Can't quote your post Jake:
For the UFA players - we know already most will re-sign. Of the very few that don't, Calgary probably won't be on the short-list unless they are offering a lot more money - and even then, we have had FAs turn Calgary down when Calgary offered the most.
So the other avenue of taking advantage of the market is through trade - you mentioned Eichel, Thornton, Sequin, O'Reilly, Lindholm and Stone. In all of these cases I believe (going off by memory) some cap went the other way. All these players had significant cap moving the other way, whether they were 'hockey trades' or for futures. There is always cap moving around in trades.
Feaster left cap room open and declared Calgary "Open for Business", and what did Calgary do? Basically nothing.
If the Flames are competing, they need to build the best team that they can this year. Next year things may again look drastically different and you can't keep from building the best team you can today because a talented player MAY become available next year.
Now, if the Flames are rebuilding, sure, they have the luxury of waiting - but then those trades may not make sense unless it is a 'hockey trade' rather than a futures dump.
I am not saying Klingberg should be signed here (though I really think Calgary is unquestionably missing that #1 offensive puckmoving/ppQB defencemen). I would hope that the Flames look at him, and if they decide he is a fit, to sign him rather than to keep that cap-space open all season 'just in case someone becomes available in a situation where the other team can't take back any cap'.
This is a different conversation if what you are trying to say is: "I think Klingberg's contract will be an anchor". Then yes, I hope that Calgary does not sign Klingberg. But if the choice is between signing Klingberg (if the Flames think he upgrades this team and his contract makes sense) vs waiting and seeing what happens, I will pick Klingberg every time, as long as the goal is to compete.
|