Flames trade Tkachuk to Panthers for monster haul headlined by Huberdeau

[Thorner]

23 hours ago, Taro T said:

And there's the rub.  If they're out of the hunt, it's a no brainer.  But this is a team that won its division & a round of the playoffs.  They have to expect making the playoffs & if they can't sign 1 or both before the trade deadline find themselves in a spot where they might have to say that year's playoff run, a prospect, & a 1st in 2 years plus whatever they can get before the draft for negotiating rights is all 1 year of Tkachuck was worth.  Because it'll be a hard sell to the fans that a couple more high picks & a couple more prospects were worth throwing away this season's run.

Well said.

[Marvin]

I personally would ask myself, "Do I have a better than 50-50 chance of beating all of Edmonton, St. Louis, and Colorado to get to the Finals?  If that answer is not an obvious, "Yes," then bite the bullet and make the trades.  You can't have them hold the team hostage.

[Curt]

2 hours ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

I personally would ask myself, "Do I have a better than 50-50 chance of beating all of Edmonton, St. Louis, and Colorado to get to the Finals?  If that answer is not an obvious, "Yes," then bite the bullet and make the trades.  You can't have them hold the team hostage.

No team could legitimately answer yes to that question.  

[Porous Five Hole]

And there’s the extension. Some freezing cold takes in this thread. 

[Flashsabre]

54 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

And there’s the extension. Some freezing cold takes in this thread. 

Good for Calgary but they will regret this deal by year 3.  They had no choice though they had to get something sewn up after Gaudreau and Tkachuk exiting.

[nfreeman]

Yikes.  Hubie just turned 29, and this extension starts a year from now -- so they will be paying him $10.5MM per year in his age 34, 35, 36 and 37 seasons.  And the cash is $10.5MM every year, so he's fully incentivized to stick it out until the end.

By comparison, Skinner's contract ends after his age 34 season.

I understand why Calgary did this, but I don't think I'd be happy about it if I were a Flames fan.

[mjd1001]

4 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Yikes.  Hubie just turned 29, and this extension starts a year from now -- so they will be paying him $10.5MM per year in his age 34, 35, 36 and 37 seasons.  And the cash is $10.5MM every year, so he's fully incentivized to stick it out until the end.

By comparison, Skinner's contract ends after his age 34 season.

I understand why Calgary did this, but I don't think I'd be happy about it if I were a Flames fan.

Its bad, but I don't think it is the worst thing ever.

Hes a better player than Skinner, and, at least at 29, he had his best year ever so he is still SLIGHTLY getting better or remaining at his peak.  10.5 is a big cap hit, but if the cap goes up in the later years, instead of being 12.5%+ of the teams cap, it might be closer to 10 by the time you get to the middel/end of the deal, which won't be awful.  Can he still give you 25 goals and 70 points when he is 35 years old and play well in his own end?  With him its pretty likely, and if you get that it won't be awful for someone making 10% of the cap.   Of course, the final thing is, what is the no move/no trade clauses? Maybe by those middle to late years, if/when the team isn't good, he might be able to be moved to a desperate contender.    Again, I don't like the length and the money for the deal and I DO think it is a bad contract, but we are not talking about a 'top 50' player in the league, we are talking about who is likely a top-5 or at worst a top-10 player who is still in his prime.

[Zamboni]

I made a thread a couple weeks ago about the worst contracts in the NHL for 2022. I have a feeling this contract will make the list in about 2 to 3 years. 

[Weave]

Contracts like that one make me wonder if the owners are planning on CBA changes in the next contract that helps them get out of deals like these. Otherwise, I’m not sure it makes sense.  They are betting big money on him having a Marleau or Thornton type career.  
 

Or that there will always be an Arizona or Buffalo around looking to get to the cap floor.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Weave

[JohnC]

It is often suggested that Skinner's contract is significantly excessive and has limited the organization's options to add talent. But does it? If he continues to score in the 30 goal range for the rest of the contract, then that contract should be viewed to be more reasonable. There is no question that he is not a $9 M per year player. But if he continues with his usual production level he becomes a $ 7 M per year player. He would still be playing beneath his contract value but it would be at a more respectable level relative to his contract. 

[nfreeman]

 

56 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Its bad, but I don't think it is the worst thing ever.

Hes a better player than Skinner, and, at least at 29, he had his best year ever so he is still SLIGHTLY getting better or remaining at his peak.  10.5 is a big cap hit, but if the cap goes up in the later years, instead of being 12.5%+ of the teams cap, it might be closer to 10 by the time you get to the middel/end of the deal, which won't be awful.  Can he still give you 25 goals and 70 points when he is 35 years old and play well in his own end?  With him its pretty likely, and if you get that it won't be awful for someone making 10% of the cap.   Of course, the final thing is, what is the no move/no trade clauses? Maybe by those middle to late years, if/when the team isn't good, he might be able to be moved to a desperate contender.    Again, I don't like the length and the money for the deal and I DO think it is a bad contract, but we are not talking about a 'top 50' player in the league, we are talking about who is likely a top-5 or at worst a top-10 player who is still in his prime.

 

It's possible, but last year, there were only 2 35-year-olds with 70 points or more -- Ovechkin and Pavelski -- both of whom are much bigger and stronger than Hubie.  And Hubie is getting $10.5MM per year in his age 35, 36 and 37 seasons.

Jason Spezza is the cautionary tale here -- he started producing 25ish-point seasons in his age 34 season.

 

 

[LTS]

It's a bad contract and Treliving was not forced to do it. That thinking was the same thinking that said the Sabres had to retain Vanek. Sometimes you have to accept that the situation got sideways and you have to manage to that. Hubie is a win now and ignore the pain later contract. It's a decision made by a person who says the mess is the next person's problem.  As an owner, if your GM is making those decisions then you should have already changed GMs. Better if you accept you need a year or two to move some things around in the organization. Instead they doubled down on what was already not a great situation by losing Gaudreau and having to trade Tkachuk.

Perhaps the contract can be moved, etc. But in many cases it can't.. and even then 8 years now assumed he says healthy and does not retire before then thus causing Calgary even more pain when he's 35+.

Under current CBA, of course.

[aristocrat]

Yikes for Calgary. Couldn't rip the band aid and trade him and have 1-2 down years while refilling the cupboard with some nice prospects. They aren't close. 

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Yikes.  Hubie just turned 29, and this extension starts a year from now -- so they will be paying him $10.5MM per year in his age 34, 35, 36 and 37 seasons.  And the cash is $10.5MM every year, so he's fully incentivized to stick it out until the end.

By comparison, Skinner's contract ends after his age 34 season.

I understand why Calgary did this, but I don't think I'd be happy about it if I were a Flames fan.

Exactly why I said the price Florida paid is MORE than worth it, to effectively time travel their window of contention. Keeping the Huberdeau they had wasn’t an option - they could have the one making this much, at this age, until age 38. Giving up the late first and Weager by far the lesser of two evils. 

I actually think it was a brilliant move from Florida. 

[Curt]

24 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Exactly why I said the price Florida paid is MORE than worth it, to effectively time travel their window of contention. Keeping the Huberdeau they had wasn’t an option - they could have the one making this much, at this age, until age 38. Giving up the late first and Weager by far the lesser of two evils. 

I actually think it was a brilliant move from Florida. 

For Florida it was a move for the long game.  It makes them slightly worse for this one upcoming season, but it helps them for several years after that.

[Marvin]

Calgary are apparently trying to sign Weegar as well.

[sabresparaavida]

34 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Exactly why I said the price Florida paid is MORE than worth it, to effectively time travel their window of contention. Keeping the Huberdeau they had wasn’t an option - they could have the one making this much, at this age, until age 38. Giving up the late first and Weager by far the lesser of two evils. 

I actually think it was a brilliant move from Florida. 

I think I’m a vacuum, it could be considered a good deal for Florida. However, they’ve spent a good deal of assets in the past couple years that have really narrowed their window, by trading their firsts in upcoming drafts. They are extending their window with the Tkachuk trade, but the rest of their moves have been shortening that window, so it may not work out for them long term. 

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, sabresparaavida said:

I think I’m a vacuum, it could be considered a good deal for Florida. However, they’ve spent a good deal of assets in the past couple years that have really narrowed their window, by trading their firsts in upcoming drafts. They are extending their window with the Tkachuk trade, but the rest of their moves have been shortening that window, so it may not work out for them long term. 

But it’s better than signing Huberdeau, though, that’s the point - the other moves are in the past. To convert your star 100 point winger into a star 100 point winger who’s 5 years younger is no small feat. Finding a better trade out there is highly highly doubtful. 

After that, we are contemplating dealing him for futures instead - and while that may be something appealing to the Sabres at their point in team development, for Florida that’s no bueno. Their window IS now, and they just extended it.

[mjd1001]

Does this keep Calgary competitive for the next 2 years?  I think they are thinking/hoping so. If they think they can be a top-5 team in the West, then this might work out.  Will you be able to beat Colorado or even Edmonton?  One injury to a McDavid or a McKinnon near playoff time is all you need, and it can get you a cup appearance.  

Plus, they have a chance to rebuild/retool in 2 seasons anyway. Look at their contracts. After the next 2 seasons are over, they have a total of THREE guys under contract up front (Huberdeau, Mangiapane, and Blake Coleman), and ONE guy on the back end (Andersson).  Even if Huberdeau is overpriced, they are going to have a lot of flexibility and a lot of options over the next 2-3 years.  It will not be the contract Huberdeau just signed that will make or break this team over the next 5 years...it will be the moves of the front office.

Edited August 6, 2022 by mjd1001

[steveoath]

1 hour ago, sabresparaavida said:

I think I’m a vacuum

That must suck

[Taro T]

18 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

And there’s the extension. Some freezing cold takes in this thread. 

Will stand by the opinion that if Calgary was willing to seriously overpay then Huberdeau was willing to stay.  IMHO, $10.5MM cap hit for 8 years, NONE of which he'll be in his 20's is an overpay.  YMMV.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Taro T

[Taro T]

7 hours ago, Weave said:

Contracts like that one make me wonder if the owners are planning on CBA changes in the next contract that helps them get out of deals like these. Otherwise, I’m not sure it makes sense.  They are betting big money on him having a Marleau or Thornton type career.  
 

Or that there will always be an Arizona or Buffalo around looking to get to the cap floor.

Only 12 teams that he can be traded to unless he waives that clause and only in the age 36 & 37 years.  How many of 2030's & 2031's Yotes & Sabres do you expect he'd be willing to waive for?

Treliving is worrying about today figuring that contract will be the next guy's problem.  Wouldn't be surprised if the owner said OK because he doesn't want to be giving the McDavid led Eulers a free pass ahead of them in years 1-3 of the deal and will worry about beating McDavid in years 4+ when they get there. 

[dudacek]

Agree with @Thorny's take that turning your 29-year-old $9.5-million-over-8-years 1st-line winger into a 24-year-old $9.5-million-over-8-years 1st-line winger is excellent GMing, even when you've gotta toss in a 1st-rounder and a good 2/3 defenceman to make it happen.

That said, Florida better hope Spencer Knight turns into Vasilevskiy because that is their only hope of ever winning anything.

With the exception of Anton Lundell, every other player on that roster is already as good as he will ever be. Many are coming off a career year. They have no prospects of note in the system, no draft picks over the next 3 years with which to restock, and limited capspace to manouevre.

Don't get me wrong, Barkov, Tkachuk, and Ekblad in their prime, plus some good support in that same window should keep them competitive.

But they weren't good enough last year and they got worse in the off-season. Sabre reject Brandon Montour, waiver-wire claim Gustav Forsling  and noted thug Radko Gudas are in their top 4.

Zito went all in last year. And missed.

Tkachuk for Huberdeau is not going to change that.

[dudacek]

Also going against the grain here: hockey fans often make the mistake of conflating being a dick with being a competitor and that has made Matthew Tkachuk among hockey's more overrated players.

Don't get me wrong, he's a heck of a hockey player, easy 1st-line talent, but I'm pretty sure Matt spells team with an "I".

There's a fine line between being a shift-disturber and an asshat, and Tkachuk is on the wrong side of that line more often than the Hockey establishment would have you believe. He does what he wants, how he wants and when. He's just as likely to pull his team apart as he is to fire them up.

Do you think Matt had anything other than his own best interests in mind when orchestrated his way out of Calgary and into a warm-weather, low-pressure tax-free state as quickly and as profitably as possible?

You think it's a coincidence that this 70-point player turned into a 100-point player during a contract year? Or that he hit those heights playing with one of the league's best-puckhandlers and one of its better 2-way centres?

Eight years is a long time time. I'm betting it's not going to take long for reports of friction to surface in Florida. Of course, it will be spun as Matt ridding the president's trophy winning team of it's "country-club atmosphere."

As I said earlier, he's a heck of a player and I'm sure he will make our lives miserable many times over the next 8 years.

But I wonder when people are going to start asking themselves what has Matt Tkachuk ever won?

 

[Eleven]

46 minutes ago, dudacek said:

There's a fine line between being a shift-disturber and an asshat, and Tkachuk is on the wrong side of that line more often than the Hockey establishment would have you believe. He does what he wants, how he wants and when. He's just as likely to pull his team apart as he is to fire them up.

^

46 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Eight years is a long time time. I'm betting it's not going to take long for reports of friction to surface in Florida. Of course, it will be spun as Matt ridding the president's trophy winning team of it's "country-club atmosphere."

This part, too.

47 minutes ago, dudacek said:

But I wonder when people are going to start asking themselves what has Matt Tkachuk ever won?

About a month ago, for me, but others may take this exercise at their own paces.