Matthew Tkachuk & Johnny Gaudreau Signing Watch Thread

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Why would Johnny sign for 7 years?

He'll want and get 8 from the Flames if he signs with them.

I imagine both sides have many scenarios modelled out, with advantages and disadvantages for different term length. What is the players injury history? What is his fitness level over time? What is the historical productivity for similar players projected into their early to mid 30s, and how does Johnny fit into that projection? What are salary cap projections? When does the current CBA expire, and what might the next one look like? I would guess that I am barely scratching the surface of the issues that are contemplated.

Maybe Johnny wants 5-6 years, which takes him to 33-34 years old. At that age, he has a greater chance to get one more big contract. So they need to consider what is better, two big ~5 year contracts, or one big 8 year contract, which takes him to 36, followed by some short term deals? I could see the term being anywhere from 5 to 8 years

I think Tkachuk's age makes it more likely for both sides to want 8 years

[Locke]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

I don’t get this. Can the owners actually go to players and ask for money back at the end of the CBA.

It’s not the players fault the owners didn’t push for more escrow. The CBA is signed and agreed to by both sides.

Originally Posted by DoubleK

The CBA is based on a 50/50 split of revenues. They players got wayyyyy more than 50% during COVID, thus the large debt they owe the owners.

This. The players chose to get paid when there was no revenue coming through the door so Escrow is going to be brutal for foreseeable future.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by blender

That is the way to run an NHL team.
No question about it. I think we found our Treliving replacement lurking on CP after all!

Sorry for thinking a team that has already largely wasted its window, whose windoe closes with Gaudreau's contract, should be looking towards gathering an asset base for the future, while hanging onto key pieces like Lindholm, Mangiapane, Dube, Kylington, Hanifin, Andersson, Valimaki, Pellettier, Zary, Coronato so that they can rebuild in a manner that isn't crippling.

But no we should do like the 2013 Flames and wait until the organization is asset-poor, or maybe like the 2020 Flames and hang onto a pending UFA as an own rental who we can't seem to extend during the season and try to replace him with a less dynamic UFA placeholder.

[Freeway]

If the escrow debt is above a certain amount heading into 2025-26, the CBA automatically renews into 2026-27.


Revenues have been high enough this year (so far) that the expectation from the league is the cap will go up $1m (e.g., to $82.5m) for 2022-23.

[blender]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Sorry for thinking a team that has already largely wasted its window, whose windoe closes with Gaudreau's contract, should be looking towards gathering an asset base for the future, while hanging onto key pieces like Lindholm, Mangiapane, Dube, Kylington, Hanifin, Andersson, Valimaki, Pellettier, Zary, Coronato so that they can rebuild in a manner that isn't crippling.

But no we should do like the 2013 Flames and wait until the organization is asset-poor, or maybe like the 2020 Flames and hang onto a pending UFA as an own rental who we can't seem to extend during the season and try to replace him with a less dynamic UFA placeholder.

No need to apologize. You have your own ideas about how to build and run a team, and you have thought it through.

Here's the thing, though (and you know this): it is about winning now. It always is about winning now until that becomes impossible. There is a lot of season left and things can change, but right now, today, this team is playing well enough to win a cup. It's not an optics thing, it's about potential. When you have a team with potential to win you go after it. I'm not talking about what you or any fan thinks, I'm talking about what ownership and management think. You play the games to win.

Asset management is important, but it isn't the most important thing. Lots of teams sell players for futures, draft, develop, rebuild and never win anything. There is no magic formula. You build your best team and go for it.

I'm not expecting to convince you of anything, but you should understand why fans like me disagree with your approach.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Locke

This. The players chose to get paid when there was no revenue coming through the door so Escrow is going to be brutal for foreseeable future.

This x2. The cap might go up by $1M a year until 2026-27.

The current players are getting killed by escrow until the debt is paid.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by neo45

Giving players 10 mil without winning anything is the worst idea

How many teams with 10 mil cap hits win playoff series?

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well TB has 3 guys at 9.5....they seem to do ok in the playoffs.

Not that i think either JG or MT are getting that much but 2 guys at 10 is hardly a death knell.

Tampa has 2 guys at 9.5M (Point's extension kicks in next year). One of those guys is arguably the best goalie in the league (Vasy). The other is probably the best winger, certainly a top 5-10 forward (Kucherov). Both are proven playoff beasts. Tampa also has arguably the best Dman, a high end 1-2 centre duo, and a lot of good depth players. Pretty different circumstances IMO.

I'd rather see both signed long term starting with an 8, no way in hell either should be getting 10M+.

[Moneyhands23]

8x8 for both

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

This x2. The cap might go up by $1M a year until 2026-27.

The current players are getting killed by escrow until the debt is paid.

It’s the NHLPA version of eating their young.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

This x2. The cap might go up by $1M a year until 2026-27.

The current players are getting killed by escrow until the debt is paid.

Not really, escrow is capped going forward. It's 10% next year and 6% the following three years.

The league will be getting repaid the overpayment by keeping the increases to the cap artificially low for the next few years. That makes it tough for the players who need to sign new contracts over the next few seasons because teams won't have the cap space to spare to sign them in the way they were expecting 2 years ago.

The players who signed long-term deals prior to COVID are going to be okay, but the guys whose contracts are expiring in the COVID aftermath are bearing the brunt.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

I imagine both sides have many scenarios modelled out, with advantages and disadvantages for different term length. What is the players injury history? What is his fitness level over time? What is the historical productivity for similar players projected into their early to mid 30s, and how does Johnny fit into that projection? What are salary cap projections? When does the current CBA expire, and what might the next one look like? I would guess that I am barely scratching the surface of the issues that are contemplated.

Maybe Johnny wants 5-6 years, which takes him to 33-34 years old. At that age, he has a greater chance to get one more big contract. So they need to consider what is better, two big ~5 year contracts, or one big 8 year contract, which takes him to 36, followed by some short term deals? I could see the term being anywhere from 5 to 8 years

I think Tkachuk's age makes it more likely for both sides to want 8 years

I can’t imagine that Johnny wants anything less than 8 years and huge money. This is his big shot at UFA, and he will want to maximize his leverage. Johnny holds all the leverage, so the wishes of Treliving based on injury history etc. are largely irrelevant. Johnny either gets paid to his complete satisfaction or he can test the UFA waters.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

8x8 for both

If they would accept that, the deal would have already been completed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Reaper]

Is anyone else of the same mind in that Tkachuk will probably only be willing to sign another 3 year deal because he wants to finish his career in St. Louis?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by getbak

Not really, escrow is capped going forward. It's 10% next year and 6% the following three years.

The league will be getting repaid the overpayment by keeping the increases to the cap artificially low for the next few years. That makes it tough for the players who need to sign new contracts over the next few seasons because teams won't have the cap space to spare to sign them in the way they were expecting 2 years ago.

The players who signed long-term deals prior to COVID are going to be okay, but the guys whose contracts are expiring in the COVID aftermath are bearing the brunt.

It’s the bottom of the roster players that are bearing the entire brunt. The star players seem to be getting their money no problem.

[Kipper_3434]

8 years 70m total for each player is competitive and where i hope this eventually ends. Tkachuk likely another season from an extension, I think he takes his qualifying offer.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

8 years 70m total for each player is competitive and where i hope this eventually ends. Tkachuk likely another season from an extension, I think he takes his qualifying offer.

If he simply takes the qualifying offer, I think it would be a signal that he is intent on taking the quickest path to being a UFA. At that point, we really do need to trade him.

If he wants a multi-year deal for security, he will reject his qualifying offer.

There is a possibility that he rejects it and they try to entice someone to give an offersheet, which are almost always massive overpayments. That would be hard to predict though, unless they get some inside information from another club.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I'd be surprised if either guy gets less than 10M on their next contract.

Gaudreau is going to look at Mitch Marner's AAV and expect more now that Treliving can't strongarm with RFA leverage nonsense.

Tkachuk might have less footing, both from his own production and his RFA situation, but he's still largely in control of his future. The Flames' best source of leverage is team-elected arbitration, but that would walk Tkachuk straight to UFA at age 25. He's producing again under Sutter - probably even gonna have a career year considering he is no longer playing with Backlund and Frolik at 5v5. He's in a cushy spot and he will get paid.

The minute the Flames failed to acquire Eichel, the most sensible course of action became to get major assets in return for these two plus Tanev, Backlund, Coleman, and after paying his signing bonus Lucic. The team's record throws a wrench in the optics there, though. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The Flames are not blowing it up, nor should they. This is still a relatively young hockey team. This is also a very good hockey team. You don’t blow it up just for the fun of it. This core is playing for the best coach they’ve ever had. They won’t be an easy out this spring.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

I imagine both sides have many scenarios modelled out, with advantages and disadvantages for different term length. What is the players injury history? What is his fitness level over time? What is the historical productivity for similar players projected into their early to mid 30s, and how does Johnny fit into that projection? What are salary cap projections? When does the current CBA expire, and what might the next one look like? I would guess that I am barely scratching the surface of the issues that are contemplated.

Maybe Johnny wants 5-6 years, which takes him to 33-34 years old. At that age, he has a greater chance to get one more big contract. So they need to consider what is better, two big ~5 year contracts, or one big 8 year contract, which takes him to 36, followed by some short term deals? I could see the term being anywhere from 5 to 8 years

I think Tkachuk's age makes it more likely for both sides to want 8 years

With teams getting younger and players over 30 having harder times getting signed for big contracts I highly doubt Johnny wants to take a chance on a 5 year deal. My guess he wants 8 and top dollar .

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Is anyone else of the same mind in that Tkachuk will probably only be willing to sign another 3 year deal because he wants to finish his career in St. Louis?

I'm sure many others are, but I'm not. I think Tkachuk will play for whichever team offers him the biggest contract. Brady just signed in Ottawa, but it took a huge overpayment based on his stats and career trend so far. Matthew is not going to torpedo his own bargaining power by taking whatever St. Louis feels like offering.

[kukkudo]

9.5Mx8 for Tkachuk and 10Mx8 for Johnny. They aren't taking any discounts.