Well considering they are going to club elected arbitration (setting his floor at 1@9aav), I imagine that contract you have for him is WAY too low

The term could be an issue rather than the dollar amount, that happens sometimes. I would be surprised if it was "WAY" too low, considering there are not many wingers making more money than 9.5mil...

Tkachuks have a long history of holding out. I'd expect a marner esq contract if he even signs for more than 1 year. The fact that the club is taking him to arb is a big deal and shows how badly the negotiation is going. He is probably asking for more than mitch

As of right now there are 12 forwards making more than 9.5mil, only 4 of which primarily play on the wing, and they are Gaudreau, Kane, Marner, and Panarin. I love Chucky but I'm not really sure he should get more than those 4. He's on a similar level but brings different intangibles than the pure show stopping play making ability they have. However, what's an additional half mil? 10million to get it done. Max offer

That being said, I'm sure the issue is on term, and if Chucky even wants to stay long term. I was hoping giving him this Tkachuk friendly line could sway him

It doesn't really matter what you think he's worth though does it at the end of the day. He's the type of player that is most coveted in the nhl and plays at an extremely high level. He's going to crush 10 on a real contract and anyone pretending otherwise is just deluding themselves. You watch, if this gets to the arbitrator his ask will be north of 11, maybe even 12, then CGY will be forced into a 1 year contract around 10.5 ish and won't be able to trade him before he expires UFA

Cool, bro... it also doesn't matter what you think, either... what a fun conversation we are having...

Boy did you ever miss the point of what I said. Go read back what i said and try to actually understand what was said this time around

The club elected arbitration is irrelevant, there was going to be an arbitration filing regardless. It was only done to set a deadline and provide more guaranteed negotiation time past Friday. An arbitrator is not going to award him much more than 9M

Thats not how arbitration works at all, they dont split the difference. They choose an arbitrary number that they deem fit (obviously 9M+) and thats it. The term was max 1 year from an arbitrator or the QO regardless

Tkachuk did not file, there was not going to be an arb filing regardless. This is a cope. Stop it. And after the season he had you had better believe an arbitrator will give him more than 9 mil especially knowing how nhl arb works (effectively just splits the ask in half). Regardless the money isn't the biggest issue anyway. The largest issue is that Tkachuk gets to pick the term, 1 or 2 years, of which I imagine he will pick 1, and in that time you will be unable to trade him. He will then expire UFA

Do you see the problem?

You're better off tanking for Bedard

Lmao yes we know he didn't file, thats why Calgary did instead in the 2nd window. If Calgary was so worried they would have filed in the first window. Or if Tkachuk was that headstrong on getting out asap he would have signed the QO day 1.

This isn't a cope at all, this is me explaining to people who dont understand the purpose of arbitration. Which as you showed in this post do not.

Tkachuk doesn't get to pick the term it was 1 year maximum in every situation unless they agree to a long term deal before the hearing. An arbitrator can only award term up to the remaining restricted free agency years.

Mate, the party who didn't elect arb gets to chose the term, either 1 or 2 years. It has always been that way. Catch up. Ffs CF literally has it written on here. The fact that you so rudely yell about **** you blatantly do not know is ****ing hilarious. It's constant from you. Tkachuk can't, but to say no one can is objectively wrong

To add, according to CGY's own Twitter post, doing this also removes the possibility of an offer sheet

I dont know? You are the one who cant read the rules, dont try to rule check me when you can't scroll down and read them yourself

Yes but that really wasn't a worry to begin with

Did, you not actually read my comment? You took all that time to respond and missed: "Tkachuk can't, but to say no one can is objectively wrong"

That is next level bs from you I must say. So yes I can read, but apparently you cannot. Have a good night, enjoy trading Tkachuk for 60 cents on the dollar.

Quote me where I said "no one can"

The only bs here is you purposely putting words in my mouth.

Keep on trolling and good luck with your first round exit again

"1 year maximum in every situation" is pretty clear I think.

Not sure you know what trolling means either.

Regardless, the point is: the flames are ****ed. You can cope all you want but they are. Trade Tkachuk, trade lindholm, etc tank for bedard. This is the year to tank.

"1 year maximum in every situation" involving Tkachuk. His name was clearly in the full sentence.
QO = 1 year
Player elected arb = 1 year
Team elected arb = 1 year

They can still sign him to a long term contract, the arbitration never changed that. It just gave them more guaranteed time to negotiate.

You just have reading comprehension issues.

You should keep up with the news. He's gone.
And no, you have English issues. If you're going to throw a fit of precision, be precise. Tkachuk's name being in the same sentence does not mean that sentence pertains only to him.

****ing high school drop outs I stg...

Lol you are a clown.

There was clearly no break in the sentence so it was clearly still about him. Hell it was a 2 sentence paragraph where the 2nd sentence was clearly elaborating on why it was only 1 year maximum.

My grammar was completely fine in that statement

Your grammar was fine, but your sentence construction was terrible and didn't convey what you thought it did. Get your GED and then weep when Tkachuk gets traded

Your petty attempts at insulting my intelligence are cute, I'll give you that.

And no my sentence structure was fine too.

How did you read this and think "he is clearly talking about Jesper Bratt too here."

What part of "in every situation" doesn't scream "in every situation" to you, exactly?

You are purposely taking it put of context. The context was clearly there.

This is like me saying "i live in Toronto and it's raining." And you responding with "well it's not raining in Phoenix so you are wrong."