Rasmus Andersson wants to remain a Calgary Flame

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Locke

Here is the way I approach it.

I genuinely dont want to trade him. We still need NHLers to play NHL minutes and you dont want Wolf or Vader to get absolutely shelled every single night. Thats not good for anyone.

However, that being said...if the Mafia comes by and offers you a deal that you just can't refuse??

*shrugs shoulders*

Everyone has a price.

Pay a man enough and he'll walk through Hell barefoot.

But it has to be comprehensive. Its not just:

Andersson doesnt play here anymore.

Its not just the minutes he chews, its also the mentorship, the leadership, the enthusiasm he brings...the sale price has to be worth all of that. And, hopefully, more.

It's really hard to get a gauge of what's actually going on from the outside.

I know that we've seen some totally unexpected young d-men take big steps forward this year. Is Andersson providing mentorship? Do the Flames just have a set up that leads to good mentorship and success for you d-men?

My concern with trading Andersson is upsetting the chemistry on the back end that is leading to development of the d-men. A late 1st for Andersson vs. seeing former 2nd-4th round picks develop into top 4 d-men.

If Andersson is indeed a key part of the mentorship, then you keep him. Whatever you're getting back likely doesn't outweigh losing the benefits of the current development system.

[TheIronMaiden]

I think if the Flames were given the right piece for Andersson the trade would get done, but in the end, the teams trying to get him are probably offering late 1st round picks at best.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's really hard to get a gauge of what's actually going on from the outside.

I know that we've seen some totally unexpected young d-men take big steps forward this year. Is Andersson providing mentorship? Do the Flames just have a set up that leads to good mentorship and success for you d-men?

My concern with trading Andersson is upsetting the chemistry on the back end that is leading to development of the d-men. A late 1st for Andersson vs. seeing former 2nd-4th round picks develop into top 4 d-men.

If Andersson is indeed a key part of the mentorship, then you keep him. Whatever you're getting back likely doesn't outweigh losing the benefits of the current development system.

Absolutely agreed.

And the other thing is...Conroy holds all the cards.

Calgary typically spends to the Cap and we are nowhere even in the stratosphere of the Cap at the moment. We could make Andersson the highest paid defenceman in the League if we wanted to.

We shouldnt, obviously, I'm just saying that the money and the Cap is there. No problem.

I'd have no problems whatsoever signing him to 8-year max term, in regards to money I have no idea, thats not my purview. The only thing I'd be very careful, if not hesitant about, is trade control.

If, in a few years, things aren't panning out then retain some salary and send him to the highest bidder.

But in the meantime? He's doing a good job. And when your guys are doing a good job...dont interrupt them.

[Plett25]

I've changed my mind since the beginning of the season. I wanted to trade Anderson ASAP, tank the season and pick high.

But, if you use Wolf's and Vladar's points percentage using home and away records, and project an 82 game season with Wolf getting 60 starts and Vladar getting the remaining 22, the Flames would have 98 points by the end of the season.

They are a playoff team as constructed right now. Subtracting Rasmus doesn't turn is into a lottery team, it turns us into a team just missing every year. Unfortunately, if Wolf is as good as he appears to be, that's the situation the Flames are in.

Parekh, Bruz, and Mews are probably 2 or 3 years away from being ready for top 4 minutes.

When they are ready, trade one of Weegar or Anderson. 3 years of Weegar with 1 million retained would be an easy trade with a $100 million cap. Or trade both.

Or trade one of our excellent, cost controlled, right shot defensemen for an equivalent young center.

So I think, sign Anderson and move him and/or Weegar if/when our young right shot defensemen are ready to take over.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Locke

The only thing I'd be very careful, if not hesitant about, is trade control.

I can't imagine Andersson signing an 8 year deal without massive trade control over most of the contract.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Locke

Absolutely agreed.

And the other thing is...Conroy holds all the cards.

Calgary typically spends to the Cap and we are nowhere even in the stratosphere of the Cap at the moment. We could make Andersson the highest paid defenceman in the League if we wanted to.

We shouldnt, obviously, I'm just saying that the money and the Cap is there. No problem.

I'd have no problems whatsoever signing him to 8-year max term, in regards to money I have no idea, thats not my purview. The only thing I'd be very careful, if not hesitant about, is trade control.

If, in a few years, things aren't panning out then retain some salary and send him to the highest bidder.

But in the meantime? He's doing a good job. And when your guys are doing a good job...dont interrupt them.

Andersson on an 8 year is almost certainly tradeable for the first half. He's only 28. I can't see him getting worse in the next 4 years, given his skill set. If anything, he seems to be getting slightly better as he gets older.

Once again, I don't know what's actually going on in the locker room, but if Andersson is the reason the Flames went from what looked like a disastrous d-core on paper to a loaded one, what you are getting is going to be far worse than what you give up.

As you say, though everyone has their price. If it's a high end prospect/young centre coming back, you jump at it. That's the only thing that likely makes the Flames a better team.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I can't imagine Andersson signing an 8 year deal without massive trade control over most of the contract.

And you're probably right. But I'd hope that Conroy has learned from the past that 'Trade Control' is valuable.

You want full-term? That has value. You want massive trade control? That has value. So that AAV has to come down or that trade control has to be altered.

You want more money? You have to sacrifice some Trade Control.

Give and take. Not like Treliving handing out Trade Control like those nickel candies in those stupid globe dispensing machines that have been there since the Nixon administration.

[GreenLantern2814]

On the one hand, Rasmus Andersson is a home grown first-pairing Defenseman. He just made the Swedish national team - those guys are hard to find.

They’re going to have to pay people to continue to reach the floor anyway - might as well spend that money on Rasmus than some other free agent D who will only be nominally cheaper and won’t mean what Andersson does to your team and your culture.

Finally, if your top-2 RD are Andersson and Weegar, it allows you to insulate Zayne Parekh at 5v5 for all of his key developmental years instead of forcing him to be a top-4 player right away.

On the other hand, he’d return a king’s ransom, and that would be neat.

But that’s a problem for the summer, and if Ras wants to stay at a reasonable number, there’s no good reason to not keep him.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Locke

And you're probably right. But I'd hope that Conroy has learned from the past that 'Trade Control' is valuable.

You want full-term? That has value. You want massive trade control? That has value. So that AAV has to come down or that trade control has to be altered.

You want more money? You have to sacrifice some Trade Control.

Give and take. Not like Treliving handing out Trade Control like those nickel candies in those stupid globe dispensing machines that have been there since the Nixon administration.

Every GM (including Treliving) understands this. Premium UFA's generally get full trade control, or they don't sign.

Who is to say that contracts that Calgary signed with lesser trade control did not have less AAV?

[CliffFletcher]

Judging by the dozens of contracts with NTC’s handed out every year, they’re worth only a marginal discount. The top free agents get them as a matter of course, and the rest get pretty comparable contracts. They’re worth $500k/season, at most.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Judging by the dozens of contracts with NTC’s handed out every year, they’re worth only a marginal discount. The top free agents get them as a matter of course, and the rest get pretty comparable contracts. They’re worth $500k/season, at most.

I doubt that movement clauses give teams any discount any more, because like you said, it's just a matter of course these days. Maybe on rare occasions, but for the most part, I suspect they are a given for any player of consequence. Like when Wheel of Fortune finally just started giving contestants RSTLNE.

[memphusk]

Treat yourself a round of sausage.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by blankall

Andersson on an 8 year is almost certainly tradeable for the first half. He's only 28. I can't see him getting worse in the next 4 years, given his skill set. If anything, he seems to be getting slightly better as he gets older.

Once again, I don't know what's actually going on in the locker room, but if Andersson is the reason the Flames went from what looked like a disastrous d-core on paper to a loaded one, what you are getting is going to be far worse than what you give up.

As you say, though everyone has their price. If it's a high end prospect/young centre coming back, you jump at it. That's the only thing that likely makes the Flames a better team.

He will be 30 starting a 8 year deal not 28.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Judging by the dozens of contracts with NTC’s handed out every year, they’re worth only a marginal discount. The top free agents get them as a matter of course, and the rest get pretty comparable contracts. They’re worth $500k/season, at most.

I don't believe this as NTC's are absolutely deadly and detrimental to GM's in terms of trading assets down the road. How would any GM in the NHL look at a 4mil AAV deal and say if we paid him $4.5mil AAV we would have full control to trade him any time to any one and not do it? That seems insane to me. What are you looking at to come to this conclusion?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I don't believe this as NTC's are absolutely deadly and detrimental to GM's in terms of trading assets down the road. How would any GM in the NHL look at a 4mil AAV deal and say if we paid him $4.5mil AAV we would have full control to trade him any time to any one and not do it? That seems insane to me. What are you looking at to come to this conclusion?

I’m basing it on NHL contracts. Go to puckpedia and look yourself - most players these days over the age of 26 and with $3m or higher salaries have some kind of trade protection. And if you compare them with players of similar pedigree who don’t have trade protection, there isn’t a substantial salary difference.

NMCs were a big deal 10 years ago. Now they’re pretty much the default in contracts for established NHLers. It’s a culture change in the league.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I don't believe this as NTC's are absolutely deadly and detrimental to GM's in terms of trading assets down the road. How would any GM in the NHL look at a 4mil AAV deal and say if we paid him $4.5mil AAV we would have full control to trade him any time to any one and not do it? That seems insane to me. What are you looking at to come to this conclusion?

I doubt it's any more than that, if even that much.

Every GM that is trying to compete is under cap pressure, and every $500k matters. Conversely, if you need to trade a guy in the future, you can deal with it then. And in almost every case, if you want a guy traded, he gets traded.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I doubt it's any more than that, if even that much.

Every GM that is trying to compete is under cap pressure, and every $500k matters. Conversely, if you need to trade a guy in the future, you can deal with it then. And in almost every case, if you want a guy traded, he gets traded.

He might get traded but likely with a lesser return, as less competing teams.

Plus we hear on occasions players have flatly rejected trades. And how may trades simply don’t happen because players flatly reject the notion of being traded, and we never hear about it?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

He might get traded but likely with a lesser return, as less competing teams.

Plus we hear on occasions players have flatly rejected trades. And how may trades simply don’t happen because players flatly reject the notion of being traded, and we never hear about it?

Sure, but that is an unknown, in the future. And may never be an issue at all.

Cap hit is a more immediate, pressing, and real concern.

As for players rejecting trades, that happens, but said player usually gets traded eventually anyway (recent example: Trouba. And soon to be Miller)

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Sure, but that is an unknown, in the future. And may never be an issue at all.

Cap hit is a more immediate, pressing, and real concern.

As for players rejecting trades, that happens, but said player usually gets traded eventually anyway (recent example: Trouba. And soon to be Miller)

But Miller will only agree to certain teams, and it may be one team.

And as I said how many never get traded because they have flatly refused the request and we never hear about it?

[Hackey]

Hopefully a negotiating tactic from Andersson. We've heard this story before from other UFAs.