Quote:
Originally Posted by stemit14
Couldn’t a conversation like this happen if the flames aren’t in the room:
New team GM: “We really want you on the team and you’ve made it clear you want to be on our team too… but the price the flames want for us to get you under a signed extension is really high and it would mean giving up assets that could help us and you win a cup this year or in the next few years. If we both agree that we’ll sign the extension a few months/weeks from now, we can just tell the flames that you don’t really want to sign an extension with us. That way we can just pay the rental price for you instead of the ‘extension in place” price.”
Player: “Well, you’re the team I really want to be on and I want to win cups with you so I guess we can do that.”
|
But if the Flames are "in the room", there is still nothing that would prevent that (unlikely) scenario. All that matters is that if there is no extension in place, then the Flames shop Hanifin as a rental. There is no guarantee that he would end up with the team he wants to sign long term, and as Johnny found out, there is no guarantee that team will want him come July 1.
In my opinion, I don't see the rental price being all that different. In this scenario we have 2 or 3 teams that could be on the extension list. None have particularly good picks or prospects. There could be 8-10 team (plus those 2 or 3) that might kick the tires on Hanifin as a rental. That should lead to some leverage for the Flames even in a rental scenario.