[Signing] Flames sign Huberdeau to long term extension (8 yrs, $10.5 mil AAV)

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Utah and Carolina come to mind. You can argue about Kotkaniemi. Seattle was, and blew it this summer. Los Angeles. Doughty is overpaid but at least approaches zero value. San Jose before Toffoli, who shouldn’t impact their plan too much. Vlasic was a disaster but they aren’t doing anything in the next 2 years anyway. If Huberdeau had 2 years left no one would care.

There is nothing wrong with letting players walk away. For example if Gaudreau was a free agent in the 2021 summer, would you be mad if Calgary signed him to 1x$6.75M? Probably not. That’s the same thing as having an expiring deal. The past is immaterial.

Carolina might be as good as it gets although, as you point out Kotkaniemi may be a concern. I would have to think there’s room for improvement and growth there. LA certainly has a few concerning contracts and just escaped PLD, whose contract could be just as egregious as Huberdeau’s.

Bad contracts exist throughout the league. And good, or even great contracts today, could be anchors in a year or two. And in some instances, you can have a terrible contract that bounces back, like Jeff Skinner or Anze Kopitar just to name two. Redemption, to a certain extent, can happen. A spectacular mismanagement of assets on that one. LA looked like they were ready to take a step from playoff team to contender and fumbled it, badly.

Utah, that’s bit of an anomaly for obvious reasons. Plus, they haven’t had the resources to put themselves in a poor position.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Carolina might be as good as it gets although, as you point out Kotkaniemi may be a concern. I would have to think there’s room for improvement and growth there. LA certainly has a few concerning contracts and just escaped PLD, whose contract could be just as egregious as Huberdeau’s.

Bad contracts exist throughout the league. And good, or even great contracts today, could be anchors in a year or two. And in some instances, you can have a terrible contract that bounces back, like Jeff Skinner or Anze Kopitar just to name two. Redemption, to a certain extent, can happen. A spectacular mismanagement of assets on that one. LA looked like they were ready to take a step from playoff team to contender and fumbled it, badly.

Utah, that’s bit of an anomaly for obvious reasons. Plus, they haven’t had the resources to put themselves in a poor position.

Arizona did a terrific job (intentional or not) of leaving Utah a team loaded with picks, prospects, and no bad contracts. I really can’t imagine a better start.

Kopitar is going to the Hall of Fame. I think he’s still zero value, maybe slightly positive. I don’t blame them for that.

If you have a team that is on the cusp then you can afford to gamble on a Toffoli trade (don’t fault Tre for that at all) or a UFA offer like Frolik or Coleman. Building a hockey team on UFAs has never worked, and will never work, because they are too old by the time they achieve that status and there is no value.

The only competitive advantage you have is ELCs and RFA players, and you should be especially ruthless in an “undesirable” market. I don’t think Calgary is one, and credit to Conroy for dispelling that myth.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by Locke

Can we extend his contract for another 8 years? Because this is going so well!!

Maybe instead of signing half of Eastern Europe we should be looking at the French?

Absolutely. They can play with hurt feelings and the guy that is small and injured all the time!

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Arizona did a terrific job (intentional or not) of leaving Utah a team loaded with picks, prospects, and no bad contracts. I really can’t imagine a better start.

Kopitar is going to the Hall of Fame. I think he’s still zero value, maybe slightly positive. I don’t blame them for that.

If you have a team that is on the cusp then you can afford to gamble on a Toffoli trade (don’t fault Tre for that at all) or a UFA offer like Frolik or Coleman. Building a hockey team on UFAs has never worked, and will never work, because they are too old by the time they achieve that status and there is no value.

The only competitive advantage you have is ELCs and RFA players, and you should be especially ruthless in an “undesirable” market. I don’t think Calgary is one, and credit to Conroy for dispelling that myth.

I dunno.

Arizona should have been loaded with picks and prospects. A team stuck in perpetual non-competition, what else would they be doing? In a certain sense that’s like giving Treliving credit for leaving Conroy with 7 pending UFA’s to hit the market with. I know that’s an unpopular view but it’s true. The timing and circumstances were near perfect for Conroy to start a rebuild and he’s done well to date. He certainly deserves credit for picking up players like Kuzmenko and Mantha to leverage those player into more picks/prospects. Things look like they’re tracking nicely but I’m skeptical ownership will let Conroy have much more than 3 years to start competing for the playoffs.

All that said, he’s in a less challenging position right now. It’s only going to get harder as expectations turn towards the playoffs which they certainly will from ownership when the new building is set for occupancy. If the last year in the dome still is hosting a team no where near making the playoffs (a-la Sens) I’d bet that seat is going to be plenty hot. And that’s when you might start to see some cracks in the plan and the GM starts sniffing around the UFA market in a way that can bite you in the ass.

Is Calgary an undesirable market? tough to say. I certainly think to some it is. Calgary has seen more than its fair share of high calibre players leave over the past decade. It will be interesting to see if Cale Makar hits the market in ‘27. I’ll wager some will think he’d be willing to come home for a ‘home town discount’? I doubt it. It won’t be 7x10, 7xhighest paid D in the league is probably what it’s going to take. That said, Parekh might be on the path to being one of the games elite offensive D, so the Flames might not even want to through that kind of dough at Makar.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Is Calgary an undesirable market? tough to say. I certainly think to some it is. Calgary has seen more than its fair share of high calibre players leave over the past decade. It will be interesting to see if Cale Makar hits the market in ‘27. I’ll wager some will think he’d be willing to come home for a ‘home town discount’? I doubt it. It won’t be 7x10, 7xhighest paid D in the league is probably what it’s going to take. That said, Parekh might be on the path to being one of the games elite offensive D, so the Flames might not even want to through that kind of dough at Makar.

Yeah, it's tough to say for anyone. I've been to 28 NHL cities (NJ, PIT, TB, FLA) and Calgary would definitely be in my top half, probably top quarter. The only bad thing (the Dome) is being rectified now. But everyone's different.

No interest in a max Makar UFA deal.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So Treliving actively sought out bad contracts… why? to gain draft capital in return? because he wanted to sewer his team and make himself look stupid?

There are pretty limited examples of teams actually perusing bad contracts. And, funny enough, it seems like Conroy is the one willing to be involved in them, for the right price.

In hindsight Treliving just wasn't very good at evaluating talent at the NHL level and biased towards giving veterans a pay off contract to fill holes.

Yes, Conroy is pursuing bad contracts in a completely different context than trying to make the team better, not sure why that's funny, it's smart. No team looks to sign bad contracts is a point to be made I guess, but ultimately the issue is clear that poor GM's tend to sign "wow this will be bad in 2-4 seasons" contracts to fill holes and it's generally a poor strategy.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by jayswin

In hindsight Treliving just wasn't very good at evaluating talent at the NHL level and biased towards giving veterans a pay off contract to fill holes.

Yes, Conroy is pursuing bad contracts in a completely different context than trying to make the team better, not sure why that's funny, it's smart. No team looks to sign bad contracts is a point to be made I guess, but ultimately the issue is clear that poor GM's tend to sign "wow this will be bad in 2-4 seasons" contracts to fill holes and it's generally a poor strategy.

We’re saying the same thing.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

We’re saying the same thing.

So you agree that poor GM's tend to sign "wow this will be bad in 2-4 seasons" contracts to fill holes and it's generally a poor strategy?

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Locke

Can we extend his contract for another 8 years? Because this is going so well!!

Maybe instead of signing half of Eastern Europe we should be looking at the French?

Everyone overlooks the Chinese. It’s a massive country. There must be some hidden gems.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

So you agree that poor GM's tend to sign "wow this will be bad in 2-4 seasons" contracts to fill holes and it's generally a poor strategy?

You’re about to crack the case.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by butterfly

So you agree that poor GM's tend to sign "wow this will be bad in 2-4 seasons" contracts to fill holes and it's generally a poor strategy?

My take on Treliving is that he probably knew for a long time that he was going to be walking away from the Flames when his contract was up and the moves he made were to make a splash and hopefully build his resume and notoriety. He knew that he wouldn't be around to deal with the aftermath of trading draft collateral and signing contracts that weren't going to age well. He just wanted the short term gains. Just my opinion.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

My take on Treliving is that he probably knew for a long time that he was going to be walking away from the Flames when his contract was up and the moves he made were to make a splash and hopefully build his resume and notoriety. He knew that he wouldn't be around to deal with the aftermath of trading draft collateral and signing contracts that weren't going to age well. He just wanted the short term gains. Just my opinion.

Yeah, to be the talk of Sportsnet for a week. And we get the decade of Huberdeau in return.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Yeah, to be the talk of Sportsnet for a week. And we get the decade of Huberdeau in return.

I get the cynicism when it comes to Treliving, after all he was the GM.and at the end of the day the results were ‘meh’. 2 second round loses.

But, and I’ve said this all along, the decision to stay competitive and dole out $183M in contract extensions/UFA signings to Huberdeau/Weegar/Kadri was an organizational decision. No way Treliving acted rouge on this. If anything the direction to do so was given to him from above.

Edwards/Bean//Maloney all deserve equal the amount of criticism and derision that Treliving gets here. This is also why I have a wait and see approach on Conroy and the team he is able to mold. As I said yesterday, I think Conroy has three years to ‘rebuild’. Once the new arena is occupied, the foot will be firmly on the gas pedal. If Conroy is to build a team that has its core in place for the next 10 years or so, fantastic. If not, expect to see many of the same picks for players and questionable UFA signings, in the same mold as Treliving/Feaster/Sutter.

[PepsiFree]

It’s just absurd to suggest Treliving wanted a shoutout on Sportsnet or signed contracts he thought were bad on purpose for some vague, unknown reason.

The simplest answer is that he was a bad GM, especially when it came to contract management. He was good at on-ice team building but terrible at contracts and signings and hit and miss on trades.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by TOfan

LA certainly has a few concerning contracts and just escaped PLD, whose contract could be just as egregious as Huberdeau’s.

He could have been bought ou exceptionally cheaply this summer, and teams choose not to do that, as it appears the consensus he has the ability to bounce back. He can also be bought out in the future, as his bonus amount is relatively small.

Huberdeau's contract is buyout proof.

Even if at the next negotiation, there are compliance buyouts allowed, the cost will be largely the same as his contract, there will only be cap savings.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s just absurd to suggest Treliving wanted a shoutout on Sportsnet or signed contracts he thought were bad on purpose for some vague, unknown reason.

The simplest answer is that he was a bad GM, especially when it came to contract management. He was good at on-ice team building but terrible at contracts and signings and hit and miss on trades.

In truth, that’s how he got the Leafs gig. Read, Ozmak, Boston Pizza. Connect the dots, people. It’s hockey Illuminati!!!

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

He could have been bought ou exceptionally cheaply this summer, and teams choose not to do that, as it appears the consensus he has the ability to bounce back. He can also be bought out in the future, as his bonus amount is relatively small.

Huberdeau's contract is buyout proof.

Even if at the next negotiation, there are compliance buyouts allowed, the cost will be largely the same as his contract, there will only be cap savings.

I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the case seeing as the buyout window did not start until 48 hrs after the cup was handed out. Had the series ended by game 5, I believe it was, PLD would have still been 25 and able to be bought out at 1/3, opposed to 2/3 contract value. Seeing as he had turned 26, this cause no longer applied. The buyout for PLD at 2/3’s would not have happened.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TOfan

In truth, that’s how he got the Leafs gig. Read, Ozmak, Boston Pizza. Connect the dots, people. It’s hockey Illuminati!!!

He probably wouldn’t be the first GM or coach to fail upwards, but at the same time I think what he’s good at is probably what the Leafs need him to be good at.

Based on where they are, this isn’t a team that should be worried about 5-6 years down the road. If they’re going to win anything, it better be soon, and Treliving is pretty good at building the on-ice team.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by TOfan

I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the case seeing as the buyout window did not start until 48 hrs after the cup was handed out. Had the series ended by game 5, I believe it was, PLD would have still been 25 and able to be bought out at 1/3, opposed to 2/3 contract value. Seeing as he had turned 26, this cause no longer applied. The buyout for PLD at 2/3’s would not have happened.

You are correct, the Stanley Cup finishing late prevented that. Although LA said they were not entertaining that. Which I don't blame them, as there was still some sort of market for him.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

You are correct, the Stanley Cup finishing late prevented that. Although LA said they were not entertaining that. Which I don't blame them, as there was still some sort of market for him.

Right. Have to say though that LA gave up a very good package to land PLD from Winnipeg. To turn that into one beyond disappointing season from PLD and Darcy Keumper is text book poor asset management.