[Signing] Flames sign Deryk Engelland (3yrs, $2.9M AAV)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

How does anybody know that this contract won't hurt us going forward?

Maybe the Flames are trying sign Del Zotto and/or McBain but now they won't come here unless it's for more than this contract?

Not saying they are or aren't, but these "not going to hurt us going forward" posts don't have much validity IMO. Fact is we won't know until the contract is over and it is a bad one.

ok this is getting ridiculous.

So now you are attempting to argue that there may be other FAs out there that the Flames a re pursuing, but

a) they demand more than Engelland's contract, and
b) the Flames won't pay it.

Good God.

First, the value that any and all free agents will sign for is a function of their own supply and demand situation.

Second, if the only thing separating the Flames and a FA they desired was Engelland's contract, there is little doubt they would pay it.

People: he is over-paid, everyone agrees with that. But it will have no material bearing on ANYTHING that happens with Flames contracts in the future.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by neo45

By signing Engelland the oppourtunity cost is what that 8.75* mil could have been spent on. New ties for Burke? Training equipment?? Sure, it doesnt matter, its an oppourtunity forgone. The floor was already hit

In order for this to be an opportunity cost, you are going to have to demonstrate what has been foregone (i.e. where did they NOT spend the $10m that they would have if it were not for this contract?)

[Igster]

Well, this thread is entertaining at least...

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by neo45

The 10 mil spent is an oppourtunity cost. That could be spent on other things. Replacing our best scout that we lost for example, but there are a lot of possibilities with 10 million real dollars. The salary floor was all but reached when the contract was signed

He also might not be taking a young player out of the lineup this season, as no one is ready to make the jump, but he is signed for 3 years as is the rest of our D core. A young D man should be ready to step in within 3 years (I hope to god) and we have a logjam of highly paid defenseman signed long term. This adds to that log jam

And I really dont think anyone is making this into an issue. Simply that it is a huge overpayment and the benefits of the contract wont come close to outweighing the cost

Here is the source of the problem you are having: you have made a conclusion, and now you need an argument to justify it.

If you simply step back and let go of that conclusion, you will be able to see that there is no problem. Then you can accept him for whatever he provides to the Flames (as opposed to a pre-conceived conclusion that he cannot meet a pre-determined worth)

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

ok this is getting ridiculous.

So now you are attempting to argue that there may be other FAs out there that the Flames a re pursuing, but

a) they demand more than Engelland's contract, and
b) the Flames won't pay it.

Good God.

First, the value that any and all free agents will sign for is a function of their own supply and demand situation.

Second, if the only thing separating the Flames and a FA they desired was Engelland's contract, there is little doubt they would pay it.

People: he is over-paid, everyone agrees with that. But it will have no material bearing on ANYTHING that happens with Flames contracts in the future.

I'm not attempting to argue anything. You're the one trying to make excuses for a bad contract. I'm just stating possibilities, the only reality here is, it's a bad contract. The rest is all just speculation and excuses.

Also the part that's bolded is just as much pure speculation on your part as I had in my post.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

^ Well said Enoch

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by neo45

The 10 mil spent is an oppourtunity cost. That could be spent on other things. Replacing our best scout that we lost for example, but there are a lot of possibilities with 10 million real dollars. The salary floor was all but reached when the contract was signed

He also might not be taking a young player out of the lineup this season, as no one is ready to make the jump, but he is signed for 3 years as is the rest of our D core. A young D man should be ready to step in within 3 years (I hope to god) and we have a logjam of highly paid defenseman signed long term. This adds to that log jam

And I really dont think anyone is making this into an issue. Simply that it is a huge overpayment and the benefits of the contract wont come close to outweighing the cost

First of all it's not a huge contract so it's not a huge overpayment, it doesn't affect the team budget in anyway, it doesn't affect us fans in anyway in how the Flames spend their money, who cares how much they pay him I will watch the team play smash hockey and enjoy it, pretty sure the GM et al have a better understanding of what they're doing than anyone on this or any forum board.
Go Flames Go

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I'm not attempting to argue anything. You're the one trying to make excuses for a bad contract. I'm just stating possibilities, the only reality here is, it's a bad contract. The rest is all just speculation and excuses.

5 straw-mans in 4 sentences has to be some sort of record.

[the_professsor]

I think everyone can agree that we overpaid.

I'm just curious who else we may have been able to lure here by overpaying. I would rather overpay a Niskanen, even with more term, because he's 27 and would still be a good player in 5 years. Would Niskanen consider Calgary and how much would we have to overpay is a different question.

Without knowing where else that money could have been spent it's hard to judge the trade. We overpaid for a pretty bad defencemen, who brings some intangibles that we needed on D. I definitely have mixed feelings...

[Anduril]

Maybe we should have just re-signed Butler if there was this much bickering.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

[/B]

I'm not attempting to argue anything. You're the one trying to make excuses for a bad contract. I'm just stating possibilities, the only reality here is, it's a bad contract. The rest is all just speculation and excuses.

Also the part that's bolded is just as much pure speculation on your part as I had in my post.

Very well said. We can talk about how the money doesn't matter (because it doesn't), but it's still terrible.

Why they did it? Well it's pretty much all speculation, but interesting nonetheless

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Very well said. We can talk about how the money doesn't matter (because it doesn't), but it's still terrible.

Why they did it? Well it's pretty much all speculation, but immersing nonetheless

But that's the crux of the entire argument: they are attempting to argue that it DOES matter.

One side: over-payment, but it doesn't matter

Other side: over-payment and it is going to have ramifications going forward

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But that's the crux of the entire argument: they are attempting to argue that it DOES matter.

One side: over-payment, but it doesn't matter

Other side: over-payment and it is going to have ramifications going forward

I agree that it has no direct ramifications opportunity cost or otherwise. That's a bit over the top IMO.

It is however odd and personally it troubles me a little in judging Treliving's abilities

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by neo45

Which thread got your last account banned? I remember it was a good one

What are you talking about? Isn't not being able to sign a player for 23 million dollars the opportunity cost?

Color me confused! LOL

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I agree that it has no direct ramifications opportunity cost or otherwise. That's a bit over the top IMO.

It is however odd and personally it troubles me a little in judging Treliving's abilities

Really you take this personally?? Me I couldn't give 2 s!!ts how they spend their money.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But that's the crux of the entire argument: they are attempting to argue that it DOES matter.

One side: over-payment, but it doesn't matter

Other side: over-payment and it is going to have ramifications going forward

I'm actually saying I don't know if it's going to affect anything going forward. I don't know what goes on behind closed doors, so how do I know what is discussed in contract negotiations.

Saying it isn't going to affect anything going forward is just like someone else saying it is, when in reality we don't hear everything that goes on, so we don't know.

Like street says, makes for a good discussion so talk away, I just don't see the point.


Just my opinion and FWIW other than being him being crazy overpaid and a guaranteed whipping boy, I won't lose any sleep over the signing.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by trublmaker

Really you take this personally?? Me I couldn't give 2 #####s how they spend their money.

I think I didn't write clearly. I meant to me It's troubling because the team will rely on him to make shrewd decisions when money is important for the salary cap and this one is baffling

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I'm actually saying I don't know if it's going to affect anything going forward. I don't know what goes on behind closed doors, so how do I know what is discussed in contract negotiations.

Saying it isn't going to affect anything going forward is just like someone else saying it is, when in reality we don't hear everything that goes on, so we don't know.

Like street says, makes for a good discussion so talk away, I just don't see the point.


Just my opinion and FWIW other than being him being crazy overpaid and a guaranteed whipping boy, I won't lose any sleep over the signing.

Yeah fair enough. And if you go back a bit in the discussion, I was never making absolute statements. Just get tired and lazy, having to make the same arguments over and over.

The speculative panic is massively overblown

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think I didn't write clearly. I meant to me It's troubling because the team will rely on him to make shrewd decisions when money is important for the salary cap and this one is baffling

We're FAR from the cap right now so let's cross that bridge when we get there. In the meantime let the rebuild continue if Engelland can help, even a little in maybe protecting some kids, then he's a good addition.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by trublmaker

We're FAR from the cap right now so let's cross that bridge when we get there. In the meantime let the rebuild continue if Engelland can help, even a little in maybe protecting some kids, then he's a good addition.

Maybe he was in Phoenix so long and had to hold pennies so tightly that he wanted make it reason just once