[Rumour] Flames and Andersson “not on the same page” for contract extension

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So will trading Andersson not count as asset management and building through youth because they offered him a contract and he didn't sign it?

I mean, does it not make you wonder a bit? If we keep offering contracts to star players and they keep declining, doesn't that show some bad signs about the internal health of the club? How can we be confident in their strategy if the moves everyone seems to support most are made by being backed into it (e.g. star player not accepting contract offers) ?

I don't know how anyone can be confident we have a direction in these circumstances. It seems like the direction they keep trying is blocked by external forces and forcing us into the logical direction rather than intentionally moving towards it. Wouldn't intentionally building something on our own terms be superior?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I mean, does it not make you wonder a bit? If we keep offering contracts to star players and they keep declining, doesn't that show some bad signs about the internal health of the club? How can we be confident in their strategy if the moves everyone seems to support most are made by being backed into it (e.g. star player not accepting contract offers) ?

I don't know how anyone can be confident we have a direction in these circumstances. It seems like the direction they keep trying is blocked by external forces and forcing us into the logical direction rather than intentionally moving towards it. Wouldn't intentionally building something on our own terms be superior?

I think Rasmus Andersson at $7M and expiring at age 35 is a pretty good contract, and you keep him.

I totally get the view that you can't go 8 x huge dollars though.

You have to explore the price points and see if there's a discount to stay. That gives you a potentially higher asset at a discount price which is asset management.

But exploratory conversations when you know pretty much going in that you're a) not going to come to terms and b) are likely trading him doesn't go straight to the "See they wanted to keep him!!!!" pile.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I mean, does it not make you wonder a bit? If we keep offering contracts to star players and they keep declining, doesn't that show some bad signs about the internal health of the club? How can we be confident in their strategy if the moves everyone seems to support most are made by being backed into it (e.g. star player not accepting contract offers) ?

I don't know how anyone can be confident we have a direction in these circumstances. It seems like the direction they keep trying is blocked by external forces and forcing us into the logical direction rather than intentionally moving towards it. Wouldn't intentionally building something on our own terms be superior?

Not at all. In fact, it makes me confident that Connie will not "Treliving us"...by overpaying aging vets, no matter how good they were, and bootstrapping us for years to come with boat-anchor contracts that are unmoveable. THAT is the direction: come to terms or move on.


Good for Raz if he figures he can make more elsewhere, but there is no reason for the Flames to do this unless they WANT him on the team for the current year....and up to eight more years....and if they see true value in doing so.


I've enjoyed Raz, mostly, but he does make some completely bonehead plays and is not what I'd like to see quarterbacking the PP; he's too slow and too indecisive mostly. Great guy, great character, great leader and has been a wonderful Flame for the most part.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I mean, does it not make you wonder a bit? If we keep offering contracts to star players and they keep declining, doesn't that show some bad signs about the internal health of the club? How can we be confident in their strategy if the moves everyone seems to support most are made by being backed into it (e.g. star player not accepting contract offers) ?

I don't know how anyone can be confident we have a direction in these circumstances. It seems like the direction they keep trying is blocked by external forces and forcing us into the logical direction rather than intentionally moving towards it. Wouldn't intentionally building something on our own terms be superior?

Andersson is not a star player. His number is north of 8.5. Starting at age 30.

Coronato wanted to reup as soon as he could. I more excited about those contracts.

[Monahammer]

Yeah, I'm not really saying that here, though I think the Lindholm case is a more apparent "they wanted to keep him" instance.

I just think it's another weak point in this view that we have a real "strategy" to build a winning club here and that we are executing on said strategy. The evidence seems to be that we are unable to execute the strategy management prefers due to external factors, and are being forced into a strategy many people here support far more, but with less alacrity and forceful decision than warranted.

[Jiri Hrdina]

How long are you going to beat the Lindholm drum for? He was traded 1.5 years ago. At what point does that run out of steam in terms of a "proof point"?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I mean, does it not make you wonder a bit? If we keep offering contracts to star players and they keep declining, doesn't that show some bad signs about the internal health of the club? How can we be confident in their strategy if the moves everyone seems to support most are made by being backed into it (e.g. star player not accepting contract offers) ?

I don't know how anyone can be confident we have a direction in these circumstances. It seems like the direction they keep trying is blocked by external forces and forcing us into the logical direction rather than intentionally moving towards it. Wouldn't intentionally building something on our own terms be superior?

No, it doesn't make me wonder at all. Conroy definitely looks to have a plan and while he may like certain players he is not willing to blow up the plan to make them stay.

The contract offers were just business and they reinforced what everyone already knew (Andersson is on the trade block). Hopefully they continue to keep the relationship positive so Andersson works with the team to maximize the return instead of throwing up roadblocks.

To that end, the rumour that he may waive to go to the Sabres is a big win for Conroy. It puts so much more pressure on all of the other teams interested in Andersson to up their offers if they now have to beat #9OA.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Yeah, I'm not really saying that here, though I think the Lindholm case is a more apparent "they wanted to keep him" instance.

I just think it's another weak point in this view that we have a real "strategy" to build a winning club here and that we are executing on said strategy. The evidence seems to be that we are unable to execute the strategy management prefers due to external factors, and are being forced into a strategy many people here support far more, but with less alacrity and forceful decision than warranted.

Wanting to keep good players on terms you feel fit isn't a lack of strategy.

Line in the sand for term or dollars eliminates the chance of getting the player under those terms so you move on.

They've done it over a half dozen times in two years.

It's a far cry from the "please sign with us, any term ... any dollars we don't care" narrative.

[Badgers Nose]

… not to mention that two other good (at the time) teams thought Lindy was worth having/worth the money. So trying to keep him at a salary Flames liked was totally fine.

No reasonable person expected his play to fall off a cliff the way that it did.

Flames did the same with Ras. I don’t expect his play to fall off a cliff after he is traded though.

[Demetric]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I mean, does it not make you wonder a bit? If we keep offering contracts to star players and they keep declining, doesn't that show some bad signs about the internal health of the club? How can we be confident in their strategy if the moves everyone seems to support most are made by being backed into it (e.g. star player not accepting contract offers) ?

I don't know how anyone can be confident we have a direction in these circumstances. It seems like the direction they keep trying is blocked by external forces and forcing us into the logical direction rather than intentionally moving towards it. Wouldn't intentionally building something on our own terms be superior?

Nope, not one tinsie wiensie little bit

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Demetric

Nope, not one tinsie wiensie little bit

Didn’t even take a few months for someone to say the player is completely driving he bus lol

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

How long are you going to beat the Lindholm drum for? He was traded 1.5 years ago. At what point does that run out of steam in terms of a "proof point"?

Probably as long as the 20 million of cap space wasn’t indicative of a team not really trying to compete.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Yeah, I'm not really saying that here, though I think the Lindholm case is a more apparent "they wanted to keep him" instance.

I just think it's another weak point in this view that we have a real "strategy" to build a winning club here and that we are executing on said strategy. The evidence seems to be that we are unable to execute the strategy management prefers due to external factors, and are being forced into a strategy many people here support far more, but with less alacrity and forceful decision than warranted.

Nope, it's just confirmation bias.

They have handled Andersson perfectly so far (still pending an actual trade before we can fully assess), but all you see is more proof of what you believed all along.

[TheScorpion]

IMO handling Andersson perfectly would've been to trade him a year ago, but this is good enough.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

IMO handling Andersson perfectly would've been to trade him a year ago, but this is good enough.

I think we'd need to know what if anything was offered last summer, and at this year's trade deadline to suggest they've left something on the table by not handling this "perfectly".

Unless you're strictly talking ... No Andersson = Worse Team = Better Draft Pick in 2025 daisy chain.

[Shazam]

Conroy has to offer a contract to these players. It would be incredibly disrespectful not to.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think we'd need to know what if anything was offered last summer, and at this year's trade deadline to suggest they've left something on the table by not handling this "perfectly".

Unless you're strictly talking ... No Andersson = Worse Team = Better Draft Pick in 2025 daisy chain.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think they could have negotiated anything last summer with 2 years left. Nvm i see you are talking trade value, not contracts.

Regarding Lindholm, did Conroy not come out ob Barn burner after the trade and pretty much say they knew Lindholm was being traded after their first conversation in the summer. The rest was stringing media and other teams about keeping him. Or am I misremembering things.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think they could have negotiated anything last summer with 2 years left. Nvm i see you are talking trade value, not contracts.

Regarding Lindholm, did Conroy not come out ob Barn burner after the trade and pretty much say they knew Lindholm was being traded after their first conversation in the summer. The rest was stringing media and other teams about keeping him. Or am I misremembering things.

Pretty much, yes. But a lot of fans were horrified by the fact that a contract was offered at all.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think they could have negotiated anything last summer with 2 years left.

Bingo is talking about a trade.

It's easy to say they should have traded him last year without knowing what was offered if anything.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by Wolven

No, it doesn't make me wonder at all. Conroy definitely looks to have a plan and while he may like certain players he is not willing to blow up the plan to make them stay.

The contract offers were just business and they reinforced what everyone already knew (Andersson is on the trade block). Hopefully they continue to keep the relationship positive so Andersson works with the team to maximize the return instead of throwing up roadblocks.

To that end, the rumour that he may waive to go to the Sabres is a big win for Conroy. It puts so much more pressure on all of the other teams interested in Andersson to up their offers if they now have to beat #9OA.

Where did you hear a rumour that Andersson might waive to go to the Sabres?