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

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Especially with where the Flames are in the standings.

Conroy has been adamant that young players need to play in a competitive environment to learn how to win at this level. If we subtract Hanifin and Tanev, that doesn't immediately drop us down the standings. What we get is Poirier/Solo/Kuznetsov coming up and playing in games where the outcome actually matters. The playoffs would still be within reach, so the environment at the NHL level would be that every game matters.

Perfect opportunity to help young players develop.

...the Flames would likely tumble down the standings through this process, but it doesn't remove the benefits of having those young players play in those games.

Meaningful games yes, but remove Tanev and Hanifin and you already have a Kylington who has hardly played in 2 years playing with a waiver pick up.

That d core would get steam rolled and maybe it's better to have a Stanley get steam rolled as we fall down the standings and the kids get meaningful games next year.

I'm ok with 1 guy getting the call but the kids can win in the AHL and play in the playoffs down there for this year.

[jg13]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1755655899136618861

[Lanny_McDonald]

I really don't see much attractive from Winnipeg or Toronto unless they are willing to dip into their top three prospects. Unless they are willing to move a substantial long-term piece I would not want to help another Canadian team in the playoffs. Vancouver was bad enough.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by jg13

https://twitter.com/user/status/1755655899136618861

Wouldn't it make sense that if Hanifin has informed the Flames that he won't be signing an extension, that he sit out until he's traded?

Teams know what he is at this point, I don't know why there'd be any more value in "auditioning" him?

[Enoch Root]

When it comes to prospects, two 5s do not equal a 10. Getting 2 crappy pieces is useless. A 2nd and Stanley is useless.

[bax]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Wouldn't it make sense that if Hanifin has informed the Flames that he won't be signing an extension, that he sit out until he's traded?

Teams know what he is at this point, I don't know why there'd be any more value in "auditioning" him?

Flames aren’t auditioning him, they still want to win. You ice your best lineup. Trade deadline is still over a month away.

[Wastedyouth]

If Conroy knows Hanafins decision, he would have announced the contract, is my guess.

He's being traded. I approve.

[foofighter15]

Originally Posted by jg13

https://twitter.com/user/status/1755655899136618861

That has to mean it’s leaning to trade. If it was leaning towards a contract he would’ve said “Flames and Hanifin closing in on deal” right?

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Wouldn't it make sense that if Hanifin has informed the Flames that he won't be signing an extension, that he sit out until he's traded?

Teams know what he is at this point, I don't know why there'd be any more value in "auditioning" him?

In Hanifin's 9 NHL seasons, he had exactly 1 injury in which he missed more than a couple of days. That's once in ~650 games. I'll take those odds.

If a freak accident happens, well, then you move on, like we did with the Brodie/Hamonic situation.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

If Conroy knows Hanafins decision, he would have announced the contract, is my guess.

He's being traded. I approve.

I mean, I agree, that has to be the highest % outcome at this point. But I think people underestimate how these things actually go down:

- If he's agreed to stay, they are likely in agreement to 80% on contract details. It does take time to iron those out, or just even write them in I would guess. Not likely that the deal falls through but there could still be time required before they could announce and it's all official, but decision has been made for the most part.

- And, there could be a scenario on the above, where they have an agreement in principal, but Conny get's an offer that blows his socks off before final pen to paper and he might change his mind. Unlikely - and potential org reputation ramifications there.

Anyway, I agree if he knows, it likely means trade at this point. But I think people think that finding out and subsequent announcement are way more tightly timed then they potentially are.

[zukes]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

If Conroy knows Hanafins decision, he would have announced the contract, is my guess.

He's being traded. I approve.

Not necessarily. The contract offered was probably basic, just the years and AAV. There would still be potential no trade or NMC, bonuses, pay structure, charity considerations etc.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by cannon7

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

Bull.

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

No doubt you'd try. Can't imagine why he would stay with a team that was guaranteed never to win anything.

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?

I didn't expect you to understand. You can't do math.

If you are dumping all your players at age 27, and you get 2.5 NHL-capable players per year, you need EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM on your roster from ages 18 to 27. That means NONE of them get any development time AT ALL. The only alternative is to deliberately put players on your roster who are not good enough for the NHL, which guarantees that your team will suck.

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

To get 90 players in your system, all under 27, you would need 10 draft picks every single year. Good luck with that.

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

Yes. I have a definition, and you have hot air.

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

No, you are saying ALL futures is the ONLY way, and there is no alternative BUT UFA leftovers. Your whole position is idiotic.




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.

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

You're the ONLY one asserting that a team with no players over 27 can make the playoffs. Show me where it has EVER been done.

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

Hockey players aren't numbers. They are human beings. They have free will. They are not compelled to go along with your plan. Real things happen in reality that are not predicted by your model (or anyone's model). You don't allow for any of that.

This isn't a video game.

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

Teams that go through rebuilds always lose until they build something up. That's the history of the sport. You are saying a team should ALWAYS be rebuilding, and that as soon as it has anything built up, it should burn it to the ground for more futures.

There is a REASON why nobody ever ran their hockey team that way, and it is not because every NHL manager in history is an idiot and you're a genius.

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

You were the one who said, and I repeat, that ALL your players would be developed together. That means no trades. That means no signings.

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.

What you did say is that you want to get rid of every player at 27. That means you are never signing free agents EXCEPT for undrafted prospects (for which you are competing with all the other teams), because actual NHL players don't reach free agency until they're too old for your stupid rule.

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

The purpose of a stock portfolio is to make money. The purpose of a hockey team is not to accumulate young players, it is TO WIN HOCKEY GAMES. You have completely lost sight of this.

And again.

The onus is on you to demonstrate that a team built your way WON'T lose, when the entire history of the sport shows otherwise.

You clearly aren't reading any of my posts.

Right, that's why I am responding to every bloody one of them line by line. Liar.

Straw man, man. I never said all teams should be managed this way.

If no other way makes sense, then why wouldn't they be? If your strategy is so brilliant, everyone will adopt it – and then it will stop working, because every team can't be trading all its 27-year-olds for futures when there are no buyers.

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.

By being nothing ever again but glorified AHL teams that develop talent for the big markets to use? How is that competing? IT ISN'T.

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.

And then all you ever have is futures.

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

If being over the cap doesn't make you cap-strapped, I don't know what does. But we already knew you don't grasp math.

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

Draft, develop, and DON'T GET RID OF ALL YOUR GOOD PLAYERS AS SOON AS THEY'RE IN THEIR PRIME. Keep them to win some goddamn hockey games!

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

If you are getting rid of every player that turns 27, you never will fill up your reserve list, so it's a moot point.

If only those were the conditions...

They were the precise conditions you stated.

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

Good!

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.

It's not my job to manage the Flames. But I can tell that your ideas are such awful crap that they wouldn't even flush without clogging the pipes.

[All In Good Time]

Good lord!

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by jg13

https://twitter.com/user/status/1755655899136618861

So do I - “No”.

There was no mystery when Huberdeau and Weegar signed - they were offered fair or more than fair value deals to play here, so they said yes.

Hanifin has been offered the same thing - he has not said yes.

Which means his answer is no.

Sometimes, when people say “I don’t want kids” what they mean is “I don’t want kids with YOU” - Hanifin isn’t saying no because he doesn’t want $60M.

It’s because he doesn’t want to play here for the next eight years. Which I have zero issues with.

Take the 1st +++ and run.

Christ.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Bull.



No doubt you'd try. Can't imagine why he would stay with a team that was guaranteed never to win anything.



I didn't expect you to understand. You can't do math.

If you are dumping all your players at age 27, and you get 2.5 NHL-capable players per year, you need EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM on your roster from ages 18 to 27. That means NONE of them get any development time AT ALL. The only alternative is to deliberately put players on your roster who are not good enough for the NHL, which guarantees that your team will suck.



To get 90 players in your system, all under 27, you would need 10 draft picks every single year. Good luck with that.



Yes. I have a definition, and you have hot air.



No, you are saying ALL futures is the ONLY way, and there is no alternative BUT UFA leftovers. Your whole position is idiotic.




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.



You're the ONLY one asserting that a team with no players over 27 can make the playoffs. Show me where it has EVER been done.



Hockey players aren't numbers. They are human beings. They have free will. They are not compelled to go along with your plan. Real things happen in reality that are not predicted by your model (or anyone's model). You don't allow for any of that.

This isn't a video game.



Teams that go through rebuilds always lose until they build something up. That's the history of the sport. You are saying a team should ALWAYS be rebuilding, and that as soon as it has anything built up, it should burn it to the ground for more futures.

There is a REASON why nobody ever ran their hockey team that way, and it is not because every NHL manager in history is an idiot and you're a genius.



You were the one who said, and I repeat, that ALL your players would be developed together. That means no trades. That means no signings.



What you did say is that you want to get rid of every player at 27. That means you are never signing free agents EXCEPT for undrafted prospects (for which you are competing with all the other teams), because actual NHL players don't reach free agency until they're too old for your stupid rule.



The purpose of a stock portfolio is to make money. The purpose of a hockey team is not to accumulate young players, it is TO WIN HOCKEY GAMES. You have completely lost sight of this.



The onus is on you to demonstrate that a team built your way WON'T lose, when the entire history of the sport shows otherwise.



Right, that's why I am responding to every bloody one of them line by line. Liar.





If no other way makes sense, then why wouldn't they be? If your strategy is so brilliant, everyone will adopt it – and then it will stop working, because every team can't be trading all its 27-year-olds for futures when there are no buyers.



By being nothing ever again but glorified AHL teams that develop talent for the big markets to use? How is that competing? IT ISN'T.



And then all you ever have is futures.



If being over the cap doesn't make you cap-strapped, I don't know what does. But we already knew you don't grasp math.



Draft, develop, and DON'T GET RID OF ALL YOUR GOOD PLAYERS AS SOON AS THEY'RE IN THEIR PRIME. Keep them to win some goddamn hockey games!



If you are getting rid of every player that turns 27, you never will fill up your reserve list, so it's a moot point.



They were the precise conditions you stated.



Good!



It's not my job to manage the Flames. But I can tell that your ideas are such awful crap that they wouldn't even flush without clogging the pipes.

Jesus, enough of this dumb kinda quote replying.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by foofighter15

That has to mean it’s leaning to trade. If it was leaning towards a contract he would’ve said “Flames and Hanifin closing in on deal” right?

Agreed, if true would expect a signing within a day or so or it means a trade is coming. Just hoping that the trade/willing to sign with list is more than 2 or 3 teams and the flames aren't painted into another corner here. Though Conroy has said in the past that there's been a lot of interest in his guys as rentals even without extension talks being granted.... could probably get a lot more from a team who see him as a 7 year guy.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Wouldn't it make sense that if Hanifin has informed the Flames that he won't be signing an extension, that he sit out until he's traded?

Teams know what he is at this point, I don't know why there'd be any more value in "auditioning" him?

You can't sit all 3-4 guys on the trade block.

It's likely that one of the trades swirling around sees a second pairing D man back in return, for cap reasons and roster balance reasons. We aren't Edmonton, there is no way we are going to go into the last two months of the season with this depth chart, especially when Ras doesn't seem to be one of those guys that can thrive at 25+ minutes.

Andersson - Weegar
Kylington - Pachal
Oesterle - Gilbert
Poirier

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

When it comes to prospects, two 5s do not equal a 10. Getting 2 crappy pieces is useless. A 2nd and Stanley is useless.

Two 5's make 55. Are we getting Scheifele?

[Nelson]

Even though Hanifin doesn’t want to play for the Flames, there’s never been any reports of animosity with the organization, and the organization has been very patient. Plus, I’ve heard Hanifin’s a pretty nice guy. I bet he makes his preferences clear but doesn’t hamstring the organization. (I would say the same thing about Iginla, which would be the counterpoint, but the organization was also bending over to make things good for Iginla.)

[Hackey]

One of my sources believes it's a certainty Hanifin is traded in the next few weeks.