[Signing] Flames sign Russell to 2 year extension ($2.6M AAV)

[OzSome]

i love this signing. I thought Russell have been a big surprise this season. He can play 5 on 5, power play and even PK.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

What I like best about this is actually that I think it might make Brodie expendable. For the record, it don't have any desire to get rid of Brodie, and I think Brodie long term is the better player. But, I doubt long term Burke keeps two D-men like Brodie and Russell on the team, so it might allow us to deal Brodie from a position of strength and be involved in a give up quality to get quality and address another part of the line up that needs help in the rebuild.

Not saying it will happen, or that I'd be even upset if it didn't, the team definitely has room for both Brodie and Russell, but Russell's and Brodie's emergence at the same time might open up some interesting options for this club.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

What I like best about this is actually that I think it might make Brodie expendable. For the record, it don't have any desire to get rid of Brodie, and I think Brodie long term is the better player. But, I doubt long term Burke keeps two D-men like Brodie and Russell on the team, so it might allow us to deal Brodie from a position of strength and be involved in a give up quality to get quality and address another part of the line up that needs help in the rebuild.

Not saying it will happen, or that I'd be even upset if it didn't, the team definitely has room for both Brodie and Russell, but Russell's and Brodie's emergence at the same time might open up some interesting options for this club.

We aren't exactly abundant with defenseman...... I don't think this makes Brodie expendable. I don't know if anyone is willing to eat Wideman's contract, but if there is interest and we can get a top 4 D back, I wouldn't mind shipping him out. Not a big fan of Wideman and he makes way too much money, on a term that is way too long.

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

What I like best about this is actually that I think it might make Brodie expendable. For the record, it don't have any desire to get rid of Brodie, and I think Brodie long term is the better player. But, I doubt long term Burke keeps two D-men like Brodie and Russell on the team, so it might allow us to deal Brodie from a position of strength and be involved in a give up quality to get quality and address another part of the line up that needs help in the rebuild.

Not saying it will happen, or that I'd be even upset if it didn't, the team definitely has room for both Brodie and Russell, but Russell's and Brodie's emergence at the same time might open up some interesting options for this club.

Brodie is already the better player.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

We aren't exactly abundant with defenseman...... I don't think this makes Brodie expendable. I don't know if anyone is willing to eat Wideman's contract, but if there is interest and we can get a top 4 D back, I wouldn't mind shipping him out. Not a big fan of Wideman and he makes way too much money, on a term that is way too long.

It doesn't in the short term at all, you are correct. But both are relatively young, so would both hopefully be around when this team is ready to compete. Me hen that time arrives, I highly doubt two very similar sized and styled players are penciled in for how Burke and co sees our D at that time.

Losing Brodie now (or Russell) hurts on the back end in the short term, an area of weakness for the club, but if one could be dealt to bring in a piece in another part of the line up that would be part of the plan for when this team is ready to compete, then I could see management doing it. Not like we care about short term results anyway. Point being, if I were a betting man, both Russell and Brodie aren't part of this team when it emerges ready to make the playoffs.

I'd also be in favour of a Wideman deal. Don't think he'd fetch the same type of return as Brodie mind you.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by DOOM

Brodie is already the better player.

It's debatable IMO, Russell makes way less mistakes especially in his own end. Brodie does get tougher competition though IMO. Regardless,they are very similar players, and the gap between them isn't that large right now, but is agree Brodie has the bigger upside and long term potential.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Bad GMs get fired before their picks pan out but there are some good GMs who stick around. Those seem to be the ones who know how to grade players as a part of their skill set. Feaster in his 25 years never went through the process of learning that skill.
Yeah sure there are ways to separate some scouts from others but that still doesn't tell you if the scouts are any good in the first place.

I mean they could tell you that Jankowski is a first round pick and you wouldn't know any better.

You really need to give it up man. The fact you think a guy can work in the industry for 25 years and not pick up a tony bit about scouting is asinine.

That would be like saying you couldn't learn a thing about art if you ran a gallery for 25 years.

The notion that you need to play to identify talent is prehistoric and completely unfounded.

[Freeway]

I like Kris Russell.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

It doesn't in the short term at all, you are correct. But both are relatively young, so would both hopefully be around when this team is ready to compete. Me hen that time arrives, I highly doubt two very similar sized and styled players are penciled in for how Burke and co sees our D at that time.

Losing Brodie now (or Russell) hurts on the back end in the short term, an area of weakness for the club, but if one could be dealt to bring in a piece in another part of the line up that would be part of the plan for when this team is ready to compete, then I could see management doing it. Not like we care about short term results anyway. Point being, if I were a betting man, both Russell and Brodie aren't part of this team when it emerges ready to make the playoffs.

I'd also be in favour of a Wideman deal. Don't think he'd fetch the same type of return as Brodie mind you.

Well what are we in need for right now? Defenseman. Young defenseman. So, I'm not really sure why you would want to deal Brodie? 23 really isn't that old... I don't see Brodie's age as being a problem or that he's too old or anything. I don't think it makes sense to be dealing him for a 16 year old prospect or anything.

[Azure]

We won't get rid of Wideman simply because we need to make it to the cap floor.

[indes]

Flames need more Brodie, not less Brodie.

[Mr.Coffee]

All this signing does is reinforce to me how little I want Burke to rush out and hire a Yes-man General Manager.

Great deal and I love short term lengths. Would rather see guys playing for their next contract than coasting along in year 4 of 7. You need to financially motivate people, athletes included.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Azure

We won't get rid of Wideman simply because we need to make it to the cap floor.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to give up an asset to dump Wideman's contract or anything.... but if for some reason, someone out there thinks Wideman is worth his contract and wants to give up a useful asset, it makes a lot more sense to deal Wideman then Brodie.

[Malkin]

Overpayment, imo.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Malkin

Overpayment, imo.

And that's why its your opinion. You can whatever you want without any basis.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

You really need to give it up man. The fact you think a guy can work in the industry for 25 years and not pick up a tony bit about scouting is asinine.

That would be like saying you couldn't learn a thing about art if you ran a gallery for 25 years.

The notion that you need to play to identify talent is prehistoric and completely unfounded.

IIRC Feaster said he wasn't a judge of talent and I think your original argument was that a GM didn't need to be a judge of talent. But good job of moving the goal posts.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

IIRC Feaster said he wasn't a judge of talent and I think your original argument was that a GM didn't need to be a judge of talent. But good job of moving the goal posts.

I never said he needed to, so my stance never changed. But good job deflecting.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Malkin

Overpayment, imo.

8 pages in and we finally have a winner!

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I never said he needed to, so my stance never changed. But good job deflecting.

So why are you taking the last resort of defending Feaster's talent evaluation ability?

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So why are you taking the last resort of defending Feaster's talent evaluation ability?

I never defended his ability to evaluate. I just said he has probably learned something, I never said how much because I have no idea, just like you have no idea how little.

But I find it very ironic that this argument is happening in a Kris Russell thread. A trade Feaster made that was criticized by many and thought of as significant by no one. Seems like Feaster judged his talent pretty well.