2015/2016 Trade Speculation and Rumors v2

[Calgary4LIfe]

There is not way the Flames buyout Wideman.

Firstly, Wideman has a bit of history in 'good season' - 'poor season' - 'good season'. I would bet that he rebounds from what has been a horrendous year for him. Remember, just the season before there probably wasn't a poster here that wasn't thankful that he was around when Giordano got hurt. Wideman was very, very good. I think there is a strong chance for a considerable rebound - maybe not to 2 seasons' ago level, but rebound nicely.

There is also a new coach that will be hired, and there is a good chance that it will help Wideman on his game - or there is a chance he just sits Wideman much like Hartley did that one year.

I would rather demote Wideman than buy him out, or just have him as the 7th defencemen. A buyout would make no sense to me. Flames can eat that contract this season if they absolutely have to. It may be more difficult next season, especially dependent on what the goalie situation and contract will look like, which is a big unknown at this point.

I think the best bet is that the Flames retain salary. At 50%, I bet Wideman suddenly becomes a huge bargain for a team looking to increase scoring from the backend.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

There is not way the Flames buyout Wideman.

Firstly, Wideman has a bit of history in 'good season' - 'poor season' - 'good season'. I would bet that he rebounds from what has been a horrendous year for him. Remember, just the season before there probably wasn't a poster here that wasn't thankful that he was around when Giordano got hurt. Wideman was very, very good. I think there is a strong chance for a considerable rebound - maybe not to 2 seasons' ago level, but rebound nicely.

There is also a new coach that will be hired, and there is a good chance that it will help Wideman on his game - or there is a chance he just sits Wideman much like Hartley did that one year.

I would rather demote Wideman than buy him out, or just have him as the 7th defencemen. A buyout would make no sense to me. Flames can eat that contract this season if they absolutely have to. It may be more difficult next season, especially dependent on what the goalie situation and contract will look like, which is a big unknown at this point.

I think the best bet is that the Flames retain salary. At 50%, I bet Wideman suddenly becomes a huge bargain for a team looking to increase scoring from the backend.

Wideman wasn't "good" though. He road sky high percentages, sheltered as a #6 with ridiculous PP time. That and his NMC screws the Flames in an expansion draft. He needs to be traded if he can be or bought out. Any other decisions is a fools errand by the Flames.

[Moneyhands23]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Wideman wasn't "good" though. He road sky high percentages, sheltered as a #6 with ridiculous PP time. That and his NMC screws the Flames in an expansion draft. He needs to be traded if he can be or bought out. Any other decisions is a fools errand by the Flames.

Isn't this his last year? Shouldn't he be off the books in regards to the expansion draft?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Isn't this his last year? Shouldn't he be off the books in regards to the expansion draft?

It's a topic of great debate these days with no concrete answer yet.

I will say this, if the league makes teams use up a protection slot on players with NMC's who will be UFA a week or two later, it will be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.....so I wouldn't put it past them.

[Moneyhands23]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

It's a topic of great debate these days with no concrete answer yet.

I will say this, if the league makes teams use up a protection slot on players with NMC's who will be UFA a week or two later, it will be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.....so I wouldn't put it past them.

I'm sure that plenty of the gm's have put their input in on this. I can't see ot being and issue.

Would be so dumb

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

It's a topic of great debate these days with no concrete answer yet.

I will say this, if the league makes teams use up a protection slot on players with NMC's who will be UFA a week or two later, it will be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.....so I wouldn't put it past them.

I'm pretty sure the intent is to make teams who have players under contract for the 2017-18 season with NMCs to have to protect them. I don't think the league can force a team to protect a player that is technically no longer under contract. Someone may be able to confirm this, but I read someplace that a player is under contract until his team plays its last game in the season/playoffs. The team retains the rights to the player, but the player is without a contract or the protections of that contract.

I would think this is supported by the fact that Gaudreau and Monahan both have refused to play in the Worlds because they don't have a contract and the included insurance that comes with the contract. So in Wideman's situation he would no longer be under contract and the Flames would not be required to protect him. Maybe Transplant99 can confirm or deny?

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

There is not way the Flames buyout Wideman.

Firstly, Wideman has a bit of history in 'good season' - 'poor season' - 'good season'. I would bet that he rebounds from what has been a horrendous year for him. Remember, just the season before there probably wasn't a poster here that wasn't thankful that he was around when Giordano got hurt. Wideman was very, very good. I think there is a strong chance for a considerable rebound - maybe not to 2 seasons' ago level, but rebound nicely.

There is also a new coach that will be hired, and there is a good chance that it will help Wideman on his game - or there is a chance he just sits Wideman much like Hartley did that one year.

I would rather demote Wideman than buy him out, or just have him as the 7th defencemen. A buyout would make no sense to me. Flames can eat that contract this season if they absolutely have to. It may be more difficult next season, especially dependent on what the goalie situation and contract will look like, which is a big unknown at this point.

I think the best bet is that the Flames retain salary. At 50%, I bet Wideman suddenly becomes a huge bargain for a team looking to increase scoring from the backend.

I can't see flames management going with the theory, good season, poor season, good season scenario that you described in your post.

I could be wrong but isn't this season going to be harder cap wise for the flames than next season? I'm prettty sure they have more expiring contracts next season.

Posters are forgetting about Smid. Flames better be 100% sure come buy out period that Smid will be going on LTR for the season. I for one think Smid should not play because of risk of injury, but from what i have read about him he sounds like the kind of guy that will give it all he has to get back on ice. If Smid is somehow ready for start of season or early part, he is the #7 d-man.

Lastly most GM's are not dumb. If they think Wideman is going to be bought out, they will just wait until he is bought out and then offer him a 1 year contract worth far less than his current 50% off contract.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by New Era

I'm pretty sure the intent is to make teams who have players under contract for the 2017-18 season with NMCs to have to protect them. I don't think the league can force a team to protect a player that is technically no longer under contract. Someone may be able to confirm this, but I read someplace that a player is under contract until his team plays its last game in the season/playoffs. The team retains the rights to the player, but the player is without a contract or the protections of that contract.

I would think this is supported by the fact that Gaudreau and Monahan both have refused to play in the Worlds because they don't have a contract and the included insurance that comes with the contract. So in Wideman's situation he would no longer be under contract and the Flames would not be required to protect him. Maybe Transplant99 can confirm or deny?

Hopefully. Like I said, being forced to protect a player who isn't going to play another game for your team would be asinine.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

None of those options include salary retention?

When was the last time the Flames retained salary in a trade.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by New Era

I'm pretty sure the intent is to make teams who have players under contract for the 2017-18 season with NMCs to have to protect them. I don't think the league can force a team to protect a player that is technically no longer under contract. Someone may be able to confirm this, but I read someplace that a player is under contract until his team plays its last game in the season/playoffs. The team retains the rights to the player, but the player is without a contract or the protections of that contract.

I would think this is supported by the fact that Gaudreau and Monahan both have refused to play in the Worlds because they don't have a contract and the included insurance that comes with the contract. So in Wideman's situation he would no longer be under contract and the Flames would not be required to protect him. Maybe Transplant99 can confirm or deny?

there was a reporter reporting it was NMCs for 2016-17 as it was in regards to Girardi and the fact he would need to be protected even though his NMC turns into an NMC with a modified NTC

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

there was a reporter reporting it was NMCs for 2016-17 as it was in regards to Girardi and the fact he would need to be protected even though his NMC turns into an NMC with a modified NTC

But he's also under contract beyond 16-17... Wideman is not.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

But he's also under contract beyond 16-17... Wideman is not.

as I pointed out in the other thread, it affects only 13 contracts (expiring contracts with NMCs) and only 11 teams. The league has no reason to push to get those NMCs waived as they would have to give up something else in return to the union. It makes no sense for the league to worry about those 13 contracts.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

as I pointed out in the other thread, it affects only 13 contracts (expiring contracts with NMCs) and only 11 teams. The league has no reason to push to get those NMCs waived as they would have to give up something else in return to the union. It makes no sense for the league to worry about those 13 contracts.

Who would be resisting against that? Why would they even need to push?

It makes even less sense the the Flames would be forced to protect a player on a NMC who wouldn't even be under contract weeks later. Nobody benefits from it, only the teams get hurt.

I'll bet the Flames among other teams would make a big stink about this. And they'll face no opposition.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Who would be resisting against that? Why would they even need to push?

It makes even less sense the the Flames would be forced to protect a player on a NMC who wouldn't even be under contract weeks later. Nobody benefits from it, only the teams get hurt.

I'll bet the Flames among other teams would make a big stink about this. And they'll face no opposition.

They can make all the stink they want. The players have a valid SPC, unless the union says otherwise they have to be protected. And the expansion teams benefit and since the NHL wants them to be good teams sooner rather than later the NHL benefits.

[Roof-Daddy]

Yeah, the expansion teams benefit big time of the Flames have to protect Wideman and leave one of Gio, Hamilton or Brodie exposed.

Honestly, I'm going to have a real tough time staying interested if we lose one of our big 3 Dmen because we have to protect Wideman when he's going UFA days later.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Yeah, the expansion teams benefit big time of the Flames have to protect Wideman and leave one of Gio, Hamilton or Brodie exposed.

Honestly, I'm going to have a real tough time staying interested if we lose one of our big 3 Dmen because we have to protect Wideman when he's going UFA days later.

We'd just protect them and lose 2 skater spots to protect, or buyout Wideman

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Yeah, the expansion teams benefit big time of the Flames have to protect Wideman and leave one of Gio, Hamilton or Brodie exposed.

Honestly, I'm going to have a real tough time staying interested if we lose one of our big 3 Dmen because we have to protect Wideman when he's going UFA days later.

They'd buy him out before they had to leave one of those three unprotected. It's a non-issue.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

as I pointed out in the other thread, it affects only 13 contracts (expiring contracts with NMCs) and only 11 teams. The league has no reason to push to get those NMCs waived as they would have to give up something else in return to the union. It makes no sense for the league to worry about those 13 contracts.

Another way to look at it is a third of the teams get screwed. The league doesn't care about that? I would expect the teams to make a huge stink about it. They also need to agree to expansion - it's not just the PA the league needs to satisfy.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by New Era

I'm pretty sure the intent is to make teams who have players under contract for the 2017-18 season with NMCs to have to protect them. I don't think the league can force a team to protect a player that is technically no longer under contract. Someone may be able to confirm this, but I read someplace that a player is under contract until his team plays its last game in the season/playoffs. The team retains the rights to the player, but the player is without a contract or the protections of that contract.

I would think this is supported by the fact that Gaudreau and Monahan both have refused to play in the Worlds because they don't have a contract and the included insurance that comes with the contract. So in Wideman's situation he would no longer be under contract and the Flames would not be required to protect him. Maybe Transplant99 can confirm or deny?

Yeah this analysis makes all the sense in the world.

Now whoever is ponying up $500 million for a franchise has got a lot of sway in the scenario IMO, but this would be a stupid way to penalize certain teams like the Flames.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Firstly, Wideman has a bit of history in 'good season' - 'poor season' - 'good season'.

In 4 seasons with the Flames he's had one bad season, an awful season with injury, a freakishly good outlier, and an outright disaster.

He's one more bad season away from begging for a PTO in a league with 31 teams.