Johnny Gaudreau

[conundrumed]

So evidently the search engine sucks. I searched "Johnny Gaudreau" under "Topics" and got a compendium of gameday threads.

Enough about that giant nuisance or my lack of abilities.

 

I feel we need a Johnny thread on Page 1. He's the franchise and every game he's doing something worth discussing outside of the random subject matter threads.

So, to kick it off, the "Johnny Hockey" moniker has faded away. He trademarked it and buried it. At the time, he was being criticized about trademarking it and in it to make a ton of cash.

Lowlifes were trying to capitalize on it. I thought then, correctly, he didn't like it, bought it, and buried it.

He wanted it dead and probably embarrassed him. Big respect.

That's pure class.

Best feet I've ever seen, drives all of our O, backchecking hard this year.

Truly elite and deserves every penny he gets.

I think the, "contract year explosion" is BS regarding him. He has consistent quality linemates and this is him.

He's in Iginla territory of best Flames ever. With the same modest disposition.

I would assume a failure to sign would lead to BT's ousting.

Let's talk Gaudreau in one place.

Shouldn't he have a letter?

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

Let's talk Gaudreau in one place.

Shouldn't he have a letter?

 

TBH, I don't think Johnny wants the spotlight anywhere but on the ice.  Doesn't like to lead anywhere but on the ice.  He wasn't the A or C in Boston.

He's not vain like some of the C's out there.  Pay him or be ready to face the angry mobs.

[pikey7883]

Thanks for making his own topic, I have to agree with @travel_dude though. Sometimes some of the more elite players don’t have a letter, because it allows them to focus and just play hockey. I’ve seen examples of this on many of the teams I’ve worked with. A leader and the best player are usually different people. 

[The_People1]

Much of the team's direction will be dictated by what happens with Gaudreau so BT cannot screw this up or else he's got to be fired.  $10-mil x 8-years is probably what it will take and if the Flames want to compete in the near future then this deal has to get done.  IF we extend Gaudreau, then we should also extend Tkachuk so we can keep our top line intact for the next couple of years.  It's provable one of the best lines in the NHL so don't mess around with it.  We will have to accept the fact that Tkachuk has successfully transitioned to RW and be happy with that.  This summer, do whatever it takes to free up cap.  Monahan + Lucic buyouts if that's what it takes.

 

At the same time, if the Flames don't want to pay Gaudreau that kind of money OR the Flames decide to "retool" then trade him at the TDL and cash in on some key assets moving forward.

 

We all know the Flames traded Iginla and Regehr too late.  Tried to trade Kipper too the final year but Kipper threatened to retire immediately.  This made our rebuild too deep and too long to recover from.  It doesn't have to be this way this time.  Gaudreau should fetch a high level prospect + 1st round pick + decent NHL depth player.  I'm thinking something like the Capitals, Hendrix Lapierre + 1st + Nic Dowd.  Gaudreau could put the Caps over the top and bring them another Cup... Gaudreau could also consider extending there because it's close enough to home for him.

 

Anyways, both of these scenarios are acceptable to me.  What's not acceptable is losing Gaudreau to UFA this summer because we felt one playoff run was worth it.

[travel_dude]

28 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Much of the team's direction will be dictated by what happens with Gaudreau so BT cannot screw this up or else he's got to be fired.  $10-mil x 8-years is probably what it will take and if the Flames want to compete in the near future then this deal has to get done.  IF we extend Gaudreau, then we should also extend Tkachuk so we can keep our top line intact for the next couple of years.  It's provable one of the best lines in the NHL so don't mess around with it.  We will have to accept the fact that Tkachuk has successfully transitioned to RW and be happy with that.  This summer, do whatever it takes to free up cap.  Monahan + Lucic buyouts if that's what it takes.

 

At the same time, if the Flames don't want to pay Gaudreau that kind of money OR the Flames decide to "retool" then trade him at the TDL and cash in on some key assets moving forward.

 

We all know the Flames traded Iginla and Regehr too late.  Tried to trade Kipper too the final year but Kipper threatened to retire immediately.  This made our rebuild too deep and too long to recover from.  It doesn't have to be this way this time.  Gaudreau should fetch a high level prospect + 1st round pick + decent NHL depth player.  I'm thinking something like the Capitals, Hendrix Lapierre + 1st + Nic Dowd.  Gaudreau could put the Caps over the top and bring them another Cup... Gaudreau could also consider extending there because it's close enough to home for him.

 

Anyways, both of these scenarios are acceptable to me.  What's not acceptable is losing Gaudreau to UFA this summer because we felt one playoff run was worth it.

 

IF Gaudreau is indeed trending to be the best player this team has since Iggy (if not already), then a trade needs to be far more than a 1st + prospect + depth player.  You get that for a rental like Savard.  Ok, a bit much, but the point is you don't trade for that little.  

 

The things keeping this team down are the mediocre play of Backlund and Monahan.  For the money, they need to be playing like $6m men.  If you sign both Tkachuk and Gaudreau to matching deals, then you cut bait and move out Backlund and Monahan.  As long as you are not paying to do so.  We won't need Zaddy next year, so he's replaced by Valimaki.  Either live with Hanifin or move him and get Chychrun.  Do it now and avoid the rush.  Lucic isn't really a buyout savings, so put up with one year or ask him to allow a trade.  Van for a lesser player.  Or Pitts, where Burkie would be happy.

[sak22]

On 2/6/2022 at 11:05 AM, conundrumed said:

 

I would assume a failure to sign would lead to BT's ousting.

I don't think it necessarily would, a contract of this stature, which will probably need trade clauses and guaranteed money on top, that will most likely be the richest contract given by this franchise will not be handed out by BT alone, Edwards and co will definitely be heavily involved in the negotiations.  Any failure falls on the organization as a whole, not just the GM.

[travel_dude]

26 minutes ago, sak22 said:

I don't think it necessarily would, a contract of this stature, which will probably need trade clauses and guaranteed money on top, that will most likely be the richest contract given by this franchise will not be handed out by BT alone, Edwards and co will definitely be heavily involved in the negotiations.  Any failure falls on the organization as a whole, not just the GM.

 

If BT is not given free reign, they they would not fire him.

I believe it has been previously stated that he has free reign to negotiate all contracts and that anything above his authority (ie buying out Monahan) may need approval from the people writing the cheque.

[sak22]

17 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

If BT is not given free reign, they they would not fire him.

I believe it has been previously stated that he has free reign to negotiate all contracts and that anything above his authority (ie buying out Monahan) may need approval from the people writing the cheque.

I think there is free reign on trades and contracts to an extent, once you hit 50 million I don't expect any small market GM's have that power, especially given the lost revenues of the past 2 to 3 seasons.

[travel_dude]

23 minutes ago, sak22 said:

I think there is free reign on trades and contracts to an extent, once you hit 50 million I don't expect any small market GM's have that power, especially given the lost revenues of the past 2 to 3 seasons.

 

Every market is different.  This isn't Ottawa being run by a tightwad.  BT was allowed to spend to the cap to compete for the cup.  Bringing in Sutter may have been an ownership decision, but that was only because the GM had to fire/replace BH, GG,  and BP.  Firing Wardo would mean another GM paid at the same time as a new one.   

[sak22]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Every market is different.  This isn't Ottawa being run by a tightwad.  BT was allowed to spend to the cap to compete for the cup.  Bringing in Sutter may have been an ownership decision, but that was only because the GM had to fire/replace BH, GG,  and BP.  Firing Wardo would mean another GM paid at the same time as a new one.   

Yes, he is allowed to spend to the cap, but can he give a bonus heavy contract like the ones Dubas gives out like candy?  probably not.  Would Gaudreau's camp want one?  Absolutely.  I don't think BT has too much authority in giving those out, its not his money.  This is the same ownership group who just killed an arena deal.

 

 

[cross16]

It is very common to have ownership involved when signing star players so I don't disagree that BT likely doesn't have full reign to do whatever it takes. Anytime you are going to be cutting a cheque for well over 50-60 million you can bet the guy who is going to sign that cheque wants some say in how it's going to go. I don't think it would tie BTs hands at all, I just think during the negotiation he's going to have to keep the owners informed and there could be certain structures they are not comfortable with or may say no to.

 

That being said I also agree that if Gaudreau walks for nothing it is a failure on the part of Treliving and IMO it would be a fireable offence. He has had years to deal with this so the failure would not just be on the contract it would be on the overall planning. I can see ownership dictating/saying no to certain structures but what I cannot see is them getting in the way of doing what is necessary to make the team better. I don't believe for a second the owners would have said no to a trade, or would say no to a contract that would led to Gaudreau being signed only to have him walk for nothing. 

[conundrumed]

18 minutes ago, cross16 said:

It is very common to have ownership involved when signing star players so I don't disagree that BT likely doesn't have full reign to do whatever it takes. Anytime you are going to be cutting a cheque for well over 50-60 million you can bet the guy who is going to sign that cheque wants some say in how it's going to go. I don't think it would tie BTs hands at all, I just think during the negotiation he's going to have to keep the owners informed and there could be certain structures they are not comfortable with or may say no to.

 

That being said I also agree that if Gaudreau walks for nothing it is a failure on the part of Treliving and IMO it would be a fireable offence. He has had years to deal with this so the failure would not just be on the contract it would be on the overall planning. I can see ownership dictating/saying no to certain structures but what I cannot see is them getting in the way of doing what is necessary to make the team better. I don't believe for a second the owners would have said no to a trade, or would say no to a contract that would led to Gaudreau being signed only to have him walk for nothing. 

That's my line of thinking. When I look at FLA extending Barkov it makes me wonder.

JG is also our best player like Barkov.

So this is either a case of BT, "let's see how this plays out", which would be a horrendous attitude, or JG saying, "nah, I want to bet on myself maximizing this year".

If it's the former, the guy you should have done a $9x8 extension with may now be over $10x8. And getting a lot of traction knowing he could be a bidding war.

But all of this is hearsay. I have no idea how this has gone or how it will play out. Did BT try to extend? Radio silence on that.

All-in-all, I'll cling to the silver lining of Sutter. He's removed all of the sulking and whining out of Johnny's game, applauds him as the best 200' winger in the game, and most importantly, has ownership's ear.

 

[travel_dude]

54 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

That's my line of thinking. When I look at FLA extending Barkov it makes me wonder.

JG is also our best player like Barkov.

So this is either a case of BT, "let's see how this plays out", which would be a horrendous attitude, or JG saying, "nah, I want to bet on myself maximizing this year".

If it's the former, the guy you should have done a $9x8 extension with may now be over $10x8. And getting a lot of traction knowing he could be a bidding war.

But all of this is hearsay. I have no idea how this has gone or how it will play out. Did BT try to extend? Radio silence on that.

All-in-all, I'll cling to the silver lining of Sutter. He's removed all of the sulking and whining out of Johnny's game, applauds him as the best 200' winger in the game, and most importantly, has ownership's ear.

 

 

Some good points by both you and Cross.  I think there was some reservation on BT's side to go long and big dollars.

He wasn't sure that Sutter Johnny would be as good as BP Johnny.

I don't think he was thinking 8 years at any point, but that is now the only way to reduce the cap hit.

Johnny was probably advised to bet on himself.

And that the best thing to do at his age was get max term.

At worst, he would have to leave for a huge contract.

At best, he gests to stay where he is comfortable and make bank.

 

I'm comfortable with $10m x 8.

I think there is a way to structure it to reduce the cap hit, but I don't think it's do or die.

The difficulty is the bonus laden contracts.

NTC or NMC?

No big deal, you give that to get a minor savings.

[conundrumed]

24 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Some good points by both you and Cross.  I think there was some reservation on BT's side to go long and big dollars.

He wasn't sure that Sutter Johnny would be as good as BP Johnny.

I don't think he was thinking 8 years at any point, but that is now the only way to reduce the cap hit.

Johnny was probably advised to bet on himself.

And that the best thing to do at his age was get max term.

At worst, he would have to leave for a huge contract.

At best, he gests to stay where he is comfortable and make bank.

 

I'm comfortable with $10m x 8.

I think there is a way to structure it to reduce the cap hit, but I don't think it's do or die.

The difficulty is the bonus laden contracts.

NTC or NMC?

No big deal, you give that to get a minor savings.

The limited NTC is the way to go, letting the player decide which teams he'll waive for. If he wants full NMC, that's perfect. That means he wants to win here.

The pride of the best players can't be understated. They want to win with the team that took them. Hands down. It's up to the GM to prove they're on the same path. ROR in Buffalo is a good example of what happens when your best player has zero faith in mgmt. Eichel had the surgery thing, but I think the outlier is the same.

I'm running heavily on the assumption that JG wants to win here, the rest is up to BT. I view Tkachuk exactly the same way.

These guys aren't robots running to the highest bidder. They want a legacy. I hope our GM understands that.

Buying into where each other stands means everything. If BT said, we need a retool, both might say, "get me out of here then".

Just my thoughts. Most players don't want to leave. Frustration with direction is the surefire way to change their mind.

We might be okay. BT always seems to be playing a little behind this concept though.

Mangia is arbs rights, but that's a discussion I don't want in Johnny's thread.

[travel_dude]

5 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

The limited NTC is the way to go, letting the player decide which teams he'll waive for. If he wants full NMC, that's perfect. That means he wants to win here.

The pride of the best players can't be understated. They want to win with the team that took them. Hands down. It's up to the GM to prove they're on the same path. ROR in Buffalo is a good example of what happens when your best player has zero faith in mgmt. Eichel had the surgery thing, but I think the outlier is the same.

I'm running heavily on the assumption that JG wants to win here, the rest is up to BT. I view Tkachuk exactly the same way.

These guys aren't robots running to the highest bidder. They want a legacy. I hope our GM understands that.

Buying into where each other stands means everything. If BT said, we need a retool, both might say, "get me out of here then".

Just my thoughts. Most players don't want to leave. Frustration with direction is the surefire way to change their mind.

We might be okay. BT always seems to be playing a little behind this concept though.

Mangia is arbs rights, but that's a discussion I don't want in Johnny's thread.

 

BT in public just says hammer away at it.  If it's just negotiation, fine.  You only hold so many cards as the GM.  JH isn't a greedy Gus, just wants what you suggest.  The chance to win and be paid to his value.  We have not yet seen whether he believes that we are fine the way we are or whether we need some help.  I would think Johnny is a little sad that we didn't get Eichel.  Grit and depth are fine, and a fabric of this team, but having scoring depth is also key.

[sak22]

 

This is why the Gaudreau camp doesn't put pen to paper in the summer, nobody would've put him in consideration for that award even in this market.  I get there is demand for heads to roll if he doesn't sign, but I can't think of GM's who lose their job on failing to sign a free agent, if BT takes a fall for that I don't know if Calgary becomes a prime target for top GM's.  I mean Jarmo in Columbus played a season with Panarin and Bobrovsky who were 100% going to market and then traded most his picks for more players lost for nothing, yet he's still employed.  We let BT go for this, unless we have a good in house option, we are probably looking at an overrated has been taking over i.e. Feaster V.2

[cross16]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

That's my line of thinking. When I look at FLA extending Barkov it makes me wonder.

JG is also our best player like Barkov.

So this is either a case of BT, "let's see how this plays out", which would be a horrendous attitude, or JG saying, "nah, I want to bet on myself maximizing this year".

If it's the former, the guy you should have done a $9x8 extension with may now be over $10x8. And getting a lot of traction knowing he could be a bidding war.

But all of this is hearsay. I have no idea how this has gone or how it will play out. Did BT try to extend? Radio silence on that.

All-in-all, I'll cling to the silver lining of Sutter. He's removed all of the sulking and whining out of Johnny's game, applauds him as the best 200' winger in the game, and most importantly, has ownership's ear.

 

 

 

I have a tough time seeing this as the same thing. While both are the teams best player, Barkov is a franchise center not a winger, 2 years younger, and a consistent all around player. Was never really a reason to hesitate locking up Barkov but I think there are more than a few reasons why the Flames would have been hesitant to throw whatever it takes for Gaudreau. At the same time it also made perfect sense for Gaudreau to bet on himself and give him a ton of credit he's made the improvements and likely earned himself some more money. 

 

I don't think its too much of a surprise or necessarily a bad thing he remains unsigned right now as I do understand the hesitation of locking him up. 

[conundrumed]

2 minutes ago, sak22 said:

 

This is why the Gaudreau camp doesn't put pen to paper in the summer, nobody would've put him in consideration for that award even in this market.  I get there is demand for heads to roll if he doesn't sign, but I can't think of GM's who lose their job on failing to sign a free agent, if BT takes a fall for that I don't know if Calgary becomes a prime target for top GM's.  I mean Jarmo in Columbus played a season with Panarin and Bobrovsky who were 100% going to market and then traded most his picks for more players lost for nothing, yet he's still employed.  We let BT go for this, unless we have a good in house option, we are probably looking at an overrated has been taking over i.e. Feaster V.2

The first part, can you say that, for sure?

As cross said, to paraphrase, are you managing this very well?

He's your best player, hands down.

Did you offer him a deadly extension around when Barkov extended, is my question.

There is zero whisper of it.

 

 

[cross16]

11 minutes ago, sak22 said:

 

This is why the Gaudreau camp doesn't put pen to paper in the summer, nobody would've put him in consideration for that award even in this market.  I get there is demand for heads to roll if he doesn't sign, but I can't think of GM's who lose their job on failing to sign a free agent, if BT takes a fall for that I don't know if Calgary becomes a prime target for top GM's.  I mean Jarmo in Columbus played a season with Panarin and Bobrovsky who were 100% going to market and then traded most his picks for more players lost for nothing, yet he's still employed.  We let BT go for this, unless we have a good in house option, we are probably looking at an overrated has been taking over i.e. Feaster V.2

 

I frame this differently, this is not just failing to sign a free agent this is failure to plan. What Jarmo and Columbus did was different. First off letting Bobrvosky walk was a fantastic decision but Panarin and Johnny are in different camps. Jarmo traded for Pannarin knowing he only had a 2 year window to either win or get him signed and even when he made the deal it was pretty public that Panarin had eyes on New York. Treliving has had years to prepare for this day so if the end result is Gaudreau walks I don't view it as a failure to sign him, it's a failure to have an adequate plan in place which for me is a fireable offence. A plan is a pretty integral piece for anyone who is leading be it a team, company etc. 

 

[conundrumed]

2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

 

I have a tough time seeing this as the same thing. While both are the teams best player, Barkov is a franchise center not a winger, 2 years younger, and a consistent all around player. Was never really a reason to hesitate locking up Barkov but I think there are more than a few reasons why the Flames would have been hesitant to throw whatever it takes for Gaudreau. At the same time it also made perfect sense for Gaudreau to bet on himself and give him a ton of credit he's made the improvements and likely earned himself some more money. 

 

I don't think its too much of a surprise or necessarily a bad thing he remains unsigned right now as I do understand the hesitation of locking him up. 

That's where we differ. I don't understand the hesitation at all.

On his part, maybe. He's your best player and better than a lot of team's best player.

He always has been, not just this year.

Why would you play with this? He IS your marketing strategy...

 

[cross16]

10 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

That's where we differ. I don't understand the hesitation at all.

On his part, maybe. He's your best player and better than a lot of team's best player.

He always has been, not just this year.

Why would you play with this? He IS your marketing strategy...

 

 

For me it's simple:

Look at his playoffs

Look at him in important games

Look at the fact he is a winger and not a center.

Look at his age

 

For me all valid reasons why you don't give him a blank cheque and why this was always likely going to be a tough negotiation. I don't really feel the panic about this situation and am perfectly happy to let it play out as I strongly suspect there is far more going on behind the scene than we know about. I don't' believe for a second Treliving made a decision to low ball or that he didn't/hasn't negotiated hard at this. I could be wrong, i just find it very hard to believe. 

[sak22]

9 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

The first part, can you say that, for sure?

As cross said, to paraphrase, are you managing this very well?

He's your best player, hands down.

Did you offer him a deadly extension around when Barkov extended, is my question.

There is zero whisper of it.

 

 

No just hunches, heard from more reliable sources how disappointed he was with the last deal.  And don't believe the Flames wanted to negotiate in 2021 based on his 2019 production.

 

In 2021 and 2022, after the playoff bubble and 2020 season, I'd say the general feeling around here was Tkachuk was the future and Johnny was expendable.  Big discrepancy in production through the last 4 years.

 

When is there ever talk of midseason negotiations?  Because nobody is reporting it doesn't mean discussions aren't happening, both sides don't want it to be a distraction.  There's a lot of factors involved here outside the actual deal or terms of the deal, outside stuff just from the last year.  Does the difference in COVID response factor in?  Does the cancelled arena factor in?  

[conundrumed]

I didnt allude to a blank cheque. Just why wasn't he extended? I know there's 2 sides. But you don't let your best and most marketable player extend into tons of questions about FA. It's not a good look.

[conundrumed]

8 minutes ago, sak22 said:

No just hunches, heard from more reliable sources how disappointed he was with the last deal.  And don't believe the Flames wanted to negotiate in 2021 based on his 2019 production.

 

In 2021 and 2022, after the playoff bubble and 2020 season, I'd say the general feeling around here was Tkachuk was the future and Johnny was expendable.  Big discrepancy in production through the last 4 years.

 

When is there ever talk of midseason negotiations?  Because nobody is reporting it doesn't mean discussions aren't happening, both sides don't want it to be a distraction.  There's a lot of factors involved here outside the actual deal or terms of the deal, outside stuff just from the last year.  Does the difference in COVID response factor in?  Does the cancelled arena factor in?  

I was thinking Barkov, so preseason. Production-based? The org watches the guy everyday. Do you want that or don't you?

You're on the fence? Well, that's where you put him, too, then.

He fully invests in you as much as you fully invest in him is fair.

But, here we are...now he costs $1mil vs the cap more than likely.

Managing?

[travel_dude]

If it comes down to dispute of his impact to the team (not scoring in playoffs) or will we have to pay too much, then we should trade him now.  If that's what we are talking about fine.  He's a winger.  I'm of the opinion that we need more players that can do what he does.  Monahan clearly suffering from lack of a playmaker.  Backlund's line has to generate from nothing at times.  We don't have a true PP QB for each unit.  The MO is to gain the zone and hold the puck to get set up.  Hence the bump back.