Lightning to buy out lecavalier.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by UKflames

Why would anyone claim that contract off waivers when they can try and get him for a lot less as a FA??

(Or am I misunderstanding how this works)

The team that claims him gets him. There will be a lot of teams trying to sign him. No guarantee.

That said, I am sure that Tampa offered him in a trade with assets as incentive. No team bit on that. So I can't see any team picking him up on waivers.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by UKflames

Why would anyone claim that contract off waivers when they can try and get him for a lot less as a FA??

(Or am I misunderstanding how this works)

A team desperate for a center whit tons of cap room would probably want to skip the FA formalities of getting into a bidding war. It was more of a tongue in cheek comment than anything else.

[Vinny01]

Flames could sign him and tell him they will trade him anywhere he wants at the deadline and we have the cap space to give him $5-$6M on a one year term

Even though they are both 33 I would be all for Vinny and Richards signing here after their buyouts

[Hockey_Ninja]

Wouldn't mind getting Vinny but he'll most likely sign on a contender.

[TurdFerguson]

All the players bought out should band together and join one team for ultra cheap. Perhaps ESPN can do a hype show around where they decide to sign.

[Flashpoint]

Post apex player.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Post apex player.

Intellectual honesty.

[PeteLFan]

He's 33 damn.

[Caged Great]

I really do not like Lecavalier.

However, he is a center and would get 50+ points for us. We don't really have any alternates up the middle at all. The only competition from the prospect pool is Knight this season, so it's not like he'd be taking anyone's spot. If we were to move Cammalleri or Tanguay, etc. I would not mind throwing upwards of 7.5 million (preferably 6 or so) at him on a short deal up to 3 years.

He could be dealt at the deadline if he signs a 1 year deal. Even though he is 33, it could be worse.

[Titan]

Just asking but can he turn around and sign in Tampa again? Buy him out to get out from under the monster contract and re-sign him to a more reasonable deal.

Is that even possible, not saying it would happen?

[Fire Park '71]

Name power rules on this board. This is the last player the Calgary Flames need. His career is obviously, "whistling past the graveyard".

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Titan

Just asking but can he turn around and sign in Tampa again? Buy him out to get out from under the monster contract and re-sign him to a more reasonable deal.

Is that even possible, not saying it would happen?

No

[darthma]

Most people on CP want Vinny despite him being 'post-apex'. Feaster said he isn't getting post-apex players, but I agree with most - I can't see him *not* making an offer for Vinny. The point here is that 'post-apex' like most things that any GM says is just lip service / spin.

My personal opinion? if we can get him for cheap - heck yes.

[jg13]

This has me thinking that Tampa is leaning towards Barkov > Drouin come draft day.

[dammage79]

Damian Cristodero ‏@LightningTimes 33m
Because he has a no-move clause in his contract, Lecavalier can and will reject going on waivers prior to buyout.
Retweeted by Lee Snowden

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by New Era

Just say no to Lecavalier. This team needs to focus on getting better for the long term and Lecavalier, just like Kipper, will only prevent that from happening in a reasonable timeframe. Draft early the next two and then hit the free agent market.

I don't really understand this argument. The Flames will have a ton of cap space, and they are probably going to be basement dwellers. They still need to field an NHL team. None of our prospects will be near number 1 centre capable in the next couple of years. What's the harm in signing him short term, and then, if possible, flipping him for picks and/or prospects come trade deadline? That's just smart asset management IMO.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by darthma

Most people on CP want Vinny despite him being 'post-apex'. Feaster said he isn't getting post-apex players, but I agree with most - I can't see him *not* making an offer for Vinny. The point here is that 'post-apex' like most things that any GM says is just lip service / spin.

My personal opinion? if we can get him for cheap - heck yes.

I can't find the original quote, but wasn't the post-apex thing specifically in regard to trades. Not UFA signings, which cost zero assets and can in fact be later moved to generate assets.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I don't really understand this argument. The Flames will have a ton of cap space, and they are probably going to be basement dwellers. They still need to field an NHL team. None of our prospects will be near number 1 centre capable in the next couple of years. What's the harm in signing him short term, and then, if possible, flipping him for picks and/or prospects come trade deadline? That's just smart asset management IMO.

If he wants just a one year deal. I doubt that is the case. If it were there are better options than Calgary. My fear is Feaster signing Lecavalier to a longer term deal that makes the team just good enough to miss the top picks and we have to go through the 90s all over again. Forget that. Be bad for a couple of years while you develop your young talent, not overpay aging vets whose game has passed them by and give the impression of being competitive.

[Ashasx]

Please don't pick him off waivers...

[MisterJoji]

If Feaster's marching orders from Edwards truly are to make the playoffs, got to think Feaster will push hard for Vinny. Offer him short-term crazy money 1-2 years, 6-7 million (we have the cap space). 33 is definitely post-apex but it's not like he's on the edge of retirement either, he'd still be productive. And if we are a long-shot to make the playoffs, like previously mentioned, flip him at the deadline to a contender. It's really a no lose situation unless you'd think he would take the TOI of some of our younger guys and possibly stunt their development a bit. But we can't let the rookies play all of the minutes unless we want YoungGuns 2.0.