[Rumour] Feaster only offering T.J. Brodie a one or two year deal. - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

cowtown75 · 07-12-2013, 08:52 PM

According to Todd Cordell (Hockey Buzz Flames writer) Feaster has offered a one year and a two year deal to T.J. Brodie, despite him possibly being our best d-man. It was said that Feaster has no interest in offering anything longer than that.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Todd-...3#.UeDBcSqF_kQ

nightfx · 07-12-2013, 08:55 PM

Anything over 3 brings him to ufa I believe, sign him 2 years and then give him a big contract if he earns it

Super-Rye · 07-12-2013, 08:56 PM

Short term is smart for both parties. I don't see the problem here.

dammage79 · 07-12-2013, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowtown75

According to Todd Cordell (Hockey Buzz Flames writer) Feaster has offered a one year and a two year deal to T.J. Brodie, despite him possibly being our best d-man. It was said that Feaster has no interest in offering anything longer than that.

Now I know we just debated giving Backs a 2 year only, but, I'm of the opinion that in this case, it should be at least a 3-5 year deal at a bargain price so we don't have to shell out bigger bucks later on after a couple of years. Brodie is obviously our top 4 and most likely our top two in two years time.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Todd-...3#.UeDBcSqF_kQ

Feaster said himself they've offered Brodie both one year deals and multi year deals. Said they were trying to find the right fit for both the team and Brodie. He did say though that there werent interested in a Josi type contract.

Pretty sure this was in yesterdays interview. On the Fan maybe?

Kind of wish these writers would get the whole story instead of what they want to use.

cowtown75 · 07-12-2013, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nightfx

Anything over 3 brings him to ufa I believe, sign him 2 years and then give him a big contract if he earns it

Is that for sure ? anything over 3 years makes him a UFA ?

Wood · 07-12-2013, 09:02 PM

Keep him as an RFA on his next contract if possible, this is exactly how Feaster should negotiate

dammage79 · 07-12-2013, 09:03 PM

Also thought it was a four year deal that took him to UFA but I'll believe three as well.

Oling_Roachinen · 07-12-2013, 09:05 PM

1 or 2 and keeping him RFA is better than 3 or 4 and Brodie, despite what we expect from him, has a lot more to prove to deserve a 5+ contract.

Non-issue, any smart GM in the league would be offering the same term.

cowtown75 · 07-12-2013, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dammage79

Feaster said himself they've offered Brodie both one year deals and multi year deals. Said they were trying to find the right fit for both the team and Brodie. He did say though that there werent interested in a Josi type contract.

Pretty sure this was in yesterdays interview. On the Fan maybe?

Kind of wish these writers would get the whole story instead of what they want to use.

Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out the strategy on the Flames part. I mean, if it's only a 2 year, then great I guess. But a 4-5 at say 2.75 mill would be good too no ?

Wood · 07-12-2013, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowtown75

Is that for sure ? anything over 3 years makes him a UFA ?

As soon as you're over 26 or played 7 years in the NHL, you are eligible to be a UFA. So a 3 year contract would take him over 26 and he'd be a UFA

Ark2 · 07-12-2013, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowtown75

According to Todd Cordell (Hockey Buzz Flames writer) Feaster has offered a one year and a two year deal to T.J. Brodie, despite him possibly being our best d-man. It was said that Feaster has no interest in offering anything longer than that.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Todd-...3#.UeDBcSqF_kQ

I am perfectly fine with this. I was really impressed with Brodie last season, and I think he is going to get better and develop into a solid top pairing defenseman. BUT, if history has shown us anything, we should know far too well by now that young defensemen are notorious for having good early development years, signing a big contract, and then falling significantly short of their contractual expectations. Right now, we don't know what exactly we have in Brodie and I would rather him be given a shorter contract so that we can see for sure. I understand that some may not like this at is eliminates the chance for us to get Brodie signed at a discount should he reach his potential while signed to a long term contract, but by taking this approach, Feaster is ensuring that we don't over-commit to players that aren't part of this team's long term future. Prudence is the key right now.

dammage79 · 07-12-2013, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowtown75

Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out the strategy on the Flames part. I mean, if it's only a 2 year, then great I guess. But a 4-5 at say 2.75 mill would be good too no ?

My post from the Backlund thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dammage79

Brodie? Two-Three year deal (although personally I would like to see a longer term) at 2 million to 3 million a year. Ideally at most I would like to see him locked up for 4 years at 3 million a year. Years three and four I suspect will be amazing value for TJ Brodie's services.

Oling_Roachinen · 07-12-2013, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wood

As soon as you're over 26 or played 7 years in the NHL, you are eligible to be a UFA. So a 3 year contract would take him over 26 and he'd be a UFA

Wait, it's 27 not 26. I think.

kyuss275 · 07-12-2013, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowtown75

Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out the strategy on the Flames part. I mean, if it's only a 2 year, then great I guess. But a 4-5 at say 2.75 mill would be good too no ?

I doubt he would sign a 5 year deal at only $2.75 million. Think he gets a $2.25 on a short term deal as is. If he is giving up years he is going to want more money than $2.75 million.

I like what Feaster is doing, in keeping him on a short term contract. If he progresses the way we think he will, Feaster and ownership will have no problem ponying up the dough. Pay him big when he deserves it, not before.

Poe969 · 07-12-2013, 09:16 PM

I don't trust Ektard so I don't trust a guy who writes for him. When someone worth listening to reports this, I'll listen

cowtown75 · 07-12-2013, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dammage79

My post from the Backlund thread:

Yeah, I like your idea from the Backlund thread and agree. But I guess going from other posts here, they want to keep him RFA I guess keeping risk management low.

Roof-Daddy · 07-12-2013, 09:23 PM

I bet he signs a two year deal worth $4-5 million. (AAV of $2-2.5 million)

SebC · 07-12-2013, 09:24 PM

I don't like this trend. Long term deals could save us cap space when we'll actually need it.

cowtown75 · 07-12-2013, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I bet he signs a two year deal worth $4-5 million. (AAV of $2-2.5 million)

Yeah, I could see something like that. Would be a nice raise from his 525,000 NHL salary.

getbak · 07-12-2013, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wood

As soon as you're over 26 or played 7 years in the NHL, you are eligible to be a UFA. So a 3 year contract would take him over 26 and he'd be a UFA

It's 27 or 7 seasons. He'd still be an RFA at the end of a 3 year deal, a UFA at the end of any deal 4 years or longer.