What to do with Huberdeau?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Exactly.

It’s as though some posters here think a viable strategy for this team would be to have 23 players signed to equal $2.68M dollar contracts to get them to the cap floor and then become the graveyard for other teams contracts so we too can have 20 second round picks.

The funny thing is, they will be able to acquire more than their fair share of picks without having to do anything they aren’t already doing with Huberdeau.

Who is saying this?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Carolina bought a 1st for taking Marleau.
Detroit bought a 2nd for taking Marc Staal.
Chicago moved up in the draft for taking Mrazek.
Monahan.
Kassian (sorry, I’m not allowed to talk about Arizona).

The Flames will have the cap space to do all these trades.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bonded

The Flames will have the cap space to do all these trades.

And sign a 27 year old top 4 defenseman entering his prime?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Most of the deals like that were, in fact, deals that Arizona made. They were the only team in such dire financial straits that they had to worry about meeting the cap floor. So they sold off every older player that anyone would take, and took on cap dumps from other teams where the player's remaining salary was substantially less than his cap hit. That allowed them to stay above the floor without actually spending that much money.

The price of all this is that they completely ruined their team and drove away what few fans they had. Is that a tradeoff you think the Flames should accept?

They’re in a wild card spot and have tons of picks the next few drafts

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If Huberdeau retires tomorrow and his cap hit is removed, are the Flames immediately better off, worse off or the same?

You're probably the worst. What happened to give him 10 games and we will talk?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

And sign a 27 year old top 4 defenseman entering his prime?

Who dat? Dumba? He signed for 1 year at $3.9, no?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

You're probably the worst. What happened to give him 10 games and we will talk?

That was for everybody else to do, not me. ��

But real glad you offered some insight though.

[Locke]

What to do with Huberdeau?

Well...can he play in net? No...he probably couldnt outplay the guys in line for that job.

Can he...serve Pocket Dawgs? Its a bit of an over-pay for Concessions Staff, but he'd be off the Cap...

He'd probably just miss and serve them into people's feet though. Thats no good, thats a waste of good Pocket Dawgs.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Who is saying this?

‘It’s as though’ is not the same as ‘people are saying’


I was being a bit facetious but the point is people here are saying the Flames are prevented from doing some of the things you and I agree on, acquiring draft capital for taking on contracts, because of Huberdeau’s contact. I don’t agree with that.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

They’re in a wild card spot and have tons of picks the next few drafts

….and they play in a 3000 seat arena and are on the precipice of being forced to leave America’s fifth largest market.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by TOfan

‘It’s as though’ is not the same as ‘people are saying’


I was being a bit facetious but the point is people here are saying the Flames are prevented from doing some of the things you and I agree on, acquiring draft capital for taking on contracts, because of Huberdeau’s contact. I don’t agree with that.

It’s too complex to point at one contract as being the sole reason for anything. That much of your cap in one very unproductive player though makes it much harder and reduces your flexibility in doing other things.

I don’t know if anyone said it was impossible. But what GioforPM started with was “that it wasn’t a concern” and wasn’t hurting the team. Which IMO kicked off this debate.

The team would be better off not being in this situation. That has consistently been my point.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It’s too complex to point at one contract as being the sole reason for anything. That much of your cap in one very unproductive player though makes it much harder and reduces your flexibility in doing other things.

I don’t know if anyone said it was impossible. But what GioforPM started with was “that it wasn’t a concern” and wasn’t hurting the team. Which IMO kicked off this debate.

The team would be better off not being in this situation. That has consistently been my point.

What Gio said is that Huberdeau’s contract is not a concern for the next 4 years or so. And I agree with that.

Sure if you want to boil it down to a ‘good or bad’ argument, then, sure, it’s a concern. Water is wet. Spending 10.5 on a player that is no where near the level of production that value should represent is inarguably bad. But I don’t think it will prevent the Flames from doing the things we’ve been discussing. If anything, ironically, that contract pushed them into the rebuild many, many poster have been clamouring for, for years. Even before Gaudreau and Tkachuck left and now it’s staring them in the face, the Flames are still doing it wrong.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

And sign a 27 year old top 4 defenseman entering his prime?

Yes and that is without trading Markstrom. The Flames have almost no contracts committed past 25. Not sure why people think they’ll be tight to the cap.

[Strange Brew]

It limits their options in a way no single contract really should. Imagine if they wanted to keep Tanev around to help develop young players and sign Hanifin to play through the rebuild. He would remain a valuable asset that entire time. Would they have cap room to take on bad contracts in that scenario?

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It limits their options in a way no single contract really should. Imagine if they wanted to keep Tanev around to help develop young players and sign Hanifin to play through the rebuild. He would remain a valuable asset that entire time. Would they have cap room to take on bad contracts in that scenario?

Sure they can. There’s 20 other contracts they would have options with.

Trade Lindholm, Markstrom, Mangiapane, etc etc.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It limits their options in a way no single contract really should. Imagine if they wanted to keep Tanev around to help develop young players and sign Hanifin to play through the rebuild. He would remain a valuable asset that entire time. Would they have cap room to take on bad contracts in that scenario?

If they are rebuilding they should be trading at least one of those guys but yes lol. They only have 57 committed to the cap next year

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I don’t think they ruined their team. They have 20 picks coming up and might even make the playoffs already.

After missing the playoffs for 10 of the last 11 seasons. They ruined the team so thoroughly it took that long to come back from it – and they are not back yet.

They have no bad contracts.

They haven't had the money to sign any. You might as well say I'm a financial wizard because I don't have to make payments on a Lamborghini.

Their problems are that they have no arena and very few fans. So they were pretty smart to do what they did in my opinion. Calgary doesn’t have those problems.

They have very few fans because nobody gives a damn about a team that misses the playoffs 10 times in 11 years. Calgary can get that problem easily enough, just by following your advice on how to destroy a team.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

We wish him a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Sure they can. There’s 20 other contracts they would have options with.

Trade Lindholm, Markstrom, Mangiapane, etc etc.

Still seems like you're acknowledging they need to work around his contract. Now I will concede that if the goal really is to try and be as bad possible, you wouldn't mind signing a guy to a bloated contract for four years and have him significantly underperform. He helps you get to the cap floor and still leaves flexibility for taking on bad contracts. That would help accomplish the goal of tanking if that is the plan. If it were me, I would prefer that be a shorter term than 4 years and maybe spread it around to a couple of players.

Unfortunately it's all hypothetical since he is signed for 8 years, not four, and no one gets an award for overpaying players in order to tank.

In any case, Merry Christmas Eve CP. I think I'll make a similar pledge based on Huberdeau's production for the game on the 27th as I did for the Kings game. I'm still not cheering for losses and would prefer a sharp turnaround for both him and the club.

[PuckSlap]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

We wish him a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

It's funny, I was just going to say that same thing.

Sent from my SM-S918W using Tapatalk