[Rumour] Dreger: Bowen Byram trade talks heating up. Calgary one of many teams interested

[Jiri Hrdina]

I just think it’s pointless
And they aren’t asking every player if they will re sign
Your conclusions are classic cases of confirmation basis. You look at every fact as more proof of something you’ve decided

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Bonded

They offered Lindholm a contract they knew he wasn’t going to sign in the hopes the core clicked and they could circle back or he’d have trade value on it. They pulled any offer when it was clear it wasn’t working.

They had agreed to terms with Hanifin before he backed out.

A poster here said Lindholm was offered 8.6M on a 7 year packet.

The plan was was sign Lindholm/Hanifin/Tanev.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Niemo

Intent to murder is still a crime.

I dont think this is much different than the Ryan OReilly offer sheet from Feaster or the Brad Richards contract offer. We were saved from ourselves.

Critism will stop when it's obvious that the lesson has been learned.

Intent to murder is one of the more hilarious takes I’ve ever heard on offering a player a contract that was under where’d he sign. Offering Lindholm a contract was nowhere near the same level of potential buffoonery as O’Reilly.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Well yes. If it helps, imagine an “IMHO” before every post everyone makes on this site.

What helps is NOT stating an opinion as “fact”. At least that’s honest.

You could also say “I think…” among other things.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

They had agreed to terms with Hanifin before he backed out.

A poster here said Lindholm was offered 8.6M on a 7 year packet.

The plan was was sign Lindholm/Hanifin/Tanev.

Until it was clear that they needed to pivot on that plan.
Which they did.

I've also heard the reverse, that they pulled the deal from Hanifin.

I would have had no issue with re-signing Tanev to a reasonable, or Hanifin given his age.

There is nothing wrong with setting a price for good players and if they want more than that - you trade them. If rumors of what they offered Lindholm are true - that would have been a bad decision. Managing a hockey team is a series of decisions, and if you make too many bad ones you get fired.

But ultimately it didn't happen so again, I find it pointless the amount of focus it gets. As for "the lesson being learned" I have a feeling for some posters they have an unreasonable standard for that.

I see a club that clearly is taking a different approach compared to the start of that season when the Elias talk was out there.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Can't quote P-Nuts for some reason...


Look, I agree with you on Andersson - he should have been traded last season. However, I don't he should have been traded simply because of the leverage he is using. The reason why I (and many) kept wanting to see him traded was because the cap was tight for everyone, and that was a sweet-heart team-friendly deal. Much like part of Hamonic's valuation when the Flames traded for him was that perceived team-friendly deal.


As for Coleman - why the rush? He isn't moving the needle here. I want top picks, but Coleman is an ideal vet to have around. If Backlund leaves, he would be my first choice for captain (though his contract length would stop me from choosing him). He is a solid vet that helps young players learn how to play the right way. Consummate vet.


What he doesn't have is a sweet-heart deal. What he doesn't have is more value this season than next, even if he picks his spot. I am sure he would be happy picking one of 5 or 6 teams, and maybe nobody really wants to extend him anyway given his age. Maybe they want to see what he looks like on the team before committing. Let's say there is a difference in valuation - it isn't much. I would be surprised if Coleman returned a 1st. I think his value might be lower this off-season actually. Players like him aren't usually sought after with term. It happens, but it isn't the case usually.


Andersson was a different story - part of his value was the contract that he was on.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

They had agreed to terms with Hanifin before he backed out.

A poster here said Lindholm was offered 8.6M on a 7 year packet.

The plan was was sign Lindholm/Hanifin/Tanev.

Yeah, I'm not going to give credit to management or ownership for players saving us from ourself.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

They had agreed to terms with Hanifin before he backed out.

A poster here said Lindholm was offered 8.6M on a 7 year packet.

The plan was was sign Lindholm/Hanifin/Tanev.

You don’t think they knew where the player was willing to sign with the Flames? Lindholm wanted 9+ to stay with Flames. It’s the same as Andersson right now. Hanifin was the only one they circled back on which I would have been fine with. They didn’t want to give the term to Taney and moved him. Same with Toffoli.

[Niemo]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

Yeah, I'm not going to give credit to management or ownership for players saving us from ourself.

Agreed 100%.

[Beninho]

Just merge this thread, the Andersson thread and the Trade Speculation thread into one. The same exact discussion is happening in all 3. Or how about a “how to rebuild” thread for the armchair gm’s that want to give lectures on how to build a contender.

[PepsiFree]

The criticism of management for signing players they never signed is one of the dumbest memes to come out of CP in the last decade.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Trading Andersson and Coleman isn’t trading everyone. You maximize your assets and get the best returns to help your team when it’s ready to compete. Holding in to them so you can clap at a 9th place finish is dumb the dumbest way to handle things full stop.

You add the vets when you are ready to compete.

Ya my point is two fold.

1) there is zero evidence that they are holding on to their few remaining vets to clap for 9th place
2) trading virtually all vets (you are in the gas Kadri camp too, leaving the Flames basically 3 veteran players) is a really dumb thing to do.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I would be very surprised if Conroy was operating in good faith, and if those players that left as UFAs were negotiating in good faith.


I think both sides knew where that line was, and both sides made sure to remain on their respective sides. It was easier with some players - like Zadorov - who was probably way over that line, and thus the "Big News by Big Z in T.O." moment.



Hanifin was the only one that the Flames looked like they wanted to retain, but even then we don't know for sure where the lines were and if they were crossed.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The criticism of management for signing players they never signed is one of the dumbest memes to come out of CP in the last decade.

They didn't do something stupid, but could have. The opportunity for stupidity still exists in their minds.

To give a physics analogy, they had potential stupidity as opposed to kinetic stupidity. But the potential stupidity still exists. It cannot be destroyed. Only converted from one form to another.

That means it has been predetermined that they will do something stupid in the future.

Just amazing mental gymnastics.

[Burning Beard]

Some of you guys should set up a spreadsheet with all of your grievances so you can just copy and paste it a few times a day. With you typing it out so many times carpal tunnel is a serious concern.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think there is some gamesmanship that goes on. You don't want to give other GMs the impression that you need to trade a player at any cost. In Andersson's case, Conroy is playing up that Andersson is going into a contract year and poised for a big season, and that he is prepared to play in Calgary next season, and they'll gladly keep him. Same thing with leaking that you want to re-sign a player. It just makes you seem less desperate to sell.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Can't quote P-Nuts for some reason...


Look, I agree with you on Andersson - he should have been traded last season. However, I don't he should have been traded simply because of the leverage he is using. The reason why I (and many) kept wanting to see him traded was because the cap was tight for everyone, and that was a sweet-heart team-friendly deal. Much like part of Hamonic's valuation when the Flames traded for him was that perceived team-friendly deal.


As for Coleman - why the rush? He isn't moving the needle here. I want top picks, but Coleman is an ideal vet to have around. If Backlund leaves, he would be my first choice for captain (though his contract length would stop me from choosing him). He is a solid vet that helps young players learn how to play the right way. Consummate vet.


What he doesn't have is a sweet-heart deal. What he doesn't have is more value this season than next, even if he picks his spot. I am sure he would be happy picking one of 5 or 6 teams, and maybe nobody really wants to extend him anyway given his age. Maybe they want to see what he looks like on the team before committing. Let's say there is a difference in valuation - it isn't much. I would be surprised if Coleman returned a 1st. I think his value might be lower this off-season actually. Players like him aren't usually sought after with term. It happens, but it isn't the case usually.


Andersson was a different story - part of his value was the contract that he was on.

We are agreeing on Andersson. I have said numerous times trading him wasn’t a tank move but having an asset in a capped out league that should bring back a haul. Having 3 at 2.25 for 2 seasons is an incredible deal.

I’ve also said to look at dealing Coleman at the deadline as I feel he is a piece teams will pay for. As for captain I think that’s Weegar.

My feeling is if you are going to rebuild you need to fully commit to it you can’t go about it half way. You need top picks and you need to maximize your assets.

The Flames held on to Iginla way too long when the team was not competitive. The greatest player in Flames history and we got Ben Hanowski and Kenny Agustino lol

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Niemo

Intent to murder is still a crime.

I dont think this is much different than the Ryan OReilly offer sheet from Feaster or the Brad Richards contract offer. We were saved from ourselves.

Critism will stop when it's obvious that the lesson has been learned.

Quit with this. It wasn’t a thing.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Until it was clear that they needed to pivot on that plan.
Which they did.

I've also heard the reverse, that they pulled the deal from Hanifin.

I would have had no issue with re-signing Tanev to a reasonable, or Hanifin given his age.

There is nothing wrong with setting a price for good players and if they want more than that - you trade them. If rumors of what they offered Lindholm are true - that would have been a bad decision. Managing a hockey team is a series of decisions, and if you make too many bad ones you get fired.

But ultimately it didn't happen so again, I find it pointless the amount of focus it gets. As for "the lesson being learned" I have a feeling for some posters they have an unreasonable standard for that.

I see a club that clearly is taking a different approach compared to the start of that season when the Elias talk was out there.

From what I can remember the deal was agreed to but the in team went on a losing streak so Hanifin camp put a pause on things. It was reported by LeBrun the deal was done. They circled back in January but he wanted out.

Tanev asked for a trade in November and they still tried to convince him otherwise. Based off LeBrun while they shopped him and agreed to the Dallas deal they put on a strong push to keep him before the trade.

Conroy did say he had an idea he would be dealing Lindholm in October. But still they tried to sign him.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

From what I can remember the deal was agreed to but the in team went on a losing streak so Hanifin camp put a pause on things. It was reported by LeBrun the deal was done. They circled back in January but he wanted out.

Tanev asked for a trade in November and they still tried to convince him otherwise. Based off LeBrun while they shopped him and agreed to the Dallas deal they put on a strong push to keep him before the trade.

Conroy did say he had an idea he would be dealing Lindholm in October. But still they tried to sign him.

https://dailyhive.com/calgary/flames...-talks-on-hold

This article says that Francis and Friedman are saying the Flames put talks on hold, not the players