MAC331 Posted February 23, 2019 Report Share Posted February 23, 2019 27 minutes ago, rickross said: The fact that Tkachuk is slumping and we’re getting depth scoring is nice...this should help keep Tkachuk’s asking price a bit more in line. You really think so ? Not a chance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfire11 Posted February 23, 2019 Report Share Posted February 23, 2019 I still think Tkachuk and Bennett should stay together. Tkachuk needs someone to energize his play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickross Posted February 23, 2019 Report Share Posted February 23, 2019 1 hour ago, MAC331 said: You really think so ? Not a chance Yeah in the sense where his pts total has taken a hit during the slump. He was on pace for 80+ pts campaign. That’d easily put him in the $8.5M/per conversation. I’m still thinking we can get him in the $6.5M-7.5M at his current pace. By thinking I really mean “hoping” lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted February 23, 2019 Report Share Posted February 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, rickross said: Yeah in the sense where his pts total has taken a hit during the slump. He was on pace for 80+ pts campaign. That’d easily put him in the $8.5M/per conversation. I’m still thinking we can get him in the $6.5M-7.5M at his current pace. By thinking I really mean “hoping” lol Whatever he does in the playoffs will determine the floor for his salary. He's built for the playoffs. As good as the 3M line is, there has to be other options that will take his game to a new level. Tkachuk-Lindy-Neal (with Benny-Backs-Frolik as shutdown line). Tkachuk-Backlund-Lindy (with Neal on top line). Tkachuk-Bennett-Neal (with Frolik-Backs-Hathaway as shutdown line). Our present roster doesn;t give his that elite pair to play with unless he plays RW. With Stone, it would change the dynamics quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 Dreger's thoughts on Tkachuk's next contract Quote “What’s that number going to be. Well, it has to be above what Monahan and Gaudreau are making. I think it could be 8.5-to-9. And that’s just all about timing and developing at the right time as well. https://www.nicholsonhockey.com/archives/2019/3/21/dreger-tkachuk-entitled-to-his-slice-of-the-pie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 1 hour ago, cross16 said: Dreger's thoughts on Tkachuk's next contract When SN did an analysis, they looked at % of cap. If they went with a % similar to JH and Monahan, then it's around $7.44m. That doesn't get you a 8 year deal, as JH didn't sign for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted March 21, 2019 Report Share Posted March 21, 2019 It seems over-the-top to me. Do they not look at comparables? At any rate, 8.5-9 per is on the high side imo. 8 x 8 I can get with as a maximum. Unless he feels like playing Center and more responsibility. Why they ever began looking at this as %age of cap is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khrox Posted March 22, 2019 Report Share Posted March 22, 2019 45 minutes ago, conundrumed said: Why they ever began looking at this as %age of cap is beyond me. Because that's what they compare to. Player X making 6 mil when that was 8% of the cap, and is just as valuable as player Y, when Player Y's contract comes up he's like "I'm Just as valuable, give me 8% as well" and that comes out to 7.5 mil or whatever. It's also used as comparables on other teams (if you think Tkachuk isn't going to use Drai, Matthews, Nylander, or if he signs first, Marner as comparables, you're nuts) Matthews getting 14.6%, Nylander 12.9%, Drai at 11.3%. Now I think Tkachuk takes a bit of a discount to stay here (and help with a competitive team for a longer term), but even doing that at 10% is still going to be roughly 8.3 mil. I doubt he's gonna pull a Matthews and take a tonne of cap hit while signing just long enough to go to FA, but then we're bridging a guy who has been getting consistently better every year, and that will just bite us. We might have to pony up now and go for that 8.5-9/year if we want him for 8 years (which also buys 4 years of UFA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted March 22, 2019 Report Share Posted March 22, 2019 17 hours ago, conundrumed said: It seems over-the-top to me. Do they not look at comparables? At any rate, 8.5-9 per is on the high side imo. 8 x 8 I can get with as a maximum. Unless he feels like playing Center and more responsibility. Why they ever began looking at this as %age of cap is beyond me. The problem I have is some teams set the market price, which tips the scale for the comp players. Is Tkachuk and Marner the same value? Yes and no. Tkachuk plays more of a defensive role. Marner is a much better playmaker. The cap % thing is how you value within your own organization. You can't compare Johnny and Matty unless you account for the cost when the guy signed. JH signed a shorter term than you would like. Available cap at the time was hampered by bad contracts. That would make JH a bargain today at the same cap%. But I agree with you on C vs Wing. A C should garner more money. Tkachuk doesn't kill penalties, he serves bench minors. He does play more of a shutdown role, but that should line him up with the others that play a similar role that can score a p/gp. Not many of those guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlamingSea Posted March 22, 2019 Report Share Posted March 22, 2019 1 hour ago, travel_dude said: The problem I have is some teams set the market price, which tips the scale for the comp players. Is Tkachuk and Marner the same value? Yes and no. Tkachuk plays more of a defensive role. Marner is a much better playmaker. The cap % thing is how you value within your own organization. You can't compare Johnny and Matty unless you account for the cost when the guy signed. JH signed a shorter term than you would like. Available cap at the time was hampered by bad contracts. That would make JH a bargain today at the same cap%. But I agree with you on C vs Wing. A C should garner more money. Tkachuk doesn't kill penalties, he serves bench minors. He does play more of a shutdown role, but that should line him up with the others that play a similar role that can score a p/gp. Not many of those guys. I honestly think Tkachuk will compare himself more to his teammates salaries and not necessarily other NHL comparable salaries. I think asking for more money than your best player and teammates is a douchebag move, I accept that there's an inflation factor as well as the cap increasing, so how about something like 7.25 X 5 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted March 22, 2019 Report Share Posted March 22, 2019 Good interview with Papa Tkachuk between the 1st and 2nd last night. It's on the main board. "Matt complimented Brady after the last game in Ottawa saying he likes his game". Big Walt: "What? He threw a compliment at his younger brother? I'm gonna half to see that, I don't believe it". lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfire11 Posted June 9, 2019 Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 Wow Buffalo just gave Skinner 8 years 9 mil. Skinner stats 82 40 23 63 This could hurt us in negotiations with Tkachuk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted June 9, 2019 Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 9 minutes ago, redfire11 said: Wow Buffalo just gave Skinner 8 years 9 mil. Skinner stats 82 40 23 63 This could hurt us in negotiations with Tkachuk It shouldn't Skinner was set to be a UFA and Tkachuk is an RFA. Tkachuk doesn't have the same leverage. Skinner also knew that Buffalo basically had no choice but to pay him, because nobody else is choosing to go to Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted June 9, 2019 Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 19 minutes ago, redfire11 said: Wow Buffalo just gave Skinner 8 years 9 mil. Skinner stats 82 40 23 63 This could hurt us in negotiations with Tkachuk They're definitely paying for the 40 and not the 63 numbers. I still think Tkachuk should be 7.5-8. Giordano said he liked getting paid on USD funds as that’s still 30% over the number in CAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM_3300 Posted June 9, 2019 Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 16 hours ago, robrob74 said: They're definitely paying for the 40 and not the 63 numbers. I still think Tkachuk should be 7.5-8. Giordano said he liked getting paid on USD funds as that’s still 30% over the number in CAD. All deals and reporting are in US dollars. If Tkachuk wants more than 7.5M Treliving should trade him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted June 9, 2019 Report Share Posted June 9, 2019 1 hour ago, GM_3300 said: All deals and reporting are in US dollars. If Tkachuk wants more than 7.5M Treliving should trade him Oh yes, we should trade any player that asks for par value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM_3300 Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 20 hours ago, travel_dude said: Oh yes, we should trade any player that asks for par value. It's this par value crap that is going to ruin the pay structure and lead to another lock out. Besides Tkachuk is a terrible skater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flames-fan-in-jets-land Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 43 minutes ago, GM_3300 said: It's this par value crap that is going to ruin the pay structure and lead to another lock out. Besides Tkachuk is a terrible skater. What does that have to do with his value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 51 minutes ago, GM_3300 said: It's this par value crap that is going to ruin the pay structure and lead to another lock out. Besides Tkachuk is a terrible skater. If Tkachuk's contract is going to lead to the next lockout, there is no hope for GM's. Tavares, Matthews, McDavid.... Johnny signed for a steal at 9.24% of the cap back a few years ago. Matthews signed for around 14% of the cap. If Tkachuk signed for 9% of the cap, that would be 7.47m. That's reasonable if it doesn't buy a bunch of UFA years. 8 years? No way you get him for 9%. Would be nice, but it's not reasonable nor tragic to the cap structure. Paying Neal $5.75m for 20 points doesn't make sense. Paying Stone $3.5m for being a 7th ot 8th defender doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebrewcrew Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 This Tkachuk deal is gonna be tricky, but fascinating to follow. It won’t be easy, given the players father has been through this many times. It could be a long drawn out process. The player can can make a fairly valid argument for 10 although it’s extremely unlikely he gets that. Im hoping for 8millx6, but think it will be even higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM_3300 Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, travel_dude said: If Tkachuk's contract is going to lead to the next lockout, there is no hope for GM's. Tavares, Matthews, McDavid.... Johnny signed for a steal at 9.24% of the cap back a few years ago. Matthews signed for around 14% of the cap. If Tkachuk signed for 9% of the cap, that would be 7.47m. That's reasonable if it doesn't buy a bunch of UFA years. 8 years? No way you get him for 9%. Would be nice, but it's not reasonable nor tragic to the cap structure. Paying Neal $5.75m for 20 points doesn't make sense. Paying Stone $3.5m for being a 7th ot 8th defender doesn't make sense. Just saying every time they raise the cap allowance GMs give it all to the top forwards or defensemen or goalie. We fans might see better hockey if there was more equalization throughout the ranks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM_3300 Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 30 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said: What does that have to do with his value? Only smooth skating stars should get exceptional money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 I think the 3 year bridge deal is the best way to go with this contract, that should keep his cap hit down to the $7m-7.5m range. If you go max term it puts him in the $8.5m range. He isn't a great skater and with the way he plays I do wonder about how he will age. If you look at Wayne Simmonds who is a fairly comparable player, he is only 30 years old and he is starting to decline rapidly. I would just be weary of going max term, lots can happen in 8 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 55 minutes ago, JTech780 said: I think the 3 year bridge deal is the best way to go with this contract, that should keep his cap hit down to the $7m-7.5m range. If you go max term it puts him in the $8.5m range. He isn't a great skater and with the way he plays I do wonder about how he will age. If you look at Wayne Simmonds who is a fairly comparable player, he is only 30 years old and he is starting to decline rapidly. I would just be weary of going max term, lots can happen in 8 years. I think 4 years still end up as a RFA, so I would try to go max term before UFA for anything less than 7.5m. You have a good idea of what he will be, and it doesn't bump into Johnny's deal, just Monahan for now. Neal finishes his deal after 4 years, so that money is available then too. That's assuming Neal has a bounceback and is woth keeping that long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjgallow Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 maybe throw in a gym membership? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.