03-28-2017, 10:48 PM
|
#101
|
First Line Centre
|
Those of you thinking Engelland is going to accept less money than he's had this past contract, you're in for a real treat. The guy has played exceptionally, has progressed since inking last, can play both forward and D, and can dust it up when needed (2 canucks at a time even...). That in my books is worth 2.9 mil per year.
If he earned the same contract, I wouldn't even blink.
|
|
|
03-29-2017, 01:13 AM
|
#102
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Houston, TX
|
Do people realize what a 35+ multi-year contract means?
It means that the cap hit is guaranteed against the cap for the duration of the contract. It means demoting Engelland to the AHL will not save his cap hit. It means buying him out will not save the Flames his cap hit.
The only players that get multi Year deals on 35+ contracts are superstars (Iginla, 3yr). The only teams that give multi year 35+ contracts to non superstars are bad teams (Colorado-Beauchemin).
That said, I'd still be able to live with 2yr/2.5AAV.
On some level I think the Flames need an Engelland to balance the bottom pair and the whole line up when you include his minutes and his PK. But that's still a reach and a risk. The Flames are at the point of the build where every cap dollar matters.
Might make more sense to do a 1yr with incentives for both parties.
Last edited by dying4acup; 03-29-2017 at 01:16 AM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to dying4acup For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-29-2017, 01:24 AM
|
#103
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dying4acup
Do people realize what a 35+ multi-year contract means?
It means that the cap hit is guaranteed against the cap for the duration of the contract. It means demoting Engelland to the AHL will not save his cap hit. It means buying him out will not save the Flames his cap hit.
The only players that get multi Year deals on 35+ contracts are superstars (Iginla, 3yr). The only teams that give multi year 35+ contracts to non superstars are bad teams (Colorado-Beauchemin).
That said, I'd still be able to live with 2yr/2.5AAV.
On some level I think the Flames need an Engelland to balance the bottom pair and the whole line up when you include his minutes and his PK. But that's still a reach and a risk. The Flames are at the point of the build where every cap dollar matters.
Might make more sense to do a 1yr with incentives for both parties.
|
Those are pretty bold statements (could be a bad pun in there somewhere). You'll be held to that, and if it ends up being more than a 1 year deal, well then....
I don't see Engelland getting a 1 year deal anytime soon, especially with all of his intangibles.
|
|
|
03-29-2017, 01:59 AM
|
#104
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Amsterdam
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by saXon
Those of you thinking Engelland is going to accept less money than he's had this past contract, you're in for a real treat. The guy has played exceptionally, has progressed since inking last, can play both forward and D, and can dust it up when needed (2 canucks at a time even...). That in my books is worth 2.9 mil per year.
If he earned the same contract, I wouldn't even blink.
|
I hear you, but mid to low end FA's have sure received a wake up call the last few summers. Glencross, Russel, Jiri Hudler. Franson. Things have changed for late 20's, early 30's non superstars. I think Engelland can be had for just under 2 million per year.
|
|
|
03-29-2017, 02:02 AM
|
#105
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Houston, TX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by saXon
Those are pretty bold statements (could be a bad pun in there somewhere). You'll be held to that, and if it ends up being more than a 1 year deal, well then....
I don't see Engelland getting a 1 year deal anytime soon, especially with all of his intangibles.
|
I like Engelland, but would it be a shock if this was his last productive season?
Seeing as how a lot of UFAs have been shunned by the market lately, I'd be stunned if there is a huge market for him. VGK and the Flames?
The Flames are no longer in a position to pay above market for him like they did last time.
|
|
|
03-29-2017, 06:41 AM
|
#106
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by saXon
Those are pretty bold statements (could be a bad pun in there somewhere). You'll be held to that, and if it ends up being more than a 1 year deal, well then....
I don't see Engelland getting a 1 year deal anytime soon, especially with all of his intangibles.
|
There are only 11 players in the NHL this season on multi-year 35+ contracts (and three of them haven't played an NHL game this season). - Datsyuk
- Markov
- Iginla
- Streit
- Pronger
- Beauchemin
- Fisher
- Gionta
- Bieksa
- Robidas
- Chimera
By all accounts, the Flyers thought that because Pronger was still 34 when he signed the contract, it wouldn't count as a 35+ contract when it came into effect. They were wrong.
There are six defencemen on the list, all of them have scored at least 30 points in a season at some point in their NHL careers. Half of them have scored 60 in a season. Beauchemin is the only one to have never hit 40 points in a season, topping out at 36.
Engelland, on the other hand, has never reached 20 points in an NHL season.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
|
|
|
03-29-2017, 07:01 AM
|
#107
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
I think Engelland has proven at least to be a very durable player. If he's missed any games to injury I can't remember. I think a two year deal wouldn't be outlandish. It just seems though that Las Vegas would be the best fit as they can offer him two years at his current pay and he lives there already. He's got to look out for himself at the end of the day so I don't see why he would accept a 1 year deal from the Flames and I can't see the Flames offering him a multi year deal. Russell will be available in free agency and we know the Flames like him so they will have options.
|
|
|
03-29-2017, 08:07 AM
|
#108
|
First Line Centre
|
4 Mil for 2 years is far. If he can get more elsewhere, I´d understand him leaving. Let´s not get into another situation where we´re sitting for guys like Smid, Wideman and Bollig to come off our books.
And who knows, maybe Vegas takes Bouma or Stajan off our hands, or even Brouwer
__________________
Resident beer snob
|
|
|
03-29-2017, 08:33 AM
|
#109
|
Franchise Player
|
When the Flames win the Cup this year, he'll have such a desire to be back with the boys that he'll sign whatever works for the team.
He's not getting any younger. Remember when everyone thought Glencross was going to cash in on his UFA deal? Engelland might be looking around guessing the grass might be greener elsewhere, but also aware it could be pretty dead. He might elect to stay if he feels the deal is fair, and that might ultimately be the best career move for him.
I don't think GMs pay for past performance anymore.
|
|
|
03-29-2017, 08:58 AM
|
#110
|
Franchise Player
|
At some point you just have to play your prospects. Guys like Ollas Mattson and Healey are physically mature players who have been playing against men.
Engelland is a want not a need, paying bottom pair dmen 3 mill is not what contenders do.
Wish him the best! He will be remembered for good things he'd done and not his contract which he was ridiculed for initially.
|
|
|
03-29-2017, 11:19 AM
|
#111
|
Draft Pick
|
Yep, you politely tell Engelland that you'll be there with an offer in free agency because he fits your system, but that the team can't afford to be the top bidder.
I think he's an almost guaranteed Knight, perfect vet, nice multi-year, cap-floor reaching deal that will still count against the team if Engelland is bought-out or retires. Too perfect IMO.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:05 AM.
|
|