[Signing] Flames sign Deryk Engelland (3yrs, $2.9M AAV)

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Speaking of Adam Pardy, I seem to recall he was just signed by Winnipeg for $700.00. Adam is a big strong defenceman who plays aggressively, and has a great breakout pass.

You can't convince me that Engelland is worth more than 4 Pardys.

Instead of getting caught up on the word 'worth', why don't you try to understand that teams like the Flames were willing to pay 4 more Pardy's for Engelland's services?

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Speaking of Adam Pardy, I seem to recall he was just signed by Winnipeg for $700.00. Adam is a big strong defenceman who plays aggressively, and has a great breakout pass.

You can't convince me that Engelland is worth more than 4 Pardys.

Who cares. If this is a bad signing, overpayment, etc... what's it really going to cost us. I don't say that to imply that making bad deals is fine over and over again if you are in a situation like the Flames, but holistically, does it really matter at this point if we made a less than stellar move? Especially considering it seems as though the Flames are aware (reading between the lines on the GMs comments) that they probably paid more then what he'd be worth, but did what they needed to do to get a player they wanted considering they could afford the "downside".

If I believe that our GM through 2.9 for Engelland was a steal, I'd be more worried.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by neo45

You could be right on that actually I didnt check


But anyways this contract is bad and there are oppourtunity costs involved in signing it that people are choosing to ignore

Please explain what you mean by opportunity costs. Flames do not have to worry about any opportunity costs because they still have loads of cap room left, and very few free agents that would want to come here anyways. I think you mean 'consequences', not 'opportunity cost'. Opportunity cost is more in the line of "When I am in a relationship, I lose the opportunity to be in another relationship." Flames have cap room and contract space to have other relations

Flames over-paid - there is no question about it. However, they over-paid because of 3 factors:

1) FEW FAs are willing to come to a rebuilding team
2) Engelland (believe it or not) had multiple offers from teams looking for some form of competency in addressing their need of a physical presence.
3) Flames game him the money he was looking for in a 3 year deal to avoid any future cap implications, rather than increase the term and have his average go down.

I can understand that many people don't like this deal - he is over-paid.

What I don't understand is how much of an issue people are making it to be. The only real negative implication is that it MAY factor in on future contract negotiations.

1) As stated previously in other posts, UFA signings are not used in arbitration cases.
2) If a defencemen wants to point at this contract as a comparable in contract negotiations, then Treliving will just point at Giordano's contract over the last several years, or Brodie's re-signing, or Russel's, , etc.

Flames' owners have stated that they want management to sign players to fair contracts - not hold them hostage or anything. Pay them what they are worth fairly. If a player wants more than his fair share, then that player can find himself a new team. Engelland will not be the deciding factor at play.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

^ Very good post. Out of thanks.

[sec304]

Settle down boys!

Is it a bad contract? Yes it sure is.

Is it going to handcuff us moving forward? No it won't.

Management got the guy they wanted, so that's a positive.

Getting him cost us no propects, no draft picks, just a million dollars (or so) overpayment for the next three years.

I'm not really happy about it, but I can live it with it, or at least give him a chance to prove his worth before jumping on it and throwing in my two cents on a player I barely know.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by neo45

You could be right on that actually I didnt check


But anyways this contract is bad and there are oppourtunity costs involved in signing it that people are choosing to ignore

You should probably start checking your facts or at least prefacing your statements with "I think" or "In my opinion" (and definitely not use IT-MUST-BE-TRUE-BECAUSE-IT-IS-ALL-CAPS).

I also think this is too much money for the bottom-pairing defenseman, but apparently a big, hard-hitting, right-shooting utility dman/forward that fights was on the Flames' wish list and this is what it took to get him.

Hats off to Engelland for cashing in on the UFA sweepstakes. As per all your non-comparable comparisons (Glencross, Brodie, <insert non big, hard-hitting, right-shooting utility dman here>), they are welcome to their own UFA sweepstakes when / if they ever get there.

[neo45]

The 10 mil spent is an oppourtunity cost. That could be spent on other things. Replacing our best scout that we lost for example, but there are a lot of possibilities with 10 million real dollars. The salary floor was all but reached when the contract was signed

He also might not be taking a young player out of the lineup this season, as no one is ready to make the jump, but he is signed for 3 years as is the rest of our D core. A young D man should be ready to step in within 3 years (I hope to god) and we have a logjam of highly paid defenseman signed long term. This adds to that log jam

And I really dont think anyone is making this into an issue. Simply that it is a huge overpayment and the benefits of the contract wont come close to outweighing the cost

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by neo45

The 10 mil spent is an oppourtunity cost

No, it's not.

#econ101

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by neo45

The 10 mil spent is an oppourtunity cost. That could be spent on other things.

We still have 20 million to spend if we want. No lost opportunity there.

Originally Posted by neo45

Replacing our best scout that we lost for example

Scouting salaries do not count against the cap. So your argument there is nonsensical.

Originally Posted by neo45

He also might not be taking a young player out of the lineup this season, as no one is ready to make the jump, but he is signed for 3 years as is the rest of our D core. A young D man should be ready to step in within 3 years (I hope to god) and we have a logjam of highly paid defenseman signed long term. This adds to that log jam

Don't know if you've noticed but injuries are inevitable, especially on the blueline where guys block shots. Injuries will create opportunities for youngsters. If youngsters outpeform vets then Treliving can make a trade. No opportunity lost here. You want to surround your youngsters with vets and give them a bit of competition. No point handing a spot to a youngster who might not be ready and then suddenly having them playing top 4 when the inevitable injuries hit. That is how to ruin guys and their confidence.

Originally Posted by neo45

And I really dont think anyone is making this into an issue.

You have been as have several others. Why are you arguing so much about it if you don't think it's an issue?

Originally Posted by neo45

Simply that it is a huge overpayment and the benefits of the contract wont come close to outweighing the cost

What cost? As has been pointed out to you this really isn't preventing the Flames from doing anything. And who's to say we won't benefit from a right handed depth defenseman who actually plays physical on a team that was almost completely lacking in that aspect. The Flames are deep on averaged sized, mobile, puck moving types. We have been lacking a tough, punishing, physical presence ever since we dealt Regehr. Engelland fills a need and thus we should benefit from his presence.

Amazing how so many write him off completely without seeing him in action. Perhaps he's not as bad as you guys think? Perhaps you'll appreciate some hitting and physical play? I know I do.

[CalgaryFan1988]

How does anybody know that this contract won't hurt us going forward?

Maybe the Flames are trying sign Del Zotto and/or McBain but now they won't come here unless it's for more than this contract?

Not saying they are or aren't, but these "not going to hurt us going forward" posts don't have much validity IMO. Fact is we won't know until the contract is over and it is a bad one.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

No, it's not.

#econ101

There is an oppourtunity cost associated with spending that 10 mil. It could have been spent on other things. Im not talking about the cap space it is taking up, just the millions of dollars they are paying Engelland

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by neo45

There is an oppourtunity cost associated with spending that 10 mil. It could have been spent on other things. Im not talking about the cap space it is taking up, just the millions of dollars they are paying Engelland

Why do you keep saying 10 million?

Engelland makes almost 3 million. Out of a 69 million dollar cap that we are nowhere near hitting.

There is no lost opportunity. He makes a small percentage of the cap and we still have boatloads of room to spend.

What's the issue? You said you aren't making an issue out of it but here you are...

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by neo45

There is an oppourtunity cost associated with spending that 10 mil. It could have been spent on other things. Im not talking about the cap space it is taking up, just the millions of dollars they are paying Engelland

No. It's a cost cost.
Opportunity cost is what you have to give up of one thing in acquiring another. If Flames have only ten million to spend, who they don't sign when they sign Engelland is the opportunity cost.
As FDW pointed out, the Flames are no where near the cap. They didn't have to give up spending money in one area to spend it in another. The salary floor may as well be the equivalent of a fixed cost, so the Flames were required by rules to spend it.
There is no opportunity cost

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

You have been as have several others. Why are you arguing so much about it if you don't think it's
Amazing how so many write him off completely without seeing him in action. Perhaps he's not as bad as you guys think? Perhaps you'll appreciate some hitting and physical play? I know I do.

Others ask me to explain my opinion so I have been. Its not like I am the only one discussing this to death.


And I dont know about you but Engelland plays on the most covered team in the league. I have seen him play plently and everyone probably should have as well. I dont know how surprised anybody is going to be with what we are getting

[neo45]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

No. It's a cost cost.
Opportunity cost is what you have to give up of one thing in acquiring another.
As FDW pointed out, the Flames are no where near the cap. They didn't have to give up spending money for n one area to spend it in another. The salary floor many as well be the equivalent of a fixed cost, so the Flames were required by rules to spend it.
There is no opportunity cost

By signing Engelland the oppourtunity cost is what that 8.75* mil could have been spent on. New ties for Burke? Training equipment?? Sure, it doesnt matter, its an oppourtunity forgone. The floor was already hit

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by neo45

There is an oppourtunity cost associated with spending that 10 mil. It could have been spent on other things. Im not talking about the cap space it is taking up, just the millions of dollars they are paying Engelland

Dammit - I can't take it anymore. Sorry to pick on you, but "opportunity" not "oppourtunity". F!!! And 2.9+2.9+2.9=8.7 not 10, if that's what you mean. So you can't spell, you can't do math and you can't fact check. And now your argument has devolved into some warped notion that this contract is taking away from other spending like scouting or better snacks in the concourse or who the heck knows what!

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm not worried about the cost, or opportunity cost or future negotiations or any of the like. It's all extremely small potatoes here.

However, regardless of salary cap context it's still an embarrassingly high contract for a player who's barely an NHLer.

After stewing on this for some time now, the only logical reason I can think of is Treliving wanted to spend the max possible to avoid dropping below salary floor of injuries occur while affecting the competitiveness of the team the least. He gets a decent cap hit for a player that will be good in the room, but not make the team better in the standings

I think you're right, though I think the future implication is just that Burke and treliving are willing to drop $3m on a third tough guy, ever. It mightn't matter now, but I don't know that their desire to spend money and roster spots on tough guys is going to go away when they decide to stop tanking, and it sure could matter then.

[Chill Cosby]

Just so everyone is aware, there IS an opportunity cost.

The Flames can no longer sign a player for approximately $23 million dollars per year thanks to this deal.

We have officially lost the opportunity to pay a player $23 million dollars. Hopefully one of the remaining free agents will be gracious enough to accept $20 million.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Just so everyone is aware, there IS an opportunity cost.

The Flames can no longer sign a player for approximately $23 million dollars per year thanks to this deal.

We have officially lost the opportunity to pay a player $23 million dollars. Hopefully one of the remaining free agents will be gracious enough to accept $20 million.

Which thread got your last account banned? I remember it was a good one

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

We still have 20 million to spend if we want. No lost opportunity there.



Scouting salaries do not count against the cap. So your argument there is nonsensical.



Don't know if you've noticed but injuries are inevitable, especially on the blueline where guys block shots. Injuries will create opportunities for youngsters. If youngsters outpeform vets then Treliving can make a trade. No opportunity lost here. You want to surround your youngsters with vets and give them a bit of competition. No point handing a spot to a youngster who might not be ready and then suddenly having them playing top 4 when the inevitable injuries hit. That is how to ruin guys and their confidence.



You have been as have several others. Why are you arguing so much about it if you don't think it's an issue?



What cost? As has been pointed out to you this really isn't preventing the Flames from doing anything. And who's to say we won't benefit from a right handed depth defenseman who actually plays physical on a team that was almost completely lacking in that aspect. The Flames are deep on averaged sized, mobile, puck moving types. We have been lacking a tough, punishing, physical presence ever since we dealt Regehr. Engelland fills a need and thus we should benefit from his presence.

Amazing how so many write him off completely without seeing him in action. Perhaps he's not as bad as you guys think? Perhaps you'll appreciate some hitting and physical play? I know I do.

Just wanted to add that in conjunction with the Flames being able to trade Engelland if he gets passed in the next couple of years (something that would be a good thing, and something I do expect to happen), then Engelland can be the 7th defencmen scratched most nights rather than a young guy who could use the playing time more. This is what these types of players are useful for - depth when needed to step in, and nobody minds them sitting out long stretches when they aren't needed or not good enough.

I am actually kind of glad the Flames did this - I would have been a bit more hockey-starved if it didn't happen. Lots of dialogue! haha