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

[Enoch Root]

I am very much in the 'you need players' camp, and Hanifin is a good player. So if they extend him, I am fine with that. And back in the summer, I would have probably preferred that.

But I am definitely in the camp that would prefer a trade now. Two things push ne into the trade camp:

1) Pinder (who I do not often agree with) got it exactly right when he was comparing Hanifin to other $7-8M guys when he said they are all PP guys and Hanifin isn't. And for a guy that doesn't contribute a lot offensively, $7.5M is a lot to tie up. (At $6.5 - 7M, I am all over the extension).

2) The timing of it. I am not worried about Hanifin still being good in 5 or 6 years, that isn't the issue. The issue is that they aren't going to be great for the next 2 or 3, and in 3 years, they probably have younger guys pushing to replace him (Morin, Brzustewicz, or whoever). They have Andersson and Weegar, and they will have new guys, so I guess what I am saying is that they won't miss Hanifin, simply because, even though he is hard to replace, I think they will have replaced him by the time they need to.

So for those reasons, I am in the trade camp.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You're arguing with a strawman. I never said a team should ‘just acquire top UFA talent’. I'm saying you need a mix, and dumping players because they turned 27 is a dumb idea.

You've been straw maning this entire thread. Rich that you now call me out for it.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But you want to dump players when they turn 27, which means they can never win any game.

Hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

And you would have traded Iginla when he turned 27, I suppose? At the deadline in 2004, let us say? Hot take.

Straw man. Already said I'd keep a generational talent like Iginla.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So you only dump 90% of your 27-year-olds. I guess that means one of your good prospects can stay in junior until he's 19. Bravo.

One? You're eating the straw now. An NHL franchise can have 50 players under contract and 90 players on their reserve list. What the hell are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's if you play all of them from the moment you draft them.

Yeah, if you are too stupid to figure out you can have up to 90 players in your system. Then sure.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You're not doing well unless you have some young players who are going to be NHL calibre developing in your farm system. If you need to promote them before you're ready because you have no veterans, that's not ‘doing pretty well’. That's how you build the Buffalo Sabres.

We appear to have different definitions for "NHL calibre".

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Freeing up roster spots is not the problem. Filling them is.

And I'm saying futures are the way. Especially if your alternative is UFA leftovers.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If you think there is no distinction between building a team that MIGHT lose and one that is GUARANTEED to lose, there is no talking to you.

Hyperbolic straw man now? You haven't even made a case as to why a roster of predominantly 20-27 year old RFAs is guaranteed to lose. Just asserting something over and over does not make it so.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

To improve your odds of what? Playoff runs may be a crapshoot, but if you always miss the playoffs you are absolutely certain never to win in the playoffs.

See? Just asserting the same thing, over and over. No actual basis for this claim. Just a broken record.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's a stupid argument. The movie industry regularly produces movies that flop, TV produces shows that get cancelled, Netflix does both of these things. That is because there is no way to perfectly predict what audiences will like.

Your claim was that sports wasn't a math problem. And it absolutely is a numbers game. To pretend otherwise is naive.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But in sports, there is a way to perfectly predict what audiences won't like. They won't like a perennial loser that has no way of ever improving, which is what your system is purposely designed to produce.

There it is again. Starting to think you don't actually have an argument at all? Just "Won't work. You'll just lose."

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I was directly responding to you saying that. You said teams should not be built with trades or free agency, but ALL the players should develop together. The only trades your system allows are those to dump players after they have developed for more futures.

Ah, I see you haven't quoted where I said you can't trade or sign players. So more straw men?

What I did say is that if your focus is on scouting and developing players instead of trying to acquire them through free agency then the inevitable side effect of this is that most of your NHL roster will have come up through the same system. This seems obvious? Guess not to some.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This doesn't even make sense. The players you are dumping every year are the best players you got from the draft 9 years prior. You're not dumping the others, because they never panned out. And you are dumping those players right at their peak performance.

You call it dumping. I call it selling high. I hope you're not managing your own stock portfolio with this attitude...

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It's stupid to do something that guarantees you will never be competitive.

And again.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

There's no place in your system for a solid defensive defenceman or a wily penalty-killing centre. Those guys aren't elite talents, but you need them to win, and it takes a long time to learn how to do those jobs.

You clearly aren't reading any of my posts.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I've picked a side. Your side says that every team should be managed in a way that only works if they have someone to sell all their 27-year-olds to. But if that happened, nobody would ever want to trade for those guys. What will you do then, take them out behind the barn and shoot them?

Straw man, man. I never said all teams should be managed this way. But small market teams like the Flames need to fundamentally rethink how they run their teams if they want any hope of competing with the big market clubs.

It's supply and demand. If you have a disproportionate amount of quality young talent that means there's a shortage of supply somewhere else. There will be demand for such talent and as such you will be at an advantage and can maximize the return. You then take these maximized returns and reinvest them into staking a disproportionate claim on future talent (having more draft picks). Rinse and repeat. The result will compound if your scouting/development teams perform.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The following teams are over the cap at the moment: Toronto, Tampa Bay, Colorado, Vegas, Montreal, Washington, Vancouver, Minnesota, Los Angeles, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, the Islanders, New Jersey, Boston, and the Rangers. Eight of the 15 are in playoff positions, including all four division leaders. Montreal is over the cap because Carey Price is on the books and will never play again. Minnesota is over because it has $14.7 million in buyout penalties. That leaves 13 teams that are over the cap and trying to win. Of those 13, 62% are in playoff spots. Of the 17 teams under the cap, 47% are in playoff spots.

Strapped doesn't mean over. So no idea what you're on about here.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

People will pay to watch winners. That has been proven again and again in every sport. The market has been speaking for over a century. This isn't about what I prefer. It's about how to appeal to customers whose preferences are already well known.

And how do you propose a small market team like the Flames get there? I'll wait.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If you want 23 players on your roster, and you graduate 2.5 players per year, it will take you 9 years to fill your roster with players. But you are dumping all those players 9 years after they are drafted, so you will never have any extras. You have to start playing them at age 18, or the numbers don't work.

And if you are using up all 90 spots on your player reserve list does your math still check out?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I never assumed that. I simply multiplied 9 years in the system by 2.5 players per draft year. It's the only way you can get a full roster under those conditions.

If only those were the conditions...

Am growing tired of you will fully misrepresenting my position, so will stop here.

I'm sure you have much better ideas on how the Flames should be managed. You won't express any of them. But I'm sure they're there in that noggin of yours.

[The Original FFIV]

Originally Posted by bluejays

I really don’t think Dallas does it. Jim Nill comes from the scouting world where it’s his bread and butter and he takes pride in his drafting. I don’t think he makes those types of moves unless he’s on the selling side. Just can’t see him trading a 1st. Colorado is simply astute and doesn’t panic. Edmonton needs this more than anyone. Could totally see them doing it.

Thing is you need to give to get.

If he’s in love with the prospects he drafted, he won’t move them.

But if he won’t shake his picks loose, what trade chips does he have?

Not disagreeing with you, but if that’s the case, Dallas stands pat. Think they will do something, just maybe not with their first as you mention. But can’t see them as a good trade partner, as others can/probably offer better.

[Sylvanfan]

Dallas likely will trade a first, but it will be tied to the team at least making the Conference Finals. They did it for Kris Russell so I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to now if they hedge it in team playoff success.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

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.

That just isn't true though.

Ice time per game the last two seasons ...

Andersson 24:07
Hanifin 22:59

Weegar is 90 seconds back.

He's a 1/2 in Calgary.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am very much in the 'you need players' camp, and Hanifin is a good player. So if they extend him, I am fine with that. And back in the summer, I would have probably preferred that.

But I am definitely in the camp that would prefer a trade now. Two things push ne into the trade camp:

1) Pinder (who I do not often agree with) got it exactly right when he was comparing Hanifin to other $7-8M guys when he said they are all PP guys and Hanifin isn't. And for a guy that doesn't contribute a lot offensively, $7.5M is a lot to tie up. (At $6.5 - 7M, I am all over the extension).

2) The timing of it. I am not worried about Hanifin still being good in 5 or 6 years, that isn't the issue. The issue is that they aren't going to be great for the next 2 or 3, and in 3 years, they probably have younger guys pushing to replace him (Morin, Brzustewicz, or whoever). They have Andersson and Weegar, and they will have new guys, so I guess what I am saying is that they won't miss Hanifin, simply because, even though he is hard to replace, I think they will have replaced him by the time they need to.

So for those reasons, I am in the trade camp.

Hanifin leads Flames defencemen in even strength points over the past two seasons. Higher than Rasmus, higher than Weegar. He is tied for 24th in even strength points amongst dmen over that time. So he definitely is an offensive catalyst at even strength.

[GullFoss]

I'm open to the idea of re-signing Hanifin. With Rasmus, Kylington, Weager and Hanifin...that is a really good top-4. I'm comfortable with the goalie situation in Calgary.

And then if you take the forwards corps and inject one or two top tier 18-22 year olds in that mix (acquired via top picks in the draft), then the team can emerge from a rebuild very quickly with an ideal mix of players...

More mature defensemen with top-4
Good mix of forwards in top-9 with high end talent acquired via draft
Good goalie tandem in Marky/Wolf

When Bingo pitched "rebuild on the fly" this summer I didn't really get it. Im increasingly open to the idea. Hanifin fits with a rebuild on the fly. He doesn't fit with a "tear it down" rebuild.

The only part that is hard to figure out is "how do the flames get a couple top-5 pick picks without tearing it down?" I have no idea except that maybe they get lucky with the lotto lol

[FlamesAreOne]

Totally fine keeping him. Totally fine trading him.

We just need an answer immediately.

[Moneyhands23]

When can Killington sign??

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

When can Killington sign??

Any time.

[Flamesfan05]

If they get a good deal 1st+, trade him
If they have to pay more than 7.5M, trade him
If they have to pay him 7-8 yrs, unless it’s a good salary, trade him

Other than that, keep him

[transplant99]

Hanifin is criminally under rated/appreciated around here. Has been since the day the Flames acquired him.

Since he came into the league he is top 40 league wide in GP, pts, assists, etc, while playing on middling teams.

Now he is hitting his prime and so many want to run him out of town instead of making him a cog in this re-tool the club is clearly in the midst of.

Now if he is choosing to test UFA then yeah, they have to deal him. They are losing a really good player though and one that is going to be almost impossible to replace internally and will cost a bundle to replace other ways.

[Badgers Nose]

No call ups. Is Oesterle the extra guy travelling with the team?

Maybe all that hustle last night was contract related so that an announcement can be made today.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Hanifin is criminally under rated/appreciated around here. Has been since the day the Flames acquired him.

Since he came into the league he is top 40 league wide in GP, pts, assists, etc, while playing on middling teams.

Now he is hitting his prime and so many want to run him out of town instead of making him a cog in this re-tool the club is clearly in the midst of.

Now if he is choosing to test UFA then yeah, they have to deal him. They are losing a really good player though and one that is going to be almost impossible to replace internally and will cost a bundle to replace other ways.

Hanifin is a bit f a lightning rod player. People see a lot in the player and expect him to leverage those tools to excel. Hanifin doesn't do that. I look at Hanifin and I see Gary Suter. Probably the most underappreciated player from the Flames late 80's juggernaut there was (Colin Patterson a close second). Just played the game really well, but never really appeared to become the sum of his parts. That's Hanifin's problem as well. He has all the tools to be a number one defenseman but never puts them all together consistently to be that player. So I can see why people love and hate him and why the conversation is the way it is.

I agree that Hanifin would be a good fit to retool. Right skill set, right age, might even come in at the right price. At the same time I can see why people would want to see him dealt. He doesn't take his game to the next level, is looking for a salary that maybe he isn't worth (will get better as the cap rises), is a guy that is the wrong nationality, and a guy that might generate a sexy return. I can see the desires of each side here.

It's unfortunate that Poirier got hurt as I think the team would be more comfortable making the commitment one way or the other on Hanifin is they knew what they had in Poirier. I originally saw Poirier as a Kylington replacement but after his performance in the AHL last season I think he could replace Hanifin. I think the team wanted to see proof of that this year and make their decisions based on what players were ready to step up. Poirier's injury handcuffed them.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Hanifin is criminally under rated/appreciated around here. Has been since the day the Flames acquired him.

Since he came into the league he is top 40 league wide in GP, pts, assists, etc, while playing on middling teams.

Now he is hitting his prime and so many want to run him out of town instead of making him a cog in this re-tool the club is clearly in the midst of.

Now if he is choosing to test UFA then yeah, they have to deal him. They are losing a really good player though and one that is going to be almost impossible to replace internally and will cost a bundle to replace other ways.

I want to see him traded not because I want to run him out of town, but because he's been (almost) on record as saying he wants to play elsewhere in the US. Convincing him to stay means likely overpaying significantly to change his mind. I'm fine with him staying if the deal is fair, but it will always be on the back of my mind that staying here wasn't his first choice and it's 100% a financial incentive that made him stay. That's his right to do so, but I'd prefer players who want to stay because they genuinely WANT to be here.

I also agree that he is highly underappreciated. He will be missed and he is just entering his prime. A prime that IMO will last pretty much the entire duration of his next contract. Whomever gets him is going to get a stud with another tier to reach. Hard to give up on that, but IMO the Flames need to be dragged into a rebuild kicking and screaming. Getting a haul for Hanifin is a massive step in that direction.

I'm at peace with whatever he chooses. He stays, he goes, I'll be fine either way. Strange feeling that way, because usually I pick a side and stick with it. Hanifin has value either way. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I want to see him traded not because I want to run him out of town, but because he's been (almost) on record as saying he wants to play elsewhere in the US. Convincing him to stay means likely overpaying significantly to change his mind. I'm fine with him staying if the deal is fair, but it will always be on the back of my mind that staying here wasn't his first choice and it's 100% a financial incentive that made him stay. That's his right to do so, but I'd prefer players who want to stay because they genuinely WANT to be here.

I also agree that he is highly underappreciated. He will be missed and he is just entering his prime. A prime that IMO will last pretty much the entire duration of his next contract. Whomever gets him is going to get a stud with another tier to reach. Hard to give up on that, but IMO the Flames need to be dragged into a rebuild kicking and screaming. Getting a haul for Hanifin is a massive step in that direction.

I'm at peace with whatever he chooses. He stays, he goes, I'll be fine either way. Strange feeling that way, because usually I pick a side and stick with it. Hanifin has value either way. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Is this true or is it speculation by media because of his passport and recent history with American born players?


I mean I have no doubt that if he had his druthers he would be a Bruin getting paid generational wealth on his next deal. Im guessing a vast majority of players want to play for their home town teams. That is not likely however, between the current make up of the Bruins defense as well as their cap issues.

Again though, if he wont sign whatever it is the Flames are offering, then they absolutely have to deal him. Full stop.

Im just predicting that the team will spend the next several years trying to find a guy just like him and if they go external to do so, its going to cost a haul just like the one people want too see come back for him now.

Id much prefer that he re-signs over dealing him, but it really is in his hands.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Hanifin leads Flames defencemen in even strength points over the past two seasons. Higher than Rasmus, higher than Weegar. He is tied for 24th in even strength points amongst dmen over that time. So he definitely is an offensive catalyst at even strength.

They don't give out separate contracts for even strength points vs PP points though. Players get paid for production. Hanifin's (total) production is not top pairing, and not $7.5M worthy. $6.5M - 7M, sure.

But again, there is also the timing aspect of it.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Hanifin is a bit f a lightning rod player. People see a lot in the player and expect him to leverage those tools to excel. Hanifin doesn't do that. I look at Hanifin and I see Gary Suter. Probably the most underappreciated player from the Flames late 80's juggernaut there was (Colin Patterson a close second). Just played the game really well, but never really appeared to become the sum of his parts. That's Hanifin's problem as well. He has all the tools to be a number one defenseman but never puts them all together consistently to be that player. So I can see why people love and hate him and why the conversation is the way it is.

I agree that Hanifin would be a good fit to retool. Right skill set, right age, might even come in at the right price. At the same time I can see why people would want to see him dealt. He doesn't take his game to the next level, is looking for a salary that maybe he isn't worth (will get better as the cap rises), is a guy that is the wrong nationality, and a guy that might generate a sexy return. I can see the desires of each side here.

It's unfortunate that Poirier got hurt as I think the team would be more comfortable making the commitment one way or the other on Hanifin is they knew what they had in Poirier. I originally saw Poirier as a Kylington replacement but after his performance in the AHL last season I think he could replace Hanifin. I think the team wanted to see proof of that this year and make their decisions based on what players were ready to step up. Poirier's injury handcuffed them.

Suter is a pretty good comparison.
Also a bit of Jay Bouwmeester.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

They don't give out separate contracts for even strength points vs PP points though. Players get paid for production. Hanifin's (total) production is not top pairing, and not $7.5M worthy. $6.5M - 7M, sure.

But again, there is also the timing aspect of it.

It isn't?

Id say he is solidly top pairing production particularly with his lack of PP time.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am very much in the 'you need players' camp, and Hanifin is a good player. So if they extend him, I am fine with that. And back in the summer, I would have probably preferred that.

But I am definitely in the camp that would prefer a trade now. Two things push ne into the trade camp:

1) Pinder (who I do not often agree with) got it exactly right when he was comparing Hanifin to other $7-8M guys when he said they are all PP guys and Hanifin isn't. And for a guy that doesn't contribute a lot offensively, $7.5M is a lot to tie up. (At $6.5 - 7M, I am all over the extension).

2) The timing of it. I am not worried about Hanifin still being good in 5 or 6 years, that isn't the issue. The issue is that they aren't going to be great for the next 2 or 3, and in 3 years, they probably have younger guys pushing to replace him (Morin, Brzustewicz, or whoever). They have Andersson and Weegar, and they will have new guys, so I guess what I am saying is that they won't miss Hanifin, simply because, even though he is hard to replace, I think they will have replaced him by the time they need to.

So for those reasons, I am in the trade camp.

I agree with pretty much all of this. I also don't like the idea of tying up even more future cap. I don't want to allow for the possibility that in 5 years we might have to do a bridge deal with some foundational piece (and Hanifin isn't a foundational piece) because we sucked up so much future money now. The Flames need to more efficiently manage the Cap under Conroy then they did under Treliving.

If they want to keep a more experienced blueline then extend Tanev (if he's willing) and trade Hanifin. He (Tanev) won't cost as much in years or dollars.