Flames cap situation 2016-17

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by aedge

Moving Russell is ridiculous. He is a top 4 d and could be the best 5-6 we ever have had


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disagree. He will not perform as well this year.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by memphusk

Disagree. He will not perform as well this year.

He's 27 years old. That is about the age that most NHL defensemen 'get it' and hit their prime.

I think he takes last year as a launching pad and takes his game to the next level (essentially the level we saw for the 2nd half of the year).

He was really 'hot' for a while, and I am not suggesting he can maintain that hot pace, but I think he now knows that he is a solid NHL defenseman. Confidence is everything.

[Gaskal]

If Russell ends up being in the top 4 I could see another career year for him. However if the top 4 ends up being Gio, Hamilton, Brodie, Wideman (which is very likely) that means he'll be stuck playing with the black hole of possession Engelland.

Russell is good but shot suppression is kind of bad, which you'd rather not have in the top 4.

[Vulcan]

I like Russell but we may not have the cap room to re-sign him and a couple of our prospects may be ready as well.

[Strange Brew]

I like Russell a lot and would like to see him as the #4. To resign him though you have to move atleast 2 of Smid, Engelland and Wideman. Tying up $12 million of cap space in defenceman #5,6 and 7 is not going to work.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

...Treliving and Burke have done a nice job and team looks so much better than 18 months ago. But I give them relatively poor grades on negotiating team friendly contracts. More negatives (Raymond, Engelland, Stajan) than positives (Brodie). Most others are where they should be...

I think you will find this to be the case for virtually every NHL team. Every GM is going to find himself in a position where he needs to pay a premium to get the player that he wants, and which the team needs. I don't think it is fair to stack "negatives" against "positives" like this as a metric by which to determine a GM's performance, especially since all the "negatives" will fall in the category of UFA deals which will always be on the high end. These sorts of deals can be considered "negatives" if they become crippling in the long term, and prevent a team from making the necessary changes that are needed. I don't see any of the cited examples hurting the Flames like that.

I would agree that in retrospect the Raymond contract looks bad, but within it's context it was an understandable deal to have been made at the time it was made. It was a gamble that didn't really pay off. But how much of that has to do with Raymond's own performance, in contrast to how much better Gaudreau and Monahan were this season than anyone really expected them to be?

Similarly, I would say that the Engelland deal looks much better today than it did when Treliving signed him. He looked like a serviceable #5 by the end of the season and in the playoffs, which is right in range with the salary he is earning.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I like Russell a lot and would like to see him as the #4. To resign him though you have to move atleast 2 of Smid, Engelland and Wideman. Tying up $12 million of cap space in defenceman #5,6 and 7 is not going to work.

I think it is possibly by moving only Wideman and one of the other two—most preferably Smid. It's not that bad of a situation to be in.

[AltaGuy]

I think Russell's career trajectory is similar to Stralman's in TB, who has obviously put it all together. I would like to see Russell stay in the top-4 and I think he'd be a good partner for Hamilton, leaving Brodie and Giordano together, and making Wideman a PP #5.

[Strange Brew]

[QUOTE=Textcritic;5376782

Similarly, I would say that the Engelland deal looks much better today than it did when Treliving signed him. He looked like a serviceable #5 by the end of the season and in the playoffs, which is right in range with the salary he is earning.[/QUOTE]

I am not in the camp that Engelland is a #5 but I do agree he showed something in the playoffs so I may be proven wrong. Still at his salary he makes the average salary for a 23 man roster and $70 million cap. That is too much for your bottom pairing D.

No one is taking Smid off our hands until he is able to play healthy for a reasonable period of time. I am pulling for him.

[Funkhouser]

If we can move Stajan and Raymond up-front (while letting Jones walk) it frees up $10.2M

Move Smid and Wideman on D (and let Hiller or Ramo walk) it clears approx $12.7M

That's it, that's all. Get rid of those guys (throw in a B prospect if need-be) and we have enough room to sign Giordano @ 7, Monahan @ 6.5, Hudler @ 6.25 and Gaudreau @ 6 (and probably room to sign Russell @ 4 as well)

[Incogneto]

Updated for the Byron signing.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

[hockey.modern]

David Jones
Jiri Hudler
Joe Colborne
Josh Jooris
Sean Monahan
Johnny Gaudreau
Paul Byron
Drew Shore
Markus Granlund
Michael Ferland* (assuming he gets 850k 1yr)
Mark Giordano
Kris Russell,
Jonas Hiller
Kari Ramo
Joni Ortio

15 NHL Roster players that will need new contracts next year.
=$30,987,000 (per general.fanager)

bold players are who we assume we want to keep. Do you think we will be able to pay those players plus the supporting core?

[Textcritic]

^
You missed Gaudreau.

[hockey.modern]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

^
You missed Gaudreau.

I had him in before, must've deleted him by mistake when I went to edit it again.

[JiriHrdina]

Related note, but I've had to listen to Dowbigginn and Pinder go off 2 mornings now on
- Why the Flames made a mistake in allowing Monahan to play his rookie season (Dowbiggin opinion)
- Why the Flames made a mistake in allowing Bennett to burn a year in the playoffs

The POV from both is that the Flames weren't going to beat the Ducks, so they should have sat Sam after the first 2 games.

WTF?

What message does that send your team if you did that? How do you basically admit defeat? How do you preach always earned never given, but when it is earned you take it away?

What an absurd pile of nonsense.

To quote Dennis Green (I think) YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Related note, but I've had to listen to Dowbigginn and Pinder go off 2 mornings now on
- Why the Flames made a mistake in allowing Monahan to play his rookie season (Dowbiggin opinion)
- Why the Flames made a mistake in allowing Bennett to burn a year in the playoffs

The POV from both is that the Flames weren't going to beat the Ducks, so they should have sat Sam after the first 2 games.

WTF?

What message does that send your team if you did that? How do you basically admit defeat? How do you preach always earned never given, but when it is earned you take it away?

What an absurd pile of nonsense.

To quote Dennis Green (I think) YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Herm Edwards actually.

But I understand their argument. The goal is to win the cup, not lose in 6 games instead of 4. Not saying I agree with it, just saying I understand it.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

Herm Edwards actually.

But I understand their argument. The goal is to win the cup, not lose in 6 games instead of 4. Not saying I agree with it, just saying I understand it.

Ah yes. Herm!
I don't think there is an argument. Yes the goal is to win the cup, but instilling a winning culture is part of that. You have to allow your coach to ice the best line-up. And you have to let the kid play if he's good enough to play.
There are certain foundational beliefs you have to have about how to play the game - and if you compromise on that - you aren't going to win a cup anyways.

[Hugh Jahrmes]

Of course from the outside its "understandable".

There's a massive human element to the game though, especially with our unique combo of young guys and older guys turning it around (Wideman etc)..

You could literally unravel any positive moves by telling the team that basically management has given up

[Street Pharmacist]

Not only that, but who's to say Monahan is the same player without pressure early? Progression isn't a+b=c and if you just delay it a year the answer is the same. If we wait on playing Monahan, does he get the first line center opportunity so early? Does Bennett to taste winning in Calgary and the Red Mile?


Hockey doesn't happen with robots in a vacuum

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Hockey doesn't happen with robots in a vacuum

What a pity. They could skate so much faster without air resistance!