I think if he was willing to take 8x8 he would be signed by now

The Rangers would be better off keeping the pick and Kakko instead of overpaying a 2nd liner because of iNtAnGiBlEs.

Conversely, the Sens would be better off shipping him out if that's what he wants, because he isn't worth it and never could be.

Not for that

Ottawa declines. Maybe a deal around Lundkvist could work. Would have to be one solid piece.



I think its the signing bonuses.



He's also our leading point scorer and is only 21 lol. Just cuz our team sucks rn doesnt make him a 2nd liner.

I think they pkg would do it easily. I’m sure Brady Tkachuk signs eventually. Might only be for 5 years but it’ll get done.

You might be better served moving Kravtsov instead in such a deal; Kakko who is nearly the same size as Tkachuk and a better shooter, would be gifting Ottawa an overpay.

Allowing Ottawa one more year at less salary with Kravtsov, might be easier to sell to both teams' fanbases. It might also make the progression of their build work in Ottawa, as Strome could provide a sound leader to take pressure off the youth.

The Rangers get the second line center they've craved with bulk, who can benefit from Panarin and Kreider as linemates. Plus, I think the Rangers could do $6M x 8, and still leave room for future contracts, such as Zibanejad, Kakko and Fox.

"because of iNtAnGiBlEs" ... have you seen the Rangers off season? they overpaid for "iNtAnGiBlEs". people like you always make me laugh..'

last 3 year year the only player in the NHL to have more hits is Reeves.

22**

The reason he lead the team in scoring is because the team sucks. He gets PP1, top 5v5 minutes, and is played in absolutely every situation and scored like a 2nd liner. No matter how bad the team, somebody is going to put up points because of opportunity. Norris in his rookie season scored as much (significantly better P/60 too) and Stützle scored a similar P/60 while being 3 years younger and getting much lower quality linemates.

He's a 2nd liner now (ranks 115th in P/GP in the league since joining amongst forwards with 30+ GP) who is being forced into a 1st line role, and he's bound to be a 2nd liner for his career when Stützle is the superior player playing above him.

Brady Tkachuk, the player, is very different than Brady Tkachuk, the idea.

Agree with you 100%. I love Brady, he's a good player and will probably figure out a few more ways to score over the years. But most of the trade proposals are way too high, same with the money. You could plug a lot of players into his role and get similar results.

Guess Reeves should be paid $8M too then if hits matter so much. Except they don't, so let's ignore the goons and look at the last three years of the players with an ounce of talent who are amongst the top in hits to see just how much players get paid because they hit.

Tom Wilson - 0.66 PPG - 6x$5.2M
Brandon Tanev - 0.39 PPG - 6x$3.5M
Blake Coleman - 0.50 PPG - 6x$4.9M
Adam Lowry - 0.32 PPG - 5x$3.25M
Nick Foligno - 0.46 PPG - 2x$3.8M
Alex Ovechkin - 1.02 PPG - 5x$9.5M
Josh Anderson - 0.47 PPG - 7x$5.5M
Jordan Staal - 0.54 PPG - 10x$6M
Evander Kane - 0.78 PPG - 7x$7M

Looks like Brady shouldn't make more than $7M, since Evander Kane is a great comparable who is better offensively, better defensively, bought more UFA years, and also throws the body.

im not saying Brady should make 8 million im simply saying that people that ignore "iNtAnGiBlEs" tend to be careless. i remember this site voting 100 + no that Wilson contract was terrible lol. Player like brady come around once in a blue moon. Wilson and Kane are very very good players that add a lot more than scoring. imo i would give him a bridge like his brother but not my pig not my farm

Reeves had more trade value than Fluery who was an MVP goalie if you wanna have terrible takes / only focus of the irrelevant parts of hockey

Thanks for the clarification on what you meant. We agree, so I'm not sure where you think things differ. I don't think intangibles are useless and never claimed they are, just that they can lead to vastly overrating a player. Having a Tom Wilson, or a Kane, or a Landeskog, or a Tkachuk is super valuable, but absolutely not at the cap hit Tkachuk is requesting. Getting Brady on a fair amount means those intangibles can be appreciated and he can be a valuable player to his team instead of a cap anchor and impediment to success.

Like it or not, the way to win games is to score goals for and prevent goals against. I would definitely argue intangibles can contribute to that, but what contributes more is actual offensive or defensive talent. That's what gets paid for, and that's what should cost ~$6.5M in the case of Brady who has done moderately offensively and is a distinctly negative defensively.

imo Marchand is one of the best players in the league....i would rank him in my top 5 easily bc of what he adds off the scoresheet. Some people add a lot of stock in difference thing and thats what makes hockey great but players like MArner and Matthews are amazing players but are unreliable in the playoffs. Josh Anderson finished the year with 3 points in his last 25 games. i like a great mix between intangibles and stats. Wilson is the type of player that when hes on the ice you are aware of it... you think twice before going into a corner. people call it "living rent free". similar to a goalie seeing kucherov or crosby on a breakaway vs lol i guess tom wilson.... its a mental advantage. What i like about Brady is he is still growing but has shown he's fearless. remember he's on a young team that is a lottery team.put that kid on a line with MAtthews and he scores 70 points... or put him with Sid... any elite center. Who is his center currently? once that team is ready he'll show you why he's worth an over payment imo

I agree, Marchand is exceptional. The difference between Brady and Marchand is that Marchand has offensive skills that allow him to be just as good of a player as he is a pest.

I've been a Sens fan my whole life, have watched every single game Brady has played, and can go use any of the stats that describe those performances. These are not similar players, they're two vastly different tiers. Tkachuk is abysmal defensively, and has average technical skills across the board. Playmaking? Demonstrably very poor at it by the stats, and he's never been much of a passer to the eye-test. Skating? Oh he has no balance and can't stay on his feet. Goal-scoring? He needs to put up an absurd amount of shots just to be a 20 goal scorer, requiring top PP and 1st line minutes to get there, because his shot is very weak and he isn't all that effective at converting in close. These aren't things that improve with a better linemate, because these are fundamental flaws in the way he plays the game. Having a better center doesn't fix his poor shot or his poor offensive IQ, and he's already overloaded with high danger chances that he doesn't know how to convert on so getting more of those doesn't fix a whole lot.

So what is he above average at? He's hyper-competitive, and absolutely has shown he's fearless and ready to face anybody. I respect the heck out of that, but it doesn't make him a superstar player. He's dripping in those intangibles and it makes him a very valuable piece to have, but he doesn't and never has had the offensive ceiling required to make him that kind of player requiring a high contract or to have an offense built around him. He's a complimentary piece that can complete a line of talented players, like a Landeskog who isn't as good offensively and is much worse defensively. He's a 2nd line player who competes each and every night, but if he's in the top 3 of the Senators' best players, they're never scoring enough to win games.

i think they are more comparable than you think BUT i do agree with lot of what you are saying.

Brady vs Marchand

year 1
Brady
71gp 22g 23a 45p
Marchand
77gp 21g 20a 41a..........his first year he had 1a in 20 games

year 2
Brady
71gp 21g 23a 44p
Marchand
76gp 28g 27a 55p

year3
Brady
56gp 17g 19p 36p
Marchand
45gp 18g 18a 36p

Marchand was a touch better but this just shows how close they were at the same ish age