Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
2 for Stamkos and Hedman. And those came WELL after they signed the deals.
Are you seriosuly saying they should have sold those players? Are you seriously saying they should have sold Point last year? Or Vasilevsky?
The Knights shouldn't have extended Karlsson, Pietrangelo, Marchessault. Shouldn't even have signed Stone. He was past his prime when they got him at 27.
|
As I said, for a generational talent like Hedman, I think an exception can be made on an extension when they are 26/27.
But do I think a 27 year old Mark Stone is a generational talent? No, I do not. And he is actively falling apart not even mid- way through that eight year extension. And some of the other Knights players you listed are similarly declining.
But you seem to be missing the point: The Calgary Flames
are not the Tampa Bay Lightning or Vegas Golden Knights. Not even close. These teams are destinations players want to sign. Calgary is not. As such, comparing the Flames predicament to them makes no sense whatsoever.
The point isn't whether the Flames should or should not retain a Victor Hedman. The question is
if and the Flames should assume they can not and plan accordingly. This isn't NHL 24, there are realities the Flames face that they need to address if they are going to be successful long term.