Speculation: Will Treliving Show Bennett the Money?

Mobiandi

Registered User
Jan 17, 2015
20,844
17,200
Like Gaudreau last year, Bennett will end up caving but entirely unhappily. If it ends up affecting his ability to breakout, he'll probably end up being traded next year. If not and he thrives, he'll remember how the organization treated him when he had little leverage.

I guess this definitely one of the pitfalls that may come with Treliving's tenure. Though it has given us cap flexibility, his hardline stance in negotiations may hurt our longetivity as we look to take the next step from bubble team to playoff mainstay and eventual contenders.
 

OvermanKingGainer

#BennettFreed #CurseofTheSpulll #FreeOliver
Feb 3, 2015
16,133
7,107
2022 Cup to Calgary
What people in this thread seem to be ignoring is that wanting to sign Bennett to a contract with a higher AAV is not about "handing him money he hasn't earned". It's about buying term to minimize the long term AAV for the Calgary Flames. People say that they're willing to pay a player however much he asks for after he earns it, but the cap is a real thing. You can't just hand everybody a large AAV contract and keep a team together. The idea that second contracts are the contracts you save money on is rooted in the pre-cap era, where you could hand every aging vet a retirement contract with no consequence.

Here's how I see Bennett's shaking out in every given year, along with my proposed AAV for a given contract term.

Season|OKG Expected Salary|Age|Term|Arbitration Rights?|AAV of Expected Salary|Proposed AAV|Favours|Notes
2014-15|0.100|18|-|-|-||-|
2015-16|1.138|19|-|-|-||-|
2016-17|1.138|20|-|N|-||-|
2017-18|2.250|21|1|Y|2.250|Term Not Viable|Bennett|Backlund UFA/Jankowski RFA
2018-19|3.250|22|2|Y|2.750|Term Not Viable|Bennett|Tkachuk RFA/Ferland UFA
2019-20|5.000|23|3|Y|3.500|3.250|Both|Brouwer/Frolik/Hamonic/Stone/Brodie UFA
2020-21|6.250|24|4|Y|4.188|3.575|Flames|Signing Bonus affects leverage significantly.
2021-22|6.750|25|5|UFA|4.700|4.000|Bennett|Takes Bennett to UFA
2022-23|10.000|26|6|UFA|5.583|4.400|Flames|Buy 1 UFA Year
2023-24|10.000|27|7|UFA|6.214|4.650|Flames|Buy 2 UFA Year
2024-25|10.000|28|8|UFA|6.688|5.000|Flames|Max Term

Now here's the thing. If you sign Bennett to a two year bridge deal like some people want to do, then "after he earns it" are you willing to give him a six year deal worth 5+6.25+6.75+10+10+10 = 8M AAV x 6 Years afterwards? Because you won't have any leverage of a miserable season to fall back on. And that AAV is less than what was signed by Draisaitl, never mind that two years from now the cap inflation may increase that 8M AAV by another 5% or so (it happens every year).

"okay, but if he earns an 8M AAV that means he's a really good player, so it's worth it".

Sure.

Know who else might be worth it? Matthew Tkachuk, who would be an RFA at the same time, and Micheal Ferland. Are you going to deplete the depth of your team for one player, when you could have had all three just a few years ago?

Or do you take your chance with player-elected arbitration and mess around for the rest of his RFA years? Has that ever worked out?

"as long as he's playing behind Mikael Backlund and Sean Monahan, he'll never earn an 8M AAV".

Perhaps. Or perhaps he becomes a 50 point 3C (which would make him the best 3C in the NHL). And so he requests a trade after two more years of playing behind Mikael Backlund and Sean Monahan. So again, you lose a great player.

"Sam Bennett is not a star player. He will never be worth 4.65M dollars AAV. It would be a bad contract".

First of all, you'd be ignoring cap inflation. 4.65M (for a seven year deal) in five years (when we will need the salary cap space far more than we do right now)

"I just refuse to pay a player money they haven't earned! 26 Points!!!"

You're welcome to your opinion. But it's short-sighted and the only outcome is either that you're right and Sam Bennett is terrible at hockey (lol) or you're wrong and we lose an important core piece. Basically, it's the position of someone who doesn't want to see a favourable outcome for the Calgary Flames. Basically it's a lose-lose scenario you are betting on. The Flames basically lose either way. Maybe it's not that binary, and there's a middle ground in their somewhere, but you're merely hoping for full-scale mediocrity to be the final outcome. Most of the people who feel we can win without Sam Bennett approaching his potential also believe Sean Monahan is or will become a top 15 center in the NHL, which ironically is more optimistic than thinking Sam Bennett will be worth 4.5 to 5 million dollars at some point in the next eight years.

"what about that 3.25 x 3 proposal of yours? Wouldn't that be a win-win for both sides?"

Far moreso than a two year bridge. And you would have enough cap space to give Bennett whatever 9M+Inflation AAV that he could potentially command. It could work. And it's probably the ultimate what we end up with on September 15th. We'd probably come out of everything okay.

But my proposed offers give us more flexibility which ultimately maximizes our chance at being elite contenders for a long time.

"Bennett would never accept your lowball proposed deals... "

As long as you agree those deals favor the Flames, we're on the same page. Whether they'd be enticing for Sam Bennett given his other options is besides the point. Remember, this long ass post started with "this not about "handing him money he hasn't earned". This is about signing a reasonably fair deal that could be beneficial to the Calgary Flames.
 

Flameshomer

Likeaholic
Aug 26, 2010
3,830
1,039
Edmonton
I actually follow the logic OKG posted about wanting a longer term at lower cap hit, but I have no idea why Bennett would want that. He clearly believes he's going to be worth more than that long term, so why would he sacrifice a bunch of his future earnings for some guaranteed scratch up front. For the same reasons it's a good idea from a flames perspective, it's a bad idea from Bennett's side.

the alternate of a short bridge deal is worse for the flames because of our other contracts coming up in the next two years. It would potentially cost of someone like Backlund if we went this route.

I think we're seeing the struggle of something like a 4 year deal being worked out, and that's why it's been tough. It's on the sweet spot of not deserving more and still buying potential.

I've never bought the Bennett's unhappy talk. Asides from some Advanced stats and the occasional flash of brilliance he really hasn't put it together in the league yet, which is concerning. I personally think he is a winger in the future, and I'm not sure why we don't shift him now while we have all of this depth. (Lazar, Jankowski, hell Stajan even)

I think we've also missed the window to trade sam for maximum value.
 

DFF

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
22,275
6,525
I think that part of the reason that a deal hasn't 'progressed' yet is because Treliving is intentionally waiting until closer to the start of camp to get the ball rolling. It's to his advantage to make the contract signing more time sensitive, as Bennett missing any camp or preseason time would be to his detriment.

It's possible they have only just recently really started on a contract negotiation and this is the fallout of the opening salvo from both sides.


BT better be careful also. This is a big season for BT too. He already traded the 2018 pick. If that turned out to be a high lottery pick, he is a goner.

The Flames need Bennett and Bennett needs to be on the ice ready to prove himself.
 

lightstorm

Registered User
Oct 17, 2016
2,239
1,191
Wouldnt surprise me if Bennet was sour with the organisation since they first saddled him with Brouwer's corpse and now they tell him he will not get paid since he did not produce.
 

Mr Snrub

I like the way Snrub thinks!
Oct 12, 2016
5,713
2,410
Wouldnt surprise me if Bennet was sour with the organisation since they first saddled him with Brouwer's corpse and now they tell him he will not get paid since he did not produce.

The only thing Bennett had on Brouwer last year was reliability in his own zone and physicality. Brouwer was not in any way preventing Sam from producing.
 

Skobel24

#Ignited
May 23, 2008
16,789
920
Winnipeg
Regarding Brouwer, once again, the two of them did really well together until Brouwer got hurt. They were both producing at a 40 point pace or so around the 35 game mark.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,718
Victoria
OKG, that's the very basis of the discussion with regards to this contract. Not sure why you think anyone is missing that.

Yes, anyone advocating a bridge is on board with the fact that if he breaks out, he will need to be paid for it. That's the downside. But it is monumentally better for the team if he doesn't break out. And yes, anyone advocating a long-term deal are willing to accept the risk that even what seems like a bargain value might turn into an annoying contract in the future if he doesn't turn into an impact player. That's why it's a decision.

The whole reason your analysis is flawed is that you're starting with the basis of Bennett becoming a $10M player, and then assessing what makes sense given that knowledge. Real life doesn't work that way.

One of the other factors in play is the fact that trading Bennett, or any other valuable asset, is an option down the road. If you sign a long-term deal, there is a chance that it becomes insanely good value. There is also the chance that it becomes negative value. If you sign a short-term contract, you will end up dumping the player for free and avoiding negative value. If he turns out, then you have to sign him to market value. But you also have the option to trade the asset and maintain the value in the organization. It's more of a no-lose situation, unless you're of the opinion that Sam Bennett is going to be a unique player that the Flames absolutely need to have if they're going to win. Which I don't.
 

lightstorm

Registered User
Oct 17, 2016
2,239
1,191
Regarding Brouwer, once again, the two of them did really well together until Brouwer got hurt. They were both producing at a 40 point pace or so around the 35 game mark.

Well he still played with injured Brouwer didnt he. Im not convinced Monahan would do much better in this situation.
 

InfinityIggy

Zagidulin's Dad
Jan 30, 2011
36,068
12,852
59.6097709,16.5425901


7oTMguD.jpg
 

djpatm

Registered User
Feb 2, 2010
2,525
929
Calgary
Getting a bit nervous

Why?

Unlike Gaudreau, who carries most of the offensive load for this team, there's little chance that Bennett holding out will hurt the Flames on the ice.

Sure it'll suck from a development stand point but there's little doubt that the Flames can replace Bennett's 26 points internally.
 

Mr Snrub

I like the way Snrub thinks!
Oct 12, 2016
5,713
2,410
Why?

Unlike Gaudreau, who carries most of the offensive load for this team, there's little chance that Bennett holding out will hurt the Flames on the ice.

Sure it'll suck from a development stand point but there's little doubt that the Flames can replace Bennett's 26 points internally.

First, that's assuming that Bennett is going to be a 26pt player next year. Second, if he goes to Europe or holds out that kinda tells you what he thinks of the team and indicates he's not interested in staying long term.

Moreso I'm just nervous about the fact that Treliving felt like he had to publicly address Dreger's tweet.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,718
Victoria
First, that's assuming that Bennett is going to be a 26pt player next year. Second, if he goes to Europe or holds out that kinda tells you what he thinks of the team and indicates he's not interested in staying long term.

Moreso I'm just nervous about the fact that Treliving felt like he had to publicly address Dreger's tweet.

He didn't. He didn't have a press conference or call in to a radio station to issue a statement. He was contacted by a reporter who presumably asked him directly about that tweet.
 

Johnny Hoxville

The Return of a Legend
Jul 15, 2006
37,549
9,343
Calgary
I believe you are probably correct.

Dreger: Hey Brad, can you give us any updates on the contract extension with Sam?

Bennett: We've talked, we'll talk some more, "we're not there yet" but it should be done before camp.

Dreger Tweets: The Flames and Bennett still have a sizeable gap.

That's how I see that went, knowing Treliving.
 

InfinityIggy

Zagidulin's Dad
Jan 30, 2011
36,068
12,852
59.6097709,16.5425901
Dreger: Hey Brad, can you give us any updates on the contract extension with Sam?

Bennett: We've talked, we'll talk some more, "we're not there yet" but it should be done before camp.

Dreger Tweets: The Flames and Bennett still have a sizeable gap.

That's how I see that went, knowing Treliving.

*Dreger holds up tin can on a string to wall of the Saddledome*

*garbled noises*

Dreger: BENNETT TO EUROPE?!
 

MDCSL

Registered User
Jun 9, 2016
994
576
Edmonton, AB
We're not focused on threats sure sounds a lot to me like Trev acknowledged that Sam has actually threatened to head to Europe.
 

Ace Rimmer

Stoke me a clipper.
What people in this thread seem to be ignoring is that wanting to sign Bennett to a contract with a higher AAV is not about "handing him money he hasn't earned". It's about buying term to minimize the long term AAV for the Calgary Flames. People say that they're willing to pay a player however much he asks for after he earns it, but the cap is a real thing. You can't just hand everybody a large AAV contract and keep a team together. The idea that second contracts are the contracts you save money on is rooted in the pre-cap era, where you could hand every aging vet a retirement contract with no consequence.

Here's how I see Bennett's shaking out in every given year, along with my proposed AAV for a given contract term.
(snip)

If I'm reading your table correctly, if the Flames could sign him for $40 million over 8 years I have a feeling it'd be done already. Total dice roll, but the dice are loaded in the team's favour.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->