LeBrun: Tkachuk wants 5 years, Flames want to avoid

[Sanchise90]

So what, give him the 5 years and if he’s wanting out trade him in year 3. If the player is going to he’s going to go.

Calgary has him controlled for 5 years as an RFA. They can’t force the issue beyond that. Analyze and adapt or you let one of your best assets sit and further sour the situation which everyone losses in that situation

Thank you! This is the one thing I don't get. Say you give Matt Tkachuk a 5 year, 9 million dollar AAV contract. Relative to his age and production, that is still one of the best assets in the NHL. Worst case, if things are going sour and you think he is going to leave in UFA, you don't think some team will give up something significant for a 26-27 year old near PPG player?

Yes. the Flames give Matt Tkachuk exactly what he wants in this situation, sure. But a cost controlled PPG young player that's already at an All-Star Level is one of the best assets for the Flames moving forward.

 

[Sanchise90]

Lol at blaming Dubas for all the RFAs wanting 5 year deals.

Right. I think it's more likely that NHL Agents looked at how younger players are getting paid in other leagues and want to get their players the best deals possible at the youngest ages. However, one player did have to be the precedent setter and it was Matthews.

 

[Sanchise90]

Leafs only bought one year of UFA at 11.6 aav. It's quite shocking to see a player get full Ufa salary with only one Ufa year being bought up. That contact has literally created this movement by this class of Rfa's to ask for the same term and all the while get paid like a Ufa. It's very interesting to see how this all plays out.

Some elite young player was going to do it eventually. Mathews did it first. Honestly, I thought it would have been McDavid cause he had the Oilers by the balls.

 

[Lunatik]

What?

The guy is manipulating the percentage numbers by looking only at the first year of the contracts rather than the entire AAV, not hard to understand.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Right. I think it's more likely that NHL Agents looked at how younger players are getting paid in other leagues and want to get their players the best deals possible at the youngest ages. However, one player did have to be the precedent setter and it was Matthews.

Go look at deals Crosby, Malkin , Toews , Kane, Stamkos, etc signed after their ELCs. All were 5 years and most of them were ~10% +/- of the cap at the time. This isn’t much different imo. In terms of a 5 year deal, Larkin signed a 5 year deal first, albeit not for as much AAV.

 

[Sanchise90]

Go look at deals Crosby, Malkin , Toews , Kane, Stamkos, etc signed after their ELCs. All were 5 years and most of them were ~10% +/- of the cap at the time. This isn’t much different imo. In terms of a 5 year deal, Larkin signed a 5 year deal first, albeit not for as much AAV.

I'm not doubting that there were prior precedents set. I just mean the mass amount of holding out at 1 time amongst elite and even like mid-tier RFA's speaks to an incentive to reach UFA earlier. While there were some exceptions, I think it's going to be more widespread than before.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I'm not doubting that there were prior precedents set. I just mean the mass amount of holding out at 1 time amongst elite and even like mid-tier RFA's speaks to an incentive to reach UFA earlier. While there were some exceptions, I think it's going to be more widespread than before.

No doubt, but what’s also unique about this year is the large number of fantastic players coming off their ELCs at the same time, mainly because of how good the 2015 draft was

 

[DistantThunderRep]

The guy is manipulating the percentage numbers by looking only at the first year of the contracts rather than the entire AAV, not hard to understand.

But that's how you're supposed to look at it. The AAV is only relevant upon signing in cases like this, because as the cap rises the percentage is sliding percentage. When comparing signings, you're supposed to compare signings with the percentage of the cap at the time of signing, not over the term of the signing.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

The guy is manipulating the percentage numbers by looking only at the first year of the contracts rather than the entire AAV, not hard to understand.

What the heck? How on earth is that manipulating things? That is literally how contract comparables are used.

If we just look at AAV:

Matthews - $11,634,000
Crosby - $8,700,000
Kane/Toews - $6,300,000

Obviously, this is an extremely flawed way to look at contracts, seeing as these players all signed under a different cap. But it still shows that you are wrong, and that Matthews didn’t get less than Crosby or Kane/Toews.

 

[Lunatik]

But that's how you're supposed to look at it. The AAV is only relevant upon signing in cases like this, because as the cap rises the percentage is sliding percentage. When comparing signings, you're supposed to compare signings with the percentage of the cap at the time of signing, not over the term of the signing.

No it's not how you are supposed to look at it. You look at AAV because that is what actually counts against the cap each season, it's literally the reason why the NHL uses AAV/cap hit against the salary cap.

 

[DistantThunderRep]

No it's not how you are supposed to look at it. You look at AAV because that is what actually counts against the cap each season, it's literally the reason why the NHL uses AAV/cap hit against the salary cap.

The league uses AAV for simplicity. But players are given percentage s of the total cap based on their value. AAV over term is a sliding value. For example, look at Crosby's contract. You think that had a factor on negotiating today? Its value today is great because the AAV slides as the cap rises. But when he signed the percentage matters. I can't go to Point or Marner or Rantanen or Tkatchuk and be like "Hey Sidney freakin Crosby is making 8.7 Million in today's cap world, so we are going to offer you less than his AAV because let's face it, you're not better than him nor will you be."

 

[Lunatik]

What the heck? How on earth is that manipulating things? That is literally how contract comparables are used.

If we just look at AAV:

Matthews - $11,634,000
Crosby - $8,700,000
Kane/Toews - $6,300,000

Obviously, this is an extremely flawed way to look at contracts, seeing as these players all signed under a different cap. But it still shows that you are wrong, and that Matthews didn’t get less than Crosby or Kane/Toews.

The way you worded things sounded like you were only looking at the annual salary in year 1, in this case would have been close to 16m. My bad man.

 

[Lunatik]

The league uses AAV for simplicity. But players are given percentage s of the total cap based on their value. AAV over term is a sliding value. For example, look at Crosby's contract. You think that had a factor on negotiating today? Its value today is great because the AAV slides as the cap rises. But when he signed the percentage matters. I can't go to Point or Marner or Rantanen or Tkatchuk and be like "Hey Sidney freakin Crosby is take 8.7 Million in today's cap world, so we are going to offer you less than his AAV because let's face it, you're not better than him nor will you be."

I misread what the guy was saying. I thought he was using the actual salaries not the AAVs, for example I thought he was using 15.9m for Matthews rather than his cap hit. Him using the term "year 1" threw me for a loop.

 

[DistantThunderRep]

I misread what the guy was saying. I thought he was using the actual salaries not the AAVs, for example I thought he was using 15.9m for Matthews rather than his cap hit. Him using the term "year 1" threw me for a loop.

Ah, that makes more sense.

 

[Lunatik]

Ah, that makes more sense.

yeah, so we are all just arguing the same thing, I just made the mistake of believing something I read elsewhere about the percentage of the cap that Toews and Kane were when they signed.

 

[DistantThunderRep]

yeah, so we are all just arguing the same thing, I just made the mistake of believing something I read elsewhere about the percentage of the cap that Toews and Kane were when they signed.

Yup, I was thinking that. But don't you dare speak the name that should be unnamed...

 

[Lunatik]

Yup, I was thinking that. But don't you dare speak the name that should be unnamed...

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about now

 

[DistantThunderRep]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about now

The name starts with a "M" and ends with a "Atthews"...might bring the boogeymen in this thread.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

The way you worded things sounded like you were only looking at the annual salary in year 1, in this case would have been close to 16m. My bad man.

Nope. Matthews’ annual salary in year 1 would’ve been 20% of the cap at the time of signing, and 19.5% of the cap in year 1.

The reason that I differentiated between year 1 and at the time of signing is because all 4 of Kane, Toews, Matthews, and Crosby signed before the new cap had been announced. A lot of people will get mad if you list Matthews at 14.63% (cap hit at time of signing), so I listed him at the time of signing and in year 1, and then did the same for Crosby and Kane/Toews. Either way, Matthews was in between, and he was significantly closer to Crosby than he was to Kane/Toews.

While I did not bring up real salary, and it only came up because of a misconception, it also brings home a key point. Matthews’ contract is front-loaded and bonus-laden to the maximum degree; he earns over 50% of his money in the first 365 days. This was nowhere near the case with the contracts of Crosby, Kane, or Toews, and it hasn’t been the case with most 5-year RFA contracts.

yeah, so we are all just arguing the same thing, I just made the mistake of believing something I read elsewhere about the percentage of the cap that Toews and Kane were when they signed.

Probably read something about their UFA contracts, which were higher than Matthews’. But Crosby’s UFA contract was actually cheaper than Matthews’ in year 1. The UFA contracts in general though are apples and oranges.

 

[Seanaconda]

Nope. Matthews’ annual salary in year 1 would’ve been 20% of the cap at the time of signing, and 19.5% of the cap in year 1.

The reason that I differentiated between year 1 and at the time of signing is because all 4 of Kane, Toews, Matthews, and Crosby signed before the new cap had been announced. A lot of people will get mad if you list Matthews at 14.63% (cap hit at time of signing), so I listed him at the time of signing and in year 1, and then did the same for Crosby and Kane/Toews. Either way, Matthews was in between, and he was significantly closer to Crosby than he was to Kane/Toews.

While I did not bring up real salary, and it only came up because of a misconception, it also brings home a key point. Matthews’ contract is front-loaded and bonus-laden to the maximum degree; he earns over 50% of his money in the first 365 days. This was nowhere near the case with the contracts of Crosby, Kane, or Toews, and it hasn’t been the case with most 5-year RFA contracts.

which is also weird because of the still high aav , didnt dubas say that frontloading the contracts was to counteract the low aav deals tampa gets because of taxes ?

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

which is also weird because of the still high aav , didnt dubas say that frontloading the contracts was to counteract the low aav deals tampa gets because of taxes ?

Yes, Kyle Dubas did specifically say that.

Kyle Dubas won't apologize for flexing Maple Leafs' financial muscle - Sportsnet.ca

“Some of it is to do with the present value of money and they’re willing to forego some of the average if the bonus structure is split up in various different ways.”

Looking at other RFAs around the league, it seems as though Sebastian Aho wasn’t able to get the trio of high AAV, 5-year term, and maximum cash ASAP. He had to sign an offer sheet and concede on AAV in order to get the 5-year term and maximum cash ASAP.

 

[hockey20000]

can thank dubas caving to mattews for this .. every Rfa superstar who averages 65+ points out of entry level deal gonna be wanting 5 year contract now or be sitting out.. so stupid.

 

[StreetHawk]

can thank dubas caving to mattews for this .. every Rfa superstar who averages 65+ points out of entry level deal gonna be wanting 5 year contract now or be sitting out.. so stupid.

Are teams offering the kind of big money that ufa years in the 20’s cost? Benn makes $13 mill each when he’s 28-31 on his ufa deal.

 

[Seanaconda]

Are teams offering the kind of big money that ufa years in the 20’s cost? Benn makes $13 mill each when he’s 28-31 on his ufa deal.

thats fair to a point but benn was like a year removed from finishing 2nd and first in points when he signed that

 

[StreetHawk]

thats fair to a point but benn was like a year removed from finishing 2nd and first in points when he signed that

True, so in an unknown situation why is there such a demand to want term. Can we understand that if a team isn’t projecting a player to be as good as Benn that the player might believe in himself to get to that level this not want to sell himself short. That’s probably why guys want something shorter. Stone gets $12 mill each for the 2/4 non potential work stoppage years. So, if you are a top ufa, you’re going to get paid serious money for ages 26-31. So, why should a player sell himself for less.

I’m sure tkachuk would entertain 8 years if the numbers were there but unlikely they are in that range.