ECQF: Florida Panthers [ATL1] vs Tampa Bay Lightning [WC1] - Florida wins 4-1

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

First you said 8*11M, now it's 8*10.5M. Where is the proof that we offered him either of those contracts - or even anything remotely close to that?

(besides the 8*9.5M that he signed to go to Florida)

They offered Johnny and Matthew long term matching deals.

They knew they had to pay, and said so themselves.

11 and 10.5 not a significant difference when he goes and signs for 9.5 for 8 years.

I believe Steinberg said so himself. The quote from Treliving was we have offered long term commitments to Johnny and Matthew.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

BS. When you have a Matthew Tkachuk, you sign him. You keep him. You make him happy and you build your team around him.

You move whatever you need to make that happen.


I know less about player evaluation than most scouts and GMs have forgotten, but even I knew what Tkachuk was going to become.

You can't force someone to sign. They have to be willing to sign as well.

Look at his quote about how that Auston Matthews shorter term deal was appealing to him. That is during his contract year, not 2 years after he was traded on another team.

The 5 year contract is telling, because he was already planning for UFA. He took the shorter deal to kind of get his way anyways. He had a QO he could accept and walk. Best case scenario of that 5 year deal is he tells us he is leaving and we deal in year 5 of the contract. Either way I think he is gone after 4 years anyway.

Everyone knows Tkachuk likes to talk and say things.

We offered him and Johnny more money to stay, and both left.

[FlamesAddiction]

At any rate, he sounded disappointed that he was only offered a bridge deal. Anything 6-8 years as Tkachuk was quoted as wanting at the time would have been better, for both the team and the relationship with the player, than a bridge deal with a poison pill QO at the end. You have a 22 year old top 6 drafted player with 3 years in the league already coming off of a PPG season, those are exactly the kind of players that you give them what they want.

What other teams did with other players that season has no bearing on what the Flames should have done.

[Toonage]

Pay your (home grown) stars.

Not your UFAs.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

At any rate, he sounded disappointed that he was only offered a bridge deal. Anything 6-8 years as Tkachuk was quoted as wanting at the time would have been better, for both the team and the relationship with the player, than a bridge deal with a poison pill QO at the end. You have a 22 year old top 6 drafted player with 3 years in the league already coming off of a PPG season, those are exactly the kind of players that you give them what they want.

What other teams did with other players that season has no bearing on what the Flames should have done.

This is not true at all. That is why so many player signed so late.

Someone was waiting for the market to set itself so the RFA would start signing. It was quiet for a long time.

What other teams do plays a huge factor into these deals, that's how you have comparisons.

DO you forget Dustin Penner and the Oilers nuking the 2nd contract?

And no he was never signing for 6, 7 or 8 years. Maybe if we offered him a ridiculous sum of money making him the highest paid player in the league.

When he is talking about a 5 year deal, he is already planning his next move.

Auston Matthew is doing the same thing in Toronto.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Let's also not forget that Brad filed for team-elected arbitration against Tkachuk just a few days before Tkachuk informed him he wasn't going to sign an extension. I'm pretty sure he tried to take him to arbitration before the bridge deal too (though I could be wrong).

Brad's handling of Tkachuk was the very definition of f around and find out.

Come on now...the team knew he wasn't going to sign before they filed the arb it just wasn't public information. Brad did F up big time but not on that specifically.

[GioforPM]

What other teams did is also a reflection about what agents were doing at the time. Professionals in the same business talk to each other, get ideas from each other, copy each other. And the whole contract negoiation is based on comparables.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

BS. When you have a Matthew Tkachuk, you sign him. You keep him. You make him happy and you build your team around him.

You move whatever you need to make that happen.


I know less about player evaluation than most scouts and GMs have forgotten, but even I knew what Tkachuk was going to become.

ESPN said it best during the game yesterday - Matthew Tkachuk has been a franchise altering pick up for the Panthers, he has complettely changed the attitude, compete and skill level of the team.

And on the other hand it broke the back of the Calgary Flames. Losing Tkachuk ripped the heart and soul out of their franchise.

It's sad but so, so true. We had a young, playoff warrior franchise superstar and lost him. You're not coming back from that, you simply start over in a rebuild.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by jayswin

ESPN said it best during the game yesterday - Matthew Tkachuk has been a franchise altering pick up for the Panthers, he has complettely changed the attitude, compete and skill level of the team.

And on the other hand it broke the back of the Calgary Flames. Losing Tkachuk ripped the heart and soul out of their franchise.

It's sad but so, so true. We had a young, playoff warrior franchise superstar and lost him. You're not coming back from that, you simply start over in a rebuild.

He was never a playoff warrior for the Flames.

He had a good game 7 vs Dallas. A great game 1 vs Edmonton. He was MIA after that. He also injured himself a bunch of times and wasn't available.

He broke out in Florida last year for sure.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Did you see the "no goals"? Both pretty weak af. I'd be pissed if it was against the Flames.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92TTfM59Guo

And like Cooper said, the league wants more goals but then makes calls like this. Panthers deserved to be up 3-1 and most likely win the series anyways, but a bad call is a bad call and should be pointed out.

On that first one, Duclair's foot was in the crease of his own volition, and it impeded Bob's ability to cover the puck. That's the key point on that play. It didn't prevent him from making the ensuing save... it prevented him from covering the puck, which would have nullified any further play from taking place.

On the second one, Cierreli pivoted around the D in the direction of the crease and made contact with the goalie inside the crease. He did it on his own, without being directed or pushed in any manner. He could/should have pivoted in the opposite direction to create separation without entering the crease and/or contacting the goalie.

They were both valid calls. You just have to look at what the actual calls were, and the reasons for them.

I go back to my original point. There's a reason Cooper was 0-4 in the regular season and 0-2 in the playoffs on challenges. He's choices of when/what to challenge come across as more of a "complaint by challenge" then actually challenging something that would be overturned.

Even the analysts themselves said that the calls themselves might have been on the week side (although they eventually did realize why the calls were made after watching the replays a few times), but there was no way Cooper should have challenged when he did. (his previous challenge isn't shown in that video, as the first one was actually challenged (and won) by Maurice)

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

He was never a playoff warrior for the Flames.

He had a good game 7 vs Dallas. A great game 1 vs Edmonton. He was MIA after that. He also injured himself a bunch of times and wasn't available.

He broke out in Florida last year for sure.

I've said this more than a few times, but Tkachuk is a power forward. They develop slower, as they need longer to physically grow - since they need size and comfort level in order to fully play their game.

Tkachuk was showing very clear progression in his play, including in the playoffs. He was well on his way to becoming the same player he is today.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by jayswin

ESPN said it best during the game yesterday - Matthew Tkachuk has been a franchise altering pick up for the Panthers, he has complettely changed the attitude, compete and skill level of the team.

And on the other hand it broke the back of the Calgary Flames. Losing Tkachuk ripped the heart and soul out of their franchise.

It's sad but so, so true. We had a young, playoff warrior franchise superstar and lost him. You're not coming back from that, you simply start over in a rebuild.

Agree. Do you think he will mention the Flames when he lifts the Cup because I have a feeling FLA is going to win it all this year.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I've said this more than a few times, but Tkachuk is a power forward. They develop slower, as they need longer to physically grow - since they need size and comfort level in order to fully play their game.

Tkachuk was showing very clear progression in his play, including in the playoffs. He was well on his way to becoming the same player he is today.

I don't see him as a traditional power forward. He looks to be the same player he was when he left Calgary, but he had the confidence sky high after a 106 point and 40 goal season.

I think that is one of the reasons things broke down with Sutter. He made a comment about Tkachuk has be a powerful player and take over games, I don't think that is the type of game he wants to play.

When I think of power forward, I guess my mind goes to Iggy.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

He was never a playoff warrior for the Flames.

He had a good game 7 vs Dallas. A great game 1 vs Edmonton. He was MIA after that. He also injured himself a bunch of times and wasn't available.

He broke out in Florida last year for sure.

I don't think anyone doubted his trajectory was upwards....

[Manhattanboy]

I will say however that there was a period of about a month in the regular season, I think the year we played Dallas where a number of folks, including myself, thought we would be better off trading him (incl. to OTT). Questioned his heart and compete level at the time.

I wish I could recall when exactly, my memory is failing.

[playmaker]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Pay your (home grown) stars.

Not your UFAs.

And when your home grown stars do not want to extend max term, what would you do as a GM?

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by playmaker

And when your home grown stars do not want to extend max term, what would you do as a GM?

They might if you don't dick them around prior to that point.

Could have signed Gaudreau long term, low balled him. Could have had Tkachuk longer. Signed UFAs, needed a bridge.

Their stars weren't taken into consideration first.

[redmile04]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I don't think anyone doubted his trajectory was upwards....

And players that tend to well in the playoffs before coming to Calgary don't do well here ( Coleman, Toffoli, Neal, Brouwer, etc) and players that leave are amazing elsewhere, not just Tkachuk.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I've said this more than a few times, but Tkachuk is a power forward. They develop slower, as they need longer to physically grow - since they need size and comfort level in order to fully play their game.

Tkachuk was showing very clear progression in his play, including in the playoffs. He was well on his way to becoming the same player he is today.

I don't even get your point though...the Flames would have paid him more to stay. HE CHOSE TO LEAVE, which I find it odd that so many Flames fans are still fanboying over him. The bridge deal is a fair complaint about Brad but even at that time I would argue the majority of CP was worried about having to pay him 8M plus!

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Toonage

They might if you don't dick them around prior to that point.

Could have signed Gaudreau long term, low balled him. Could have had Tkachuk longer. Signed UFAs, needed a bridge.

Their stars weren't taken into consideration first.

that's a matter of opinion, he was coming off a terrible season...had a massive contract year and is now back to being a floater. Tkachuk yes but Gaudreau is likely a dodged bullet, the issue is letting him walk for nothing. Thank Christ they avoided that with Lindholm. (the overpay and the getting nothing)

Gaudreau at 10.5 x 8 is bad so thanks Gaudreau