What Is Best For Matthew Tkachuk

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I actually don’t think this is the cap fixing itself. These are GMs shooting them selves in the foot. It is why they’re not worth this high of a salary yet. The cap isn’t at a level that allows this kind of spending behaviour. 

 

BT has horrible foresight by signing Neal. Sure the cap could’ve gone up, but the possibility was that it wasn’t going to. He painted himself into the corner on this Tkachuk deal. Now he’s gotta pay for it. 

 

It's largely "fixed".  Coming out of 2004, many players made max percentage of team cap.  Nowadays, like zero.  More money being spread to mid-tier players.

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, conundrumed said:

A lot of people seem mystified why elite pro athletes make a world of money. It's because they drive the revenue bus.

The alternative is they don't make as much, and that extra revenue goes into the pockets of billionaire owners. That's a sore spot for athletes across the entire spectrum.

No one is giving LeBron $40 mil per contract if they don't expect to STILL profit from him, for example.

 

There's also a "why does anyone in this world NEED $10-million..."

[sak22]

3 hours ago, bosn111 said:

The point is, that players who truly want to win need to realize that in a cap world, maxing your own money is not the best chance of success, this isn't the Rangers of the 90s anymore. With limited money to be spent, to get quality line mates, you need to leave some money on the table for them as well or you are left like McDavid trying to carry a weak team on your back. When Johnny and Mony signed, I think they both realized this fact. They both signed a little below value as I recall to ensure the team to bring in more quality players to compete. They have done that in the likes of Lindholm, Hanifin, Hamonic and Frolik. For a while that list had Hamilton.

 

My take in the cap world is you need to maximize your entry level, and up and comers.  Chicago and Pittsburgh are examples because they have committed a lot in a couple players, whereas a team like LA committed themselves to the same group for the most part.  The Patriots have been dominant for 2 decades, partly because of coaching, but mostly by drafting and developing and being able to walk away from certain players when they couldn't fit them in.  Daryl Sutter built a team full of players making 3 Million or more and it was dreadful to watch.  Why?  because we had a complacent locker room, no prospects coming up to take jobs.  I don't see Tkachuk losing any respect in the locker room, almost everyone has been in that spot or will be, lets not forget the captain bolted for Russia when he felt disrespected by the team.

[Cowtownguy]

3 hours ago, conundrumed said:

A lot of people seem mystified why elite pro athletes make a world of money. It's because they drive the revenue bus.

The alternative is they don't make as much, and that extra revenue goes into the pockets of billionaire owners. That's a sore spot for athletes across the entire spectrum.

No one is giving LeBron $40 mil per contract if they don't expect to STILL profit from him, for example.

I wonder what that revenue bus would look like sans tax dollars? Something tells me that it would be made in Korea and have a few class action lawsuits against the manufacturer.

[LouCifer]

4 hours ago, bosn111 said:

I know some people have used the term "greedy". I have tried to avoid using the term specifically. Instead I tried to show reasons why players should accept lower salaries. I am not saying the player should necessarily play for league minimum as an all-star, but instead realize that if they get 6 million instead of 10 million, the team can get them a 5 million player to partner with instead of a 1 million player. This makes the team that much better. The players themselves are likely to do better with the better quality teammate and the team as a whole will likely do better.

 

We have examples of playing huge money to 1 or 2 big names and not having much to spread on anyone else so the team quality is far lower (Oilers, They only have 4 over 5 mil 2 of whom are 8.5 or higher). Compare that to Boston who pay 7.25 mil as their highest salary but have 7 guys over 5 mil. Last season the Flames won the division with only  5 guys over 5 mil and NONE over 7. Washington has 8 over 5 mil and 2 over 7. Tampa has 7 over 5 and 3 over 7. Pens have 6 over 5 and 3 over 7. Of these teams listed, only 1 has a player over 10 being McDavid in Edmonton and all of these teams are competitive fairly consistently. Toronto has 6 over 5 mil (2 on LTIR), 2 currently over 10 mil, no money to sign Marner and no real options in sight to do so. Had Tavares and Matthews both signed in the 8 mil range, saving around 4 mil, and Marner accept in the 8 mil range as well, then they would be a lot closer to icing a skilled team again. Instead after Matthews, Tavares and Nylander up front currently, you drop to Kerfoot., Kapanen and Johnsson (Not bad players, but not top line skill either).

 

The point is, that players who truly want to win need to realize that in a cap world, maxing your own money is not the best chance of success, this isn't the Rangers of the 90s anymore. With limited money to be spent, to get quality line mates, you need to leave some money on the table for them as well or you are left like McDavid trying to carry a weak team on your back. When Johnny and Mony signed, I think they both realized this fact. They both signed a little below value as I recall to ensure the team to bring in more quality players to compete. They have done that in the likes of Lindholm, Hanifin, Hamonic and Frolik. For a while that list had Hamilton.

 

The idea of negotiating raises is not the issue, it is negotiating unrealistic, exorbitant raises that hinders development of the team. If Tkachuk gets over 8 mil per season AAV, that means he will be getting a raise of over 400%. The average person is lucky to get a raise of 1 - 2 % including public servants. Many people complained that minimum wage in Alberta jumped up by about 50% but people are ok with athletes getting over 400% raises? That is 8 times bigger jump than minimum wage.

 

I get the whole "without the players there would be no league" concept, and I also get that they want fair share of profits going to the players compared to the owners / league, but seriously there is also the concept of "no teammates means no team". 

 

Amen bosn.

 

and I’ll disagree with those claiming we can’t call players “greedy”. If a player wants to be an outlier and push the salary boundaries to make significantly more than his peers with similar production, that’s greed. If a player makes a salary relative to his peers with nominal increases based on inflation and league revenue growth, that’s fair. There’s one pie that has to be shared for the team. Anyone staking claim to more than their fair share is taking from their teammates (present and future). And I’ll bet there’s a developing correlation between players with salaries that account for the highest team-cap percentage, and the decreasing chances they’ll ever win a cup. Here’s a list of the top paid players in the league: 

 

1. McDavid

2. Panarin

3. Matthews

4. Karlsson

5. Tavares

6. Doughty

7. Marner

 

Only Doughty has won a cup (twice) in 2012 and 2014 when he was making $7mil. He’s now making $11mil on his new contract, and LA doesn’t have a good team. What do you think his chances are to win another cup in LA? I would bet he’ll have to wait for the salary cap to increase to the point where his salary isn’t such a large percentage of the team cap space, before LA is a threat again. 

[LouCifer]

43 minutes ago, sak22 said:

lets not forget the captain bolted for Russia when he felt disrespected by the team.

 

And here’s a good example of the opposite end of the spectrum. Sutter wanted to give Gio a 2-way contract - undervaluing a player relative to his peers - so Gio rightfully “bolted for Russia”. 

 

[robrob74]

31 minutes ago, lou44291 said:

 

And here’s a good example of the opposite end of the spectrum. Sutter wanted to give Gio a 2-way contract - undervaluing a player relative to his peers - so Gio rightfully “bolted for Russia”. 

 

 

 

Gio was also very young and possibly not quite ready. If I remember correctly, Sutter also wanted him to go. Gio got better because of it, and he came back to sign in Calgary. If he wasn’t happy with the Flames, I think he was free to try other teams.

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

Guess we shall see....

 

 

 

They were all waiting for Dubas to overpay Marner and it didn't really happen.  So I expect everyone else to be signed in a week.

[cccsberg]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

There's also a "why does anyone in this world NEED $10-million..."

Think that’s wrong, teams will still spend to the Cap.  Only difference is a more even distribution of the dollars.  BTW the Cap is fixed at 50% of total revenues.  Paying big dollars to your stars has ZERO impact on the owners’ dollars.

[robrob74]

40 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Think that’s wrong, teams will still spend to the Cap.  Only difference is a more even distribution of the dollars.  BTW the Cap is fixed at 50% of total revenues.  Paying big dollars to your stars has ZERO impact on the owners’ dollars.

 

I don’t think the cap will get spread throughout evenly. It has gone ever moreso to the stars. As it goes up, they’re going to keep expecting the same percentage of the cap and forget the little guy, unless you’re a Canadian team trying to lure a UFA, and overpay the way they typically have, minus the Jets.

[cccsberg]

8 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I don’t think the cap will get spread throughout evenly. It has gone ever moreso to the stars. As it goes up, they’re going to keep expecting the same percentage of the cap and forget the little guy, unless you’re a Canadian team trying to lure a UFA, and overpay the way they typically have, minus the Jets.

My point was that spending to the Cap, there is no impact on the owners bottom line, like many seem to think.  There is a fixed size pie, how it is cut up is the only question.  When people get into salaries, etc, there seems to be two major camps, one being "those greedy billionaire owners keeping more money, blah, blah blah..." but honestly that has nothing to do with the salaries.  Not sure why it is so difficult to understand?  

[stubblejumper1]

If I was lucky enough to be in Tkachuk's shoes, I would be asking for as much money as I could get for the following reasons:

 

1.  Being a pro athlete is hard on the body and careers can end at any time.  You never truly know if you will get the chance to negotiate another big money contract. 

 

2.  Taking a discount to allow the team to sign better players, while altruistic, can be a huge risk.  

- Will the team sign better players, or will it spend money on free agents like James Neal and Troy Brouwer?  

- Will the team take advantage of their opportunities or will they roll over and die in the playoffs (like last year)?

- Even if the GM is able to assemble a really good team because you left money on the table, that doesn't guarantee anything.  Many things beyond the team's control have to go right for a team to win a Cup - no key injuries, the playoff bracket (i.e. the Leafs drawing the Bruins in the first round last year), running into a hot goaltender, etc.

[cross16]

20 minutes ago, stubblejumper1 said:

If I was lucky enough to be in Tkachuk's shoes, I would be asking for as much money as I could get for the following reasons:

 

1.  Being a pro athlete is hard on the body and careers can end at any time.  You never truly know if you will get the chance to negotiate another big money contract. 

 

2.  Taking a discount to allow the team to sign better players, while altruistic, can be a huge risk.  

- Will the team sign better players, or will it spend money on free agents like James Neal and Troy Brouwer?  

- Will the team take advantage of their opportunities or will they roll over and die in the playoffs (like last year)?

- Even if the GM is able to assemble a really good team because you left money on the table, that doesn't guarantee anything.  Many things beyond the team's control have to go right for a team to win a Cup - no key injuries, the playoff bracket (i.e. the Leafs drawing the Bruins in the first round last year), running into a hot goaltender, etc.

 

Great point and I agree.

look at Mcdavid. Starting to appear like he left a lot of money on the table and what has that got him? Zack Kassian, Alex Chiasson and James Neal.  

 

[redfire11]

19 minutes ago, stubblejumper1 said:

If I was lucky enough to be in Tkachuk's shoes, I would be asking for as much money as I could get for the following reasons:

If I was lucky enough to be in BT's shoes. I would make an offer to Tkachuk on what the team could afford and then show him a list of 2 or 3 names that could be brought in on 1 year deals that could replace him.

Would it affect attendance if Tkachuk was out a year. NO

Would we miss the play-offs if Tkachuk was out a year. NO

Would we do worse in the play-offs if Tkachuk was out a year. NO

Would we be a better team if Tkachuk signed a realistic deal. Yes

5 years at 6.75

[cross16]

Would love to see this magical list of players the Flames can easily bring in to replace Tkachuk......

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, stubblejumper1 said:

If I was lucky enough to be in Tkachuk's shoes, I would be asking for as much money as I could get for the following reasons:

 

1.  Being a pro athlete is hard on the body and careers can end at any time.  You never truly know if you will get the chance to negotiate another big money contract. 

 

2.  Taking a discount to allow the team to sign better players, while altruistic, can be a huge risk.  

- Will the team sign better players, or will it spend money on free agents like James Neal and Troy Brouwer?  

- Will the team take advantage of their opportunities or will they roll over and die in the playoffs (like last year)?

- Even if the GM is able to assemble a really good team because you left money on the table, that doesn't guarantee anything.  Many things beyond the team's control have to go right for a team to win a Cup - no key injuries, the playoff bracket (i.e. the Leafs drawing the Bruins in the first round last year), running into a hot goaltender, etc.

 

What happens when he is one of the players that rolled over and died in the playoffs. He was one of those players that didn’t come to play.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, redfire11 said:

If I was lucky enough to be in BT's shoes. I would make an offer to Tkachuk on what the team could afford and then show him a list of 2 or 3 names that could be brought in on 1 year deals that could replace him.

Would it affect attendance if Tkachuk was out a year. NO

Would we miss the play-offs if Tkachuk was out a year. NO

Would we do worse in the play-offs if Tkachuk was out a year. NO

Would we be a better team if Tkachuk signed a realistic deal. Yes

5 years at 6.75

 

If you took 80 points from the Flames last year and factored in his impact in games we won, how many less games do you think tht would be?

10 wins?  Not an unreasonable amount.

87 points. 

How many fans pay to see Tkachuk PO other teams or score a gritty goal?

More than a few.

 

If Tkachuk sat out because BT couldn't get it done, then BT would likely be fired.

Trade Neal for Lucic and save only $500k in cap, yet you can't deal with one of the core?

I get that it takes 2 to deal, but the priorities are messed up if you have to try to get a super deal to maintain the cap.

Too much waste elsewhere.

I would prefer to overpay Tkachuk $700k than sign Stone for a year.

 

[tmac70]

Mention the word greed and every one gets bent out of shape. One thing BT is good at is negotiating new contracts for players, he is abysmal on UFA contracts. For those who think attendance would drop because either are on the roster is foolish, 1 guy does not make a team.  Here is my issue with it, A  player making 4 Million  for 82 games, is making $48,780 per game, they play average 15 minutes a night make $3,252.00 a minute, frack that's more than most people make a month.  The argument of short careers and hard on the body tell that to a nurse, construction worker, assembly worker mechanic. Your playing a sport you love making millions and you can retire at the age of 35. If yu need more money sign an endorsement.  Now you get the argument of the owners make a ton of money off the  back of the athletes.  I can guarantee you that 99% of people given the ability to do so would not venture to take the risk into a professional team or any large investment, there has to be some form of balance or it will not work. Your employment is because someone took the risk. You leave your job its $50- $80K a year, a business shuts down its some cases 70-80 Million which would you rather have. 

 

[robrob74]

14 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

Mention the word greed and every one gets bent out of shape. One thing BT is good at is negotiating new contracts for players, he is abysmal on UFA contracts. For those who think attendance would drop because either are on the roster is foolish, 1 guy does not make a team.  Here is my issue with it, A  player making 4 Million  for 82 games, is making $48,780 per game, they play average 15 minutes a night make $3,252.00 a minute, frack that's more than most people make a month.  The argument of short careers and hard on the body tell that to a nurse, construction worker, assembly worker mechanic. Your playing a sport you love making millions and you can retire at the age of 35. If yu need more money sign an endorsement.  Now you get the argument of the owners make a ton of money off the  back of the athletes.  I can guarantee you that 99% of people given the ability to do so would not venture to take the risk into a professional team or any large investment, there has to be some form of balance or it will not work. Your employment is because someone took the risk. You leave your job its $50- $80K a year, a business shuts down its some cases 70-80 Million which would you rather have. 

 

 

 

Not to mention teachers or daycare/ preschool workers and those working with at risk youth. 

 

As a teacher we put in 12-14 hour days prepping, teaching, marking and then finish prepping. 

 

Right now I am at 55,000/yr and boy one year in most of their careers is still a hundred times more than I will in my career. 

 

It would take me around 18 more years to earn 1,000,000. 

 

There are thousands of people earning less and still have high rent.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, tmac70 said:

Mention the word greed and every one gets bent out of shape. One thing BT is good at is negotiating new contracts for players, he is abysmal on UFA contracts. For those who think attendance would drop because either are on the roster is foolish, 1 guy does not make a team.  Here is my issue with it, A  player making 4 Million  for 82 games, is making $48,780 per game, they play average 15 minutes a night make $3,252.00 a minute, frack that's more than most people make a month.  The argument of short careers and hard on the body tell that to a nurse, construction worker, assembly worker mechanic. Your playing a sport you love making millions and you can retire at the age of 35. If yu need more money sign an endorsement.  Now you get the argument of the owners make a ton of money off the  back of the athletes.  I can guarantee you that 99% of people given the ability to do so would not venture to take the risk into a professional team or any large investment, there has to be some form of balance or it will not work. Your employment is because someone took the risk. You leave your job its $50- $80K a year, a business shuts down its some cases 70-80 Million which would you rather have. 

 

I went to watch the construction workers yesterday. For free! Didn't really have the same vibe or, like, women to be nice to.😀

They're in the entertainment business and stars of the show.

You're talking about completely different markets.

And everything exists for profit.

It's called Capitalism.

Is every skilled worker out there committing a percentage of wages and time to charity?

Every person that works for the NHL has to. Think of it as a company.

That runs on a substantial profit.

Because of the employees.

[GM_3300]

Here we are looking at the market when we should be looking at the Flames current situation. Treliving tried to trade some players and came up empty, aside from Lucic most the players taking up the larger contracts were here before Tkachuk. I have no idea what Tkachuk's camp is asking but I don't think it's unreasonable, it just cannot be accommodated currently. I heard on one of the podcasts most teams are close to their limits and couldn't consider Frolik or Brodie now. Need some of that BT magic.

[kehatch]

1 hour ago, GM_3300 said:

Here we are looking at the market when we should be looking at the Flames current situation. Treliving tried to trade some players and came up empty, aside from Lucic most the players taking up the larger contracts were here before Tkachuk. I have no idea what Tkachuk's camp is asking but I don't think it's unreasonable, it just cannot be accommodated currently. I heard on one of the podcasts most teams are close to their limits and couldn't consider Frolik or Brodie now. Need some of that BT magic.

 

I don't think the GM is waiting to sign Tkachuk until he frees up cap. He is working on the best deal he can on a long term asset. 

[redfire11]

7 hours ago, cross16 said:

Would love to see this magical list of players the Flames can easily bring in to replace Tkachuk......

So if you played Bennett 80 + games with Backlund and Frolik you could nearly guarantee he would get 53 point. Then play Bennett on the top PP with JG, Geo, and Mony the whole year and you could nearly guarantee Bennett 24 PP points. Now replace above name Bennett with Mangiapane, Czarnik, dam even Lucic and there is you magical list of players not even looking out of our own back yard, Now bring in spitballing Marleau or Vanek for 1 year 2or3 m replacing Tkachuk. Then next year we sign Tkachuk for 6 m.

[cross16]

11 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

So if you played Bennett 80 + games with Backlund and Frolik you could nearly guarantee he would get 53 point. Then play Bennett on the top PP with JG, Geo, and Mony the whole year and you could nearly guarantee Bennett 24 PP points. Now replace above name Bennett with Mangiapane, Czarnik, dam even Lucic and there is you magical list of players not even looking out of our own back yard, Now bring in spitballing Marleau or Vanek for 1 year 2or3 m replacing Tkachuk. Then next year we sign Tkachuk for 6 m.

 

Think Tkachuk and his reps would find this as humerous as I did. 

[cccsberg]

6 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

If you took 80 points from the Flames last year and factored in his impact in games we won, how many less games do you think tht would be?

10 wins?  Not an unreasonable amount.

87 points. 

How many fans pay to see Tkachuk PO other teams or score a gritty goal?

More than a few.

 

If Tkachuk sat out because BT couldn't get it done, then BT would likely be fired.

Trade Neal for Lucic and save only $500k in cap, yet you can't deal with one of the core?

I get that it takes 2 to deal, but the priorities are messed up if you have to try to get a super deal to maintain the cap.

Too much waste elsewhere.

I would prefer to overpay Tkachuk $700k than sign Stone for a year.

 

You don’t have to replace 80 pts.  To sign Tkachuk at a high price, you probably have to dump Frolik, therefore let’s say 80pts-40pts, or need to replace 40pts.  Do I believe Mangiapanne can go to Backlund’s line and score 40pts?  Yes.  Do I believe Dube can come in and replace Mangiapanne’s ~20pts from last year?  Yes, more than yes.  Therefore Tkachuk fully replaceable.