Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
So its ridiculous to suggest that the Flames make a deal where they have guarantees that a player they are moving a highly prized asset for is signed to a contract, but your propose the Flames should have guarantees that the player they are moving multiple assets for is going to sign an extension?
A few things on this one.
1st, Frolik is the very type of player teams are trying to bring in for the post season run, not shed. Why would the Flames want to dump Frolik at this time?
2nd, why would the Senators have interest in Frolik? What hole does he fill on their team? How does he move the team forward? Save the "salary cap basement" argument, as there are better options out there where the Senators can get additional assets for eating a salary if they so desire. Arizona has done it multiple times for example. Frolik is a bad fit in this scenario, other than Calgary wants to get rid of him.
3rd, the Flames are packaging their best non-NHL forward asset and their 1st rounder for a guy that may only play for the team for ~30-40 games. Is that wise? I see the suggestion of a secondary "conditional" pick to cover Ottawa's risk if Stone signs an extension, but why not make sure you have that in place before you commit all those assets to the deal in the first place? If Stone doesn't want to be here long term, don't make the deal at all. Keep your powder dry and make a deal that improves the team long term.
I am fully behind giving to get, but you have to make sure you get before you give. You also have to make sure that you remove as much uncertainty from the mix as you can, so that means being certain you have all the salaries in a structure that makes sense prior to pulling the trigger on a deal this big. You crapped all over the idea of making a real hockey trade, but that was one where all uncertainty was removed, and the uncertainty that existed was shipped to the Sens to deal with. Or did the uncertainty aspect not compute?
|
Because Vinnys deal contains significantly less assets then what you offered which reflects the fact that Stone is an upcoming UFA and there are zero guarantees that you will sign him. What you pitched was something that absolutely did not reflect the actual situation the senators are in. It’s fine to have the opinion that that is not a deal you would do, but then to turn around and come up with a preposterous and unrealistic deal and nay say everyone else’s much more realistic suggestions is what you are getting criticized for. Stone will likely be moved for a 1st round pick and a b prospect with some conditional picks thrown in. Whether the Flames should be in on that is worth debating. I personally would absolutely be in on it but I understand the concerns from the other side.
And I completely disagree that Frolik is a player the senators wouldn’t want. 1 year left at low cash and a higher cap hit and a good veteran presence for a rebuild. Sure, he’d be more desirable for a playoff team but if he’s part of a deal for Mark Stone then that is fine by me. Same goes for Sam Bennett.