[News] Flames put Ryan Murphy on waivers for Buyout

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Guess he turned out how the critics were worried. Tiny, offensive defenceman never could learn to defend at the NHL level and his offense wasn't good enough for him to make it as a powerplay specialist. Guess he may get a second chance somewhere but obviously the Flames scouts and management aren't believers

This kid makes me think of the Brannstrom pick by Vegas the other day. Different players obviously but it's another gamble on a tiny offensive defenceman. We took our gamble in the 3rd (Fox) a more appropriate place to take such a gamble vs a top 15 pick (Murphy and Brannstrom)

[Stay Golden]

Treliving likely did not want him but CAR forced him to be in the trade and in return that's why they are paying a portion of Lacks contract still.
Puting Murphy on waivers right away clears up a contract spot, fans shouldn't have any issues with this move.

[driveway]

Are there any CBA provisions which prevent the Flames from signing him to a two-way deal after buying him out? As sureloss said, he probably doesn't get bought out if he's on a two-way contract.

[cral12]

Actually loved Ryan Murphy in his draft year (I was admittedly higher on him than most - served me well for the likes of Ryan Ellis and Jeff Skinner in previous draft years, but Murphy obviously not panning out) and was excited to see him as part of the deal, but some Canes contacts I know obviously disappointed in his development. Oh well.

[nik-]

I'd rather our guys on the farm get their shot then import a reclamation project. Good move.

[Parallex]

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. He seemed to be a perfectly acceptable bottom-pairing/#7 to me. I get that because of his age the buyout is super cheap but it was a cheap contract for only one year.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by devo22

Thanks for the memories, Ryan.

Forever a Flame.

The number should be up in the rafters next to Joel Quenneville's...

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by Parallex

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. He seemed to be a perfectly acceptable bottom-pairing/#7 to me. I get that because of his age the buyout is super cheap but it was a cheap contract for only one year.

If you view him as worse than a bottom pairing defenseman it makes more sense. There's likely no point in spending playing time in the pro or farm team when it's better off being given to one of the many developing prospects we've got.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Ardor

Is it possible that this was a 'condition' of the trade...trade off for Canes retaining 1/2 of Lack's salary?

Absolutely it was.

Calgary needed to take an unwanted contract.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Parallex

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. He seemed to be a perfectly acceptable bottom-pairing/#7 to me. I get that because of his age the buyout is super cheap but it was a cheap contract for only one year.

Perfectly acceptable? The coaches in CAR didn't really trust him to play his position. He was regularly a healthy scratch until they dealt Ron Hainsey, only then did he start some games. I would hope we're aiming higher for our 3rd pairing than a guy who couldn't play regularly for a non playoff team

[Reggie Dunlop]

So, a free agent #5 and then slot a kid in. Bartowski in the press box.

[868904]

Man, someone dropped the ball here, Murphy should have been contacted and notified before he tweeted something like that. I guess it's also on him for jumping the gun, but hard to fault the guy for being excited to join the Flames.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Perfectly acceptable? The coaches in CAR didn't really trust him to play his position. He was regularly a healthy scratch until they dealt Ron Hainsey, only then did he start some games. I would hope we're aiming higher for our 3rd pairing than a guy who couldn't play regularly for a non playoff team

Now you're assuming that this non-playoff team was making the correct decision in doing that... teams that generally make correct decisions aren't typically non-playoff teams.

[sureLoss]

Pat Steinberg @Fan960Steinberg
GM Brad Treliving says Murphy buyout was necessary in completing the deal with Carolina.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Pat Steinberg @Fan960Steinberg
GM Brad Treliving says Murphy buyout was necessary in completing the deal with Carolina.

Why would Carolina stipulate what we do with him once he's off their hands / books? Doesn't that seem odd?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Why would Carolina stipulate what we do with him once he's off their hands / books? Doesn't that seem odd?

More likely, we didn't want Murphy, but the Canes insisted we take him as part of their retaining salary on Lack. So we just dumped him - at a cost lower than what the Canes are paying Eddie.

[ToraToraTora]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Pat Steinberg @Fan960Steinberg
GM Brad Treliving says Murphy buyout was necessary in completing the deal with Carolina.

You'd think Carolina would have given him a heads up when they told him he was traded, like a "Don't get too comfortable/happy"

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Why would Carolina stipulate what we do with him once he's off their hands / books? Doesn't that seem odd?

Sounds like maybe wanting to wash their hands of Murphy and admit they made a mistake with him but not wanting to have the physical evidence (buyout) on their books for fans and media to point at. I think harder questions would be asked if they bought out Murphy themselves vs making us buying out Murphy a stipulation of the trade. Are they that concerned about appeances? Just a guess

[Tacoman]

I'm guessing that it was purely financial. This transferred the burden of the actual cash needed to buy him out to the Flames instead of Carolina. The Canes would certainly be short of cash. So while the cap hit is meaningless, we basically gave up some cash in order to get Lack. Carolina retaining salary on Lack was also a cash saver compared to buying him out.

[OzSome]

Isn't there a limit of a number of players that a team can buy out? I am not sure that's why I am asking.