[Trade] Flames acquire Kris Russel for a 2014 5th round pick and sign him (1yr, $1.5mil)

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

^ re Feaster discussions: when your argument lacks its own merit, simply bring up the O'Reilly situation

Well it is the trump card.

[Bonded]

I think we should be able to flp him for a 5th at the deadline anyways, maybe even a fourth

[Beatle17]

I would have liked Andrew Ference, just like his style and personality, but according to the stats Russel has performed just as well and is younger. They are about the same size so it could work out just fine for a 3rd pairing defenceman, same as Ference.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

With Russell and the other AHLer I believe we're only at 44 contracts.

I was track of it in this thread
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=126628

Dumb move.

You missed the part where we couldn't officially sign Ramo and Knight because at the time we were at 50 contracts. That link shows the updated list after we cut loose a few contracts.

Use this link to keep current with our reserve list.

http://capgeek.com/flames/reserve-list/

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

^ re Feaster discussions: when your argument lacks its own merit, simply bring up the O'Reilly situation

Past behaviour is usually a good tool for figuring our present behaviour. When the heat is on, Feaster is never short on good stories. He's a pretty clever cat in that regard, but he hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt at this point.

Anyway, I'll drop it. I don't think there is any point to arguing about something pretty insignificant and on something that no one here has inside knowledge on. You either believe Feaster at his word, or you don't. I tend to be skeptical of him when it comes to these things based on his history. I actually don't care enough about an insignificant draft pick to carry on further.

I just hate the acquisition regardless and hope it was based more on not wanting to overpay or not being able to attract a free agent, than it was about actually wanting Russell over other options and being afraid he would go to arbitration instead of signing (a pointless fear IMO).

[getbak]

One thing to keep in mind with a waiver claim is that from the perspective of a team thinking about making a waiver claim, you're doing it blind. You can't contact the player to discuss options (the CBA allows the player to ask his team for permission to contact other teams, but it doesn't allow for other teams to request permission to talk to the player).

If you're Feaster looking at the situation, you see St Louis has placed him on waivers, likely to try to get rid of a potential arbitration case. Because you can't talk to him, you're in the dark as to his mindset. Is he dead set on going to arbitration? Is he frustrated with his role because the Blues acquired Bouwmeester and Leopold at the end of the season? You have no idea if he'd be willing to sign in Calgary, or what he's asking for.

By waiting and making the trade, Feaster had clarification of exactly where the situation stood before committing to Russell. Just imagine the backlash he would have faced if he had put in a waiver claim and had Russell immediately file for arbitration.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Past behaviour is usually a good tool for figuring our present behaviour. When the heat is on, Feaster is never short on good stories. He's a pretty clever cat in that regard, but he hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt at this point.

Anyway, I'll drop it. I don't think there is any point to arguing about something pretty insignificant and on something that no one here has inside knowledge on. You either believe Feaster at his word, or you don't. I tend to be skeptical of him when it comes to these things based on his history. I actually don't care enough about an insignificant draft pick to carry on further.

I just hate the acquisition regardless and hope it was based more on not wanting to overpay or not being able to attract a free agent, than it was about actually wanting Russell over other options and being afraid he would go to arbitration instead of signing (a pointless fear IMO).

I am more bitter then most about the ROR situation, but I'd say the Russel trade vs waivers is actually doing their homework and mitigating risk... so this is opposite of the ROR fiasco and thus give Feaster credit where credit is due here - he did his homework on a player his pro scouts like (this is a Weisbrod and pro scouts target) so kudos for him there.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

So, do you honestly believe he accepted the St. Louis offer for $1.5 million, but he wouldn't have accepted the same offer from the Flames? If that's the case, he isn't exactly the kind of player this team needs.

Russell wasn't going to arbitration. It would have been at least just as risky for him to shun a $1.5 million contract. And none of those links are convincing that Russell would have a chance in winning.

You speak in a lot of absolutes. You can't know and don't know he wouldn't have gone to arbitration.

Your first paragraph doesn't make any sense if you had actually listened to he Feaster press conference, perhaps you should do that. Feaster didn't want a player who could've gone to arbitration so he told STL what range the Flames were willing to pay Russell and STL signed him for us and then dealt him to us.

If you use a bit of logic it seems likely that Russell was headed for arbitration. This explains why STL waived him and was trying to get rid of him for nothing. Because if they qualified him and he went to arbitration the result would have been binding. So they might've ended up paying their 7th d-man over 2 million if he had won his case.

Funny how you say fans and media shouldn't be on Feaster for the 5th and yet here you are dissecting his rationale when you clearly didn't inform yourself about the situation by listening to the press conference or reading up on arbitration.

[Red John]

Understand the idea of trading for Russell instead of putting in a blind claim, but why deal a 5th?

If the Blues were willing to let him go for nothing, wouldn't a 7th or some fringe prospect do?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

^ re Feaster discussions: when your argument lacks its own merit, simply bring up the O'Reilly situation

Originally Posted by nik-

Well it is the trump card.

Sure, but it makes a guy look kind of silly playing a trump card when everybody else at the table is playing poker.

[nik-]

Hey, sometimes you need to drop a thermo nuclear device in the middle of a street shootout.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Red John

Understand the idea of trading for Russell instead of putting in a blind claim, but why deal a 5th?

If the Blues were willing to let him go for nothing, wouldn't a 7th or some fringe prospect do?

Maybe someone else offered a sixth.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by getbak

If you're Feaster looking at the situation, you see St Louis has placed him on waivers, likely to try to get rid of a potential arbitration case. Because you can't talk to him, you're in the dark as to his mindset. Is he dead set on going to arbitration? Is he frustrated with his role because the Blues acquired Bouwmeester and Leopold at the end of the season? You have no idea if he'd be willing to sign in Calgary, or what he's asking for.

By waiting and making the trade, Feaster had clarification of exactly where the situation stood before committing to Russell. Just imagine the backlash he would have faced if he had put in a waiver claim and had Russell immediately file for arbitration.

I can understand the Blues wanting to get rid of a potential arbitration case because they are right up against the cap with important players to sign, but what is Feaster afraid of? I don't see why there would be a backlash had Feaster put in a waiver claim and had Russell immediately filed for arbitration, not unless Russell gets a $4M contract or something like that.

The Flames have cap room and isn't likely to be near the cap. This is a defensemen that the team has had their eye on for some time. Why worry about the player going to arbitration to the extent that the team is willing to give up a 5th round pick to guarantee that he doesn't? This is a defensemen with a career high of 23 points who played bottom pairing minutes and was a healthy scratch to end the season. Anyone afraid of what Russell might get in arbitration?

[ben voyonsdonc]

Arbitration sucks. It involves tearing down the player that you just tried to acquire. I don't know if players would admit this but I could imagine it could leave some residual resentment. Russell is still a relatively young kid and has room for improvement in his game. I think it is nice to start off on a positive note and show the kid that you wanted him on the team and were willing to give up an asset (the odds that a fifth round pick will play are slim) rather than have to go to arb and try to prove why he isn't worth much.

Edited to add: and of course, arbitration is binding and takes control away from the team in terms of what they end up paying him.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

Arbitration sucks. It involves tearing down the player that you just tried to acquire. I don't know if players would admit this but I could imagine it could leave some residual resentment. Russell is still a relatively young kid and has room for improvement in his game. I think it is nice to start off on a positive note and show the kid that you wanted him on the team and were willing to give up an asset (the odds that a fifth round pick will play are slim) rather than have to go to arb and try to prove why he isn't worth much.

That's just poor asset management. A player is highly unlikely to view his new team differently if his new team picked him up on waivers as opposed to giving up a 5th round pick. Either way, you hope the player has a chip on his shoulder and wants to prove himself and reward his new team for taking a chance on him. As for the arbitration process, it's not necessary to tear down a player in arbitration. And if it's Russell who takes the team to arbitration because he wants a lot more than $1.5M, there shouldn't be any residual resentment and if he there is it doesn't matter.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Red John

Understand the idea of trading for Russell instead of putting in a blind claim, but why deal a 5th?

If the Blues were willing to let him go for nothing, wouldn't a 7th or some fringe prospect do?

There are only 29 other GM's to deal with,if you grind too much nobody will deal with you.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by FAN

That's just poor asset management. A player is highly unlikely to view his new team differently if his new team picked him up on waivers as opposed to giving up a 5th round pick.

Honest question: If you pick someone up off waivers, do you move to the bottom of waiver priority list?

[PeteLFan]

Seems like a lot of emotion over a 5th round pick and kris freaking Russell.

He's only making 1.5 million on a 1 year contract. He has some untapped upside that could come to fruition here, if not hey it's a 5th round pick. He's not making or breaking our chances of a playoff spot, or anything else in terms of acquiring a player.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

Honest question: If you pick someone up off waivers, do you move to the bottom of waiver priority list?

Not since the 2005 CBA came in. Waiver priority is strictly by reverse order of standings. (If before November 1, the previous season's standings are used.) There isn't a separate waiver priority list anymore. You can find the whole procedure in Article 13.19 of the CBA.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

Seems like a lot of emotion over a 5th round pick and kris freaking Russell.

He's only making 1.5 million on a 1 year contract. He has some untapped upside that could come to fruition here, if not hey it's a 5th round pick. He's not making or breaking our chances of a playoff spot, or anything else in terms of acquiring a player.

I think some Flames fans see the three first round picks the team had this year and forget that this team has traded a lot of draft picks over the years and is managed by a GM with a history of trading draft picks.

The team doesn't have a 4th and 5th round picks next year. By next year's draft the team might not have their 2nd and or 3rd either. Not saying that the picks can be recouped, but there's no need to waste picks.