[News] Grossmann on waivers. UPD: Assigned to Stockton - Page 8 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Finger Cookin · 11-08-2016, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devo22

I hope they re-sign Engelland at some point this year. Would not only give the Flames a defenseman who meets the expansion draft requirements, but would also guarantee the Flames to keep two of Engelland, Kulak and Jokipakka ... which would be great IMO.

...just...no. Signing Engelland would not allow the Flames to protect any more defesemen.

devo22 · 11-08-2016, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbob

With all the dmen we have that are close to graduating (Kylington is probably close with another pro season under their belt) you almost want to expose kulak or Jokipakka to protect the forwards.

still, it's all about asset management. Losing one of the two plus Engelland as UFA would suck. If you re-sign Engelland, who keep two NHL calibre defensemen in case Kylington needs another year. If not, flip one for an asset.

Northendzone · 11-08-2016, 04:44 PM

So Rex will not be in effects for the flames?

Anyways, wow 8 pages of discussion......

Enoch Root · 11-08-2016, 04:45 PM

Assuming he is willing to report, I actually think Grossmann can add a lot to the Heat. He should be able to keep up with the speed of the game there, and his veteran leadership can really help that young defense.

As for the cap relief situation, it is very simple:

$3.5M > $3M

devo22 · 11-08-2016, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

...just...no. Signing Engelland would not allow the Flames to protect any more defesemen.

... what?! That's not how it works. At all. Unless they give Engelland an NMC, which obviously they wouldn't do.

Finger Cookin · 11-08-2016, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devo22

... what?! That's not how it works. At all. Unless they give Engelland an NMC, which obviously they wouldn't do.

We might be talking about different nuances - but the Flames are almost certainly going to choose the 7-3-1 method of protecting players. And the three defensemen are almost certainly going to be Giordano, Brodie, and Hamilton. Do we agree on that?

Signing or not signing Engelland won't change those two options.

devo22 · 11-08-2016, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

We might be talking about different nuances - but the Flames are almost certainly going to choose the 7-3-1 method of protecting players. And the three defensemen are almost certainly going to be Giordano, Brodie, and Hamilton. Do we agree on that?

yeah, everything else makes no sense. But re-signing Engelland doesn't affect that at all.

Finger Cookin · 11-08-2016, 04:51 PM

That's right. So, signing Engelland won't change whether or not the Flames keep Engelland, Jokipakka, or Kulak. Right? Those three players will be available for selection in the expansion draft regardless.

devo22 · 11-08-2016, 04:56 PM

Yes. All I'm saying is that if they re-sign Engelland, they immediately have a defenseman who fits the expansion criteria. Personally I just don't want to lose two of the three because I like each of them. I hated the Engelland signing and it took a long time until he won me over, but I like him a lot. I just don't want LV to pick one of Kulak and Kevin and then see Engelland walk as a UFA a few days later. Just makes more sense to me to keep two of the three in any case.

Finger Cookin · 11-08-2016, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devo22

Yes. All I'm saying is that if they re-sign Engelland, they immediately have a defenseman who fits the expansion criteria. Personally I just don't want to lose two of the three because I like each of them. I hated the Engelland signing and it took a long time until he won me over, but I like him a lot. I just don't want LV to pick one of Kulak and Kevin and then see Engelland walk as a UFA a few days later. Just makes more sense to me to keep two of the three in any case.

Got it. It took me a bit to get that you meant losing Engelland to FA and then another D to the draft. But we're on the same page now.

Strange Brew · 11-08-2016, 05:15 PM

If the goal is to sign good players, then the Grossman signing gets an F minus. At least it was not compounded by a bad contract.

I get the rationalization that it was not an important signing, but eventually this team needs signings that earn praise, vs. a "no big deal".

Badgers Nose · 11-08-2016, 05:19 PM

It was a stupid decision to bring him in, waste time looking at him, signing him, playing him and watching opposing players skate around him like a pylon.

What other season destroying decisions can they roll back now? And is there enough time?

bax · 11-08-2016, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

It was a stupid decision to bring him in, waste time looking at him, signing him, playing him and watching opposing players skate around him like a pylon.

What other season destroying decisions can they roll back now? And is there enough time?

CP never ceases to amaze with the hyperboles

Geeoff · 11-08-2016, 05:52 PM

I don't know why people are celebrating. He's going to clear and go to Stockton and he's probably first call up with any D injuries.

kyuss275 · 11-08-2016, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

It was a stupid decision to bring him in, waste time looking at him, signing him, playing him and watching opposing players skate around him like a pylon.

What other season destroying decisions can they roll back now? And is there enough time?

read other pages to know why they brought him on before ranting.

Bandwagon In Flames · 11-08-2016, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You are really adding value to this thread.

Look at the posts made since mine. I was trying to stop all the uninformed posts made on this thread.

But you're right, it added no value. If people aren't going to bother reading page 1 before commenting, why would they bother reading page 7. My mistake.

PepsiFree · 11-08-2016, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bax

CP never ceases to amaze with the hyperboles

Hey, wait, are you saying are season wasn't destroyed by Grossman playing 0.59% of the minutes possible in the season while saving us 575K on the cap?

That doesn't make sense.

CSharp · 11-08-2016, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Read the ####ing thread if you want information.

Yeah, I read the other posts and the October article on why he's signed to help relieve the cap situation. Still a waste of time signing the guy. Maybe if Tre would've signed Monahan to a lesser contract amount, they could've got Nakladal for just a bit more than Grossman.

Regardless of all the details of the business dealings, like with any organization, getting the wrong guy to do the job sometimes leads to more frustrations than anything, especially when you have to fire the guy in a short period of time.

FBI · 11-08-2016, 06:30 PM

I really hope we have less PTOs in camp next year.

calgaryblood · 11-08-2016, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devo22

I hope they re-sign Engelland at some point this year. Would not only give the Flames a defenseman who meets the expansion draft requirements, but would also guarantee the Flames to keep two of Engelland, Kulak and Jokipakka ... which would be great IMO.

Why do people think Vegas wants our bottom defenseman so bad? We are last again in GA and Vegas will ignore the rest of the better defenseman out there to take Kulak or Jokipakka? Highly doubtful they even take a sniff at any of our non protected defenseman.

A lot of overrating by Flame fans. If they leave our forwards alone and take one of Kulak or Jokipakka then that's great news for Flame fans.