I personally wish players would speak their mind a little more. I am a little tired of hearing the same generic answers each and every time to the same questions. I know the NHL is all about keeping things behind closed doors, and so on, but I prefer a little more honesty and a little less PR.
As long as he can back up his financial ask with quality play on the ice I don't mind. If the Tkachuks are a tough negotiation, but do everything their teams ask of them then I have no problems with it.
Unfortunately, it seems sometimes Tkachuk's mouth writes checks he can't cash. I think it's similar to Conor McGregor in a way. As long as he can back things up with great play, no one has any problems. However, as soon as his play starts to slip it seems he can't back up what he is saying.
As for the captain discussion, I also have Backlund/Tanev/Lindholm/Hanifin ahead of Tkachuk. I actually think Hanifin can be a very interesting captain if he continues to take steps in his growth. The two things I have against Tkachuk are uncertainty with his next contract, and the lazy plays last year.
The Following User Says Thank You to gvitaly For This Useful Post:
At the end of the day there's about 0% chance you give that guy the 'C'.
Because of his play, or because of his negotiation style? Because if latter, that is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't give a player captaincy or not. This is a business, and the players need to look out for their best interest, and get the best deal as possible for them. Teams are not going to do them any favours in contracts; players should be the same if they want the most money/leverage possible from the situation.
Why should players bend over for teams, while teams won't the same in return for them if they can get a better player/deal elsewhere?
I personally wish players would speak their mind a little more. I am a little tired of hearing the same generic answers each and every time to the same questions. I know the NHL is all about keeping things behind closed doors, and so on, but I prefer a little more honesty and a little less PR.
As long as he can back up his financial ask with quality play on the ice I don't mind. If the Tkachuks are a tough negotiation, but do everything their teams ask of them then I have no problems with it.
Unfortunately, it seems sometimes Tkachuk's mouth writes checks he can't cash. I think it's similar to Conor McGregor in a way. As long as he can back things up with great play, no one has any problems. However, as soon as his play starts to slip it seems he can't back up what he is saying.
As for the captain discussion, I also have Backlund/Tanev/Lindholm/Hanifin ahead of Tkachuk. I actually think Hanifin can be a very interesting captain if he continues to take steps in his growth. The two things I have against Tkachuk are uncertainty with his next contract, and the lazy plays last year.
They can speak their minds more about some things, but contract negations are best left outside the public arena. I’d wager his brother’s agent didn’t appreciate it. A captain is also the face of his franchise, and asked for the most interviews. You don’t want a loose cannon.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
Because of his play, or because of his negotiation style? Because if latter, that is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't give a player captaincy or not. This is a business, and the players need to look out for their best interest, and get the best deal as possible for them. Teams are not going to do them any favours in contracts; players should be the same if they want the most money/leverage possible from the situation.
Why should players bend over for teams, while teams won't the same in return for them if they can get a better player/deal elsewhere?
At this point both. People are saying he still has to walk the walk and not just talk the talk and then they are also saying you dont just not give him a C because he comes off as an entitled dbag.
Dont shoot the messenger but at this point hes not backing it up on or off the ice.
Still love the player and want him on the team for a long time, he's just not getting the C.
Last edited by Samonadreau; 09-18-2021 at 12:12 PM.
Back in 1995, the Jets had 3 young studs up front: Selanne, Tkachuk, and Zhamnov.
There was no way they were going to be able to afford them all, and everyone knew there were difficult choices looming. Before the trade deadline, they traded Selanne to Anaheim.
It was the wrong move. Tkachuk increasingly became a bigger disaster with each passing season.
I fear that history is going to repeat itself here.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Because of his play, or because of his negotiation style? Because if latter, that is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't give a player captaincy or not. This is a business, and the players need to look out for their best interest, and get the best deal as possible for them. Teams are not going to do them any favours in contracts; players should be the same if they want the most money/leverage possible from the situation.
Why should players bend over for teams, while teams won't the same in return for them if they can get a better player/deal elsewhere?
You’ve still got to play the game. Poor tactic from Tkachuk to get money from this FO. Who knows, maybe that’s the move and it’s another signal he wants out.
Man a blockbuster trade involving the Flames would be so great right now.
Or failing that, a Blockbuster Video - then you could watch a quality film made more than ten years ago starring many people you’ve heard of, instead of the Calgary Flames as they’re currently constituted.
__________________
Mom and Dad love you, Rowan - February 15, 2024
Back in 1995, the Jets had 3 young studs up front: Selanne, Tkachuk, and Zhamnov.
There was no way they were going to be able to afford them all, and everyone knew there were difficult choices looming. Before the trade deadline, they traded Selanne to Anaheim.
It was the wrong move. Tkachuk increasingly became a bigger disaster with each passing season.
I fear that history is going to repeat itself here.
I don't think the Flames are deciding if they should keep Gaudreau or not, he's deciding if he wants to keep the Flames or not.
What Tkachuk decides to do this off season will be interesting though. Does he prefer securing a long-term deal, or does he risk a one and done to be able to become a UFA?
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake