[Report] Johnny Gaudreau seeking $8M annually on new deal with Flames

[Tomato Pajamas]

8 hours ago, Vanisleryan said:

He's an exceptional talent and he's only going to get better at age 23 I dont blame him for asking that much over 8 years since his next contract will be 31. In 5 years 8 million dollar contracts could be the norm.

Yup, he's going to be the St. Louis they never had.

[Provost]

9 hours ago, Aircool said:

You know what the best part about this is? They don't want to rebuild to go get such a superstar... JB will steal him in the 4th round right?

That is a terrible point to make considering Goudreau was selected 104th overall.... entirely counter to the "tank" argument.

 

 

[Aircool]

4 hours ago, N7Nucks said:

The 4th round was where Gaudreau was drafted no? So only Calgary can find potential superstars in the 4th round? Or only Gaudreau will break out as a 4th round pick turned star? Didn't Calgary finish second in their division the year Gaudreau was drafted? Good thing they tanked that year.

People like you always miss the point. You are so obsessed with your opinion being right that you try to dispute/neglect the obvious and inarguable facts.

 

Gaudreau was indeed drafted in the 4th round, and is evidence that you can find players of quality in that round. That's if you are willing to take a chance on a small player whose odds of succeeding at the next level are extremely low, who is going to college and not signing with you, and if he doesn't develop as fast as Johnny Hockey will most likely become a College UFA since he won't be leaving college as early as Gaudreau did.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, draft position is an organizations balancing of three scouted evaluations. NHL readiness, long term potential, and bust potential/risk which would include things like drafting a Jimmy Vesey or a Russian who could run to the KHL. Every team in the league weighs these three things with potentially different weight, but they are the fundamental considerations of draft position.

 

So what does this all mean in the context of finding a superstar? Well it means that, for example, if Gaudreau is drafted in the 4th round (as he was), every team including the Flames decided that in terms of his NHL readiness, his long term potential and his likelihood to bust, he wasn't worth drafting three times in his draft. And guess what? They were probably right. That might sound insane since you can clearly see what Gaudreau has become, but you don't judge decisions based on the outcome, you judge the process. How many Jordan Schroeders are there out there for each Johnny Gaudreau?

 

The drafting process clearly shows a correlation between how high you are drafted and NHL success... Teams are NOT always correct, players are HUMAN they slip up and stumble, some never recover. Some outshine their draft position, this is just part of the variability of trying to predict the future of humans.... You can't do it perfectly. However, the correlation between draft position and player quality, especially in the Top-5 or Top-10, shows that teams do a pretty good job.

 

So the odds of successfully drafting a superstar in the 4th round are extremely low. That's all that really matters, the probability of doing it. If you are a General Manager, your job is to improve the team, you can't plan for 1.0% or 0.5% odds. If you were an owner, and you found out you were investing hundreds of millions of dollars over several years into payroll based on the whims of a person who is banking on likelihoods in the order of fractions of percentage points, you'd be beyond angry. But that's basically what most of the people on these forums are proposing... Gamble with the long term success of our team on the worst of odds.

 

[Aircool]

25 minutes ago, Provost said:

That is a terrible point to make considering Goudreau was selected 104th overall.... entirely counter to the "tank" argument.

I've seen a bunch of people spelling Gaudreau incorrectly in this thread, is it really so hard? He isn't some distant relative to Bruce Boudreau... It's really hard to take anyone seriously when they can't even spell the name of the player of whom they supposedly have an intelligent opinion.

 

Johnny Gaudreau, while talented at scoring, is still in many ways a flawed player... Now not nearly as flawed as some would have you believe, he has many great strengths that he shows on a regular basis. But let's not pretend that he is Crosby, Toews, Kopitar, Doughty, or any other player on the surprisingly long list of TRULY elite players in the NHL. I don't think I'd get much argument if I said that Johnny Gaudreau is not even a Top-30 player in the league. Heck, he isn't even the best player on his own team.

 

Still, any team in the league would be happy to draft a player of his quality, but as I've just said in my most recent post, which I invite you to read, if you consider banking on fractions of percentage points to land a superstar a valid counter to tanking... Well there isn't much hope for you outside of LaLa-Land.

 

 

[Phat Fingers]

Johnny Hockey is a pure offensive talent, but needs to show a much better all round game to be worth what he is asking. 

 

A shorter term 2-3 year 5.5 deal would be about right.  Giving him a long term 8 mil deal is a huge gamble.  That being said, it's Cow town, so please do give him a huge long term deal. 

 

 

[tas]

1 hour ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

Johnny Hockey is a pure offensive talent, but needs to show a much better all round game to be worth what he is asking. 

 

A shorter term 2-3 year 5.5 deal would be about right.  Giving him a long term 8 mil deal is a huge gamble.  That being said, it's Cow town, so please do give him a huge long term deal. 

 

 

does patrick kane have a much better all round game?

 

now, obviously 3 rings bumps you up a price category or two, but kane would be making at least $8m without the cups, too.

 

first 2 seasons:

 

kane - 162gp 46g 96a 142p

gaudreau - 159gp 54g 88a 142p

 

patrick kane is from a time when players were normally forced to take bridge deals on their second contracts, and as such, he agreed to $6.3m/year for 5 years coming off his entry level contract. that accounted for 10.6% of the $59m salary cap in 2010/11.

 

johnny gaudreau is fortunate to live in a time where good players tend to get paid coming off their entry level deals. as such, he's asking for $8m/year (term unknown, at least to me, but probably 8 years), which would account for 11% of the $73m cap in 2016/17. just for the sake of argument, 10.6% would be $7.738m.

[Jam126]

6 hours ago, Aircool said:

People like you always miss the point. You are so obsessed with your opinion being right that you try to dispute/neglect the obvious and inarguable facts.

 

Same exact thing could be said for you. 

[Phat Fingers]

1 hour ago, tas said:

does patrick kane have a much better all round game?

 

now, obviously 3 rings bumps you up a price category or two, but kane would be making at least $8m without the cups, too.

 

first 2 seasons:

 

kane - 162gp 46g 96a 142p

gaudreau - 159gp 54g 88a 142p

 

patrick kane is from a time when players were normally forced to take bridge deals on their second contracts, and as such, he agreed to $6.3m/year for 5 years coming off his entry level contract. that accounted for 10.6% of the $59m salary cap in 2010/11.

 

johnny gaudreau is fortunate to live in a time where good players tend to get paid coming off their entry level deals. as such, he's asking for $8m/year (term unknown, at least to me, but probably 8 years), which would account for 11% of the $73m cap in 2016/17. just for the sake of argument, 10.6% would be $7.738m.

Do I think P.K was a better player at the same point as JG. Yes. PK was going into the league as a teenager. He also goes to the hard areas. PK has also proven that he was worth the money over the contract. 

 

JG is a talent, stylistically he is much like PK, but a poor mans version. Either way, good on the flames for finding him in the 4th round...  GMMG out gm'd again. We go and get an American smurf in the first round who busts... Schoeder, and the flames get the second coming of Theo in the fourth round...

 

Hope they break the bank on JG.  Spend to the cap space and line up a midget top six. Sooner or later a large player is going to catch up with JG. 

 

EW

[tas]

4 minutes ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

Do I think P.K was a better player at the same point as JG. Yes. PK was going into the league as a teenager. He also goes to the hard areas. PK has also proven that he was worth the money over the contract. 

 

JG is a talent, stylistically he is much like PK, but a poor mans version. Either way, good on the flames for finding him in the 4th round...  GMMG out gm'd again. We go and get an American smurf in the first round who busts... Schoeder, and the flames get the second coming of Theo in the fourth round...

 

Hope they break the bank on JG.  Spend to the cap space and line up a midget top six. Sooner or later a large player is going to catch up with JG. 

 

EW

it's hard to call him a poor man's version when over the first 2 years of their respective careers gaudreau has better both goals and points per game. 

 

say what you will about willingness to go to the net, gaudreau has proven to be as or more effective than patrick kane was at the same point in his career. 

[Phat Fingers]

Tas, 

 

you have your oppinion, I have mine. How old was PK when he as entering the league vs JG. What deployment etc. 

 

I dislike both players and don't care all that much. I hope JG takes the flames to the cleaners, then gets hit by the Jake Train next year.  

 

EW

 

 

[falcon45ca]

8M after 2 seasons?

 

Hell, why not go for 10? If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing right!

[DrJockitch]

On September 10, 2016 at 0:33 AM, ajhockey said:

Holy...

 

TBH, he's probably worth 7-7.5, but $8M on a small guy that only has two good years is too much. If it was 8 years for 2 or 3 years, that'd be fine, but I'm guess it's for a long-term deal.

 

Then again, he could be asking for more than he's worth to get an offer that's exactly what he's worth.

 

On a related note, I don't understand how players can get so selfish when it comes to their salaries. Can't they see that demanding so much pay lowers the chance of his own team winning the cup? Easy three-step process: 

1. Accept less money
2. Allow your team to get better players
3. Win the Cup

I just don't get it sometimes.

Kane and Toews.

 

You have to have great confidence in your GM/Hockey ops to pull that one off.

 

You are meat to a GM, you are bought and sold at their whim.  Look at Subban signs long term and traded right before his NTC kicked in.  Now he didn't exactly give a hometown discount but still seems harsh.

 

Realistically when a player like Stamkos takes a haircut on his deal he does it because they are a very good team with a very good GM that he has faith in.  If I am looking at the beached Walrus Burke I am not filled with confidence, when I walk into that old, deflated, flood damaged stadium I am not saying to myself wow I have it made here.

 

It rarely works out that a young player takes a big discount and the GM builds the team around them.  Crosby it sort of did.  Usually it is an old vet joining a already championship quality team at a significantly reduced rate that works out okay.  

 

There are very few GMs that have earned that kind of trust from players.  Both sides really treat the fans as tools to gain advantage.  We sit through all the manipulation, sometimes pick sides or feel slighted but the reality of the situation is that both the GMs and the players make there decisions based on what they think is best for themselves.  Have you ever heard a player say that they wanted out of a city because the fans suck, the facilities are substandard and the GM is incompetent.  Every city has "the best fans in the world" and "I hoped to spend my whole career here."  It is all just manipulation of the paying customer to gain the most for either themselves or the owners.

 

Clearly I woke up in a cynical mood this morning.

[THERETOOL]

On September 9, 2016 at 7:05 PM, oldnews said:

Gaudreau is no more valuable than either of those team-mates - and has played two whole NHL seasons.

He should come in at a similar cap hit to his captain and Monahan - both of whom are far more complete players than he is.

you got it totally right ..  I have no problem with his agent asking for that kind of money but if he expects his client to get anything close that then he's a fool .

 

No fault in asking ..   He hasn't come close to proving he's worth 8 million a year !!!????     

 

they are living in Bizarro world 

[gerry35]

"beached Walrus Burke"         thumbs up for that phrase alone   

[cuporbust]

Lol. Oh Sean. U crazy

[Vanisleryan]

4 hours ago, tas said:

does patrick kane have a much better all round game?

 

now, obviously 3 rings bumps you up a price category or two, but kane would be making at least $8m without the cups, too.

 

first 2 seasons:

 

kane - 162gp 46g 96a 142p

gaudreau - 159gp 54g 88a 142p

 

patrick kane is from a time when players were normally forced to take bridge deals on their second contracts, and as such, he agreed to $6.3m/year for 5 years coming off his entry level contract. that accounted for 10.6% of the $59m salary cap in 2010/11.

 

johnny gaudreau is fortunate to live in a time where good players tend to get paid coming off their entry level deals. as such, he's asking for $8m/year (term unknown, at least to me, but probably 8 years), which would account for 11% of the $73m cap in 2016/17. just for the sake of argument, 10.6% would be $7.738m.

Well said....cant argue with math and facts.

[-AJ-]

3 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

Kane and Toews.

 

You have to have great confidence in your GM/Hockey ops to pull that one off.

 

You are meat to a GM, you are bought and sold at their whim.  Look at Subban signs long term and traded right before his NTC kicked in.  Now he didn't exactly give a hometown discount but still seems harsh.

 

Realistically when a player like Stamkos takes a haircut on his deal he does it because they are a very good team with a very good GM that he has faith in.  If I am looking at the beached Walrus Burke I am not filled with confidence, when I walk into that old, deflated, flood damaged stadium I am not saying to myself wow I have it made here.

 

It rarely works out that a young player takes a big discount and the GM builds the team around them.  Crosby it sort of did.  Usually it is an old vet joining a already championship quality team at a significantly reduced rate that works out okay.  

 

There are very few GMs that have earned that kind of trust from players.  Both sides really treat the fans as tools to gain advantage.  We sit through all the manipulation, sometimes pick sides or feel slighted but the reality of the situation is that both the GMs and the players make there decisions based on what they think is best for themselves.  Have you ever heard a player say that they wanted out of a city because the fans suck, the facilities are substandard and the GM is incompetent.  Every city has "the best fans in the world" and "I hoped to spend my whole career here."  It is all just manipulation of the paying customer to gain the most for either themselves or the owners.

 

Clearly I woke up in a cynical mood this morning.

Haha, I can relate, being a fairly cynical person myself. If I were bargaining, I would be "greedy" on the necessity of a NMC, but trade that off for a huge discount. Still, I agree that unfortunately, there would be some GMs who would see selflessness and take full advantage of it.

[Fan since 82]

On 10/09/2016 at 5:48 AM, Toews said:

I don't think this rule will ever change as the league becomes liable to an anti trust lawsuit. A player has to be given options to spurn an offer from his potential employer. There has to be pressure from both sides to get a contract done. Remove that rule and players lose a ton of leverage. 

 

Well the guys that don't go the college route don't have any real leverage so why doesn't that open up the league to anti-trust lawsuits? It's what the players sign up for when they enter the draft, and it's not kept a secret from them. Look at Drouin last year - demanded a trade but in the end had to stay with the team that drafted him becausehe has no leverage (I know it's not exactly the same because he had signed a contract but...).

[Aircool]

6 hours ago, Jam126 said:

Same exact thing could be said for you. 

No it really couldn't... People never seem to understand, I'm not insisting that we tank, I think that decision was available to us 2-3 years ago and we passed on it. If we tank we might as well trade all our young players outside of Boeser, Demko and Juolevi... No point keeping Virtanen, Horvat, Baertschi, Hutton, Tanev.

 

This is IF we were to tank today. Now there are significant problems with that, such as the Sedins not going anywhere, Edler not going anywhere, having just signed Eriksson. So for those reasons and others I don't think that it's possible to tank now. It might still be viable, but probably not possible.

 

I acknowledge the merits of other ways of building teams, I just think the people who denounce the entire concept of tanking are as stupid as humans can get. It's a level of intellectual dishonesty or just plain stupidity that is extremely hard to rival. There are OBVIOUS merits to Top-3 draft choices, just ask the Leafs... Because we all know we'd rather have their prospect pool, even if those prospects are too small.

[Jam126]

33 minutes ago, Aircool said:

No it really couldn't... People never seem to understand, I'm not insisting that we tank, I think that decision was available to us 2-3 years ago and we passed on it. If we tank we might as well trade all our young players outside of Boeser, Demko and Juolevi... No point keeping Virtanen, Horvat, Baertschi, Hutton, Tanev.

 

This is IF we were to tank today. Now there are significant problems with that, such as the Sedins not going anywhere, Edler not going anywhere, having just signed Eriksson. So for those reasons and others I don't think that it's possible to tank now. It might still be viable, but probably not possible.

 

I acknowledge the merits of other ways of building teams, I just think the people who denounce the entire concept of tanking are as stupid as humans can get. It's a level of intellectual dishonesty or just plain stupidity that is extremely hard to rival. There are OBVIOUS merits to Top-3 draft choices, just ask the Leafs... Because we all know we'd rather have their prospect pool, even if those prospects are too small.

The Leafs have had a great prospect pool for years and they have done nothing so far. It's not set in stone until they translate their game the the NHL level. Which for smaller guys is a little more difficult. Tanking is a really dangerous method because of the market. Do you really think people are going to go to Canucks games if they are intentionally trying to lose? Do season ticket holders want to renew their tickets? It might work in Toronto but in Vancouver it has been demonstrated a lot of times people are not gonna accept a bad hockey team that's trying to lose. They're gonna go do something else. Vancouver is a city with so many things you can do, and if you are a sports team, more importantly, an entertainer, you want to have an audience. No audience, no profits, which means possible relocation. And what about the "good side" of the tank? You are gonna get a high pick. But, with the lottery system now you can get knocked down to 4th OA. That's the difference between a franchise player and a "pretty good but you can't build a team around" player, especially in a weak draft. Now that you've got that franchise player, you still have to build A TEAM around that player, something the Oilers and multiple teams have failed to do. At the end of the day, tanking is only one method of many and it's goal is the same. Just because it looks good on paper doesn't mean it's the best route.