What to do with Huberdeau?

[Kidder]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

In real life George could have sued for constructive dismissal and won, and likely got punitive damages.

Calgary would look like an absolute joke doing this.

Making a player crawl through the vents to enter the building? A joke? This was serious business.

Since we’re applying real world logic to sitcom premises. How far could George/Huberdeau take this til he’s in breach of his contract?

Can he padlock the equipment room so only he has access to the stick tape?

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If Rooney was a former 114 point guy, hell, yes, I try to play him out of a funk, even a 2 year one.

And there's plenty of reason veterans are not sent to the press box like rookies. And most most people talking about Huberdeau and the press box aren't saying he should go for a game. They are asking for him to go there for a while.

Maybe he isn't a 114 point player because he never got the opportunity/ice time.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They couldn’t have kept him. They had two 10.5M guys already plus Seabrook, Keith, and, as we’ve seen, Panarin wanted more. In 2019. So they could have kept him for 2 years and then lost him.

Then, at worst, they should’ve done that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

Maybe he isn't a 114 point player because he never got the opportunity/ice time.

Way to miss the point.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Kidder

I think many have correctly pointed out, there was a fear we’d repeat Gaudreau. He’d have a great season, decide he wouldn’t resign mid season, and then walk into free agency at season’s end and we’d lose him for nothing.

There is a very easy way to avoid signing him to a bad deal and risk losing him for nothing, not trading for him in the first place.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Kidder

I think many have correctly pointed out, there was a fear we’d repeat Gaudreau. He’d have a great season, decide he wouldn’t resign mid season, and then walk into free agency at season’s end and we’d lose him for nothing.

I’d like to see the team treat him like the one company treated George Costanza when he tricked them into his employment. Move his stall down to the basement, make him crawl through the vents just to access it, basically try to make him so miserable he wants to quit even showing up and breaches his contract.

Ahhh....'Play Now.'

We could even have a giant ball of Oil!

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by dirk diggler

that is what it truly comes down to, I feel like the flames players understood what the coaches were trying to do by giving Huberdeau PP time and extra ice time to try and get him going. At some point, i feel like the players will not accept this, good play needs to be rewarded. Its nice to finally see that number 10 is not on the first PP, he doesnt deserve it and it isnt about punishing him, the team owes it to ALL the players to put them in a position to succeed. Not to try and acquire any player that huberdeau has had success with in the past. I feel like Huberdeau is not a mentally strong guy, perhaps i am wrong but thats what it looks like.

Except they have done #### on the first PP

Nobody on that PP has any right to complain at the moment


I would understand it if it’s working. It’s not

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Voodooman

Don’t the facts speak for themselves? The team signed the player to this massive deal without seeing him lace up the skates once, and he had a full year remaining on his contract. There was no need to do so. Signing an 8 year deal as opposed to 7 makes sense with a guy in his mid 20’s, but at 30, how does that make sense? There was little risk in waiting things out.

I know that hindsight is 20/20, and it’s a massive gamble that sadly has become a disaster, but I keep coming back to why was that deal signed…to make him feel welcome here. That’s it. That’s what I mean be making him feel special.

That's what you're making up.

a. I'm sure the Flames management saw Huberdeau play multiple times.
b. There was a need to sign quickly, according not just to them but to a lot of posters here. In order to avoid the year long "will he/won't he" thing they just went through.
c. The deal was signed because of negotiations over past performance, etc. Not to make him "feel special".

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Kidder

I think many have correctly pointed out, there was a fear we’d repeat Gaudreau. He’d have a great season, decide he wouldn’t resign mid season, and then walk into free agency at season’s end and we’d lose him for nothing.

I’d like to see the team treat him like the one company treated George Costanza when he tricked them into his employment. Move his stall down to the basement, make him crawl through the vents just to access it, basically try to make him so miserable he wants to quit even showing up and breaches his contract.

That would be the Flames breaching the contract but OK.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

In real life George could have sued for constructive dismissal and won, and likely got punitive damages.

In Seinfeld, George would have gotten Jackie Chiles as his lawyer and we all know how that would turn out.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by dirk diggler

not every one likes the salary cap, but i do, it makes teams accountable for the decisions they make, the Rangers/Leafs cant just continue to spend as much as they want, not that they won anything in that system either. As a flames fan this sucks a lot but i had no problem with teams like the Oilers signing Nurse and getting in cap trouble, so i think the same with the Flames, nobody forced them to sign him before he ever played a game. the fact that the player can mail it in and screw the team over doesnt seem right, not sure what the answer is.

Change the CBA with the players so they have less leverage. Put a max limit on contract yearly values or length. Call it the Huberdeau effect.

There isn’t an easy way out. But what’s going on now is too one sided. It’s essentially criminal.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

In Seinfeld, George would have gotten Jackie Chiles as his lawyer and we all know how that would turn out.

He'd put the balm on?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Change the CBA with the players so they have less leverage. Put a max limit on contract yearly values or length. Call it the Huberdeau effect.

There isn’t an easy way out. But what’s going on now is too one sided. It’s essentially criminal.

Shorter max lengths would also hurt smaller markets ability to retain talent long term

Flames screwed up - they have no one to blame but themselves

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Change the CBA with the players so they have less leverage. Put a max limit on contract yearly values or length. Call it the Huberdeau effect.

There isn’t an easy way out. But what’s going on now is too one sided. It’s essentially criminal.

5 year max contract lengths.

4 year ELCs.

Pay these guys what they’re worth, while they’re worth it.

It would increase player movement.

It would increase the competitive balance.

It would reduce fan resentment.

Players wouldn’t have to play an extra three or four years (or LTIR themselves) just to collect all their money - I get that being an NHL player is a sick gig, but how many of these guys really wanna work THAT hard into their late 30s?

Five year contract maximums would also allow the middle class of NHLers to thrive, since there’d always be a glut of viable veteran talent that isn’t going to cost an arm and a leg to acquire, who are more than just replacement level warm bodies.

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Shorter max lengths would also hurt smaller markets ability to retain talent long term

No, they wouldn’t - being a tire fire and non-competitive is what precludes teams from being able to keep talent. Especially drafted talent.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Change the CBA with the players so they have less leverage. Put a max limit on contract yearly values or length. Call it the Huberdeau effect.

There isn’t an easy way out. But what’s going on now is too one sided. It’s essentially criminal.

It’s not one sided. Treliving and ownership get to wear this as a badge of honor. They offered it.

Some players are worth big money like Panarin, Matthews, MacKinnon, McDavid. They chose to give theirs to Huberdeau.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Shorter max lengths would also hurt smaller markets ability to retain talent long term

Flames screwed up - they have no one to blame but themselves

Seems like the longer terms are hurting them more than the shorter ones.

They need to turf the retirement contract setup.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by butterfly

It’s not one sided. Treliving and ownership get to wear this as a badge of honor. They offered it.

Some players are worth big money like Panarin, Matthews, MacKinnon, McDavid. They chose to give theirs to Huberdeau.

There has to be some onus on the players though. The owners aren’t paying them to give garbage performances like Huberdeau and Gaudreau are providing.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Goriders

There has to be some onus on the players though. The owners aren’t paying them to give garbage performances like Huberdeau and Gaudreau are providing.

True. There would be if they were on one year deals.

If some other GM wants to sign up an old player to a retirement deal, have at it. I enjoy it when other teams do that.

[dirk diggler]

there is no onus on the players, Huberdeau just needs to wait out the Flames and he can do whatever he wants due to the guaranteed contracts and he will be rewarded.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by dirk diggler

there is no onus on the players, Huberdeau just needs to wait out the Flames and he can do whatever he wants due to the guaranteed contracts and he will be rewarded.

Put the pressure on them by refusing to offer a long term deal to anyone but people graduating from an ELC.