Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
s4xon

Johnny 'Hockey' Gaudreau

  

16 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. How many points will Johnny Hockey score in his sophomore season?

    • 40-50
      1
    • 50-60
      0
    • 60-70
      2
    • 70-80
      7
    • 80-90
      4
    • 90-100
      1
    • 100+
      1


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, MAC331 said:

I will be shocked if BT goes to 8M with Gaudreau, 7M seems to be more of a number most can live with.

 

$8m is a number that has cropped up as being fact, even knowing that BT rarely lets the cat out of the bag during discussions.  If that was what was being asked, then it's a negotiation point.  Most people here were incensed with Gio's ask.  When the deal was signed, many said too long/too much money.  I don't think it matters so much what the final number is, as long as we get the JH from the past two years going forward.  The cap is the cap; BT will spend to it until we are contenders.  Having one player making more than $7m isn't the end of the world.  Paying middling players over $2m is more harmful.  

 

I can't recall the Stamkos contract being discussed on Twitter.  Most GM's keep the discussion away from the media.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

$8m is a number that has cropped up as being fact, even knowing that BT rarely lets the cat out of the bag during discussions.  If that was what was being asked, then it's a negotiation point.  Most people here were incensed with Gio's ask.  When the deal was signed, many said too long/too much money.  I don't think it matters so much what the final number is, as long as we get the JH from the past two years going forward.  The cap is the cap; BT will spend to it until we are contenders.  Having one player making more than $7m isn't the end of the world.  Paying middling players over $2m is more harmful.  

 

I can't recall the Stamkos contract being discussed on Twitter.  Most GM's keep the discussion away from the media.  

I'm less concerned about players making slightly over what they are worth as they will be gone after this season. Trying to keep the players you want for your team under a cap environment has to be managed and we have some good players coming such as Bennett. Tkachuk, a #1 Goalie and a #1 RW. Where we are as a team now and growing I would hate to see one of our players paid way over what other top players on our team are now paid. Gaudreau is not yet Teows or Kane with years of track record to their current salaries. Gaudreau in at somewhere close to 7M keeps it fair on a lot of levels, team and league.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I'm less concerned about players making slightly over what they are worth as they will be gone after this season. Trying to keep the players you want for your team under a cap environment has to be managed and we have some good players coming such as Bennett. Tkachuk, a #1 Goalie and a #1 RW. Where we are as a team now and growing I would hate to see one of our players paid way over what other top players on our team are now paid. Gaudreau is not yet Teows or Kane with years of track record to their current salaries. Gaudreau in at somewhere close to 7M keeps it fair on a lot of levels, team and league.

 

All I am saying is that JH's deal, even at $8m, isn't going to impact the good players.  If Bennett turns into a scoring machine this season, he only has one year doing so.  If Tkachuk does the same in his ELC, then he will get a good raise.  They are already in conversation with Moose for an extension.  I know the history isn't there with JH and the players are not that similar in impact to the team, but Kane got the equivalent of $7.74 on his 2nd deal.  

 

Teams that have Kane/Toews player contracts have to scrimp elsewhere.  And they trade players when their value is too high for the impact they have.  Sharp and Shaw were a few recent victims, but they got some goods in return.  Shaw was overrated in my mind, much like Bolland was.  If we stop having a 4th line making more than $1m each, concentrate on having an elite goalie and good backup, bring in players on ELC's that are performing, we shouldn't have cap issues.  As a player ages and loses effectiveness, you trade them for other pieces.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-09-29 at 11:22 AM, travel_dude said:

can't find anyone other than Kane.  The other things that Kane brought do not measure up.

 

Kane definitely solidified his place in history when he was a dominant factor when the Bolts got raped in the 2015 final...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Carty said:

 

Kane definitely solidified his place in history when he was a dominant factor when the Bolts got raped in the 2015 final...

 

Kane's success later in his career can't really be compared to JH today.  When he signed his 2nd deal, he had a Calder.  JH was just a Calder finalist.

 

It would be nice to look back 10 years from now on the career of Johnny Hockey and see the impact that guys like Iggy or Newy had.  And to be able to count the number of cups and trophies on more than one hand.  If we got that for less than $8m, then we would be laughing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

All I am saying is that JH's deal, even at $8m, isn't going to impact the good players.  If Bennett turns into a scoring machine this season, he only has one year doing so.  If Tkachuk does the same in his ELC, then he will get a good raise.  They are already in conversation with Moose for an extension.  I know the history isn't there with JH and the players are not that similar in impact to the team, but Kane got the equivalent of $7.74 on his 2nd deal.  

 

Teams that have Kane/Toews player contracts have to scrimp elsewhere.  And they trade players when their value is too high for the impact they have.  Sharp and Shaw were a few recent victims, but they got some goods in return.  Shaw was overrated in my mind, much like Bolland was.  If we stop having a 4th line making more than $1m each, concentrate on having an elite goalie and good backup, bring in players on ELC's that are performing, we shouldn't have cap issues.  As a player ages and loses effectiveness, you trade them for other pieces.  

 

 

I don't know how many years Kane had in before he got his 2nd deal but they also had Keith and Seabrook sign below 5M on long terms. I guess it all depends on where you predict your salary levels for other players coming soon. I would hate that we have to start revolving good players before we even get a sniff at a SC. Anyways I made the point I wanted to, I see him at around 7M not 8M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

The NHL is hardly Adam Smith's model of laissez-faire capitalism. The invisible hand is unable to operate in the context of a collective agreement, a salary cap, and a limit on the salary of each individual player. Those limits were implemented precisely to impede market forces. The NHL more closely approximates an oligopoly. Your argument is as valid as suggesting market forces dictate the wages of slaves, feudal peasants, or communist employees. What market?

 

Yes, suggesting that fans on the message board claiming value is meaningless is ridiculous but comparing NHL players to unpaid labourers from Feudal Europe is sound. 

 

CBA or not, historical contracts do influence future contracts.  JJ or you or any of us can claim what Gaudreau should be worth but that doesn't amount to anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnny is our franchise player. Flames are low balling him because he's coming out of entry level. Why management can't come to terms with a bonafide all star that deserves market value is beyond me. Maybe sign him too first two years at 7 million and then it goes to 7.5 in the last four years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had our fun, and now the irrelevant posts have (mostly) been removed from this thread.  We now return you to your normally-scheduled program: Adventures with Johnny Gaudreau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TheFan99 said:

Johnny is our franchise player. Flames are low balling him because he's coming out of entry level. Why management can't come to terms with a bonafide all star that deserves market value is beyond me. Maybe sign him too first two years at 7 million and then it goes to 7.5 in the last four years?

You can't just give him a blank cheque.

It's a broad stroke to just blame the Flames, there's 2 sides.

Even Jamie Benn's have sat out to get a deal done. Jamie Benn is now locked into the Stars for his career, so sitting out didn't mean he wanted out of the org.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious what everyone feels what the deal should look like:

 

3 years at ???

5 years at ???

6 years at ???

7 years at ???

8 years at ???

 

The first one is a bridge deal, no UFA years.

The rest are short to long deals.

I would say:

 

3x$6m

5x$6,5m

6x$7m

7x$7.15

8x$7.4

 

Any takers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is, in your model:

 

3yrs @ 6.5

5yrs @ 6.75

6yrs @ 7

7yrs @ 7.25

8yrs @ 7.5

 

i think Gaudreau wants about 8.

 

Can you imagine, just over two years ago, he was leaving college, an entry level contract and now, bang, asking for 8? What a difference a few years makes. Eeeeek! Like a lottery ticket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kehatch said:

 

Yes, suggesting that fans on the message board claiming value is meaningless is ridiculous but comparing NHL players to unpaid labourers from Feudal Europe is sound. 

 

CBA or not, historical contracts do influence future contracts.  JJ or you or any of us can claim what Gaudreau should be worth but that doesn't amount to anything. 

My point is only that Johnny is not subject to market forces. He cannot offer up his services to the highest bidder when nobody else is allowed to enter a bid. One team does not a market make. If it did, then Flames management has set the market price. Given that reality, I certainly understand why Treliving is sticking to his guns, and Johnny does not have a contract. I find it odd to suggest that Treliving should pay Johnny what other teams might be willing to pay him when he cannot sign with them, and they cannot offer anything.

 

I remember a customer coming into my store and asking about the price of a product I was selling. He told me that my price was way too high and that another store was selling it for 40% less than I was. When I asked him why he did not buy it there, he said that they were out of stock. I explained to him that when I am out of stock, I sell it for less than half of what my competitor sells it for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

Just curious what everyone feels what the deal should look like:

 

3 years at ???

5 years at ???

6 years at ???

7 years at ???

8 years at ???

 

The first one is a bridge deal, no UFA years.

The rest are short to long deals.

I would say:

 

3x$6m

5x$6,5m

6x$7m

7x$7.15

8x$7.4

 

Any takers?

 

I could be wrong but 5 years takes him to UFA without buying any UFA years, so for me 5 years is a non starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

My guess is, in your model:

 

3yrs @ 6.5

5yrs @ 6.75

6yrs @ 7

7yrs @ 7.25

8yrs @ 7.5

 

i think Gaudreau wants about 8.

 

Can you imagine, just over two years ago, he was leaving college, an entry level contract and now, bang, asking for 8? What a difference a few years makes. Eeeeek! Like a lottery ticket. 

and we gave him the -1 year by contracting and playing him right out of college. We could have had this conversation next season with one more full year under his belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DirtyDeeds said:

and we gave him the -1 year by contracting and play him right out of college. We could have had this conversation next season with one more full year under his belt.

 

Too bad that it's not that way. Both sides would have a consistent body of work to judge his play on. Sure he got a lot of points, but not doing it on the road could have been a big reason we missed the playoffs last year, since some want to elude to the Five More Wins and We Would've Been In concept.

 

I know goaltending was bad, but a combo of both could've helped that cause. If we are paying him to be elite, he has to be on the road as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

I could be wrong but 5 years takes him to UFA without buying any UFA years, so for me 5 years is a non starter.

 

If so, my bad.  I thought 4 years took him there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

Just curious what everyone feels what the deal should look like:

 

3 years at ???

5 years at ???

6 years at ???

7 years at ???

8 years at ???

 

The first one is a bridge deal, no UFA years.

The rest are short to long deals.

I would say:

 

3x$6m

5x$6,5m

6x$7m

7x$7.15

8x$7.4

 

Any takers?

3 years at 5.75

6 years at 6.00

7 years at 6.25

8 years at 6.50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

and we gave him the -1 year by contracting and playing him right out of college. We could have had this conversation next season with one more full year under his belt.

 

If the Flames hadn't played Gaudreau in that game he probably would have gone back into the draft and they would have lost him for nothing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today is the 12th day of the Gaudreau TC holdout, or non-signing....  Obviously he'll miss today's game, then Wednesday and Thursday are the final two Pre-season roster-tuning games before a break leading up to the season.  Frolik and Backlund play today in their first games, Monahan is still being withheld.  Presumably all those guys will be playing in the final two games, at least available to play, with the exception of Gaudreau, who hasn't even heard a minute of the coach's new system or style of play.   

 

Once the season starts its three games in four nights versus the Oilers(2) and the Canucks, then 5 games in 7 nights the next week+ versus Buffalo, Carolina, St Louis(2) and Chicago, with the later two away.  The Senators and Capitals round out the first ten games.  This will be a good test of the new team and frankly, with the injury/hold-out situation at this point I could see anything from delirious success to dismal failure.  With our goaltending, though I'd hope to be above 0.500 which I'd deem the bare minimum of "success" to start the season.

 

C'mon BT and Johnny, get that deal done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^

Do you think Johnny has enough requisite skill to come into the season cold?  If he signs the last day before the regular season, there is a good chance he could sit one game and watch from the stands.  But then again, Monahan will have been through the practices, so it's possible that he just plays his game out of the gate.  I haven't seen enough difference in the offensive game to say he couldn't quickly adapt to any new thngs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/johnny-gaudreaus-agent-no-intention-asking-trade/

 

Good read by Friedman.

 

It's encouraging that he isn't asking for a trade. I am not sure what to make of the whole the Flames haven't spoken to the agent in a month. To me it sounds like the agent is making things up trying to put pressure on Treliving. If it is true it sounds to me like a negotiating tactic by Treliving to put pressure on Gaudreau.

 

I do like that Treliving isn't giving in, this is the one time where the team holds all cards so why just give them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/johnny-gaudreaus-agent-no-intention-asking-trade/

 

Good read by Friedman.

 

It's encouraging that he isn't asking for a trade. I am not sure what to make of the whole the Flames haven't spoken to the agent in a month. To me it sounds like the agent is making things up trying to put pressure on Treliving. If it is true it sounds to me like a negotiating tactic by Treliving to put pressure on Gaudreau.

 

I do like that Treliving isn't giving in, this is the one time where the team holds all cards so why just give them up.

 

I hope they are actually talking.  Two weeks after the supposed blackout ended and a month after the last reported discussion is not what I want to hear.  But it's really not disturbing unless the numbers reported are accurate.  If they are that far apart and their hasn't been any discussion, then it's going to continue to be a cold war until someone caves in a bit.  Neither number is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BT is one cool customer.  It was Gross who put in the fake WC deadline, BT is just slow in re-engaging.  Or is it up to Gross to make the next move ?  Either way, the next one to pick up the phone is going to have to make the first move off their line in the sand.  If Gross won't move, they may as well bridge him as it makes no sense to pay him UFA $$$ until he's a UFA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...