Huberdeau and Weegar Signing Discussion Thread

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by keenan87

May it help with the Huberdeau signing if he was given captaincy? Give him the team and build around him and Lindholm.

Random thought - I also think Lindholm could be the next captain.

I believe Tanev is getting the C

[dino7c]

This is such a landslide win and more of a return than even the homiest of homers predicted it is comical a few posters are grasping to find flaws

Flames traded 1 year of Tkachuk at 9M for all this...you do that deal before anyone Sobers up.

The biggest point I keep hearing is Tkachuk is signed and they are UFAs...which makes no sense because he flat out said he wasn't signing here.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I look at the trade this way:

• Flames HAD to move Tkachuk, and the longer it dragged out, the less of a return they would get. August 11th was a firm 'best before' date.
• We do not know how many teams were in on it, but that number was small.
• Getting assets was the name of the game. Did Treliving do that? I said he not only pulled a rabbit out of a hat there, but he also pulled out an elephant from that rabbit's butt.
• Huberdeau and/or Weegar signing an extension is icing on the cake - if they don't sign, I am betting that Treliving will be able to trade them for even more assets than what Tkachuk would have received from any other team as you can squeeze a bit more from one team, squeeze a bit more from another, and still have Schwindt and a 1st already.

This was a win. I don't see how we can argue it is not. I don't see Huberdeau and/or Weegar walking as UFAs next off-season. They will either be re-signed or they will be traded.


Calgary found itself at the heart of the "not a good organization to play for" and "something must be going on if both superstars want out!" rumour mill. They also lost a lot of asset value in Gaudreau. Treliving believed Gaudreau would re-sign here, and he was wrong. Wherever you want to assign blame, that's up to you.


However, Feaster was full of annoying overused catchphrases. One of them was: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Does anyone really believe that Treliving won't get these guys inked in light of what happened this off-season? Sure, if he can't get them inked, then he will find trades, and I look forward to those as well since I do believe that Huberdeau and Weegar are both high-value assets, and trades are exciting anyway. That's the only two options here - sign, or trade. There is no walking as UFAs next off-season - Calgary can not afford that to happen from an asset point of view, nor from a reputation point of view.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Well that just about does it for pretty much any hockey discussion then, I guess.

So...you guys wanna talk about Israel or something?

Why does that have to kill the conversation? Some people say the same things over and over, to the point where if you see a post you can reasonably predict certain posters who will quote it and their exact response.

Disagreement definitely makes this place interesting but isn’t it better when the debate isn’t entirely predictable?

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Surely the cap will be higher than $100M in 8 years. That sounds like maybe a 2% compounded growth rate. Once the debt is gone I expect to see some big jumps. 5% growth should get you to $120M or so which is a reasonable guess IMO.

There are a lot of moving parts to make a projection that far out. The current CBA is up in 2026 (provided the owners are made whole from the pandemic). New TV deals on both sides of the border.

You'd need HRR to be north of $6.xB to get a cap of $100M. Not seeing what else they can monetize to make up the difference.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I look at the trade this way:

• Flames HAD to move Tkachuk, and the longer it dragged out, the less of a return they would get. August 11th was a firm 'best before' date.
• We do not know how many teams were in on it, but that number was small.
• Getting assets was the name of the game. Did Treliving do that? I said he not only pulled a rabbit out of a hat there, but he also pulled out an elephant from that rabbit's butt.
• Huberdeau and/or Weegar signing an extension is icing on the cake - if they don't sign, I am betting that Treliving will be able to trade them for even more assets than what Tkachuk would have received from any other team as you can squeeze a bit more from one team, squeeze a bit more from another, and still have Schwindt and a 1st already.

This was a win. I don't see how we can argue it is not. I don't see Huberdeau and/or Weegar walking as UFAs next off-season. They will either be re-signed or they will be traded.


Calgary found itself at the heart of the "not a good organization to play for" and "something must be going on if both superstars want out!" rumour mill. They also lost a lot of asset value in Gaudreau. Treliving believed Gaudreau would re-sign here, and he was wrong. Wherever you want to assign blame, that's up to you.


However, Feaster was full of annoying overused catchphrases. One of them was: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Does anyone really believe that Treliving won't get these guys inked in light of what happened this off-season? Sure, if he can't get them inked, then he will find trades, and I look forward to those as well since I do believe that Huberdeau and Weegar are both high-value assets, and trades are exciting anyway. That's the only two options here - sign, or trade. There is no walking as UFAs next off-season - Calgary can not afford that to happen from an asset point of view, nor from a reputation point of view.

Great post and you had me until the Feaster criticism. Not that I disagree with your description of Feaster, it’s just that I find Treliving to be entirely too dependent on cliches and trite expressions in his public comments. I’d say the two share that in common.

And I guess to be somewhat contrarian, I don’t know if the organization sees the last year of Gaudreau as such an utter disaster. It was the most successful season of the last 18 years and a big reason why is that you had two superstars playing for their next contract.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

There are a lot of moving parts to make a projection that far out. The current CBA is up in 2026 (provided the owners are made whole from the pandemic). New TV deals on both sides of the border.

You'd need HRR to be north of $6.xB to get a cap of $100M. Not seeing what else they can monetize to make up the difference.

Have broadcast rights ever gone down in value? Ticket prices? Merchandise sales?

I agree there is no certainty but I will put my money on increasing HRR at a similar pace as the last 10 years.

[Steve Macfarlane]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It makes business sense for Huberdeau to sign with the Flames sooner rather than later. Negotiating off of a 115 point season is a great starting point. If his point total falls in Calgary, it could cost him millions in his next contract. Plus, the Flames need a PR win here and can't really stomach another star player leaving in the same calendar year that they lost Gaudreau and Tkachuk. You know that Walsh is going to use that to his advantage as Calgary is likely ready to pay more than a lot of other teams would.

I was pretty pessimistic about him signing initially, but now I think he does just because it makes business sense for him. If Huberdeau signs an extension and really isn't happy after a couple of seasons, he can always request a move. The Flames typically honour trade requests, which I think helps when signing players who are still unsure.

I think this is a pretty reasonable view.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Have broadcast rights ever gone down in value? Ticket prices? Merchandise sales?



I agree there is no certainty but I will put my money on increasing HRR at a similar pace as the last 10 years.

That's kinda the point. It's not linear.

I wouldn't expect the next Canadian TV deal to be more than the current one, and absolutely not as big of an increase as the current one was vs previous. There are huge headwinds for hockey in Canada right now.

The NHL is going to have to sell a lot of jersey adds to support that level of continued growth.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by dino7c

This is such a landslide win and more of a return than even the homiest of homers predicted it is comical a few posters are grasping to find flaws

Flames traded 1 year of Tkachuk at 9M for all this...you do that deal before anyone Sobers up.

The biggest point I keep hearing is Tkachuk is signed and they are UFAs...which makes no sense because he flat out said he wasn't signing here.

No they traded 8 yrs of Tkachuk. Whether he signed here or not is irrelevant.

It’s a great trade, we don’t have to twist it to make it better.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

No they traded 8 yrs of Tkachuk. Whether he signed here or not is irrelevant.



It’s a great trade, we don’t have to twist it to make it better.

Whether he signed here or not was completely relevant. Reason for a the whole trade. A weakness for us and a strength for them... am I missing something?

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

Whether he signed here or not was completely relevant. Reason for a the whole trade. A weakness for us and a strength for them... am I missing something?

It’s irrelevant to the other teams. As they get 8 yrs of him

It’s relevant that the Flames have to trade him but Tkachuk agreed to sign and give them 8 yrs trade value

They didn’t trade 1 yr of Tkachuk

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

It’s irrelevant to the other teams. As they get 8 yrs of him



It’s relevant that the Flames have to trade him but Tkachuk agreed to sign and give them 8 yrs trade value



They didn’t trade 1 yr of Tkachuk

You don't think they used that against Treliving in negotiations, the fact that it would only ever be 1 year for Calgary?

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

You don't think they used that against Treliving in negotiations, the fact that it would only ever be 1 year for Calgary?

There were competitions from multiple teams. And the evidence is he got the full 8 yrs value and more

The only time the Flames would have 1 yr of Tkachuk is if they didn’t trade him.

His trade value was the contract he agreed to sign which is 8 yrs

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

It’s irrelevant to the other teams. As they get 8 yrs of him

It’s relevant that the Flames have to trade him but Tkachuk agreed to sign and give them 8 yrs trade value

They didn’t trade 1 yr of Tkachuk

They 100% traded one year of Tkachuk. From the Flames perspective that was the value of the asset they traded. Florida valued that asset higher than the Flames, because they knew if they won the bidding war they get him for 8 years… so basically the Flames traded an asset they had only one year of control, Florida received an asset they had 8 years of control of.

[Steve Macfarlane]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

It’s irrelevant to the other teams. As they get 8 yrs of him

It’s relevant that the Flames have to trade him but Tkachuk agreed to sign and give them 8 yrs trade value

They didn’t trade 1 yr of Tkachuk

To be fair in grading what came in and what went out, you actually have to look at what the Flames would have had if they didn't make the trade - one more year of Tkachuk. That's all they had if they didn't make a move. The fact he would agree to sign helped them find a partner but didn't give them any more leverage. Tough position to be in.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VilleN

They 100% traded one year of Tkachuk. From the Flames perspective that was the value of the asset they traded. Florida valued that asset higher than the Flames, because they knew if they won the bidding war they get him for 8 years… so basically the Flames traded an asset they had only one year of control, Florida received an asset they had 8 years of control of.

And the reason Tkachuk signed quickly is the same reason that Huberdeau should - he’s coming off a career season with the risk that the upcoming season is way below expectations.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I see no reason to criticize this trade either, it was a home run for the Flames.

But there is a different group of posters who will reply to every single critical post defending any move the current GM has ever made. So it does cut both ways.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Sure, but the existence of one side does not somehow validate the existence of the other, so the criticism is warranted (in both directions)

Who are these groups of people? Do they have an official membership list? Is there an annual fee for joining? Is it by invite only? Is that why I’m never in any of these mythical groups you people speak of?

[Buzzard]

I would've done this trade had Tkachuk signed a month ago at that contract, and then said that he's happy to be a Flame for the next 8 years. Hell, Treliving might've too.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Who are these groups of people? Do they have an official membership list? Is there an annual fee for joining? Is it by invite only? Is that why I’m never in any of these mythical groups you people speak of?

Who says you aren’t?