Forums/NHL Signings

Calgary Flames signed Matthew Tkachuk (3 Years / $7,000,000 AAV)

Was this a good signing?
The chart has been hidden

Poll Options

 

Sep 25, 2019 at 11:03
#26
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 6,783
Likes: 2,920
Quoting: AwesomeMatthews
Were now living in a world were Matthew Tkachuk is worth more then Faulk


So the same world we were living in when Faulk signed his deal? tears of joy
weirfanno1 and doogiski liked this.
Sep 25, 2019 at 11:17
#27
get off my lawn...
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 12,397
Likes: 6,278
Quoting: TartarSauce90
Interesting fact : Highest paid Calgary Flames player of all time!


Well.. tied with Iggy anyway. But with a much larger cap.
Trickster and Brian2016 liked this.
Sep 25, 2019 at 11:21
#28
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 408
Likes: 176
Edited Sep 25, 2019 at 11:26
Quoting: TartarSauce90
Interesting fact : Highest paid Calgary Flames player of all time!


I can't believe Ryan Leslie forgot one of the most famous Flames; Iginla also made a $7M AAV from 2005 - 2012.

I think the deal is fair for both the player and the team. Their window to win is the next three years, and they have Tkachuk at a good % of cap number for that time, but now risk losing Johnny and Tkachuk in consecutive off seasons. I would have preferred paying for the 5-6 year term at around what Aho's making by simply moving out Czarnik though: https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/1431655
Sep 25, 2019 at 11:38
#29
hockeyhr
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 27
Likes: 25
Quoting: BeastModeUnknown
Another guy secured. Tkachuk here soon takes over Gaudreau's spot as best Winger on the team.


uuhh that is a bit bold statement. Tkachuk soon better than Gaudreau?!? I do not see it right now just because of Tkachuk's skating and lesser ability to drive play (he is doing it but not as good as Gaudreau). In my opinion, Tkachuk should definitely shoot more but since he loves the goalies' so much he is usually in front of the net. But let us see what happens now he will be paid real money
CN10 liked this.
Sep 25, 2019 at 12:00
#30
J.L.
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 183
Likes: 65
Quoting: capfriendlyaccount

Laine has to be mad right now. With this and the point comparable, a three year bridge has to give him about six and a half.


True. I guess he doesn't mind that much though if he gets that 3 rd year north of 9 mill.
Sep 25, 2019 at 12:01
#31
Jurajio
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 2
Likes: 2
So looks like with Valimaki on the LTIR we are about 700k over the cap with a 23 man roster. If we run 22 we're tight but fine. Could see some minor moves clearing some cap that can let us run the 23 man roster.
Sep 25, 2019 at 12:29
#32
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 166
Likes: 121
I think this is the only deal that really worked for Calgary as they won't be forced to make a deal to be compliant ahead of the season opener. I am leaning toward thinking short term deals as being the best way to deal with RFAs, but we wont' know for sure until the end of these deals if it's the best strategy (versus what a 6-8 year deal would look like). I do think that a lot of RFAs seem to want something closer to what a UFA deal would look like if they were to accept considerable term (maybe not to the extent Marner got) and since UFA value represents kind of a cap for an RFA, I think the best way to save the most money may be takign the bigger discount in the short term and negotiating with the RFA almost as if he was a UFA at the end to get additional term. You still have the benefit then of not being too concerned about longer term if they want it by that point, since they are young enough that the final years of that deal are probably still good just by virtue of the cap increasing, even if the player has started their decline.

The only caveat to this is it does allow the players to walk as a UFA at year 4. There is no stopping the player from just accepting the QO or filing arbitration for one year award after the final year, so that is really the biggest risk with the 3 year bridge.

Either way you look at it, $7M is a number that Tkachuk should easily be worth for each of the 3 years, and it buys calgary some time to see how their team is progressing and which direction they want to go.
Sep 25, 2019 at 12:34
#33
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 166
Likes: 121
Quoting: CN10
I can't believe Ryan Leslie forgot one of the most famous Flames; Iginla also made a $7M AAV from 2005 - 2012.

I think the deal is fair for both the player and the team. Their window to win is the next three years, and they have Tkachuk at a good % of cap number for that time, but now risk losing Johnny and Tkachuk in consecutive off seasons. I would have preferred paying for the 5-6 year term at around what Aho's making by simply moving out Czarnik though: https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/1431655


My thought would be that I don't think Aho money gets you 6 years if it took $7M to buy 3.

The way I would look at it the additional RFA year would have cost at least $9M or an increase in AAV of $500K, because the qualifying offer assures Tkachuk of that. If they wanted to buy UFA years, I don't see how they could be cheaper than $750K per season, but probably cost upwards of about $1M. All that considered I don't see how Tkachuk would have taken anythign that didn't start somewhere around $9M-$9.5M for a 6 year deal if it took $7M to get it done on a 3 year term.
Sep 25, 2019 at 12:46
#34
Go Flames Go!
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 73
Likes: 31
The money is good, but the term is awful - Gaudreau and Tkachuk are expiring at the same time and Monahan's deal will expire the year after. I dont think that Treiliving (if he's not gonna be fired by that time) would be able to keep all of them on the same team.

And i hope Frolik is gonna be traded soon...
Sep 25, 2019 at 12:48
#35
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 166
Likes: 121
Also, I love how GMs are throwing this final year QO in like candy. I mean do these players or agents realize this isn't a good deal for them unless the QO is at least 45% more than the AAV? The way arbitration works I can't imagine that Tkachuk couldn't force a one year award of at least $9M even if he has 3 sub par years by his recent standards. If he did play bad enough that he couldn't get an award aroudn that mark in 3 years, there may be a legitimate chance he doesn't even get qualified.

To me it seems like players (especially American's) would be better off getting more signing bonus up front to maximize their guaranteed income unless the QO is going to give them real negotiating power (like Meier's does). Because Tkachuk is making all salary in his last year, he is going to pay the majority of the taxes (other than what goes in an RCA or 401K) in Canadian tax rates. If he got signing bonus paid on July 1, and his residency is Arizona at that time, it can greatly reduce the overall taxes paid, plus there is significant value in getting millions of dollars today rather than 2 years from now. To me, the high QO in these cases is actually very counter productive to maximizing total real earnings.
Sep 25, 2019 at 1:05
#36
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 408
Likes: 176
Quoting: Danny12357
My thought would be that I don't think Aho money gets you 6 years if it took $7M to buy 3.

The way I would look at it the additional RFA year would have cost at least $9M or an increase in AAV of $500K, because the qualifying offer assures Tkachuk of that. If they wanted to buy UFA years, I don't see how they could be cheaper than $750K per season, but probably cost upwards of about $1M. All that considered I don't see how Tkachuk would have taken anythign that didn't start somewhere around $9M-$9.5M for a 6 year deal if it took $7M to get it done on a 3 year term.


If you look into my linked ACGM post, I do have the fourth RFA year at $9M (Skinner) and the first UFA year at $10.5M (Kane) plus 3 RFA years at $7.5M (which is more than he's currently getting). This gets me to the 5 year $8.4M. For a 6th year assume another $10.5M (Kane) which brings it to $8.75M AAV. Therefore, I don't think Tkachuk would get over $9M AAV on a six year deal from Treliving.

Now that his current contract is essentially equivalent to a 4 x $7.5M (assuming he just signs his $9M QO to go UFA), and applying the same $10.5M - $11.5M (Kane - Panarin) to UFA years, the 5 year AAV should be $8.1M - $8.3M and the 6 year AAV would be $8.5 - $$8.833M. These are very player friendly as I don't think Tkachuk is as good as Kane & Panarin, which is why I thought they may be able to drive down the AAV a bit to the neighborhood of 6 x $8.333M, which they could have fit by moving Czarnik.

Regardless, I'm happy they have him to a good value in their Johnny + Gio window, and in 3 years time they have a decent amount of flexibility to choose a direction to go in and hopefully keep the group together if they've had some team success.
Sep 25, 2019 at 1:15
#37
Tom Wilson of ACGM
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 4,994
Likes: 1,073
Can someone tell me why this guy is worth more than an 8 year deal at 7.5M.... That's all he's worth in my opinion.

Apparently playing like a punk and scoring two 40 point seasons and ONE 77 point season gets you a nice 7 million dollar paycheck for 3 years...
Sep 25, 2019 at 1:17
#38
Tom Wilson of ACGM
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 4,994
Likes: 1,073
Quoting: niong108
thank god it is done
maybe slightly overpaid, but we will see


Maybe??
Sep 25, 2019 at 1:21
#39
Hugh Hefner of CF
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 3,974
Likes: 2,487
That QO offer will sting, oof
Sep 25, 2019 at 1:25
#40
Lucic Apologist
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 489
Quoting: Trickster
That QO offer will sting, oof


You don't think that he will be looking long term as he expires as an RFA? And long term will be well over nine at that point, I don't think the QO will be a problem at all.
Sep 25, 2019 at 1:29
#41
Hugh Hefner of CF
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 3,974
Likes: 2,487
Quoting: SmugTkachuk
You don't think that he will be looking long term as he expires as an RFA? And long term will be well over nine at that point, I don't think the QO will be a problem at all.


Depends on what is cap.
Right know, their saying no cap increase for next season so I am thinking it will be less than 85 million by then.

Who does Calgary sacrifice to the cap crunch?
oneX liked this.
Sep 25, 2019 at 1:35
#42
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 166
Likes: 121
Quoting: CN10
If you look into my linked ACGM post, I do have the fourth RFA year at $9M (Skinner) and the first UFA year at $10.5M (Kane) plus 3 RFA years at $7.5M (which is more than he's currently getting). This gets me to the 5 year $8.4M. For a 6th year assume another $10.5M (Kane) which brings it to $8.75M AAV. Therefore, I don't think Tkachuk would get over $9M AAV on a six year deal from Treliving.

Now that his current contract is essentially equivalent to a 4 x $7.5M (assuming he just signs his $9M QO to go UFA), and applying the same $10.5M - $11.5M (Kane - Panarin) to UFA years, the 5 year AAV should be $8.1M - $8.3M and the 6 year AAV would be $8.5 - $$8.833M. These are very player friendly as I don't think Tkachuk is as good as Kane & Panarin, which is why I thought they may be able to drive down the AAV a bit to the neighborhood of 6 x $8.333M, which they could have fit by moving Czarnik.

Regardless, I'm happy they have him to a good value in their Johnny + Gio window, and in 3 years time they have a decent amount of flexibility to choose a direction to go in and hopefully keep the group together if they've had some team success.


A 5 year deal might have some chance of coming in at around the Aho number, but I have my doubts it would be that simple. I don't think using Kane's UFA number of $10.5M is a reasonable estimate at all of what Tkachuk's UFA years would be worth. Tkachuck's first UFA year will be 2024, which is 10 years after Kane's first UFA year.

Maybe Tkachuck can't get the $9M+ AAV on a 6 year deal from BT, which is why we are sitting here with a bridge deal, but I highly doubt that Calgary could have gotten term unless they offered north of $9M from Tkachuck either. Maybe he would ahve done a 5 year in the mid to high 8's, but I think it's unlikely that given this deal.
Sep 25, 2019 at 1:36
#43
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 166
Likes: 121
Quoting: SmugTkachuk
You don't think that he will be looking long term as he expires as an RFA? And long term will be well over nine at that point, I don't think the QO will be a problem at all.


I agree with that. I actually don't see the point in setting a QO that low to be honest. All it means is that less of this contract is front loaded. I don't see how the player benefits. If Tkachuck really wanted to force his way out on a one year deal, he can likely file for arbitration and force a one year award higher than $9M at the end of this deal. I don't think the QO in this case is nearly high enough to give Tkachuck any added leverage.
Sep 25, 2019 at 2:06
#44
Lucic Apologist
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 489
Quoting: Trickster
Depends on what is cap.
Right know, their saying no cap increase for next season so I am thinking it will be less than 85 million by then.

Who does Calgary sacrifice to the cap crunch?


Giordano will not be making 6.75, if he doesn't retire it will be a year to year deal. Who knows what Gaudreau is up to, all of Calgary's current buyouts are gone (3.1 million) Frolik, Brodie. Ryan at the least are gone (12 million), New major contracts include Valimaki, Andersson, Kylington, Bennett, Dube, Mangiapane, none of which have the pedigree of the RFA's that just went through this off season poop storm. There will be another squeeze at some point, I don't think it will be like this though.
CN10 liked this.
Sep 25, 2019 at 4:33
#45
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,093
Likes: 874
C- deal for CGY. Now they're gonna have this same problem again in 3 years. A+ deal for Mathew Tkachuk though. Highest paid bridge deal of all time.
Sep 26, 2019 at 8:05
#46
hockeyhr
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 27
Likes: 25
Quoting: Bf3351
Maybe??


if in the next three seasons he has 80+ points and on average 30 goals it is definitely not an overpayment. with 7 mils per he is not even in the list of top 50 paid active NHL-ers but he surely is among the top 50 NHL players
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Submit Poll Edit