Brad Treliving - GM Tracking & Evaluation

[cccsberg]

I also don't think it's fair to assume that Johnny and Mony are not signed becaue of Treliving. What's to say it's not Johnny and Mony that are waiting?

If I were them I'd want to know who my coach is before committing the prime of my career to an organization

I would agree that the new coach may be impacting things.  But on the other hand, NOTHING is coming out of the Flames.  No UFA re-signings (Nakladal, Ortio),  No RFA re-signings nor qualifications.  No news about the coaching search.  No trades.  No buy-out information.  I realize it is still premature for some of this, but man, its going to be(should be) VERY busy in the next month.

[travel_dude]

I would agree that the new coach may be impacting things.  But on the other hand, NOTHING is coming out of the Flames.  No UFA re-signings (Nakladal, Ortio),  No RFA re-signings nor qualifications.  No news about the coaching search.  No trades.  No buy-out information.  I realize it is still premature for some of this, but man, its going to be(should be) VERY busy in the next month.

 

Things happen fast.  The buyout window opens after the SCF concludes.  I think it's prudent to see if any coaches are let go in the next week, just to see what else is available.  Anaheim is in the same boat.

 

I think you will see some dominoes fall after the buyout window opens.  We will have a better idea of the available cap, the roster spots, other players available that were bought out, etc.  The draft plays a part in that as well; players going out in deals that are RFA's.  You aren't necessarily going to qualify a RFA if you intend on trading them.

[phoenix66]

He can be forgiven for taking a bit of extra time..  His mother just passed away

So sad to hear

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/NHLFlames/status/736639802074791937?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[420since1974]

I echo the condolences to the Trevling family.

 

 

The SCF will be completed sometime between June 6th and June 15th.

 

I had heard that if expansion was taking place in 2017/2018, it would be announced by the end of May of this year.

 

Perhaps the NHL has put off that decision until after the play-offs, but one would think that they would need to announce it prior to the Entry Draft on June 24th.

 

It must be difficult to properly plan player acquisitions, trades, and the potential re-signing of FAs, without knowing in which year expansion will happen, if at all.

[travel_dude]

I echo the condolences to the Trevling family.

 

 

The SCF will be completed sometime between June 6th and June 15th.

 

I had heard that if expansion was taking place in 2017/2018, it would be announced by the end of May of this year.

 

Perhaps the NHL has put off that decision until after the play-offs, but one would think that they would need to announce it prior to the Entry Draft on June 24th.

 

It must be difficult to properly plan player acquisitions, trades, and the potential re-signing of FAs, without knowing in which year expansion will happen, if at all.

I think it has to be announced prior to the start of buyouts.  You aren't necessarily going to buy a player out if you will need him to be exposed for salary reasons. 

[xstrike]

Kinda off thread topic, but quickly on expansion, I was hearing a few musings about a relocation instead of expansion. Rumor is that the Carolina ownership wants out. If you move Carolina to Las Vegas, you even the conferences back out (15 and 15). A team that is already put together is probably better than any expansion draft dumpster diving. It makes some sense really and wasn't Q City maybe a little behind for expansion this season? While I'm thinking about it, Phoenix isn't exactly thriving either. Plus with the battle to find a rink in which to play, they may be another relocation instead of expansion option.

 

It'd kinda such for us, because there wouldn't be the cheap GK market.

[travel_dude]

Kinda off thread topic, but quickly on expansion, I was hearing a few musings about a relocation instead of expansion. Rumor is that the Carolina ownership wants out. If you move Carolina to Las Vegas, you even the conferences back out (15 and 15). A team that is already put together is probably better than any expansion draft dumpster diving. It makes some sense really and wasn't Q City maybe a little behind for expansion this season? While I'm thinking about it, Phoenix isn't exactly thriving either. Plus with the battle to find a rink in which to play, they may be another relocation instead of expansion option.

 

It'd kinda such for us, because there wouldn't be the cheap GK market.

 

Relocation doesn't benefit the NHL as much as a new team does.  The entry fee is something crazy like $450m.  A struggling team may not generate enough revenue for the league, but expansion eclipses that by a long shot.  They can use the relocation card later for cities like Quebec or Seattle if they choose.  Even Kansas City.

[DirtyDeeds]

Kinda off thread topic, but quickly on expansion, I was hearing a few musings about a relocation instead of expansion. Rumor is that the Carolina ownership wants out. If you move Carolina to Las Vegas, you even the conferences back out (15 and 15). A team that is already put together is probably better than any expansion draft dumpster diving. It makes some sense really and wasn't Q City maybe a little behind for expansion this season? While I'm thinking about it, Phoenix isn't exactly thriving either. Plus with the battle to find a rink in which to play, they may be another relocation instead of expansion option.

 

It'd kinda such for us, because there wouldn't be the cheap GK market.

Quebec City has balked at the Expansion fee because of the declining dollar and due to lower revenues. This puts them more in line with a relocation team than an expansion team.

[MAC331]

Quebec City has balked at the Expansion fee because of the declining dollar and due to lower revenues. This puts them more in line with a relocation team than an expansion team.

I hope Quebec never gets another NHL team.

[Redslinger]

I hope Quebec never gets another NHL team.

 

Mais pourquoi?

[robrob1974]

I don't see why Quebec or Ontario shouldn't have more teams. Quebec deserves a team more than a lot of the States teams. Ontario could probably house another team without it affecting the Leafs and it would bring more revenue to the league.

[MAC331]

I don't see why Quebec or Ontario shouldn't have more teams. Quebec deserves a team more than a lot of the States teams. Ontario could probably house another team without it affecting the Leafs and it would bring more revenue to the league.

You need a huge Corporate foundation to support an NHL team and Quebec City doesn't have it. Maybe another team around TOR could make it but you could also create a NYR, NYI and NJD scenario where some team is going to suffer.

[robrob1974]

You need a huge Corporate foundation to support an NHL team and Quebec City doesn't have it. Maybe another team around TOR could make it but you could also create a NYR, NYI and NJD scenario where some team is going to suffer.

Not in the Toronto area. They're like a 1000 years waiting list for season tickets and of course I am exaggerating.

[MAC331]

Not in the Toronto area. They're like a 1000 years waiting list for season tickets and of course I am exaggerating.

One would work around there I'm just not sure if the politics will allow it. MLS like the monopoly they have in Toronto.

[robrob1974]

So we agree ...

[rickross]

Why Saskatchewan has never been in the expansion conversation is still shocking. As the rabid Roughriders fans they are I could only imagine the support an NHL team would receive there.

[Redslinger]

Why Saskatchewan has never been in the expansion conversation is still shocking. As the rabid Roughriders fans they are I could only imagine the support an NHL team would receive there.

 

Saskatchewan does well in the CFL because it's the only "major" sport they have and tickets are reasonably priced.  Plus there are 9 home games per year which makes it relatively easy to travel from Saskatoon to Regina, which together have about 400,000 people or roughly 1/3 that of both Calgary and Edmonton each.  The entire population of Saskatchewan is probably a little less than that of Calgary and Calgary is one of the leagues smaller markets. 

 

If there were 41 regular season games, priced significantly higher than a Riders ticket with essentially no corporate money a team in Saskatchewan would be doomed to failure.  Winnipeg is the leagues smallest market and it has a population over 600,000 and a relatively decent corporate base and they are struggling despite selling out every game.

 

Riders fans can be "rabid" because that's all they have going for them.  It's a little sad actually.

[phoenix66]

I have to wonder, with it seemingly leaking out that the Salary cap likely will be close to the same as last year , if BT is possibly going to push for bridge deals for both Monahan and Johnny.

I know the benefits of locking them up are all valid, but at he same time. so are the reasons for bridge deals.

1) I think Monahan is Bridge material anyway , and they do seem to want to keep them similar

2) Burke is very HUGE on bridge deals

3) unless someone offer sheets Monahan , the team holds full control

4)2-3 years  and we still hold control over the next negotiation , both will still be RFA

 

The risks, obviously that you lose the chance to keep the value lower now, one or both could be 9-10M players in years , just like Kane/ Toewes

 

Im thinking more and more the team's first option is to do this, more cap flexibility in 2-3 years, more defined core. I know we are all expecting the bank to open and they get about 13-14 M between them , but I'm starting to think not so sure

 

I'm 100% sure thats where the Flames are starting negotiations, just curious if they may push hard for it 

[travel_dude]

I have to wonder, with it seemingly leaking out that the Salary cap likely will be close to the same as last year , if BT is possibly going to push for bridge deals for both Monahan and Johnny.

I know the benefits of locking them up are all valid, but at he same time. so are the reasons for bridge deals.

1) I think Monahan is Bridge material anyway , and they do seem to want to keep them similar

2) Burke is very HUGE on bridge deals

3) unless someone offer sheets Monahan , the team holds full control

4)2-3 years  and we still hold control over the next negotiation , both will still be RFA

 

The risks, obviously that you lose the chance to keep the value lower now, one or both could be 9-10M players in years , just like Kane/ Toewes

 

Im thinking more and more the team's first option is to do this, more cap flexibility in 2-3 years, more defined core. I know we are all expecting the bank to open and they get about 13-14 M between them , but I'm starting to think not so sure

 

I'm 100% sure thats where the Flames are starting negotiations, just curious if they may push hard for it 

 

If they start negotiations mentioning a bridge deal, they won't be talking much.  Both player's agents know their comparable value in the league.  Are you going to offer the same as what Frolik is making?  So, you save a bit now, but then the cost goes up to buy more years of FA.  In three years time, the cost for a #1C is goiing to be higher, not lower.

 

Just for sake of argument, let's guess on the numbers:

 

Mony bridge - 3 years @ $4.5m

Mony long term deal - 8 years @ $7.5m

Average = $7.35m per year

 

Johnny bridge - 3 years @$5.5m

Johnny long term - 8 years @ $8.5m

Average = $8.45m

[phoenix66]

If they start negotiations mentioning a bridge deal, they won't be talking much.  Both player's agents know their comparable value in the league.  Are you going to offer the same as what Frolik is making?  So, you save a bit now, but then the cost goes up to buy more years of FA.  In three years time, the cost for a #1C is goiing to be higher, not lower.

 

Just for sake of argument, let's guess on the numbers:

 

Mony bridge - 3 years @ $4.5m

Mony long term deal - 8 years @ $7.5m

Average = $7.35m per year

 

Johnny bridge - 3 years @$5.5m

Johnny long term - 8 years @ $8.5m

Average = $8.45m

 

 

i do totally get all the arguments for the long term now, i really do.. im thinking off the basis that , the biggest being they need to set precedent for the team

They will pay more in 2-3 years absolutely . but as mentioned , BT holds the hammer here .. Johnny cant be offer sheeted. Their agents have absolutely no leverage, unless they want to solicit offers for Monahan.. obviously if they have to match a Monahan offer it will have a domino effect on Johnny's deal

Aside from the precedent thats important, they need the cap room now. I can guarantee the Blackhawks dont regret bridging K&T. The added cap room means being able to pay that goalie and/ or top RW from FA

[travel_dude]

i do totally get all the arguments for the long term now, i really do.. im thinking off the basis that , the biggest being they need to set precedent for the team

They will pay more in 2-3 years absolutely . but as mentioned , BT holds the hammer here .. Johnny cant be offer sheeted. Their agents have absolutely no leverage, unless they want to solicit offers for Monahan.. obviously if they have to match a Monahan offer it will have a domino effect on Johnny's deal

Aside from the precedent thats important, they need the cap room now. I can guarantee the Blackhawks dont regret bridging K&T. The added cap room means being able to pay that goalie and/ or top RW from FA

 

If you want to use Toews and Kane as examples, both signed their 2nd deals for 5 years, more or less a bridge deal.  Each one was an average of $6.3m.

 

Leverage is one thing, but you don't mess around with your top 2 players on the team.  It sets the wrong tone.  Dougie signed for 6 years at $5.75m, and he doesn't have as big an impact.  Johnny and Monahan are not the reasons for cap issues.  They do not need to be the solution.  Wideman, Stajan, Engelland, Raymond and Bouma are the deals that created this mess.

[cross16]

5 years to me is not a bridge deal. A bridge deal is 2-3 years once you start talking 5 years or more you are in long term territory. 5 years is a very long time in pro sports IMO.

I think 5 years is a reasonable contract length and I'd be fine discussing 5 years for both but tricky thing is you arnt buying many UFA years so more risk to the flames and what do you get in return? How much are you gojng to save by going 5 years versus 6 or 7? If it's only a mill or less on AAv is it worth it?

I very much doubt the flames will go less then on 5 years with either. Really does not make sense to do so IMO. They may not go 7 or 8 years so if that's what you mean I agree but less then 5 I do not see it. I think they want to lock up their core and give it a shot for at least 4-5 seasons and they'll value that security more than saving a few bucks. I don't believe you get ahead by underpaying your stars, pay your starts and then surrounding them by underpaid talent.

[The_People1]

Johnny and Monahan are not the reasons for cap issues.  They do not need to be the solution.  Wideman, Stajan, Engelland, Raymond and Bouma are the deals that created this mess.

 

Yups.  Stars have to get star money.

 

The NHL cap is going to squeeze out the mid-tier players and probably force them to the KHL or something.   More and more, you're going to see players struggle to get between $2.5-mil to $5-mil.  Teams want star players in key positions and then use the remaining cap space to sign value contracts.

 

Wideman, Stajan, Engellend, etc, aren't bad players but it's not a huge step down to go with a $1-mil guy over them.

[phoenix66]

5 years to me is not a bridge deal. A bridge deal is 2-3 years once you start talking 5 years or more you are in long term territory. 5 years is a very long time in pro sports IMO.

I think 5 years is a reasonable contract length and I'd be fine discussing 5 years for both but tricky thing is you arnt buying many UFA years so more risk to the flames and what do you get in return? How much are you gojng to save by going 5 years versus 6 or 7? If it's only a mill or less on AAv is it worth it?

I very much doubt the flames will go less then on 5 years with either. Really does not make sense to do so IMO. They may not go 7 or 8 years so if that's what you mean I agree but less then 5 I do not see it. I think they want to lock up their core and give it a shot for at least 4-5 seasons and they'll value that security more than saving a few bucks. I don't believe you get ahead by underpaying your stars, pay your starts and then surrounding them by underpaid talent.

 

 

at he end of the day , i think we see one extreme or the other . if its bridge, its a short one - 2 yrs max, 3.5-4M  or , Long term, 8 years 7-8M.. 

basically if the players agree with bridge , they leverage the benefit of being in a position to cash in  for their money deal at a prime time of their careers.

- if the Flames agree to the long term , we want a few of their UFA years 

 

i personally don't agree that a bridge deal is an insult to the player , but its true, more and more teams are not getting the chance to do it properly - if anything , it gives the advantage to the player to take one.  the biggest hazard to the long term, is we got players like Bennett, this years 6OA to sign over the next 3 years.. if we dont do bridge now, we have no bargaining power when its their turns

[cross16]

To me anything 3 years or less is a disaster. You are saving money at a time when you are not a contender only to spend more when you are?

Makes no sense to me. I know the response is going yk be well they can then sign guys in Ufa that can help now and make them a contender but do you really think those players are going k sign short term deals?

Anything less than 5 years is a recipe for disaster IMO.