Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle
I agree, but his contract situation is much more appealing though. We need the services of Hudler (or similar) likely beyond next season, but not for multiple seasons. Sharp being on contract for 2 years including the next is actually pretty optimal for the Flames needs right now. Hudler expiring at the end of next season, coming of his best career years is very sub optimal because we likely would like to benefit from Hudler for more than next year, but likely won't want to pay the price or term commitment he'll get on his next contract.
I'm not convinced we want Sharp regardless, or in place of Hudler, but I do think the Flames still need a Hudler type for a few more seasons to help round out the roster. Hudler is likely not a good options after next year because he'll likely be priced out of the Flames long term plans in both price and contract term after this year (he'll get to much money for too long for the Flames to pay a 33 year old declining player at that point).
Makes you wonder if the Flames shouldn't be exploring something like swapping Hudler for Sharp if you can get Sharp for cheap due to the Hawks cap woes and if you can maximize Hudler's value right now with him coming off his best career year. Lots of downside to a move like this in the short term too, but long term you have to think the Flames are thinking about these types of things.
|
I like this strategy of extending a veteran presence a little longer, but not too long. I'm in the camp that believes the Flames should not be extending Hudler after this year, despite how good a contributor and presence he has been for them, as the term he will be looking for would be a minimum of three years, IMO. I don't know enough about Sharp's current play to say he is the guy but I like the thought of extending the veteran presence longer than one more year but less than three. You could trade Hudler at the coming year's TDL for a good asset and, presumably, you would be able to do the same thing with Sharp the following TDL.
I was a fan of the Hudler deal right from the beginning and he has exceeded my expectations so I'm not a hater, in the least. One of the things Treliving said after the season was over was that they needed to take some time and reflect upon the year in order to remove some of the emotional attachment (paraphrasing here) that builds up in a run like the Flames had. I was wondering at the time whether he was thinking about a player like Hudler and whether getting value for an asset may be more important than sticking with a player who has meant so much to the team.
I'm not sure if I've seen this brought up in other discussions about potentially extending Hudler but many people here said that the Iggy trade was executed a season (or two) too late to get full value for him. How old was Iggy when he, ideally, should have been traded? Are we running the same risk of the same situation with Hudler if we offer him another contract? For those posters who are saying we should extend Hudler because of what he means to the team, does he mean more than Iggy did at the same point in his contract?
Of course, you have to take into consideration what a team would offer for Hudler. If he was traded this off-season, what teams (other than Chicago) would potentially be in the market for him?