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

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Shazam

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

Why?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

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

They looked at it, but weren't offered enough to pull the trigger early.

Hard to argue with the process so far (unless you're predisposed to want to)

[Wolven]

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.

I feel like more D were available last summer and less teams were looking to 'buy'. Chychrum and Jensen moved, Sergachev was traded, Broberg was offer-sheeted, etc. and there were more UFAs available that were top 4 calibre.

The return this summer might actually be better if it gets into a bidding war.

[Muta]

Connie should circle the waters and see what Seattle's pulse would be on the cost for Shane Wright and/or Ryker Evans (and if Andersson interests them). Wright is that high-skilled centre we could use and Evans is a Calgary boy that would brings a lot of talent to our blueline. Both aged in that zone that Connie wants too. Doubt either are available, but would be interesting to know either way.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Rick M.

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

In the other most active thread on this forum talking about trade rumours...

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Something might be brewing with the Sabres, I have heard Andersson is willing to go to Buffalo. Could be multiple pieces along with Flames moving from 18 to 9. Believes Calgary really likes McQueen.

The more teams in the mix and with better assets to offer, the better it is for the Flames. A lot of us have fantasized about a Sabres trade but wrote it off because "no one waives for Buffalo". But if they are actually an option I think it changes the math for CBJ or the Sharks offers and makes it very hard for any of the contenders (Stars, Panthers, Leafs, 'Canes, etc.) to put together a competitive package.

As an Andersson fan, I hope he goes to the Sharks as I think they are going to become cup contenders with Celebrini & company establishing themselves. As a Flames fan, I really want the best return but I also would rather not help a division rival or have Andersson playing against us within the division. I can see him be the kind of player that elevates his game against his former team (and then turn the staredown against us!).

[saillias]

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?

The wording I saw was "exchanged numbers." That's not a contract offer. That's just opening discussions.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Shazam

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

Why would you offer a contract if your intent is to trade them? Not saying it is, but it would be disrespectful to offer a contract and then trade them without being transparent.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Why would you offer a contract if your intent is to trade them? Not saying it is, but it would be disrespectful to offer a contract and then trade them without being transparent.

Because it is the GM's job to maximize assets. If the player provides a positive value on a contract, and doesn't get your team in cap trouble then a GM should sign said player. As you mentioned though, transparency is the key.

For example Weegar is probably worth more now signed long term than when he was in the last year of his deal. Another scenario of maximizing assets was when Tre signed Tkachuk before trading him to FLA. That's also the reason we didn't get much back for Hanifin, he would've been worth significantly more had he signed an extension.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Because it is the GM's job to maximize assets. If the player provides a positive value on a contract, and doesn't get your team in cap trouble then a GM should sign said player. As you mentioned though, transparency is the key.

For example Weegar is probably worth more now signed long term than when he was in the last year of his deal. Another scenario of maximizing assets was when Tre signed Tkachuk before trading him to FLA. That's also the reason we didn't get much back for Hanifin, he would've been worth significantly more had he signed an extension.

If I’m not mistaken a sign and trade like Tkachuk is incredibly rare. And the more typical scenario would be for the acquiring team to work out their own extension before pulling the trigger on a trade.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Why would you offer a contract if your intent is to trade them? Not saying it is, but it would be disrespectful to offer a contract and then trade them without being transparent.

The player could in fact accept the offer.

The Flames gave what they thought was a fair offer.

The player can say no.

Rather than the Flames just saying hey, see you later.

Gives some control to the player.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

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

This is exactly my point though, I feel like we're constantly given a "good enough" approach, but if you keep just stacking "good enough" fixes/ strategy adjustments, it's unlikely to add to a sum of "good enough."

If I'm managing a long term project, and I have 75/100 of my decisions go against the grain of original intention, I am probably starting to sweat that I'm going to miss my key deliverables, whether in timeline or substance.

I still fail to see how the current "strategy" on roster building will have this team being a competitor in the 27 season (building open, theoretically).

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Shazam

The player could in fact accept the offer.

The Flames gave what they thought was a fair offer.

The player can say no.

Rather than the Flames just saying hey, see you later.

Gives some control to the player.

Yeah, that’s if your intent is to keep the player if the dollars make sense. However, if your intent is to trade the player to help the future of the team, then a contract would be disingenuous.

[Caged Great]

The thing I really am concerned about is them saying oh well go into the season and trade him at the deadline and be close enough to just hold onto him and lose him for nothing.

Just pull the bandage off and move on before the season starts.

[Paulie Walnuts]

He will be traded. It is best for everyone involved.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

The thing I really am concerned about is them saying oh well go into the season and trade him at the deadline and be close enough to just hold onto him and lose him for nothing.

Just pull the bandage off and move on before the season starts.

I think given the experience Conroy's gained having dealt a number of players in similar situations, this is an unlikely scenario.

Even if the situation is cordial right now, Ras' contract status will be a distraction next season. And all messages coming from Conroy since he's been at the helm suggests he's not a GM who will walk players to free agency.

[InsideTheFire]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

The thing I really am concerned about is them saying oh well go into the season and trade him at the deadline and be close enough to just hold onto him and lose him for nothing.

Just pull the bandage off and move on before the season starts.

I mean I think Conroy does not really want that, but even if he does, 1 player being traded at the deadline is better than 4 the previous season. I do think he will want it done before camp and will want to fill the spot with a left shot D given our depth on the right.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

I think given the experience Conroy's gained having dealt a number of players in similar situations, this is an unlikely scenario.

Even if the situation is cordial right now, Ras' contract status will be a distraction next season. And all messages coming from Conroy since he's been at the helm suggests he's not a GM who will walk players to free agency.

That and I'm not sure they would keep Andersson and lose him for nothing anyway.

Conroy has made many references to never letting the Gaudreau thing happen again.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

This is exactly my point though, I feel like we're constantly given a "good enough" approach, but if you keep just stacking "good enough" fixes/ strategy adjustments, it's unlikely to add to a sum of "good enough."

If I'm managing a long term project, and I have 75/100 of my decisions go against the grain of original intention, I am probably starting to sweat that I'm going to miss my key deliverables, whether in timeline or substance.

I still fail to see how the current "strategy" on roster building will have this team being a competitor in the 27 season (building open, theoretically).

I think you only see no strategy or "good enough" if you feel there is only one decision on every single asset, which all have to lead to the burn it to the ground scenario.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think you only see no strategy or "good enough" if you feel there is only one decision on every single asset, which all have to lead to the burn it to the ground scenario.

That isn't necessarily wrong, but as a franchise, when you have failed to hit enough home runs over the years, just playing for singles will never add up. It would suck to end up with a version of Miromanov + late 2026 first at the deadline as a return when you have a draft coming up that you can capitalize on now for an asset that is extremely valuable to a capped out team for an entire season.

I'm happy Conroy is showing more conviction than his predecessor when it comes to cutting bait with players that aren't interested in being here for the right reasons long term, but I would much prefer him to take a huge cut here and hope for something big to work out.

On a contender he's a top 4 that has a lot of intangibles. Make it known you are moving him before the draft and see what materializes. At this point he's not going to substantially increase his value by playing another year here anyway. It would be different if the Flames were peaking or if he was 25 years old....

[dino7c]

Posters that trashed the player and how he played all year now looking for the moon in trades lol