Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix
They were both coming off career years and both have very manageable cap hits. With retention, those two would've been very tradeable IMO. Especially in the off season/TDL when teams have more available cap space.
I realize it's not like the stock market, but it's also true that many other teams in our situation maximize their assets during a rebuilding year to set themselves up for future years. Moving the likes of Russell and Hudler isn't doing anything that hasn't been done hundreds of times over by all sorts of teams throughout the years. What makes the Calgary Flames special? Throughout their history they have been very resistant to trading veterans for futures, except when backed into a corner. What do the Flames know that other teams don't?
I wouldn't advocate going full-Sabre but I do believe taking a few pages out of their playbook would've been advantageous.
|
I honestly think they tried. When Schlemko signed in NJ, he did say he was close to staying in Calgary and they were trying to make room to sign him but things didn't work out. It could have been Smid but I think it was Wideman or Russell.
As for Hudler, I think it was explored when we signed Frolik. I think a lot of teams are hedging their bets since there are very few teams that are safe bets to make the playoffs, and everyone else is on the fence wondering if they'll get burned if they give up a (i.e. 1st rounder) for Hudler and miss, and the pick becomes a lottery pick. I'm sure he could have landed a 2nd or 3rd for Hudler, but for that value, its probably better to hold onto him and see what happens. Also, there is still deals to be held in the future, esp for those teams that look like they are in a comfy spot to make the playoffs and won't risk their 1st becoming a lottery pick.