Who has value on this team?

[MoreDrank]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

IMO the timing is perfect to sign Russell to a long range deal for a reasonable amount, and include him in our long range plans.

His attributes, as I see it are:

1. Leadership e.g. when Gio went down last year, IMO it was Russell who took this team on his back and helped us get us to the playoffs.

2. Hi IQ and skillset (see his history)

3. He is only 28, and in his prime

4. Super competitiveness and devotion to winning, as evidenced by having the highest number of shot blocks in the NHL

Sure, he has struggled this year, as has most of the players on the team. But trading him for a 2nd or 3rd...for the sake of getting bigger, will IMO be enormously counterproductive, and the rebuild will last a lot longer.

1. I would suggest it was Brodie's play and leadership that carried the team into the playoffs last spring.

2. Getting pelted with pucks after losing one-on-one battles and missing outlets isn't a great skill set.

3. Players hit their prime at 23-24. And if he is in his prime, it is a bad prime. Like Chris Butler bad.

4. Again, blocking shots doesn't win hockey games. Scoring more than the opponent does.

Getting a second or third would be a great return on an asset that cost a fifth rounder to acquire. You take that deal.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It really is quite a glaring missed opportunity that none of these assets were realized on when their value was at its highest. Russell and Wideman are the most obvious examples, but there are certainly others.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It really is quite a glaring missed opportunity that none of these assets were realized on when their value was at its highest. Russell and Wideman are the most obvious examples, but there are certainly others.

It troubles me that management was so wrong with where this team was at, I think they bought into the hype TBH. I've always liked Hudler but I thought, at the time, that both he and Russell should've been traded at the draft, or at some point in the offseason. I'm hardly a hockey savant, but I just don't see why they couldn't see this. Buy low, sell high and leave emotion at the door. Hudler and Russell were never going to be long term solutions and the team is still building... so why keep them?

I can see why Wideman wasn't traded though. That extra year probably made other teams very nervous considering the first two years of his contract were so bad. It also doesn't help that the Flames don't seem willing to retain salary for some reason. Hard to fault BT for all that, but Russell and Hudler should've been very movable.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

It troubles me that management was so wrong with where this team was at, I think they bought into the hype TBH. I've always liked Hudler but I thought, at the time, that both he and Russell should've been traded at the draft, or at some point in the offseason. I'm hardly a hockey savant, but I just don't see why they couldn't see this. Buy low, sell high and leave emotion at the door. Hudler and Russell were never going to be long term solutions and the team is still building... so why keep them?

I can see why Wideman wasn't traded though. That extra year probably made other teams very nervous considering the first two years of his contract were so bad. It also doesn't help that the Flames don't seem willing to retain salary for some reason. Hard to fault BT for all that, but Russell and Hudler should've been very movable.

Not just Hudler, Russell and Wideman but also Giordano. If they can dump that contract it will be a miracle but that was another example of signing a guy who had 2 good seasons to ridiculous money, especially given his age.

[Sakic19]

Bouma should have some value - if and when he returns

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It really is quite a glaring missed opportunity that none of these assets were realized on when their value was at its highest. Russell and Wideman are the most obvious examples, but there are certainly others.

Giordano is of course, the biggest one.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

It troubles me that management was so wrong with where this team was at, I think they bought into the hype TBH. I've always liked Hudler but I thought, at the time, that both he and Russell should've been traded at the draft, or at some point in the offseason. I'm hardly a hockey savant, but I just don't see why they couldn't see this. Buy low, sell high and leave emotion at the door. Hudler and Russell were never going to be long term solutions and the team is still building... so why keep them?

I can see why Wideman wasn't traded though. That extra year probably made other teams very nervous considering the first two years of his contract were so bad. It also doesn't help that the Flames don't seem willing to retain salary for some reason. Hard to fault BT for all that, but Russell and Hudler should've been very movable.

Probably didn't have a deal in place since most buyers are already tight against the cap or still in a building phase. GMs are probably more conservative in nature then us fans who probably think its like trading on the stock market.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Probably didn't have a deal in place since most buyers are already tight against the cap or still in a building phase. GMs are probably more conservative in nature then us fans who probably think its like trading on the stock market.

They were both coming off career years and both have very manageable cap hits. With retention, those two would've been very tradeable IMO. Especially in the off season/TDL when teams have more available cap space.

I realize it's not like the stock market, but it's also true that many other teams in our situation maximize their assets during a rebuilding year to set themselves up for future years. Moving the likes of Russell and Hudler isn't doing anything that hasn't been done hundreds of times over by all sorts of teams throughout the years. What makes the Calgary Flames special? Throughout their history they have been very resistant to trading veterans for futures, except when backed into a corner. What do the Flames know that other teams don't?

I wouldn't advocate going full-Sabre but I do believe taking a few pages out of their playbook would've been advantageous.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

They were both coming off career years and both have very manageable cap hits. With retention, those two would've been very tradeable IMO. Especially in the off season/TDL when teams have more available cap space.

I realize it's not like the stock market, but it's also true that many other teams in our situation maximize their assets during a rebuilding year to set themselves up for future years. Moving the likes of Russell and Hudler isn't doing anything that hasn't been done hundreds of times over by all sorts of teams throughout the years. What makes the Calgary Flames special? Throughout their history they have been very resistant to trading veterans for futures, except when backed into a corner. What do the Flames know that other teams don't?

I wouldn't advocate going full-Sabre but I do believe taking a few pages out of their playbook would've been advantageous.

I honestly think they tried. When Schlemko signed in NJ, he did say he was close to staying in Calgary and they were trying to make room to sign him but things didn't work out. It could have been Smid but I think it was Wideman or Russell.

As for Hudler, I think it was explored when we signed Frolik. I think a lot of teams are hedging their bets since there are very few teams that are safe bets to make the playoffs, and everyone else is on the fence wondering if they'll get burned if they give up a (i.e. 1st rounder) for Hudler and miss, and the pick becomes a lottery pick. I'm sure he could have landed a 2nd or 3rd for Hudler, but for that value, its probably better to hold onto him and see what happens. Also, there is still deals to be held in the future, esp for those teams that look like they are in a comfy spot to make the playoffs and won't risk their 1st becoming a lottery pick.

[Flash Walken]

I think Wideman was virtually immovable last year.

I think he's been immovable from pretty much the moment he was signed.

[Monahan For Mayor]

Originally Posted by MoreDrank

1. I would suggest it was Brodie's play and leadership that carried the team into the playoffs last spring.

2. Getting pelted with pucks after losing one-on-one battles and missing outlets isn't a great skill set.

3. Players hit their prime at 23-24. And if he is in his prime, it is a bad prime. Like Chris Butler bad.

4. Again, blocking shots doesn't win hockey games. Scoring more than the opponent does.

Getting a second or third would be a great return on an asset that cost a fifth rounder to acquire. You take that deal.

I agree with all your points other than when players hit their prime. Forwards may hit their prime at 23-24, but defencemen usually don't even become impact players until around that time. Usually hitting their prime in their late 20s. Look at Gio and Brodie. Brodie is becoming better and better and is 25, Gio didn't hit his prime until around 30.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think Wideman was virtually immovable last year.

I think he's been immovable from pretty much the moment he was signed.

Yeah. I think if he was in the range of $4 million Treliving may have been able to move him over the summer but at over $5 million it's always been one of those UFA deals that you are stuck with the day pen was put to print. The Giordano contract is going to replace Wideman's contract going forward but as long as the team only has one of these bad deals your team can still navigate around it. When you have multiple deals like this it's when teams get in big trouble. Look how far the Kings were willing to go to get rid of Richards for instance.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

It troubles me that management was so wrong with where this team was at, I think they bought into the hype TBH. I've always liked Hudler but I thought, at the time, that both he and Russell should've been traded at the draft, or at some point in the offseason. I'm hardly a hockey savant, but I just don't see why they couldn't see this. Buy low, sell high and leave emotion at the door. Hudler and Russell were never going to be long term solutions and the team is still building... so why keep them?

I can see why Wideman wasn't traded though. That extra year probably made other teams very nervous considering the first two years of his contract were so bad. It also doesn't help that the Flames don't seem willing to retain salary for some reason. Hard to fault BT for all that, but Russell and Hudler should've been very movable.

Awesome post. We have yet to see current management make a true rebuilding move. Trading vets for youth. Deadline UFA dumps like Glencross don't count.
Current management does seem to have a lot of love for the current players and might need to be more cold hearted.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Current management does seem to have a lot of love for the current players and might need to be more cold hearted.

Or they just haven't been able to get the type of deal they wanted.

I'd have rather they kept both of those players than get fleeced for them because "rebuild".

Hard to know what is going on behind closed doors but one thing we know is that Treliving is exploring all options.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Awesome post. We have yet to see current management make a true rebuilding move. Trading vets for youth. Deadline UFA dumps like Glencross don't count.
Current management does seem to have a lot of love for the current players and might need to be more cold hearted.

Moving Glencross for a 2nd and 3rd is a textbook rebuilding move.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

It troubles me that management was so wrong with where this team was at, I think they bought into the hype TBH. I've always liked Hudler but I thought, at the time, that both he and Russell should've been traded at the draft, or at some point in the offseason. I'm hardly a hockey savant, but I just don't see why they couldn't see this. Buy low, sell high and leave emotion at the door. Hudler and Russell were never going to be long term solutions and the team is still building... so why keep them?

I can see why Wideman wasn't traded though. That extra year probably made other teams very nervous considering the first two years of his contract were so bad. It also doesn't help that the Flames don't seem willing to retain salary for some reason. Hard to fault BT for all that, but Russell and Hudler should've been very movable.

You can't trade away relevant and producing players from a playoff roster at the trade deadline. The message it would have given to the team had that happened last year would have been that this year doesn't matter. We can't win so don't bother trying. Sure, the likelihood of us winning the Cup last year was low, but you cannot trade all players in the last or second last year of their contract. You have to keep some, acknowledging that you just might lose some of them.

29 teams each year are not going to win the Cup, and all 29 cannot be sellers. I know that's not the intent of your post, but you do have to keep some veterans, and acknowledge that you just might lose them some years. That's not necessarily bad asset management, it's just life in the NHL and pro sports.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

You can't trade away relevant and producing players from a playoff roster at the trade deadline. The message it would have given to the team had that happened last year would have been that this year doesn't matter. We can't win so don't bother trying. Sure, the likelihood of us winning the Cup last year was low, but you cannot trade all players in the last or second last year of their contract. You have to keep some, acknowledging that you just might lose some of them.

29 teams each year are not going to win the Cup, and all 29 cannot be sellers. I know that's not the intent of your post, but you do have to keep some veterans, and acknowledge that you just might lose them some years. That's not necessarily bad asset management, it's just life in the NHL and pro sports.

I agree, I wouldn't have traded them prior to the 2015 TDL either. The part you underlined states I would've liked to see them traded at the 2015 draft or at some point last off season, prior to the start of the season.

I wouldn't trade last season's success for anything, I just hope we are still rebuilding and not seriously considering extending guys like Hudler and Russell. Sadly, it appears the time to sell high on them has passed.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Moving Glencross for a 2nd and 3rd is a textbook rebuilding move.

Yeah, that's like the only textbook rebuilding move BT has done. And I'm pretty sure he wanted to re-sign him but they couldn't get the dollars to work.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Yeah, that's like the only textbook rebuilding move BT has done. And I'm pretty sure he wanted to re-sign him but they couldn't get the dollars to work.

How many rebuilding moves have other teams done? Not many... there are very few trades these days. Its a build through the draft type of league now. You don't get 2nd's for Dominic Moore anymore. We were lucky to get that return for Glencross.

If BT was really in a "win now" mode (which he has said many times he is not, he is still in a building phase) you would see some win-now moves.... and those moves did not happen. He signed a few stop-gaps at most, so our young players wouldn't get thrown into the fire like they did in Edmonton.

I think we can still get value for our UFAs, but I don't think their value would get grossly inflated after a good 1/3 of a year last year. Generally speaking, GM's aren't stupid and know that a lot of guys last year were riding a wave of hot streaks. Hudler, Wideman, Russell aren't "special pieces" ... and you could get Cody Franson for with no acquisition cost and less dollars then Russell (and similar dollars than Smid). Why would you give up anything for Russell if you could get Franson for free? And how many good UFA players only got PTO's. I think the market is grossly exaggerated and the only way we get anything for these guys is if they fill a particular need.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I agree, I wouldn't have traded them prior to the 2015 TDL either. The part you underlined states I would've liked to see them traded at the 2015 draft or at some point last off season, prior to the start of the season.

I wouldn't trade last season's success for anything, I just hope we are still rebuilding and not seriously considering extending guys like Hudler and Russell. Sadly, it appears the time to sell high on them has passed.

Shoot. Sorry about that. I read trade deadline.