Quote:
Originally Posted by kehatch
You were using the contract as 'proof' that Iginla signing for a low contract now meant he wasn't worth 7-million 3 years ago following a 40+G 80+P season. It is a 6-million dollar contract. Not very good proof.
As for the rest, I did make a sound argument. Your arguments (the near last place Flames weren't bad before trading Iginla, 86-point 33 year old signed Iginla wouldn't have brought a much better return then 58-point 36 year old rental Iginla) don't make much sense at all.
Regardless, back to the topic. My take is:
The Flames are in a nearly identical situation that the Oiler's were in around 2007 or 2008. Whether that means we are in for a series of first overall picks and an extended playoff absence or whether we can turn that around more quickly (or whether we will continue to be just bad enough not to make the playoffs and never get those top draft picks) depends on: - The development of our prospects
- The smarts of Flames management
- A healthy dose of luck (one way or the other)
In other words we aren't any better off then they were but we aren't destined for the same path (could be better ... or could be worse). |
Sigh.
The current Iginla contract is merely a one year deal and over 2/3 of the dollars will not count against the cap this year... it carries over to next year. You missed the point. It shows how difficult it would have been to add a veteran winger with a straight 7M cap hit with two or three years left. So the market for Iginla would have been extremely small, not to mention Iginla's leverage to pick his destination. I am not sure Iginla would have chosen LA since they did not have Richards, Carter or Sutter back then and had not yet done any damage in playoffs. The cap hit is a huge part of the trade equation, and Iginla's huge cap hit was prohibitive to most suitors, since most teams Iginla would consider are already close to the cap.
In offseason a team with cap room could sign a ufa winger to a 2 or 3 year deal at 7 per, without giving away the precious long term assets. Obviously you can't get a young Mike Richards with his long term cap friendly deal on the ufa market, so you can justify trading long term assets for him. Totally different from Iginla.
So I understand that 33 years is more attractive than 35 and that a late 40 goal season should help trade value as opposed to 30 goals, but I maintain that the huge cap hit for long term was a major negative in any hypothetical trade scenario.
The flames season was not Oilers-bad-60 point season, as you implied the Flames were just as bad as the Oilers when they totally bottomed out. Flames were .500 about mid march before the Iginla distraction took hold and the teardown followed soon after. Mediocre along with Dallas, Phx etc. Further if you read Kent Wilson or look at behind-the-net advanced stats you know that the team was 8th or 9th in Fenwick Close, but the story of the season was that save percentage was rock bottom which cost the team in the win/loss column.