[Rumour] Flames still trying to re-sign Russell

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Redlan

I agree with statements made in this thread.

Hah what a random, odd post. Over 200 posts made before this one, ranging anywhere from idiotic to intelligent, way off base to on point, and then buddy comes in and says he agrees with statements made.

It reminds me of when a weak manager tries to say something in an email chain because he knows he has to say something.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by jayswin

It reminds me of when a weak manager tries to say something in an email chain because he knows he has to say something.

I approve of some, all, or none of the opinions expressed above.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I can't believe this is even a possibility given Russell's play this year and the logjam of mediocre, overpaid D on the roster already. I've never been pissed off over a Flames signing, but this has potential. Anything over 2 x 2.5m and I will be pretty disappointed. If Smid, Engelland and Wideman weren't here, I might be on board but I just don't see the reasoning behind this. I'm hoping that these reports are out there to drive up Russell's trade value and Treliving has no intention of actually signing him. It's so obvious that Russell needs the Flames more than the Flames need Russell.

I think you need to think a bit beyond next year. Fact is, the Flames need a #4 d-man for the next few years, and given what they've invested in what will be there top 3 (Gio, Brodie and Hamilton) it will need to be a "mediocre" type # 4. The Flames also have no reason to believe right now, that their long term #4 is just waiting for the opportunity sitting in the minors. Our current D prospects look more like 5-7 guys in waiting.

Now it is fair to suggest that we have a bit of a log jam at 5-7 with Wides, Eng and Smid, with more money than we'd like invested. But that shouldn't stop the Flames from getting the #4 they need if Russels the best option. It is unfortunate the Wides, Smid and Engs won't "fix itself" until the season after next, but that's a problem Treliving needs to tackle independent of addressing a #4. No point letting Russell walk simply because his contract comes due first if he's not actually the guy you want to let go. Find a way to get rid of the guys you want to leave if you need to free up cash or make room for a youngster.

Don't get me wrong, the term and value of any deal with Russell will be key to how I feel if a deal is made, but right now I'm not seeing nany better options for the Flames at #4.

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Hah what a random, odd post. Over 200 posts made before this one, ranging anywhere from idiotic to intelligent, way off base to on point, and then buddy comes in and says he agrees with statements made.

It reminds me of when a weak manager tries to say something in an email chain because he knows he has to say something.

It's pretty much the point. Much ado about nothing. There was enough dichotomy that I was not going to stray from the middle. If he's signed...fine...if he's traded...fine. Just as long as it's fair market value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Don't get me wrong, the term and value of any deal with Russell will be key to how I feel if a deal is made, but right now I'm not seeing nany better options for the Flames at #4.

That's pretty much where I'm coming from. I just hope the Flames don't do anything stupid like give him a 4×4m deal. In my books, he's a decent bottom pairing guy but if you're relying on him to be your #4, you probably don't have that great of a defense.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

That's pretty much where I'm coming from. I just hope the Flames don't do anything stupid like give him a 4×4m deal. In my books, he's a decent bottom pairing guy but if you're relying on him to be your #4, you probably don't have that great of a defense.

Agree with your general sentiment, but I think you are being a little hard on Russell. I think he's a very good #5 on any team in this league, so not a huge stretch at #4. And I don't agree having him in the Flames top 4 means we wouldn't have a good D. Very few teams will have a top 3 like we do, especially if Hamilton continues to improve as he has recently and reached his projected potential.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I can't believe this is even a possibility given Russell's play this year and the logjam of mediocre, overpaid D on the roster already. I've never been pissed off over a Flames signing, but this has potential. Anything over 2 x 2.5m and I will be pretty disappointed. If Smid, Engelland and Wideman weren't here, I might be on board but I just don't see the reasoning behind this. I'm hoping that these reports are out there to drive up Russell's trade value and Treliving has no intention of actually signing him. It's so obvious that Russell needs the Flames more than the Flames need Russell.

If you were Russell why would you agree to a contract that pays less than Smid and Engelland?

I'd want at least $3.5 if I were him.

The guy is number three on the team in ice time per game @ 22:45.
Engelland is only playing 12 minutes....

Why should he be played like a top four and then paid like the number seven?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

If you were Russell why would you agree to a contract that pays less than Smid and Engelland?

I'd want at least $3.5 if I were him.

The guy is number three on the team in ice time per game @ 22:45.
Engelland is only playing 12 minutes....

Why should he be played like a top four and then paid like the number seven?

Because of any number of factors that have been brought up in this thread and apparent to anyone that follows the Flames regularly?

I get you're trying to come in and give the opposing fan voice of reason, but you're vastly oversimplifying Russell's value with a quick look at TOI stats and then comparing it to our overpaid bottom pairing guys.

[Strange Brew]

There are many posters in here expressing essentially the same sentiment: "I'm in favor of signing Russell if they can get him on a deal below market value". Isnt that basically true for any player?
IMO no way the guy signs for same money is making now.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

He's right in the sense that Russell's camp will point to Engelland as a comparable. A UFA player who plays the same position, and who the same GM signed to a deal only two years ago. Russell is probably twice as good, so it's kind of scary to imagine the numbers and term that are likley being thrown around.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Because of any number of factors that have been brought up in this thread and apparent to anyone that follows the Flames regularly?

I get you're trying to come in and give the opposing fan voice of reason, but you're vastly oversimplifying Russell's value with a quick look at TOI stats and then comparing it to our overpaid bottom pairing guys.

I'm just trying to look at it from Russell's perspective.

If the coach is playing Russell in a top four role, why wouldn't he be looking to be paid relative to how the coach values him? $3.5 isn't even what top four guys are getting in free agency. They seem to be hitting 5+ on the regular now.

If I were him I wouldn't settle for being the lowest paid defencemen on the team. I think most of us wouldn't either if we were in his shoes. It's human nature to want to be paid at least as well as our peers.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I'm just trying to look at it from Russell's perspective.

If the coach is playing Russell in a top four role, why wouldn't he be looking to be paid relative to how the coach values him? $3.5 isn't even what top four guys are getting in free agency. They seem to be hitting 5+ on the regular now.

If I were him I wouldn't settle for being the lowest paid defencemen on the team. I think most of us wouldn't either if we were in his shoes. It's human nature to want to be paid at least as well as our peers.

Which is why a lot of us don't think he'll sign. Which makes us think Treliving will trade him by the deadline.

Of course we have heard he does like playing here and is from Alberta so is there always a chance he takes a bit of a hometown discount and somehow they meet in the middle and make it work.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Because of any number of factors that have been brought up in this thread and apparent to anyone that follows the Flames regularly?

I get you're trying to come in and give the opposing fan voice of reason, but you're vastly oversimplifying Russell's value with a quick look at TOI stats and then comparing it to our overpaid bottom pairing guys.

I agree with the Oil fan. If TOI was so over simplified, and other things like CORSI/possesion/stats stats were so much more important, then why aren't they playing more minutes then Russell?

On this team, he's a top 4 defenseman. On many other teams in the NHL, he's a top 4 defenseman. I think people get too focused on his advanced stats, overlooking the fact that on a NHL team, its pretty hard to be a top 4 defenseman. Not all AHL defenseman can just come and step in and do that job.

(I think he'll get $4M, but term will be what is interesting to see - how many years out does Treliving think Kulak/Hickey/Andersson/etc are to being a top 4 D in the NHL?)

My guess - 3 years at $4M AAV. I know many won't like that, but I personally will have no problem with that.

[saillias]

Coaches have tunnel vision and don't see the bigger picture. Friedman had a 30 Thoughts about this issue last year, he didn't name names. A GM of a struggling team called up a young player and wanted him to get into games. The coach scratched him in favor of a struggling vet. This GM waived the veteran, forcing the coach to play the rookie. I believe this team went on a run and made the playoffs.

So point is, GMs have to act in spite of their coaches sometimes.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by saillias

Coaches have tunnel vision and don't see the bigger picture. Friedman had a 30 Thoughts about this issue last year, he didn't name names. A GM of a struggling team called up a young player and wanted him to get into games. The coach scratched him in favor of a struggling vet. This GM waived the veteran, forcing the coach to play the rookie. I believe this team went on a run and made the playoffs.

So point is, GMs have to act in spite of their coaches sometimes.

This is referred to as Billy Beane-ing a player. Sometimes the coach just has favorites, so you have to remove them from the mix by trading or demoting them. I think Hartley has a few favorites and they hurt the team. Treliving needs to remove some of these guys from the mix.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Enough money spent on the backend. Unless someone in the bottom 3 can be moved, need to let Russell walk.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Enough money spent on the backend. Unless someone in the bottom 3 can be moved, need to let Russell walk.

I have to think that Treliving has already factored in how much Gaudreau and Monahan have asked for before signing Russell, as its obvious to anyone that those are the 2 big tickets to sign this summer. Russell is secondary, and just throwing stones to if he can make it fit. If he can make it fit, the bottom 3 (Engelland, Wideman, Smid - I think Engelland gets re-upped though) expire next year in time for Sam Bennett's new deal.

Not sure if that eases anyone's mind in bringing Russell back on a multi-year deal at top 4 money, but I don't think its done without considering Monahan/Gaudreau.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

I guess the good news is that Russell's bargaining position is diminishing by the day. Perhaps we can keep him for around $2 million.

[Komskies]

The part that killed it for me was from the game last night when we had the Stars hemmed in their zone for a couple of minutes, and on 3 separate occasions the puck came to Russell on the left point, and he proceeds to miss the net wide on all 3 of his point shots. I don't know why we would want to keep a player that can't hit the net and gets dominated in puck battles.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Komskies

The part that killed it for me was from the game last night when we had the Stars hemmed in their zone for a couple of minutes, and on 3 separate occasions the puck came to Russell on the left point, and he proceeds to miss the net wide on all 3 of his point shots. I don't know why we would want to keep a player that can't hit the net and gets dominated in puck battles.

Because you need defencemen. If not Russell then who would be standing at that point?

You think Brad can call up GM X and say hey buddy, I have a guy who I think is struggling, and frankly not very good. I play him in my top 4, but I really want an upgrade because I don't actually think he's a top 4 guy. Can you trade me your better d-man for my not so good d-man? Sure Brad, anything for you buddy.

Or maybe you want to trade him for picks and call someone up. Do you trust Nakladal, Kylington, Wotherspoon, etc to be standing there playing top 4 in the NHL? I would not.