[Rumour] LeBrun: As of right now, sounds like Andersson only wants to sign extension with VGK

[kehatch]

In 2022/23 Andersson spent about 70 percent of his even strength time with either Weegar or Hanafin and was a plus 6 with them. They combined for 24 points.

In 2023/24 he spent about 75 percent of his time with Bahl and was a minus 13. They combined for 16 points.

I am not saying Andersson had a good season because I don't think he did. But the Flames were asking a lot from their D core after some big departures the season prior.

With the right partner Andersson can log big minutes against tough opposition while continuing to produce.

[Jason14h]

The problem with Andersson is the elite players seem to expose him (like with a lot of D) . So I don’t see him as a top pairing guy in the sense you want him out there against McDavid and McKinnon’s of the world

I get where people say he isn’t a top pairing D in the sense he hasn’t shown he can stop the top players defensively , and isn’t elite offensively to make up for it

He CAN play 23 mins a night , and CAN go against top competition , but when he does his play isn’t great as we saw last year

Really he is best suited to lead the 2nd pairing or a 1b pairing where the top pairing has a shut down type D . Most contending teams have this in place so he can slot in perfectly on a 2nd pairing / 1B pairing

This issue is if you have to pay him 8+ million and he needs to be the anchor of the top pairing. That’s where he hasn’t shown he can be that player yet .

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

This issue is if you have to pay him 8+ million and he needs to be the anchor of the top pairing. That’s where he hasn’t shown he can be that player yet .

8 million will be #2/3 dman money now

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Thing is - a lot of the asset management guys tend to constantly be rebuilding in their heads. And they expect too much return out of selling vets anyway. At any time only contenders want that player, and their picks aren't lottery picks, by definition.

Under this notion, the Oilers should have traded McDavid 5 years ago, when his value was great and his contract not expiring, but they weren't winning.

That's not true at all. Andersson with 4 years on his deal would appeal to a lot of teams. Contenders sure. Teams looking to take the next step as well. He only appeals to solely contenders when he is a rental like he is now. Once Tkachuk wanted out that was the time to sell him for futures and maximize Hanifin, Lindholm, and Andersson.

23 year old McDavid is a franchise player, a generational talent, the exact type of player you build around. Andersson is not that. If the Flames were an elite team then sure hold on to him. When you know for a fact you won't be competing any time soon, yes you maximize the asset. Foresight is something the organization seems to never have

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Hackey

That's not true at all. Andersson with 4 years on his deal would appeal to a lot of teams. Contenders sure. Teams looking to take the next step as well. He only appeals to solely contenders when he is a rental like he is now. Once Tkachuk wanted out that was the time to sell him for futures and maximize Hanifin, Lindholm, and Andersson.

23 year old McDavid is a franchise player, a generational talent, the exact type of player you build around. Andersson is not that. If the Flames were an elite team then sure hold on to him. When you know for a fact you won't be competing any time soon, yes you maximize the asset. Foresight is something the organization seems to never have

Which teams do this (trade every single vet on their team). Is this a common thing that teams do?

[Finger Cookin]

We should have traded Andersson for bitcoin when he was 23. Hopefully it would be OK to trade him in in the season when he turns 23, not before he turns 23. Because that's two different scenarios:

Rasmus turned 23 on Oct 27, 2019. So if we trade him going into his 23 year old season, we are trading a 22 year old coming off a season when he put up 41 points in 56 games with Stockton, but no points in 10 NHL games. Rasmus was on his ELC still at this point, with two seasons left at a cap hit of $755,833.

If we traded Rasmus after the season he turned 23, we are looking at trading him after the 19-20 season. On the final year of his ELC, Rasmus became a fulltime NHLer, playing 79 games and putting up 2 goals and 19 points. It was in January 8, 2020 of this season that we signed Rasmus to his about to expire 6 year, $4.55M AAV deal. So have to consider whether we would get maximum value for him with that cost certainty in place or not.

Bitcoin traded at ~ $9550 USD per bitcoin in October 2019. Or 79.145 bitcoins per Rasmus.

Bitcoin traded at ~ $7660 USD per bitcoin in January 2020. That's an even better rate of 98.672 bitcoins per Rasmus. But becomes a much different 593.995 bitcoins per Rasmus when the extension kicks in.

And we all know what happened to the price of bitcoin in the pandemic.

Solve for maximized asset.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

We should have traded Andersson for bitcoin when he was 23

When that guy offered us 3 Magic Beans....we really should have jumped all over that! As I recall that worked out pretty well for the Peasant Boy so long as you dont kill the Goose.

[Finger Cookin]

I always forget what to do with the Goose, it can be catastrophic if you choose wrong

[Finger Cookin]

Really what I would like is for every player to be reduced to a WAR value. And then have a way of normalizing WAR by age. Ex. 2 players may have the same WAR, but what is a 27 year old player with 3 WAR worth compared to a 24 year old player of 2.5 WAR? Then, you need to normalize WAR by both contract length and cap hit.

Get every player down to this one number. Because then I can just follow our roster with an Excel spreadsheet. And then I don't need to worry what Sportsnet+ charges, or how much concession prices go up in the new arena, or what does or doesn't happen at the trade deadline or the draft.

I can just watch my Excel line graph and know whether my portfolio is going up or down. And gloat/despair as appropriate.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hackey

That's not true at all. Andersson with 4 years on his deal would appeal to a lot of teams. Contenders sure. Teams looking to take the next step as well. He only appeals to solely contenders when he is a rental like he is now. Once Tkachuk wanted out that was the time to sell him for futures and maximize Hanifin, Lindholm, and Andersson.

23 year old McDavid is a franchise player, a generational talent, the exact type of player you build around. Andersson is not that. If the Flames were an elite team then sure hold on to him. When you know for a fact you won't be competing any time soon, yes you maximize the asset. Foresight is something the organization seems to never have

LOL - one player wants out and that’s the signal to trade Andersson? When the Flames made a trade that everyone thought at the time was decent? Well, on here the naysayers said it would be only a good trade if Huberdeau signed long term.

[Badgers Nose]

LeBrun: ‘As of right now no one has told me that Ras is not only considering a trade to the Harlem Globetrooters.’

#### you Pierre, you ####ing muppet.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

LOL - one player wants out and that’s the signal to trade Andersson? When the Flames made a trade that everyone thought at the time was decent? Well, on here the naysayers said it would be only a good trade if Huberdeau signed long term.

Originally Posted by Hackey

You're choosing to form people's opinions for them. Just because someone points out the risks of this deal doesn't mean they don't like the deal or those risks aren't there. It's simple to me, sign Huberdeau and it's a great deal no matter what else happens. Dont sign Huberdeau and it has a chance to be very underwhelming

Originally Posted by Hackey

If the Flames are in a strong position similar to this year at the deadline I think they keep the players. Who knows but that doesn't seem like a crazy prediction. If they deal them at the deadline they are rentals which will return something okay but nothing great. For example you might have been able to trade Tkachuk for Kyrou but there is zero chance you trade Huberdeau for Kyrou as a rental. So there is definitely some risk here if you don't sign Huberdeau. This is not doom and gloom its a realistically possibility that I hope is avoided by an extension this summer.

Originally Posted by Hackey

The problem with the trade is it is a win now move. If we landed Huberdeau with a stacked roster I'd be really pumped we were going for it, even if it was for only one year. If Huberdeau signs a deal though that gives the team a few years to try and build around him which should hopefully be exciting as well. But if he doesn't sign this all could turn into a major disaster where we lose Gaudreau and Tkachuk for peanuts and all our trade pieces have less value. In that scenario yikes.

Originally Posted by Hackey

I'm very confused why Florida did this deal. I'd prefer Huberdeau over Tkachuk straight up. I guess the contracts change things a bit but still.

Should have traded Andersson that summer……

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Bonded

8 million will be #2/3 dman money now

Yeah… Colorado is winning another cup during Makars contract. Going to be a huge discount as things creep up.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Should have traded Andersson that summer……

When someone else does your homework for you.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Bonded

8 million will be #2/3 dman money now

When’s it going to be anonymous internet message board poster money? That’s what I want to know.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

When’s it going to be anonymous internet message board poster money? That’s what I want to know.

What kind of defenceman can we sign for 7 thanks?

[VilleN]

I agree, we should’ve started the rebuild when Gaudreau and Tkachuk left. However, in isolation the Tkachuk trade was pretty solid. Had Gaudreau stayed, and had we LTIR’d Monahan, things could’ve looked a lot different. The fact that we were losing both of our best players at the same time - I think the writing was on the wall. However, I think ownership had gave the directive to management to stay competitive… the heart of the team was ripped out, it’s pretty hard to remain competitive after that.

[Fan69]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I agree, we should’ve started the rebuild when Gaudreau and Tkachuk left. However, in isolation the Tkachuk trade was pretty solid. Had Gaudreau stayed, and had we LTIR’d Monahan, things could’ve looked a lot different. The fact that we were losing both of our best players at the same time - I think the writing was on the wall. However, I think ownership had gave the directive to management to stay competitive… the heart of the team was ripped out, it’s pretty hard to remain competitive after that.

It would have been bad to lose two of our top players with zero back but we added insult to injury and gave up a first to do so.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I agree, we should’ve started the rebuild when Gaudreau and Tkachuk left. However, in isolation the Tkachuk trade was pretty solid. Had Gaudreau stayed, and had we LTIR’d Monahan, things could’ve looked a lot different. The fact that we were losing both of our best players at the same time - I think the writing was on the wall. However, I think ownership had gave the directive to management to stay competitive… the heart of the team was ripped out, it’s pretty hard to remain competitive after that.

The Tkachuk trade was a compete gift that had no real reason for happening. We were so close to being incredibly ####ed.

[kehatch]

The Flames weren't in a position to rebuild when Tkachuck and Gaudreau departed. I understand the argument, especially in retrospect, but rebuilding at that stage would have been unreasonable. Our prospect pool was low, we still had a stable of vets, and we just finished first in the Pacific.