[Rumour] Flames aggressively trying to move up. UPD: Treliving and Kekelainen meeting on floor

[Ashasx]

I don't think a team can compete for the Cup with a contract as bad as Clarkson's, so no.

[skudr248]

Can you buy out Clarkson asap?

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

If getting #3 meant having to take on Clarkson would you do it?

Clarkson? No.

Hartnell? Of course!

Bobrovsky? ummm.... probably.

[Drak]

I'm already sad that this won't happen.

[kukkudo]

Question if we take on Clarksons contract and put him in the minors does it count against the cap? What I see happening is the flames taking on Hartnell and Clarkson but putting him in the minors. I think ownership will pay the price to get a core piece.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

If getting #3 meant having to take on Clarkson would you do it?

4 more years at 5.25 M a season in cap hit. He'll be 35 at the end of it. I don't know why he fell off a cliff after leaving NJ. It's a serious risk to the core keeping that kind of money tied up in Clarkson. Could lose Bennett because of it.

I don't know. He's the kind of RW that could flourish on the Right side of Monahan/Gaudreau.

Too much of a gamble.

I've convinced myself trading to #3 is too costly in any circumstance. I thought Hamilton was going to be too costly as well so...

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

Question if we take on Clarksons contract and put him in the minors does it count against the cap? What I see happening is the flames taking on Hartnell and Clarkson but putting him in the minors. I think ownership will pay the price to get a core piece.

Can't bury contracts in the minors anymore. It saves less than $1 million in cap space.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

Question if we take on Clarksons contract and put him in the minors does it count against the cap? What I see happening is the flames taking on Hartnell and Clarkson but putting him in the minors. I think ownership will pay the price to get a core piece.

only 900k of clarksons cap hit goes to the minors with him, the rest stays up.

[sureLoss]

Clarkson also has a NMC, so he would have to agree to be put in the minors... which he likely won't

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

If getting #3 meant having to take on Clarkson would you do it?

Three requirements would have to be met.

1) CLB needs to retain $1,250,000 on Clarkson. At $4,000,000 it's still bad but workable.
2) Clarkson would have to agree (in writing) to waive his NMC for the purposes of any future expansion draft.
3) CLB has to take a bad (but shorter term) contract back in the deal. Like Raymond for instance.

[StrykerSteve]

This answers all questions pertaining to Clarkson and the abomination that is his contract.

http://bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com/...e-jackets.html

[SuperMatt18]

Hartnell and Bobrovsky I would take on for sure

Clarkson I don't think I would. Maybe if we could send two shorter term bad contracts back - say two of Smid/Raymond/Stajan and moved out Wideman in a different deal but probably still wouldn't.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

News Update

Eric Duhatschek @eduhatschek
I'm convinced Calgary will try to get to No. 3 to draft Puljujarvi and would probably take a contract back to do it.

https://twitter.com/eduhatschek/stat...93581095936000

How do we even do that without dumping a Wideman? a $4.0M bridge for Monahan?

[codynw]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

If getting #3 meant having to take on Clarkson would you do it?

If it was #3 and Clarkson for future considerations, maybe. Otherwise? Not at all. Clarkson could cause the team to lose Bennett or Puljujarvi to the salary cap.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Clarkson also has a NMC, so he would have to agree to be put in the minors... which he likely won't

He might. There's no escrow in the AHL, so he'd make more money.

That said, it's an awful contract that I wouldn't want the Flames to go anywhere near.

[Enoch Root]

No way would I take Clarkson to move up 3 spots (i.e. #3 + Clarkson for #6)

I might take Clarkson if the deal was #3 + Clarkson for #35 though (obviously CBJ doesn't do that)

[kukkudo]

I see CBJ forcing Clarkson but at a percentage retained.

[taxbuster]

I'm not smart enough to come up with scenarios, but it sure is fun reading this thread and drooling (or vomiting, as the case may be) about some of the possibilities.

The only thing that strikes me as difficult, is that if the Flames give up "good picks/players" to move up to #3, then we might be stuck without a #1 goalie. I just don't see how we end up getting both.

[FlameZilla]

Ugh... Clarkson.

I can't honestly see him having any sort of revival. It'd be worse than having David Jones around. We'd spend the next few years hoping he gets out on LTIR.

I would pass and be happy with Nylander at 6th.

[Toonage]

If the Flames had to take Clarkson, do you think they'd at least try to play him?