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

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Let me ask you this.

Would you be happy with Russell on a 1 year deal for 3.4 million?

Why would he get anywhere close to 3.4 million in arbitration?

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by nik-

Why would he get anywhere close to 3.4 million in arbitration?

Anytime thereis a 3rd party deciding it crazy things can happen. My point was that he could be awarded a crazy contract and the Flames would not be allowed to walk away.

Besides as has been mentioned umpteen times the Flames were already at the maximum 50 contracts when he was on waivers so they were not allowed to claim him even if they wanted to.

[Caged Great]

With our defense core being

Brodie-Giordano
Wideman-Russell
Cundari-Butler
Smith

Even if Russell is just adequate as a #4, he'll be worth a lot more than a 5th in trade in the future. I don't see what the big deal is. At the deadline, we can easily recoup the 5th by trading Chris Butler or some other similar guy.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

With our defense core being

Brodie-Giordano
Wideman-Russell
Cundari-Butler
Smith

Even if Russell is just adequate as a #4, he'll be worth a lot more than a 5th in trade in the future. I don't see what the big deal is. At the deadline, we can easily recoup the 5th by trading Chris Butler or some other similar guy.

You left out SOB

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

You left out SOB

This is why I don't understand re-signing Butler. All of Cundari, Russell, SOB and Butler are likely going to be switching places as the 4-7 guys based off their play.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

This is why I don't understand re-signing Butler. All of Cundari, Russell, SOB and Butler are likely going to be switching places as the 4-7 guys based off their play.

Usually there are 1-2 defensemen on IR at any given time and after Cundari and Breen there isn't really anyone available. Sure sometimes you will have some guys scratched, but so be it. Every summer people complain about having too many forwards or too many defensemen, then in March people are complaining about the lack of depth because of injuries.

This is not a bad problem to have.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by FAN

I'm going by Feaster's official explanation which was to avoid the risk of acquiring a player who might go to arbitration.

And a couple of different reasons for why arbitration might be best avoided have been given: namely the resulting salary and the nature of the process itself being confrontational. Quite consistent with what Feaster said.

Either of those seem like valid reasons to avoid arbitration at the cost of a 5th. Not an unnecessary waste at all.

Put it this way: at the cost of a 5th the relationship with the player starts off without any ill-will.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Let me ask you this.

Would you be happy with Russell on a 1 year deal for 3.4 million?

On a team willing to spend to the cap but likely won't come close to the Cap? I would be happier paying Russell $3.4M for a year than give up a 5th round pick.

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

My point was that he could be awarded a crazy contract and the Flames would not be allowed to walk away.

...

Besides as has been mentioned umpteen times the Flames were already at the maximum 50 contracts when he was on waivers so they were not allowed to claim him even if they wanted to.

It's Kris Russell, a player who spent a lot of time as a healthy scratch last season. How crazy could the awarded contract be? And even if it is crazy it's only for a year and the Flames likely won't be up against the cap.

As for the 50 contract limit. If that's the reason, why didn't Feaster come out and say that was the reason? I can only take a poster's word that the Flames were in fact at the 50 contract limit.

Originally Posted by the2bears

And a couple of different reasons for why arbitration might be best avoided have been given: namely the resulting salary and the nature of the process itself being confrontational. Quite consistent with what Feaster said.

Either of those seem like valid reasons to avoid arbitration at the cost of a 5th. Not an unnecessary waste at all.

Put it this way: at the cost of a 5th the relationship with the player starts off without any ill-will.

Again, it's not necessary for arbitration to be confrontational in the sense that you got to rip apart the player. You can conduct yourself in a professional manner. There are teams that don't attack players in arbitration, why assume the Flames will? A 5th round pick so that the relationship with the player starts off without any ill-will is bad asset management. They're all professionals or suppose to be. The team can't be afraid to hurt a player's feelings especially if it's a bottom pairing defenseman taking the team to arbitration.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by FAN

On a team willing to spend to the cap but likely won't come close to the Cap? I would be happier paying Russell $3.4M for a year than give up a 5th round pick.



It's Kris Russell, a player who spent a lot of time as a healthy scratch last season. How crazy could the awarded contract be? And even if it is crazy it's only for a year and the Flames likely won't be up against the cap.

As for the 50 contract limit. If that's the reason, why didn't Feaster come out and say that was the reason? I can only take a poster's word that the Flames were in fact at the 50 contract limit.




Again, it's not necessary for arbitration to be confrontational in the sense that you got to rip apart the player. You can conduct yourself in a professional manner. There are teams that don't attack players in arbitration, why assume the Flames will? A 5th round pick so that the relationship with the player starts off without any ill-will is bad asset management. They're all professionals or suppose to be. The team can't be afraid to hurt a player's feelings especially if it's a bottom pairing defenseman taking the team to arbitration.

That's the problem right there. It's not your money. Obviously the management of this team would rather avoid arbitration and the possibility of spending more money than they need to during the first year of the rebuild. Disagreeing with that is fine, but to say it's a waste of a pick is a stretch, especially considering it's not your money.

Speaking in absolutes in general is silly, there are many ways to do things, but to think you know what's better at this point in the rebuild, on such a minor deal no less, than Feaster and Co boggles my mind.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Zevo

That's the problem right there. It's not your money. Obviously the management of this team would rather avoid arbitration and the possibility of spending more money than they need to during the first year of the rebuild. Disagreeing with that is fine, but to say it's a waste of a pick is a stretch, especially considering it's not your money.

Speaking in absolutes in general is silly, there are many ways to do things, but to think you know what's better at this point in the rebuild, on such a minor deal no less, than Feaster and Co boggles my mind.

Well if this team traded a 5th round pick just to save money (not cap room) it's sad times. If you think it's silly to say that trading away draft picks to save money is a waste of draft picks then so be it.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by FAN

Well if this team traded a 5th round pick just to save money (not cap room) it's sad times. If you think it's silly to say that trading away draft picks to save money is a waste of draft picks then so be it.

It's a re-build. Does it matter if they spend to the cap the first couple of years? And aren't they doing both? Saving money and cap room? Like I said, it's not my money...who am I to say it's a waste of a late round draft pick for them to save money, or any other possible problems, on what really ends up being a minor transaction.
The only thing I think is silly is people who think they unequivocally know what's better for the Flames than the management team of the Flames.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Zevo

The only thing I think is silly is people who think they unequivocally know what's better for the Flames than the management team of the Flames.

... are you new here?

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Like I said, it's not my money...who am I to say it's a waste of a late round draft pick for them to save money

I don't know who you are... but...

Originally Posted by Zevo

The only thing I think is silly is people who think they unequivocally know what's better for the Flames than the management team of the Flames.

This is a discussion board. I'm suggesting that it is a waste of an asset to trade a 5th round pick for a player who was on waivers just days ago just to save money. Never said I know better. But I'm a fan who has spent quite a bit of money over the years supporting the Flames and I feel I have a right to voice my opinion on a message/discussion board dedicated to talking about the Flames rather than blindly supporting the decisions of Flames management.

[Jason14h]

Well if this team traded a 5th round pick just to save money (not cap room) it's sad times

Every team in the league would sell a 5th round pick for 2 million $. (The savings in this hypothetical situation)

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

At the deadline, we can easily recoup the 5th by trading Chris Butler or some other similar guy.

Not that I disagree with the general sentiment (Russell is almost certainly a more valuable asset then a 5th round pick) but I always hate it when people try to justify a or deflect criticism of a draft pick trade by claiming that some other different player can later be traded for the same or better. It has zero relevancy nor is it a particularly effective arguement since the easy immediate retrort is "but we could have had two".

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FAN

...I'm suggesting that it is a waste of an asset to trade a 5th round pick for a player who was on waivers just days ago just to save money...

I really think that this is a big assumption to make. Feaster has come out and only publicly said that the Flames did not wish to assume an arbitration case. Was it from a concern to save money? Probably. Were there other factors involved in the arbitration process that highly motivated the Flames to avoid it? Almost certainly. Assuming that this is entirely about the money is extremely shortsighted and arbitrary. From everything we know about salary arbitration, it is a system that teams universally are particularly loathe to avoid.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Not that I disagree with the general sentiment (Russell is almost certainly a more valuable asset then a 5th round pick) but I always hate it when people try to justify a or deflect criticism of a draft pick trade by claiming that some other different player can later be traded for the same or better. It has zero relevancy nor is it a particularly effective arguement since the easy immediate retrort is "but we could have had two".

It's hard to believe that a team good enough to make the playoffs will consider Kris Russell an upgrade over anything they have. This is a player whose last team made trades at the deadline to push him off the team going into the playoffs, and the subsequently placed him on waivers at the end of the season. I really doubt there will be any flipping him for another asset. He is simply a project and a space filler on a bad team.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Every team in the league would sell a 5th round pick for 2 million $. (The savings in this hypothetical situation)

That's ridiculous. There has been no history of teams selling picks, at least not by teams that spend to the cap.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Assuming that this is entirely about the money is extremely shortsighted and arbitrary. From everything we know about salary arbitration, it is a system that teams universally are particularly loathe to avoid.

Assuming that it's something different from what Feaster has come out and said is extremely shortsighted and arbitrary. Teams are allowed to take players to arbitration and have done so in the past. Of course it's better to come to an mutual agreement. But arbitration is a means to and end and is used as such by both players and teams. Salary arbitration does not require a team to demean and attack a player.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FAN

Assuming that it's something different from what Feaster has come out and said is extremely shortsighted and arbitrary...

But I am not making said assumption. I noted that the only thing Feaster has said is that the team does not want to assume an arbitration case. He has never said specifically why. You are the one who is assuming that that reason is entirely in an effort to save some money on an arbitration award, but I would counter that there is likely a good deal more to it than that.

[Jason14h]

That's ridiculous. There has been no history of teams selling picks, at least not by teams that spend to the cap.

Because the NHL doesn't allow you too trade players for cash like this.

The NBA does and 2nd round picks are sold all the time.

A 5th round pick is not worth anywhere near 2 million in real cash dollars.