[Rumour] TSN: Hanifin decision expected in coming days. D market waits on Tanev

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I'd be thrilled with anything close to this kind of return.

I assume he was being sarcastic.

Stankoven would an unreal return alone.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I don't think anyone takes his contract so it is a moot point but I think the Flames should pick two of Hanifin/Weegar/Andersson.

I'd trade Andersson because I think he has the most value and will regress the most.

This year is different, as nobody has cap. I think that Weegar's contract is a huge bargain though. Only signed for 3 more year and playing in his prime as a solid #2/3 d-man. If anything that contract, starting this off season, adds value.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by blankall

This year is different, as nobody has cap. I think that Weegar's contract is a huge bargain though. Only signed for 3 more year and playing in his prime as a solid #2/3 d-man. If anything that contract, starting this off season, adds value.

Do you mean Andersson? Weegar has 7 years left.

[dammage79]

This talk of trading Andersson doesn't add up. Especially when someone on Twitter just posted the comps to Dobson saying once you get one of those type of D men, you keep em. I'm inclined to agree. Andersson is our Backlund, just on defense:
https://x.com/BigHeadHcky/status/175...010728940?s=09


Also, if the Flames were inclined to keep and extend a UFA it should be Tanev, less tenure and way less cap hit on an extension vs Hanifin. Lines up with a re tool as well. And the return is heftier for Hanifin. And adding so many extra branches to the Dougie zhamilton trade tree.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I think you need some stability and quality vets in each position. Keep Hanifin and trade Andersson or Weegar.

I agree. You need "some". But IMO, you don't need much more than one. In fact, you can likely get away with a discount grizzled vet that commands the room. A forward corps of 20-26 year olds is gonna be just fine if your 12th forward is Dave Lowry, for example.

Honestly I'm pretty comfortable with Weegar and Andersson as the leaders on the blueline. I think both bring more intangibles than Hanifin. But a guy like Weegar wouldn't have gotten his current deal under this system, so he'll have to be grandfathered in.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Do you mean Andersson? Weegar has 7 years left.

Sorry. Misread the website. Still I think it's a bargain. I don't think it would be that difficult to move at all. And unlike most contracts the Flames make these days, Weegar's contract is set up to be bought out easily.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Hanifin will be hard to replace, no doubt. But not impossible. Maybe Kylington bounces back and fills that smooth skating #3/#4 role? Maybe Poirier takes his spot on the PP and one of Soloviev/Kuznetsov take over his defensive duties? Lots of things can happen when you open doors.

I'm sure we all had similar thoughts about Brodie, but with time we have a lot more perspective and I think few would pay him what the Leafs did if the Flames had a do-over.

Retain Hanifin long term for what purpose? So he can continue to do a competent job as our #3/#4? While remaining a middling team overall?

I just don't see the point. You lock up that cap space and roster spot for top talent, not second pairing guys who skate well.


And when that player's value is at its highest point, it just makes it all the more apparent that this is the time to cash in.

Our 3/4?

I don't even agree with that.

You could possibly make the argument that on contenders he's a 3/4 but in Calgary he's like a 1/2.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

How many Cups have the Lightning won after signing Hedman, Stamkos and Point to their current deals? Are the Lightning trending upward or downward in your opinion?

2 for Stamkos and Hedman. And those came WELL after they signed the deals.

Are you seriosuly saying they should have sold those players? Are you seriously saying they should have sold Point last year? Or Vasilevsky?

The Knights shouldn't have extended Karlsson, Pietrangelo, Marchessault. Shouldn't even have signed Stone. He was past his prime when they got him at 27.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I agree. You need "some". But IMO, you don't need much more than one. In fact, you can likely get away with a discount grizzled vet that commands the room. A forward corps of 20-26 year olds is gonna be just fine if your 12th forward is Dave Lowry, for example.

Honestly I'm pretty comfortable with Weegar and Andersson as the leaders on the blueline. I think both bring more intangibles than Hanifin. But a guy like Weegar wouldn't have gotten his current deal under this system, so he'll have to be grandfathered in.

But Andersson only has two years left and will be 29 when he needs a new contract.

That's more reason to sign Hanifin and deal Andersson in about 24 months.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by dammage79

This talk of trading Andersson doesn't add up. Especially when someone on Twitter just posted the comps to Dobson saying once you get one of those type of D men, you keep em. I'm inclined to agree. Andersson is our Backlund, just on defense:
https://x.com/BigHeadHcky/status/175...010728940?s=09.

That is a weird cherry picked stat combo. I don’t really think Andersson will age well on a long term contract at 29. I’d capitalize on his value now if Hanifin re-signs.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

2 for Stamkos and Hedman. And those came WELL after they signed the deals.

Are you seriosuly saying they should have sold those players? Are you seriously saying they should have sold Point last year? Or Vasilevsky?

The Knights shouldn't have extended Karlsson, Pietrangelo, Marchessault. Shouldn't even have signed Stone. He was past his prime when they got him at 27.

As I said, for a generational talent like Hedman, I think an exception can be made on an extension when they are 26/27.

But do I think a 27 year old Mark Stone is a generational talent? No, I do not. And he is actively falling apart not even mid- way through that eight year extension. And some of the other Knights players you listed are similarly declining.

But you seem to be missing the point: The Calgary Flames are not the Tampa Bay Lightning or Vegas Golden Knights. Not even close. These teams are destinations players want to sign. Calgary is not. As such, comparing the Flames predicament to them makes no sense whatsoever.

The point isn't whether the Flames should or should not retain a Victor Hedman. The question is if and the Flames should assume they can not and plan accordingly. This isn't NHL 24, there are realities the Flames face that they need to address if they are going to be successful long term.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I'd be thrilled with anything close to this kind of return.

Conroy does enjoy those 3-piece (or higher) m̶e̶a̶l̶s̶ deals.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But Andersson only has two years left and will be 29 when he needs a new contract.

That's more reason to sign Hanifin and deal Andersson in about 24 months.

You're always going to need more futures. When Andersson is a pending UFA he should be dealt as well. And I think he'll garner an excellent return when that time comes.

If the Flames scouting staff is doing its job and are given adequate ammo (draft picks) the Flames should have younger guys pushing to take over in two years time. The organization will really need to focus here for that to be a viable outcome.

But the fact remains that I don't think retaining Hanifin or Andersson long term is going to make the difference between the Flames being a legit contender the next 8-10 years or not. They'll both be well into their 30s for 3/4th of that window. Is that really a good bet to make? I think not.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

As I said, for a generational talent like Hedman, I think an exception can be made on an extension when they are 26/27.

But do I think a 27 year old Mark Stone is a generational talent? No, I do not. And he is actively falling apart not even mid- way through that eight year extension. And some of the other Knights players you listed are similarly declining.

But you seem to be missing the point: The Calgary Flames are not the Tampa Bay Lightning or Vegas Golden Knights. Not even close. These teams are destinations players want to sign. Calgary is not. As such, comparing the Flames predicament to them makes no sense whatsoever.

The point isn't whether the Flames should or should not retain a Victor Hedman. The question is if and the Flames should assume they can not and plan accordingly. This isn't NHL 24, there are realities the Flames face that they need to address if they are going to be successful long term.

Being successful long term means getting some veterans to stay into their late 20s and early 30s. Because you need them to win. And the fact Calgary is not a destination team is why you need to wrap up prime players long term even if the last couple years are down ones. Should the Flames not have extended Giordano?

Ask Vegas if they regret signing Stone. Or the others.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Our 3/4?

I don't even agree with that.

You could possibly make the argument that on contenders he's a 3/4 but in Calgary he's like a 1/2.

Well Weegar, Andersson and Tanev all regularly get more ice time than him. So I think it is actually the other way around. Hanifin might be a #1/#2 on a lot of teams, but is more a #3/#4 on the Flames.

Obviously I am hoping for a #1/#2 type return for him, though.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Ask Vegas if they regret signing Stone. Or the others.

Ask Stone if he would have signed with the Flames. (hint: the answer was "no")

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Ask Stone if he would have signed with the Flames. (hint: the answer was "no")

Nice goalpost move. Your argument was that Vegas choosing to sign him was a mistake.

Try to stick to the original thought.

But thanks for making the point that Calgary should extend guys that fit because they can't expect to replace them in the market.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Nice goalpost move. Your argument was that Vegas choosing to sign him was a mistake.

Try to stick to the original thought.

But thanks for making the point that Calgary should extend guys that fit because they can't expect to replace them in the market.

But Vegas signed Stone being in their prime competitive window

If the Flames window was the next 3 years I’m all for signing him

It isn’t

In 3/4 years use the 8 million you aren’t spending on Hanifin to sign a UFA . And in the years before then ? Weaponize that space

Flames need to start thinking outside the box . (Although teams have already weaponized cap space )

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by Muta

Connie should trade Hanifin to Dallas for Wyatt Johnson, Logan Stankoven, and a 2024 1st. Then assure them that Hanifin will play even better once there.

C'MON DALLAS, DO IT YOU COWARDS

I know you’re kidding, but I would trade Hanifin+ just for Johnson.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Nice goalpost move. Your argument was that Vegas choosing to sign him was a mistake.

Try to stick to the original thought.

But thanks for making the point that Calgary should extend guys that fit because they can't expect to replace them in the market.

Goal posts haven't moved. Flames still aren't the Golden Knights. As such, Flames shouldn't navigate the NHL as though they are. This is precisely the point you seem to be (willfully?) missing.

I think we agree that the Flames can not sustainably replace talent in the free agency market. Where we seem to disagree is what to do instead. You seem to want to lock up non-generational talent long term well into their 30s. The problem with this is that you are locking up both cap space and a roster spot into a declining asset, and you're paying a premium for the privilege. This seems dumb?

"But this is how you build a team." Seems to be your counter argument? And I fundamentally disagree here. You don't need to pay the optional small market talent tax. It is actually advantageous in most respects not to.