Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Gaudreau seeking $8M annually on new deal with Flames -- Pt. 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
East Coast Icestyle

East Coast Icestyle

Registered User
Mar 6, 2015
3,277
2,337
Nova Scotia, Canada
Signed said:
This is one of the best posts I've read on here. Honest. :handclap:

I have no idea what hes going to get but I put my money on him caving in as he has nowhere to go realistically . They are players first and foremost and dont want to just sit there doing nothing.

Hes american, not russian, or swedish .
Click to expand...

wait wait. What does where he's from have to do with it?
 
UnrefinedCrude

UnrefinedCrude

Registered User
Jun 7, 2011
3,861
274
Comatose said:
wait wait. What does where he's from have to do with it?
Click to expand...
This is his "home league."

Russian and Swedish players have viable "home country" options if they are unhappy with their NHL situation. This isn't a slight, but a reality.

Gaudreau is less likely to take a bit of a pay cut to play somewhere else like a European league or the KHL, than someone who is from there. And even then, the number of non-North Americans who leave is small.

I still think the Flames and Johnny will eventually settle on a pretty fair number. One neither side is truly 100% happy with, but neither side will be very unhappy either.
 
strictlyrandy

strictlyrandy

Registered User
Sep 9, 2013
3,955
977
Colorado
Remember2004 said:
Which is worst than signing him at 8 for 7 years
Click to expand...

I tend to disagree.

Hypothetically.

8x8 = 64 million and leaves him at 31 when the contract is up, then you end up paying more on top of that when that deal is done when he's in the final years of his prime and not as effective, but still spending another arguable 8 million for however many years...say 4. So you end up with 96 million over 12 years and pay him for all of his presumably declining years.

On the other hand..

If you are able to get him down to where he realistically is value wise (6.5 imo) and then overpay a half million per year for his good years...so 7 million per year on a 5 year deal. You've spent 35 million for his best years bringing him to 28 when the deal is done. When the deal is up, you offer him his last big contract for his remaining productive years, arguably a 4 year deal at (for argument's sake) 9 million. So another 36 million and brings you to 32. That brings you to 71 million over 9 years (7 million more for an extra season essentially). When he's 32 you have the flexibility to get him during his post prime years for lesser money as he's still going to be a good player presumably, but we all know that his best years are behind him more than likely at that point. You're able to pay more now, but not be handicapped down the road with a nasty retirement contract.

Unless I'm way off base. It just makes sense to me to get him locked up for the majority of his best years as opposed to giving out long term deals that can backfire in a bad way.
 
Divine

Divine

Registered User
Dec 18, 2010
19,315
13,542
strictlyrandy said:
I tend to disagree.

Hypothetically.

8x8 = 64 million and leaves him at 31 when the contract is up, then you end up paying more on top of that when that deal is done when he's in the final years of his prime and not as effective, but still spending another arguable 8 million for however many years...say 4. So you end up with 96 million over 12 years and pay him for all of his presumably declining years.

On the other hand..

If you are able to get him down to where he realistically is value wise (6.5 imo) and then overpay a half million per year for his good years...so 7 million per year on a 5 year deal. You've spent 35 million for his best years bringing him to 28 when the deal is done. When the deal is up, you offer him his last big contract for his remaining productive years, arguably a 4 year deal at (for argument's sake) 9 million. So another 36 million and brings you to 32. That brings you to 71 million over 9 years (7 million more for an extra season essentially). When he's 32 you have the flexibility to get him during his post prime years for lesser money as he's still going to be a good player presumably, but we all know that his best years are behind him more than likely at that point. You're able to pay more now, but not be handicapped down the road with a nasty retirement contract.

Unless I'm way off base. It just makes sense to me to get him locked up for the majority of his best years as opposed to giving out long term deals that can backfire in a bad way.
Click to expand...

This is the flawed part. There's no way a player is taking a 4 year deal at 28 (if he's still producing). We're looking at 7 or 8 then.
 
UnrefinedCrude

UnrefinedCrude

Registered User
Jun 7, 2011
3,861
274
Divine said:
This is the flawed part. There's no way a player is taking a 4 year deal at 28 (if he's still producing). We're looking at 7 or 8 then.
Click to expand...
Yep, the only players that age taking shorter term contracts are the ones who have to. Guys who produce are going to leverage it into some long term security.
 
Club

Club

zach benson fan club.
Mar 2, 2015
6,360
2,768
Calgary
Personally.. I think he needs to have a couple more seasons with the average amount of points he had this season.. Gotta earn it, Johnny
 
PetterssonSimp

PetterssonSimp

Registered User
Dec 12, 2008
7,374
918
TorontoBlueJays said:
Personally.. I think he needs to have a couple more seasons with the average amount of points he had this season.. Gotta earn it, Johnny
Click to expand...

He's proved to be a top 20 scorer both seasons he's played in the NHL and done so at under the age of 25. Scoring might be his real only grasp at superstardom but he does it at a rate that not many can match. Mostly the guys who make 7-10 million per season match his scoring output.
Now I understand the Leafs haven't had a guy out produce his contract worth in years, but it's pretty easy to see when you have a superstar scorer who wants IMHO reasonable money when you look at his comparables in his scoring production.

This isn't Tampa who has Steven Stamkos and his 40 goal potential each season to cover for no Kuch or even Myers/Buff to cover for Trouba. The Flames have nothing and no one to replace what Johnny Hockeycash brings to the ice, they have much lesser capable guys who might be lucky to produce what JHC would over maybe 3-4 roster players.
If he's willing to take around 49 million for 7 years, you drop it like its hot and enjoy 7 years of JHC and worry about the rest later.
 
strictlyrandy

strictlyrandy

Registered User
Sep 9, 2013
3,955
977
Colorado
Confirmed what we already knew. Flames want Johnny and Johnny wants to be a Flame.

I think they get a deal done soon. Johnny won't want to miss the season. Think he takes a shorter term deal though.
 
Zirakzigil

Zirakzigil

Global Moderator
Jul 5, 2010
30,653
26,634
Canada
hockeykicker said:
Click to expand...


This is what Flames fans have been saying the whole time. I think its a forgone conclusion hes going to miss games now. If the Flames start the season with some wins the pressure goes back to Gaudreau, if the Flames are losing then management is going to feel the pressure to cave in and get him on the ice.
 
Tripod

Tripod

I hate this team
Aug 12, 2008
79,242
87,031
Nova Scotia
Pretty crappy that you tell the agent of your star player that they will call in 2 days....then never call.

And yes, I know JG asked not to be distracted during the WC.
 

Seanaconda

Registered User
May 6, 2016
9,701
3,442
God Calgary just pay him. He's your best forward and probably your best player. Or trade him for a loss just hurry up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X