Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal and True
Why make it sound like multiple years under contract x $7M for a 33 to 36 year old Iginla is instantly attractive to other GMs?
In 2010, Iggy had 32 goals (a decline for 2nd consecutive year) and was turning 33. $7M cap hit was poor value for the next 3 years to 36. Not going to get much then. Most teams would consider that a salary dump.
Next year turning 34 he had a great season at 43 goals, but how many GMs would be banking on him to repeat that at 35 to 36 years old to justify the $7M cap hit for 2 more years? Or how many elite teams (that Iginla would accept a trade to) would have the ability to shuffle the roster enough to fit Iginla's $7M under the cap for 2 or 3 seasons? A late 1st round pick and a couple of young prospects is about what you would get. Perhaps a little better than what Boston offered this year, but not significantly more.
Keep in mind that Iginla's NTC always allowed him to choose his destination which limited Feaster's ability to leverage. Also notice that Iginla had to sign an extremely cap friendly deal this year to fit onto a good team. $7M would be impossible.
To suggest that GMs would have been clamouring to get Feaster's attention with elite prospects/picks in return for a 33 or 34 year old Iginla (at 3x $7M) is simply not genuine.
|
Do you even watch hockey? Trading Iginla after the 2010/11 season (43 goals/86 points) when they should have and they could very well have gotten the rumoured return from LA.
The only legitimate thing in your post is the NMC. Not because of the impact to value. But because Iginla didn't want to move. But if the Flames told him they were rebuilding he would almost certainly have agreed to move (and in fact publicly said he would agree to a move if the Flames asked.)
The Flames were two seasons removed from the playoffs at that point and clearly in decline. They had just fired their GM in December and clearly the new coach and approach weren't working. They failed to look at the body of evidence and instead let themselves get fooled by a late season push.
They clearly would have gotten a better return for Iginla at that point and would be ahead today. It isn't a debate.
EDIT: Iginla didn't sign a cap friendly deal. He signed a 6-million dollar contract. Boston filled the contract with performance bonuses. But the bulk of that Iginla gets for playing a small number of games. It is a 6-million dollar contract. Boston didn't used the performance bonuses to keep the contract low. They used it to take advantage of the bonus cushion that allows them to postpone a portion of the cap hit until next season when the cap goes up.