Huberdeau and Weegar Signing Discussion Thread

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Steinberg also kept saying Johnny was going to sign and was bullish on it until about a week before free agency. I think his source is ever positive Conroy...

to be fair the entire Flames management team thought they had a deal won when they met Gaudreau's demands...hard to know he wasn't bargaining in good faith

[GreenLantern2814]

They also clearly learned from the Gaudreau experience.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Steinberg also kept saying Johnny was going to sign and was bullish on it until about a week before free agency. I think his source is ever positive Conroy...

Not from what I heard.

He went from thinking Gaudreau would sign, but being clear that he didn't have any information to then thinking it was 50/50 (which seemingly turned out to be the case)

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I do think there’s a time limit on Weegar not extending - if it passes that point, I suspect they ask him “where would you extend?” And then do another sign and trade with one of his preferred destinations.

But all things considered, I’d rather have Weegar.

Yes, I want him signed too but we have extra dmen and would be nice to get a decent forward long term instead of losing him for nothing

[Vinny01]

I was listening to the FAN yesterday and I believe it was hour 1 of Flames talk and Pat mentioned again that both sides are grinding away at this extension and want to get it done. I think Weegar locks in before puck drop in October

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Yes, I want him signed too but we have extra dmen and would be nice to get a decent forward long term instead of losing him for nothing

Teams like the Lightning that win Stanley Cups can afford to lose players to free agency for no return. Teams like the Flames really can't. They got nothing for Gaudreau and ideally would not do that again in successive seasons but if the team is good and Weegar is a big piece of that you just know that the Flames will roll the dice and let him walk. I understand it but if you aren't going very deep into the playoffs it's poor asset management.

[Roof-Daddy]

Weegars camp must be asking for $8+ million AAV or something. Just pure speculation on my part.

Hard to believe this isn't done yet IMO

[Dude Where's Makar?]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Teams like the Lightning that win Stanley Cups can afford to lose players to free agency for no return. Teams like the Flames really can't. They got nothing for Gaudreau and ideally would not do that again in successive seasons but if the team is good and Weegar is a big piece of that you just know that the Flames will roll the dice and let him walk. I understand it but if you aren't going very deep into the playoffs it's poor asset management.

I wonder though if the Flames see it like this:

Tkachuk for Huberdeau extended, 1st (cap space/kadri) and Cole Schwindt. If Weegar doesn't extend, he could be sold to the fan base as a playoff rental.

I just don't think the Flames would trade a top 4 defender at the deadline if they're in a playoff position. They probably feel like they already have received excellent value for Chucky. Just my thoughts.

With that said, I think Weegar resigns soon at 8 years 6.5

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Yes, I want him signed too but we have extra dmen and would be nice to get a decent forward long term instead of losing him for nothing

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Teams like the Lightning that win Stanley Cups can afford to lose players to free agency for no return. Teams like the Flames really can't. They got nothing for Gaudreau and ideally would not do that again in successive seasons but if the team is good and Weegar is a big piece of that you just know that the Flames will roll the dice and let him walk.

I find this to be short-sighted. The TB Lightning are not in a different roster-construction situation than the Flames on the basis of their Stanley Cup Championships. Rather, both teams are in the same position when it comes to their rosters and assets now, because both teams are clearly, obviously built to win a championship now, and over the next few seasons. What the Flames cannot afford to do is to waste this window of opportunity, and selling incredibly low on a potential #1 defenseman like MacKenzie Weegar is doing just that.

Simply put: If the Flames are a playoff team—and it sure looks like they will be—then they will not, nor should not, be shedding key players from their roster in-season. The only exception to this is in a hockey trade if the return improves their prospects of winning. Whether Weegar is signed in camp, or not extended at all over the course of the season, the Flames situation makes it virtually certain that he will either finish the season on the roster, or will leesslikely be moved in a hockey trade that improves the roster immediately.

I understand it but if you aren't going very deep into the playoffs it's poor asset management.

But there is no way to know whether any team will be "going very deep into the playoffs." The best that anyone can hope for is that the team as assembled does, and judging the roster at the outset suggests that the Flames look to have a good chance of doing so. The fear of not winning more than a round for this team should not cripple them from making the best decisions from being as competitive as they can be this year, because this is their time. MacKenzie Weegar is an incredibly important piece to the roster puzzle, and keeping him for the year is almost certainly much more valuable than practically anything that could be returned in a trade.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I find this to be short-sighted. The TB Lightning are not in a different roster-construction situation than the Flames on the basis of their Stanley Cup Championships. Rather, both teams are in the same position when it comes to their rosters and assets now, because both teams are clearly, obviously built to win a championship now, and over the next few seasons. What the Flames cannot afford to do is to waste this window of opportunity, and selling incredibly low on a potential #1 defenseman like MacKenzie Weegar is doing just that.

Simply put: If the Flames are a playoff team—and it sure looks like they will be—then they will not, nor should not, be shedding key players from their roster in-season. The only exception to this is in a hockey trade if the return improves their prospects of winning. Whether Weegar is signed in camp, or not extended at all over the course of the season, the Flames situation makes it virtually certain that he will either finish the season on the roster, or will leesslikely be moved in a hockey trade that improves the roster immediately.


But there is no way to know whether any team will be "going very deep into the playoffs." The best that anyone can hope for is that the team as assembled does, and judging the roster at the outset suggests that the Flames look to have a good chance of doing so. The fear of not winning more than a round for this team should not cripple them from making the best decisions from being as competitive as they can be this year, because this is their time. MacKenzie Weegar is an incredibly important piece to the roster puzzle, and keeping him for the year is almost certainly much more valuable than practically anything that could be returned in a trade.

Trading Weegar for a key forward long term if he doesn’t want to sign is not short sighted . It’s the opposite.

Nobody is advocating to trade him for picks or anything not helpful now

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Trading Weegar for a key forward long term if he doesn’t want to sign is not short sighted . It’s the opposite.

Nobody is advocating to trade him for picks or anything not helpful now

I think the chances of moving Weegar for a key forward signed long-term are incredibly slim. Most likely any trade involving Weegar on an expiring contract will return only picks and prospects.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Teams like the Lightning that win Stanley Cups can afford to lose players to free agency for no return. Teams like the Flames really can't. They got nothing for Gaudreau and ideally would not do that again in successive seasons but if the team is good and Weegar is a big piece of that you just know that the Flames will roll the dice and let him walk. I understand it but if you aren't going very deep into the playoffs it's poor asset management.

You don't get nothing, you get the players services for the most important games of a given season.

Good asset management depends entirely on your team's composition - particularly age and contract status. In a perfect world you might hope to remain perpetual contender status like DET and SJ managed to do (though even then I suspect both let numerous UFAs walk for 'nothing').

The Flames are clearly at their culmination point with lots of very important players on the cusp of leaving their prime, big raises soon for other players, and very few players set for major improvements. Moreover, we now know that there is pain to come in the mid-term with Huby and Kadri's deals (and maybe even the last year(s) of Coleman/Makstrom). 'Good asset management' now is most likely to end up 'paying-off' when we least need it to.

Chips in.

[Kasi]

Cap space does have value. From a player of Weegars contract it’s a first round pick. So you need to factor that in to any calculus of what we get from selling.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by GS Skier

Just a suggestion for those of us who jump in to read a few threads before work.

This thread appears to be from way back somewhere and the writers have totally forgotten to note exactly whom they are talking about? Is this Weegar? Hanafin? Kjillington.

Just suggesting try to at least keep the name going otherwise I look at this thread and have zero idea what its about.

I’ve never heard of Hanafin or Kjillington.

[FBI]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

You don't get nothing, you get the players services for the most important games of a given season.

Good asset management depends entirely on your team's composition - particularly age and contract status. In a perfect world you might hope to remain perpetual contender status like DET and SJ managed to do (though even then I suspect both let numerous UFAs walk for 'nothing').

The Flames are clearly at their culmination point with lots of very important players on the cusp of leaving their prime, big raises soon for other players, and very few players set for major improvements. Moreover, we now know that there is pain to come in the mid-term with Huby and Kadri's deals (and maybe even the last year(s) of Coleman/Makstrom). 'Good asset management' now is most likely to end up 'paying-off' when we least need it to.

Chips in.

When we have the pain from Huberdeau and Kadri contracts, that's when we will be getting Makar to offset the pain though..

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Teams like the Lightning that win Stanley Cups can afford to lose players to free agency for no return. Teams like the Flames really can't. They got nothing for Gaudreau and ideally would not do that again in successive seasons but if the team is good and Weegar is a big piece of that you just know that the Flames will roll the dice and let him walk. I understand it but if you aren't going very deep into the playoffs it's poor asset management.

You don't make asset decisions based on how far the team went in the playoffs last year, you make them based on what you think the team is going forward. And the Flames' window is right now.

It would be suicide to the playoff fortunes of the team to trade him at the deadline - if he's signed, he's signed. If not, you make your playoff run and assess in the summer.

Worst case scenario is you get the cap space.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Weegars camp must be asking for $8+ million AAV or something. Just pure speculation on my part.

Hard to believe this isn't done yet IMO

I think the money is easier than term in this case but you could be right. 8 years puts him at 38 when his final season is done.

[midniteowl]

If I'm the GM, I'd like to do this:


If he wants $8M the term will be 6 years and if he wants max term, then it would be $6M. So:


$8M x 6 or

$6M x 8

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

If I'm the GM, I'd like to do this:


If he wants $8M the term will be 6 years and if he wants max term, then it would be $6M. So:


$8M x 6 or

$6M x 8

Ah. The cummutative property. One of the wizard's greatest spells.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

If I'm the GM, I'd like to do this:


If he wants $8M the term will be 6 years and if he wants max term, then it would be $6M. So:


$8M x 6 or

$6M x 8

As a player, why would I agree to $48M over 8 years when I could get $48M over 6 years?