ago, I think Nylander's negotiations really paid off for the player. He could be the man in Toronto and his cap-to-performance ratio mixed with the leafs paying out big money early might mean keeping him in Toronto for the length of his deal, and his final year NTC means if he is traded the year before going UFA, he has reasonable control over the situation he lands in setting himself up for a big payday.

Pretty savvy I think.

[PugnaciousIntern]

https://www.tsn.ca/report-vancouver-...deal-1.1354385

If it’s true that Boeser is ‘eyeing’ a 4x7mil deal, that’s actually not too bad. The deals always end up less than the players want. Still an RFA at the end i believe (correct me if I’m wrong!)