What Is Best For Matthew Tkachuk

[The_People1]

30 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

Marner just turned down $11m per for 7yrs because in 3 years they could sign an even bigger contract.  

 

Apparently these players don't like winning. With salaries that high it’s next to impossible to build a competitive team around them. Jesus!

 

In 3 years, maybe team cap is $100-mil.  $10-mil-per is no big deal.

[conundrumed]

14 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

Marner just turned down $11m per for 7yrs because in 3 years they could sign an even bigger contract.  

 

Apparently these players don't like winning. With salaries that high it’s next to impossible to build a competitive team around them. Jesus!

Honestly don't blame him. Any word on Rantanen's status? Man these are some big names taking a big stand.

Good on them. I'd bet all of the NHL oldtimers are smiling on them.

Take every last cent you can get, however you can get it. Why leave money on the table. If Marner wants shorter bridge, he'll get his way. As will all of the other star RFA's right now.

They have bargaining power as some of the league's best young players, and they're using it. Good on them.

[robrob74]

30 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

In 3 years, maybe team cap is $100-mil.  $10-mil-per is no big deal.

 

Maybe the cap goes up. But I do not agree with the percentage of cap theory. I feel like the raising of salaries are GMs at fault, but still don’t agree that a player should take up that much of the cap. 

 

Toronto will never win the cup with this group.

 

the system is going to break. 

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Maybe the cap goes up. But I do not agree with the percentage of cap theory. I feel like the raising of salaries are GMs at fault, but still don’t agree that a player should take up that much of the cap. 

 

Toronto will never win the cup with this group.

 

the system is going to break. 

 

Don't hate the player.  Hate the game.

 

In a weird twist of fate, $10-mil for Tkachuk may be a bargain.  

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Don't hate the player.  Hate the game.

 

In a weird twist of fate, $10-mil for Tkachuk may be a bargain.  

 

Not yet for me. I want to pay for results not maybes. He hasn’t helped the team win anything.

[ABC923]

Tkachuk has only had one huge season, he has more to prove for that 10 mil contract.  If I were him, I’d go for a bridge deal, something like 2x6. Sets him up for a 6x10 next go around.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Not yet for me. I want to pay for results not maybes. He hasn’t helped the team win anything.

 

Only 23 regular roster players per year get the best results.

Is winning a round or two meeting your standards?

SCF or nothing?

You can choose to build a team and only sign big deals for the best player if they win.

Good luck with getting a team like that.

 

Let me put it another way.

Gio was signed to a big deal for an aging player nearing the end of his career.

5 really good years tops.  He'll be 36 next month with 3 years lleft on his deal.

And that contract is a bargain for his most productive years to date.

He's done nothing to win a cup.

 

You want to build a team, expect to pay player before they achieve the results you expect.

It's a risk all GM's face.

The ones that win a SC are not geniuses, they are lucky.

[cross16]

21 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

The irony is though, Tkachuk might be worth $10-mil in 3-years time so it's somewhat of a non-issue.  Partly because he will prove he's that good and partly because the cap will go up significantly from a new US TV Deal.  We can try to extend him during his final year too to avoid the qualifying offer entirely.

 

While possible, giving him that 10 mill qualifying offer gives him and his agent a ton of leverage in negotiations. 

[The_People1]

29 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

While possible, giving him that 10 mill qualifying offer gives him and his agent a ton of leverage in negotiations. 

 

Yes but there's also a chance that $10-mil is not a fair salary for Tkachuk in 3 years and it's actually in the $12-mil range. Him and his agent would be wise to not accept the QO and negotiate a new deal.  

[travel_dude]

8 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yes but there's also a chance that $10-mil is not a fair salary for Tkachuk in 3 years and it's actually in the $12-mil range. Him and his agent would be wise to not accept the QO and negotiate a new deal.  

 

Would he not have more leverage by accepting the QO and then negotiating as a pending UFA?

If he's worth that much, then he's worth more in the open market.

[The_People1]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

Would he not have more leverage by accepting the QO and then negotiating as a pending UFA?

If he's worth that much, then he's worth more in the open market.

 

Sure.  Depends how far off his final year of the deal is from his UFA value.

[robrob74]

14 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Only 23 regular roster players per year get the best results.

Is winning a round or two meeting your standards?

SCF or nothing?

You can choose to build a team and only sign big deals for the best player if they win.

Good luck with getting a team like that.

 

Let me put it another way.

Gio was signed to a big deal for an aging player nearing the end of his career.

5 really good years tops.  He'll be 36 next month with 3 years lleft on his deal.

And that contract is a bargain for his most productive years to date.

He's done nothing to win a cup.

 

You want to build a team, expect to pay player before they achieve the results you expect.

It's a risk all GM's face.

The ones that win a SC are not geniuses, they are lucky.

 

 

Ya, I can see that and understand. I get it. 

I also think it changes the make up and can ruin the cap for the team. I think signing for what he is worth now longer term maintains continuity. It leaves the ability to sign higher potential when the cap goes up. 

 

But you can’t blame them I guess

 

i sometimes wonder if cap should be based on actual yearly salaries and not on the average.

[cccsberg]

On 9/11/2019 at 2:50 PM, The_People1 said:

 

In 3 years, maybe team cap is $100-mil.  $10-mil-per is no big deal.

Where did this supposed $100mm Cap come from?  Assuming 50/50 revenue splits that would mean the tv deal(versus the current) would have to be INCREASING at least $34mm (($100-$83)x2) x 32(teams) per year, or $1.088Billion higher than current, per year, at the least.  It sounds pretty dubious to me, but if anyone has a source for the number I'd like to see it.  

[GM_3300]

Let them all sit out a year and become UFAs and see who is willing to pay them this kind of asking price.

[cccsberg]

5 minutes ago, GM_3300 said:

Let them all sit out a year and become UFAs and see who is willing to pay them this kind of asking price.

I agree with letting them all sit out the year, if they continue to demand then moon.  However, why would he then be UFA the next year?  Don't the same rules of UFA apply?

[The_People1]

23 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Where did this supposed $100mm Cap come from?  Assuming 50/50 revenue splits that would mean the tv deal(versus the current) would have to be INCREASING at least $34mm (($100-$83)x2) x 32(teams) per year, or $1.088Billion higher than current, per year, at the least.  It sounds pretty dubious to me, but if anyone has a source for the number I'd like to see it.  

 

100% hypothetical.  Just saying and discussing the concept more than laying down real numbers.

[The_People1]

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/least-three-teams-exploring-offer-sheet-jets-kyle-connor/

 

Click bait nonsense or is there something to it?

 

And why no teams exploring offer sheeting Tkachuk?

[bosn111]

Spitballing numbers that are not realistic only works for argument sake to say that giving a player a specific percentage of the cap type deal would look a lot better in the future. The problem with this is that the type of deal being offered / asked for in the 10 mil + range is already accounting for the fact that the cap is expected to rise and therefore the team would save money long term. It is not saying that the player is currently worth that value at the current cap rate, it is that he will be worth the assumed cap hit percentage in the middle of the contract and thus you are getting him at a deal rate later in the contract. Saying the cap will jump drastically, thus making any proposed average deal in 3 years all of a sudden become some kind of a steal is not realistic.

 

If we use statistical numbers from the past to predict the future of the cap we can do it 2 ways. The cap was originally 39 million 15 years ago and is now 81.5 million. So in 15 years it has gone up by an average of 2.8333 million a season. This would mean that following the averages, the cap would rise 8.5 million over the next 3 years to 90 million. The biggest single year jump was 6.4 million. Even if all 3 years go up that much, that is 19.2 million increase to 100.7 million.  Basically to reach 100 million in 3 years, the cap would need to jump the most over a 3 year span than it ever has before. Since the lockout season in 12-13, the average cap jump was 2.457 million. Over the past 5 seasons, the average is 2.02 million. I think it would be generous to say that the cap will average 2.5 mil per season increase over the next 3 years taking it to 89 million. If you anticipate that year 3 will be the middle of the contract, and anticipate paying 10 percent then 8.9 million per over 5 years would be a generous number. 9% is basically 8 mil per season. Again this is making generous assumptions for the cap.

 

As a GM, I would be inclined to base a current % off of the current cap as the future of the cap is a complete unknown. There was a time when the cap was the same the season before the lockout and the season after the lockout.  If there is anticipation of another possible lockout, this is likely accounted for. If Treliving uses the 10% of current cap, then Tkachuk would be looking at 8.1 per season, 9% would be 7.335 per. 

 

The other way of looking at contracts is based on stats for the most part. Take a look at what have you accomplished compared to others, in this case Chucky should be in the 5-6 range compared to current contracts overall. Account for contract inflation (not Hyper inflation like Matthews, Nylander, McDavid etc.) and that jumps to the 7-8 range. The Hyper-inflation dictates he should be between 9 and 10. To me this is a joke. Other than comparing to ridiculous contracts, there is no valid calculation that dictates Tkachuk should break the 9 million per.

 

I like Tkachuk and would hate to see our team play against him, but I have no interest in paying any player over 10% of a possible future cap hit with no assurances that the cap will even come close. This is simply not good money management in any way for anyone and the GM's who went so ridiculous are to blame along with those teams. To help support the reason the cap was put in place to start 15 years ago. Put a cap on the maximum % of the cap a single player can make. Any player making more than that currently get cut to that rate (say 10% of current cap because it's an easy number) and the the teams who caused this issue in the first place, Edmonton and Toronto mostly, compensate the other teams whose RFAs held out because of their stupidity.

 

All that said, smart GMs shouldn't have to negotiate stupidly due to the stupidity of a few GMs.

 

 

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

6 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/least-three-teams-exploring-offer-sheet-jets-kyle-connor/

 

Click bait nonsense or is there something to it?

 

And why no teams exploring offer sheeting Tkachuk?

around here those rumors started flying around right after Laine's interview saying he doesnt know where he'll play. Coincidence? Maybe. But the reason players like Aho and Connor are targeted is maybe the lesser perceived value.

[cccsberg]

6 minutes ago, bosn111 said:

Spitballing numbers that are not realistic only works for argument sake to say that giving a player a specific percentage of the cap type deal would look a lot better in the future. The problem with this is that the type of deal being offered / asked for in the 10 mil + range is already accounting for the fact that the cap is expected to rise and therefore the team would save money long term. It is not saying that the player is currently worth that value at the current cap rate, it is that he will be worth the assumed cap hit percentage in the middle of the contract and thus you are getting him at a deal rate later in the contract. Saying the cap will jump drastically, thus making any proposed average deal in 3 years all of a sudden become some kind of a steal is not realistic.

 

If we use statistical numbers from the past to predict the future of the cap we can do it 2 ways. The cap was originally 39 million 15 years ago and is now 81.5 million. So in 15 years it has gone up by an average of 2.8333 million a season. This would mean that following the averages, the cap would rise 8.5 million over the next 3 years to 90 million. The biggest single year jump was 6.4 million. Even if all 3 years go up that much, that is 19.2 million increase to 100.7 million.  Basically to reach 100 million in 3 years, the cap would need to jump the most over a 3 year span than it ever has before. Since the lockout season in 12-13, the average cap jump was 2.457 million. Over the past 5 seasons, the average is 2.02 million. I think it would be generous to say that the cap will average 2.5 mil per season increase over the next 3 years taking it to 89 million. If you anticipate that year 3 will be the middle of the contract, and anticipate paying 10 percent then 8.9 million per over 5 years would be a generous number. 9% is basically 8 mil per season. Again this is making generous assumptions for the cap.

 

As a GM, I would be inclined to base a current % off of the current cap as the future of the cap is a complete unknown. There was a time when the cap was the same the season before the lockout and the season after the lockout.  If there is anticipation of another possible lockout, this is likely accounted for. If Treliving uses the 10% of current cap, then Tkachuk would be looking at 8.1 per season, 9% would be 7.335 per. 

 

The other way of looking at contracts is based on stats for the most part. Take a look at what have you accomplished compared to others, in this case Chucky should be in the 5-6 range compared to current contracts overall. Account for contract inflation (not Hyper inflation like Matthews, Nylander, McDavid etc.) and that jumps to the 7-8 range. The Hyper-inflation dictates he should be between 9 and 10. To me this is a joke. Other than comparing to ridiculous contracts, there is no valid calculation that dictates Tkachuk should break the 9 million per.

 

I like Tkachuk and would hate to see our team play against him, but I have no interest in paying any player over 10% of a possible future cap hit with no assurances that the cap will even come close. This is simply not good money management in any way for anyone and the GM's who went so ridiculous are to blame along with those teams. To help support the reason the cap was put in place to start 15 years ago. Put a cap on the maximum % of the cap a single player can make. Any player making more than that currently get cut to that rate (say 10% of current cap because it's an easy number) and the the teams who caused this issue in the first place, Edmonton and Toronto mostly, compensate the other teams whose RFAs held out because of their stupidity.

 

All that said, smart GMs shouldn't have to negotiate stupidly due to the stupidity of a few GMs.

 

 

I believe the current max salary is 20% of the Cap.  Upon further research it seems new Streaming rights, as well as new Sports Betting, along with the US TV contract are the three major items expected to increase the Cap dramatically within the next three years.  It is still speculative but seems more reachable than just the TV deal alone.  

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

1 hour ago, cccsberg said:

I believe the current max salary is 20% of the Cap.  Upon further research it seems new Streaming rights, as well as new Sports Betting, along with the US TV contract are the three major items expected to increase the Cap dramatically within the next three years.  It is still speculative but seems more reachable than just the TV deal alone.  

Yet even with all the extra revenue streams the players salaries will be the excuse each time ticket prices go up.

 

$90 all in for the cheapest tix here.

[stubblejumper1]

4 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Where did this supposed $100mm Cap come from?  Assuming 50/50 revenue splits that would mean the tv deal(versus the current) would have to be INCREASING at least $34mm (($100-$83)x2) x 32(teams) per year, or $1.088Billion higher than current, per year, at the least.  It sounds pretty dubious to me, but if anyone has a source for the number I'd like to see it.  

 The current US tv deal provides $200MM USD a year.  The Canadian deal provides over $400MM cdn per year.  

 

The American deal is a ten year deal.  I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the US deal to double, or get to $500MM, but adding an extra billion a year seams like a longshot.  

 

[rickross]

Can’t lose sight that this is impacting 2 starting forwards now with Mangiapane being handcuffed by Tkachuk. Pretty tough start to your training camp being down a top d man losing Valimaki already, now these 2. Great for the Dubes and Smith-Pellys of the world but it’s gonna stall some chemistry building on the team this season. 

[rickross]

I can only imagine what Monahan and Gaudreau will command in a couple of years 

[kehatch]

The threat of offer sheets is going to become more real once the season starts.