Rasmus Andersson watch — Will he stay or will he go?

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t really think this answers the question of what we’re arguing. What conclusion are you making here? Because if it really is that he’s a 2nd pairing defenceman who isn’t good on the PP or the PK, easily replaced, and isn’t worth a first but should also be traded now because… something… then I’m not sure who is making the counter point.

The chances of him getting traded are like 90+% and everyone seems fine with that and your position is we should trade him but it’s stupid for other teams to trade for him?

30% of people think he will be on the team at the start of next year. Thats' more than 10%

Part 2 of the argument is that -38 is a useless stat. It's not useless, maybe it does not tell the whole story but it's not useless.

Best time to trade him is now. I think we could have 2 rookie dmen on the team, asking Weegar and Bahl to step up will also give Conroy an idea on how they will respond. Trading Anderson gives you a full year of seeing what life whiteout him is like, if it is bad then we get a better 2026 1st.

I think we should sign a vet defensive dman to 3rd pairing money for no more than 4 years to help with the young dmen we have coming but salary is appropriate to move down the lineup as kids progress. Someone who excels on the PK, as I don't see Parekh or Hunter B being on the PK for a few years if ever. Kuznetsov maybe.

Rasmus adds us picks. I'd trade for a mid-pick this year and get a better conditional pick in 26 or 27. I'd retain salary if the price goes way up but if we can't get a top 15 pick in this draft, it makes more sense to get a conditional pick down the road. Maybe a 2nd, but if he re-signs with the new team or they make it far in the playoffs that pick becomes a 1st.

Anyhow, I have made this argument every summer for the last few years, and most seem to think waiting to the deadline to get the better return is the better plan. I find that doesn't seem to work out the past few years. Time is now as we aren't giving up an irreplaceable player.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Agree with all of that.

But I'd point out that Bahl wasn't seen as a huge upgrade over say Hanley or Pachal when the season started.

So we'd also have to decide how much playing with Andersson helped Bahl become what he is.

Its not like Bahl was brought in as a sure fire top four shutdown defenseman.

Maybe you are right on Bahl. I like Bahl though and was a fan of getting him when the Markstrom trade went down.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I agree, and preferably on the left side, since the team will need a reliable partner for the young offensive RHD that are coming up through the system.



When Tanev was with the Flames, various metrics rated him as the single best shutdown defenceman in the league. Guys of that quality definitely do not ‘float around this league yearly’.

That said, a player doesn't have to be as good as Tanev to be a perfectly decent shutdown guy. So I agree with you, except for the bit of hyperbole.

True on Tanev, but metrics showed a declining player when we got him that most were outraged when we signed him to that deal and the media called us the losers of July 1.

Conroy is good at buying low, I hope he finds someone of that mould.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

30% of people think he will be on the team at the start of next year. Thats' more than 10%

OK, well 90% of people think he’s getting traded, I’m not sure what 30% has to do with anything or what I said, but yes 30% is more than 10%.

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Part 2 of the argument is that -38 is a useless stat. It's not useless, maybe it does not tell the whole story but it's not useless.

Useless in isolation. I think that’s been made pretty clear and we all agree.

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Rasmus adds us picks. I'd trade for a mid-pick this year and get a better conditional pick in 26 or 27. I'd retain salary if the price goes way up but if we can't get a top 15 pick in this draft, it makes more sense to get a conditional pick down the road. Maybe a 2nd, but if he re-signs with the new team or they make it far in the playoffs that pick becomes a 1st.

You can see how this is totally contradictory to the following, right?

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Why would any team pay 1st rounders for a guy that can be replaced by a veteran defensive dman? We need to trade him this summer and get the best return we can, when Parekh makes this team, he will never see the PP again.

So you’re wrong about his value, wrong about his ability, or just setting yourself up for some kind of disappointment in general. If you think he’s so bad that you question why anyone would give up a first rounder for him, you should absolutely not even entertain the idea of us getting a top 15 pick or even a conditional next year.

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Anyhow, I have made this argument every summer for the last few years, and most seem to think waiting to the deadline to get the better return is the better plan. I find that doesn't seem to work out the past few years. Time is now as we aren't giving up an irreplaceable player.

I think the argument is that you have until the deadline, not that it’s always the best time (sometimes it is, plenty of evidence for that). Summer, start of season, mid season. The best time is when someone meets the ask.

And if a 1st should be off the table, it might be best to wait for a contender to offer up a later first near the deadline.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Will he stay or will he go now?
Will he stay or will he go now?
If he goes there might be troublllllleeee
And if he stays it will cost double.
So come on just let me know.
Will he stay or will he go?

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Things can obviously change but from what I’ve heard we’ve seen the last of Andersson in a flames jersey. Mutual decision to find him a new home is the priority at this point.

I’d expect the Flames to move him before or at the draft.

A little late to this, but Rasmus is a confident guy and, beyond his injury, probably sees his +/- and poorish year as a consequence of playing for a bottom team that had him "babysitting" lesser defenders and didn't give him much PP1 time or opportunities to succeed.

He's probably given them a high number or a trade request, as he figures those are the only two ways he's going to get paid on a retirement contract as his value won't get any better next year on the Flames (particularly if Parekh comes in and starts taking up more of his opportunities).

It's not a bad situation for the Flames, and there are a few teams that'll certainly be interested in him. The Flames can also blame the year he had on their use of him in trade talks (whether they agree with it or not), so I don't think this one year will really effect his value--and he should still provide a decent return, likely similar to Ekholm a couple years ago.

It could push Calgary further into the rebuild... but that's not worse than having another player on a big dollar retirement contract.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

OK, well 90% of people think he’s getting traded, I’m not sure what 30% has to do with anything or what I said, but yes 30% is more than 10%.



Useless in isolation. I think that’s been made pretty clear and we all agree.



You can see how this is totally contradictory to the following, right?



So you’re wrong about his value, wrong about his ability, or just setting yourself up for some kind of disappointment in general. If you think he’s so bad that you question why anyone would give up a first rounder for him, you should absolutely not even entertain the idea of us getting a top 15 pick or even a conditional next year.



I think the argument is that you have until the deadline, not that it’s always the best time (sometimes it is, plenty of evidence for that). Summer, start of season, mid season. The best time is when someone meets the ask.

And if a 1st should be off the table, it might be best to wait for a contender to offer up a later first near the deadline.

The value of the player is different if the contract changes. My point on the top 15 is based on analysis that I did of the 2004-2018 drafts and the odds of getting 2nd line or better players. If we can retain salary and get a top 15 pick, do it in a heartbeat. But I'm not holding my breath that we will get that. Don't think I said we should hold out for it? Just using my data to find that point in the draft where the value actually goes up. If you are outside that range, why not take a lessor pick this year and go the condition route down the road.

Some will say if we don't get a 1st at minimum, we should wait until the trade deadline (no salary retained). My data shows the odds of getting a 1st or 2nd line player in 15 years of drafts as follows.

1OV - 93.33%
2OV - 80%
3-5OV - 56.39%
6-10OV - 39.33%
11-20 - 22%
21-end of round 1- 16.56%
2nd - 7.5%
3rd - 4.31%
4th - 2.66%
5th - 2.22%
6th - 0.89%
7th - 0.44%

So, for me, if teams are not willing to part with a 1st in this draft but are willing to do 2 picks outside the 1st, is it really that much worse if you get 2 2nds and in 2 different years? Most I bet would say it is, I don't agree.

I like getting picks in 2 different drafts as I feel it increased the odds of getting someone good outside the top 5 as it is less likely 2 drafts are weak vs 1.

I also like adding conditions, if the team is happy with the trade they give up more. They re-sign Rasmus, 1 pick could be a top 10 protected 1st. Or they go far in the playoffs, the 2nd becomes a 1st.

I bet most would be very disappointed in 2 2nds and would rather wait until the trade deadline. I disagree and I don't expect anyone to 100% agree with my data, but I base my opinion on it. What's your take on 2 2nds over 2 different draft vs 1 1st outside the top 20?

[Bingo]

I just think those that want him traded shouldn't view any marginal defense of Rasmus Andersson as wanting to keep him, but simply digging into the stats and saying the plus/minus wasn't the full story.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I just think those that want him traded shouldn't view any marginal defense of Rasmus Andersson as wanting to keep him, but simply digging into the stats and saying the plus/minus wasn't the full story.

I agree that +/- alone isn't a great stat to use. But useless was too far.

Kadri was -17 and 2nd worst on the team. But data showed me throughout this discussion that he played well against elite players when Weegar or Andersson were on the ice. His minus -17 with a bump in the metrics tells a different story than a player who could be labeled poor in his own end or not good enough to match up with the nest players.

But -38 with a bump is still bad. But his numbers against the bottom-line guys were very bad.