[Rumour] Kylington to test free agency

[dino7c]

Can we try and keep this on topic

Markstom is gone, got a first and a player, there was retention...not much to discuss, especially in the OK thread

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by dino7c

yeah no GM has even been criticized for releasing a player that ends up being really good elsewhere

I mean booing him for not showing loyalty to the player.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Would Kyllington consider the Chicago Wolves? They're an independent team looking for ringers and able to pay a bit more than the average AHL salary. He could build back his career there.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

The guy signed a 2 year deal and then only played 33 games while on that deal, and missed the first season and a half after signing that 2 year deal.

There is no way in the world he or anybody in his camp should expect another 2 year deal at this point.

That is lunacy. Sign the one year deal and prove you are ready and willing to play a full season again, then we'll talk about longer term deals.

I don't know how anyone could see it any other way.

Not saying he should get two years, but he's a UFA, that does make a large difference in contracts. And a very young UFA.

[Dx54]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Would Kyllington consider the Chicago Wolves? They're an independent team looking for ringers and able to pay a bit more than the average AHL salary. He could build back his career there.

The Wolves are affiliated with Carolina again.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I mean booing him for not showing loyalty to the player.

GMs have often been "booed" for not showing loyalty to a fan favourite or long term player. Its a tough gig.

Look at Tampa right now

[Paulie Walnuts]

Once the season starts, most people forget anyways.

Once we go through our first bit of adversity no one will be on Conory for not signing Kylington.

It does feel like they are strongarming the teams into something they are not comfortable with.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Eh, why is he worth more than Valimaki?

Originally Posted by dino7c

better players with better numbers and a more proven track record have signed for less. Why do the Flames always need to pay more?

I'm just not fussed about 1 or 2 years.

The sticking point was not AAV according to Conroy in his interview this morning...so let's just assume that it was 1 or 2 years in the same ball park as guys like Bean and Valimaki.

Bean: 2 x $1.75M
Valimaki: 2 x $2.0M

So let's assume they were aligned at $2.0M and the sticking point is 1 or 2 years...personally I think the extra year is pretty low risk with decent upside and it's worth going to 2 years to keep the asset (which would be a very tradeable asset if he plays well).

It's all about asset accumulation and management right now and if going to 2 years helps maintain the asset then I'd do that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Two years of guaranteed money could be life changing for Kylington at this point depending on his circumstances. Maybe he's not at a point where he's willing to bet on himself with a one year contract.

I think that it's totally possible he deeply appreciates the Flames and wants to be here, but feels his hand is forced looking out for his future and financial wellbeing.

I think he will be in for a shock about the market.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

So let's assume they were aligned at $2.0M and the sticking point is 1 or 2 years...personally I think the extra year is pretty low risk with decent upside and it's worth going to 2 years to keep the asset (which would be a very tradeable asset if he plays well).

Again, they signed him to a 2 year contract last time and then he didn't play a game for a year and a half immediately after signing that contract.

Why would the Flames do that again?

The line in the sand was clearly a one year deal, no exceptions. And for good reason based off of what just happened.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Again, they signed him to a 2 year contract last time and then he didn't play a game for a year and a half immediately after signing that contract.

Why would the Flames do that again?

The line in the sand was clearly a one year deal, no exceptions. And for good reason based off of what just happened.

To me that's where the AAV would be important to know.

If he's asking for a raise or the same salary and 2 years (ie. 2 years at $2.5M+) then I would have an issue with the second year for sure.

However if they were willing to take a pay cut (aka $2M or less), then I'd be comfortable getting the 2nd year with some upside that if he plays, he's likely going to outplay that deal.

[Ford Prefect]

Everything else aside, I think with what’s going on with the rebuild the roster slot is better used to develop one or more of our many good D prospects. It makes better business sense than to use the slot on a veteran project player.

[GreenLantern2814]

“Kylington to Repeat Free Agency Test a Fourth Time”

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

To me that's where the AAV would be important to know.

If he's asking for a raise or the same salary and 2 years (ie. 2 years at $2.5M+) then I would have an issue with the second year for sure.

However if they were willing to take a pay cut (aka $2M or less), then I'd be comfortable getting the 2nd year with some upside that if he plays, he's likely going to outplay that deal.

Not sure I would call it likely he outplays any contract he is given. I also don't really see the long term fit of Kylington on the roster with all the offensive dman they have in the pipeline now.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

To me that's where the AAV would be important to know.

If he's asking for a raise or the same salary and 2 years (ie. 2 years at $2.5M+) then I would have an issue with the second year for sure.

However if they were willing to take a pay cut (aka $2M or less), then I'd be comfortable getting the 2nd year with some upside that if he plays, he's likely going to outplay that deal.

Those are the key words. What if after he re-signed and has a set back mentally and need times off again? The Flames gonna just let him or suspend him.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I'm just not fussed about 1 or 2 years.

The sticking point was not AAV according to Conroy in his interview this morning...so let's just assume that it was 1 or 2 years in the same ball park as guys like Bean and Valimaki.

Bean: 2 x $1.75M
Valimaki: 2 x $2.0M

So let's assume they were aligned at $2.0M and the sticking point is 1 or 2 years...personally I think the extra year is pretty low risk with decent upside and it's worth going to 2 years to keep the asset (which would be a very tradeable asset if he plays well).

It's all about asset accumulation and management right now and if going to 2 years helps maintain the asset then I'd do that.

We are rebuilding giving Kylington 2 years is a smart move. If he plays, I bet he out plays that contract. I agree he probably doesn't deserve it but it is low risk as the Flames likely do not spend the cap in the next 2 years anyways.


Trade Rasmus if he signs too. This summer, lots of teams that could load up still with not many UFAs left.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

Those are the key words. What if after he re-signed and has a set back mentally and need times off again? The Flames gonna just let him or suspend him.

The Flames were clearly prepared to accept that risk.

I don’t think any other team was impressed with Kylington turning down multiple years from the Flames after the way they handled his situation. I would think they view him as a player with no loyalty, and nobody thinks you can win with those guys.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Not sure I would call it likely he outplays any contract he is given. I also don't really see the long term fit of Kylington on the roster with all the offensive dman they have in the pipeline now.

None of Parekh or Bruzstewicz are likely to be impact players within the next 24 months.

To me it's about keeping the asset and the potential trade return from that asset.

[stemit14]

Would still love to have Kylington back if the contract was reasonable. He could be a good stop-gap until guys like Parekh or Brz are ready… especially if they trade Andersson this year.

Doesn’t sound like it will happen though. Wish him the best but I hope it’s not a case of him getting bad advice from his agent.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Bingo

How does that contradict anything I said?

Originally Posted by Bingo

"but he's never been all that dependable on his own and can't anchor a pairing."

My view is that the above is unknown. We don't really know what Kylington is capable of after 70 games of hockey three years ago. Maybe he is dependable on his own. Maybe he can anchor a pairing.

There's a lot of uncertainty around the player. And when uncertainty is high and the team is going to suck either way, taking the risk seems sensible from a club perspective.

He's basically a free reclamation project.