Kadri -7x5 = 35 left on his deal. I would rather take all that cash back in a deal (various players) that expire in 3 years. That way, it won't mess with any future re-signings. Add value back if the players are bringing in negative cap, straight-across if those players are decent value. Point is, I think Kadri starting this season at age 34, while continuing to play for Calgary until his last season at which point he starts the season at age 39 is ignoring the elephant in the room. That 7 million might only be 5 million in today's dollars, but it is still 5 million that can be used to extend someone longer term or have to bridge someone instead.
Kadri is doing a great job, absolutely. He isn't dead cap at this point. He has value to the right team. He is adding value to Calgary right now, which is why I am not saying to trade him as a cap dump. I am just saying if there is something half-decent out there, you pull the trigger.
Don't let this become another Frolik situation. There are vets you can bring in on short-term deals that will help keep the team playing the right way. I definitely do not want a scorched-earth rebuild. I just think prudence should be shown on two players specifically - Kadri and his impending negative cap hit (the first year he regresses he will be a negative unmovable asset), and Rasmus and his sweetheart contract that is devaluing as the time on it is running out.
I really think Andersson would return a significant return with his cap hit - the same exact reason that Hamonic returned what he did, only I think Andersson has more value.
If I was Conroy, I would actively shop Rasmus, while I listen on Kadri. I would not circle his name as someone who is critical in retaining for the rebuild. You already have Huberdeau, Weegar, Backlund, Coleman, Pospisil (yes, the guy who competes in practice the way he competes in games), Lomberg (yes, the guy who never stops competing either), and whomever else they want to sign down the road.
Kadri is a nice to have right now, absolutely. I am not saying otherwise. We just can't ignore the fact that he will not be a nice to have at some point in the duration of this contract. I would rather trade him sooner rather than later, so the Flames can afford to keep all their higher-priced deals that they need, along with Huberdeau's deal that is already on the books.
|