I don't understand the logic behind this. Since Russell agreed to a sign and trade, wouldn't he agree to a $1.5M contract or similar and avoid arbitration? I'm sure this has been discussed, how much can Russell realistically get from arbitration? A 5th round pick to avoid the risk of arbitration seems stupid given that the team likely will end up with plenty of unused cap room.
I don't really know the specifics or details(or anything really about the deal) except what I have read but I do figure that Feaster and co did their due diligence and got the the best deal for the team at the time of the transaction.
I don't really know the specifics or details(or anything really about the deal) except what I have read but I do figure that Feaster and co did their due diligence and got the the best deal for the team at the time of the transaction.
Well picking a guy off waivers is certainly a better deal than trading a 5th round pick for the player. That's why I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this.
Someone else mentioned it but couldn't it be that we couldn't pick him up off waivers because we were at the 50 player limit. It's also the reason we couldn't sign Knight and Ramo.
Someone else mentioned it but couldn't it be that we couldn't pick him up off waivers because we were at the 50 player limit. It's also the reason we couldn't sign Knight and Ramo.
With Russell and the other AHLer I believe we're only at 44 contracts.
With Russell and the other AHLer I believe we're only at 44 contracts.
Yes, but that's because we've had several contracts expire in the interim. I'm not sure about the timing on the expiration of those compared to when Russell was on waivers though.
I don't understand the logic behind this. Since Russell agreed to a sign and trade, wouldn't he agree to a $1.5M contract or similar and avoid arbitration? I'm sure this has been discussed, how much can Russell realistically get from arbitration? A 5th round pick to avoid the risk of arbitration seems stupid given that the team likely will end up with plenty of unused cap room.
On the surface, it sounds like a good excuse, but when you start thinking about it, the arbitration excuse doesn't pass the logic test. There is not reason to think that Russell would have either been awarded a lot in arbitration or wouldn't have accepted the same contract he accepted from the Blues. Not every player that is eligible for arbitration chooses it, especially if they are offered a reasonable deal. It actually scares me to think that the Flames management would believe that Russell is such a great player that arbitration would have been his choice at all in lieu of signing the deal he did.
I'm fine with giving up a 5th rounder for a player they wanted whether he was on waivers a few days ago or not. I just wish they wouldn't try to make up excuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef
- 3 of those players played 15 games or less with the Blues, meaning he was 5th on the Blues in ice-time overall
- He was a #5 defenseman that was pushed to #7 when 2 top 4 defensemen were acquired at the trade deadline (Bouw and Leo)
- Lot's of players pass through waivers, doesn't change contract value, not even sure if this is admissible in an arbitration hearing.
- unlikely to be admissible
Whether it's admissible or not isn't the point. The point is, bad players shouldn't get large arbitration awards, nor should they even choose arbitration if they are offered a reasonable deal. Honestly, what does it tell you when his old team made roster moves that pushed him from 5th to 8th and being a healthy scratch? This is not a good player that would have shunned a $1.5 million deal from the Flames, or any team. This was a player that is lucky to have an NHL deal for another season. Who are the past arbitration comparables that suggest Russell would have benefited from that decision?
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Senators could have had Matt Kassian for free off waivers but they didn't claim him. They ended up trading for him (5th round I believe). Does that make Bryan Murray a crappy GM? No. By the same token, dealing a 5th for Russell doesn't make Feaster a crappy GM. Get over it.
On the surface, it sounds like a good excuse, but when you start thinking about it, the arbitration excuse doesn't pass the logic test. There is not reason to think that Russell would have either been awarded a lot in arbitration or wouldn't have accepted the same contract he accepted from the Blues. Not every player that is eligible for arbitration chooses it, especially if they are offered a reasonable deal. It actually scares me to think that the Flames management would believe that Russell is such a great player that arbitration would have been his choice at all in lieu of signing the deal he did.
I'm fine with giving up a 5th rounder for a player they wanted whether he was on waivers a few days ago or not. I just wish they wouldn't try to make up excuses.
Whether it's admissible or not isn't the point. The point is, bad players shouldn't get large arbitration awards, nor should they even choose arbitration if they are offered a reasonable deal. Honestly, what does it tell you when his old team made roster moves that pushed him from 5th to 8th and being a healthy scratch? This is not a good player that would have shunned a $1.5 million deal from the Flames, or any team. This was a player that is lucky to have an NHL deal for another season. Who are the past arbitration comparables that suggest Russell would have benefited from that decision?
Maybe you should read up a bit more on arbitration
Feaster hired outside council to determine what the comparables were for Russel and Butler. He believes both had fairly strong cases as per the press conference. There have been some crazy arbitration decisions in the past.
Bad players shouldn't get large arbitration awards but they actually have and that's where you're wrong. I don't see any made up excuses. I think in this case you're underrating the possibility of a bad arbitration decision.
And that's without even touching on the process itself which is usually very painful to the player as the team rips into him as much as possible which can cause permanent damage to the team/player relationship.
Arbitration is definitely to be avoided if possible, you can see from history how much teams are scared of these decisions.
The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
The Senators could have had Matt Kassian for free off waivers but they didn't claim him. They ended up trading for him (5th round I believe). Does that make Bryan Murray a crappy GM? No. By the same token, dealing a 5th for Russell doesn't make Feaster a crappy GM. Get over it.
It was a 6th for Kassian. So no, Murray is a little smarter.
The Senators could have had Matt Kassian for free off waivers but they didn't claim him. They ended up trading for him (5th round I believe). Does that make Bryan Murray a crappy GM? No. By the same token, dealing a 5th for Russell doesn't make Feaster a crappy GM. Get over it.
Or the 7th Feaster got for Karlsson, even after he had already cleared waivers. Clearly that is a poorly run organization.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Goodlad For This Useful Post:
So, do you honestly believe he accepted the St. Louis offer for $1.5 million, but he wouldn't have accepted the same offer from the Flames? If that's the case, he isn't exactly the kind of player this team needs.
Russell wasn't going to arbitration. It would have been at least just as risky for him to shun a $1.5 million contract. And none of those links are convincing that Russell would have a chance in winning.
I do wish the media and fans would leave Feaster alone on something so insignificant as a 5th round pick so that he wouldn't have to try and justify it. It should be good enough just to say that the timing wasn't right to claim a player off waivers without seeing the free agent market and after seeing the free agent market, Russell had a market value.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Feaster hired outside council to determine what the comparables were for Russel and Butler. He believes both had fairly strong cases as per the press conference. There have been some crazy arbitration decisions in the past.
Bad players shouldn't get large arbitration awards but they actually have and that's where you're wrong. I don't see any made up excuses. I think in this case you're underrating the possibility of a bad arbitration decision.
And that's without even touching on the process itself which is usually very painful to the player as the team rips into him as much as possible which can cause permanent damage to the team/player relationship.
Arbitration is definitely to be avoided if possible, you can see from history how much teams are scared of these decisions.
Good post. It's important to control the outcome in any negotiation. Once it goes to arbitration or to any situation where the outcome is out of your hands, there is big risk. It's simply not good enough to argue that the player would unlikely get the amount that he signed for in an arbitration, therefore that amount is wrong. In the end it's about risk analysis and I totally get why Feaster did what he did.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BigJim For This Useful Post:
So, do you honestly believe he accepted the St. Louis offer for $1.5 million, but he wouldn't have accepted the same offer from the Flames? If that's the case, he isn't exactly the kind of player this team needs.
He probably would have, in hind sight, but Feaster didn't know what he would accept or not when he was on waivers. According to Feaster, which I believe, they felt that Russel was worth $1.5M and no more. The only way to ensure he came in at that salary was to negotiate with him, through St. Louis, then, once he'd agreed, trade for him.
Picking him up off waivers, they wouldn't have known what he would have accepted or not ahead of time, and there's no way St. Louis lets them negotiate while he's still Blues' property without compensation.
So, do you honestly believe he accepted the St. Louis offer for $1.5 million, but he wouldn't have accepted the same offer from the Flames? If that's the case, he isn't exactly the kind of player this team needs.
Russell wasn't going to arbitration. It would have been at least just as risky for him to shun a $1.5 million contract. And none of those links are convincing that Russell would have a chance in winning.
I do wish the media and fans would leave Feaster alone on something so insignificant as a 5th round pick so that he wouldn't have to try and justify it. It should be good enough just to say that the timing wasn't right to claim a player off waivers without seeing the free agent market and after seeing the free agent market, Russell had a market value.
DO you honestly think this all came to fruition yesterday? This process likely began while he was on waivers and we have no idea if he was considering arbitration or not. But to assume Feaster is just trying to justify it is just as bad as the people complaining about trading a 5th.
Also when Russell was on waivers the Flames were at 50 contracts and could not have picked him up.
The Following User Says Thank You to Alberta_Beef For This Useful Post:
He probably would have, in hind sight, but Feaster didn't know what he would accept or not when he was on waivers. According to Feaster, which I believe, they felt that Russel was worth $1.5M and no more. The only way to ensure he came in at that salary was to negotiate with him, through St. Louis, then, once he'd agreed, trade for him.
Picking him up off waivers, they wouldn't have known what he would have accepted or not ahead of time, and there's no way St. Louis lets them negotiate while he's still Blues' property without compensation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJim
Good post. It's important to control the outcome in any negotiation. Once it goes to arbitration or to any situation where the outcome is out of your hands, there is big risk. It's simply not good enough to argue that the player would unlikely get the amount that he signed for in an arbitration, therefore that amount is wrong. In the end it's about risk analysis and I totally get why Feaster did what he did.
Forgive me, but Feaster has been anything but a straight shooter since taking over, so it's hard to buy everything he is selling.
After willing to gamble a 1st round pick to sign an RFA that would have to go through waivers, while claiming that he knew all along and was willing to fight it, now he is all about risk analysis when it comes to a fringe defenseman like Kris Russell?
It still looks to me that Feaster was taking some heat (however unjustly in this particular situation) and made up an excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef
DO you honestly think this all came to fruition yesterday? This process likely began while he was on waivers and we have no idea if he was considering arbitration or not. But to assume Feaster is just trying to justify it is just as bad as the people complaining about trading a 5th.
Also when Russell was on waivers the Flames were at 50 contracts and could not have picked him up.
I do believe it came to fruition after he saw the free agent market. At least I hope to hell that Kris Russell wasn't the plan A target before free agency hit. If so, that is even worse.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Forgive me, but Feaster has been anything but a straight shooter since taking over, so it's hard to buy everything he is selling.
After willing to gamble a 1st round pick to sign an RFA that would have to go through waivers, while claiming that he knew all along and was willing to fight it, now he is all about risk analysis when it comes to a fringe defenseman like Kris Russell?
It still looks to me that Feaster was taking some heat (however unjustly in this particular situation) and made up an excuse.
I do believe it came to fruition after he saw the free agent market. At least I hope to hell that Kris Russell wasn't the plan A target before free agency hit. If so, that is even worse.
Risk analysis is a pretty important phrase when comparing the two situations. The risk/reward ratios are pretty different in the two scenarios.
