[Rumour] TSN: Hanifin decision expected in coming days. D market waits on Tanev

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It wouldn’t surprise me if the way the Gaudreau situation ended up hasn’t impacted Hanifin’s decision-making.

I doubt Gaudreau regrets going East, but we know he didn’t land where he wanted to land. It could be that Hanifin would rather sign in Calgary than risk free agency going sideways, but has a few teams he would be comfortable signing with right now if a trade makes sense.

It really depends on Boston IMO. I am sure his agent has an idea if the Bruins want him and at what contract value.

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

That ignores the fact that the asset might be viewed as a pure rental given contract status and the rumours flying around about his pickiness on where he plays. So softness is relative. Soft likely in view to what Conny wants to get for that type of asset.

Even with being viewed as a "pure rental" he's still by far and away the best defensemen (and player) available on the trade market. It would be foolish to believe that only one team has seriously inquired on him. He's playing the best hockey of his career at the moment.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It wouldn’t surprise me if the way the Gaudreau situation ended up hasn’t impacted Hanifin’s decision-making.

I doubt Gaudreau regrets going East, but we know he didn’t land where he wanted to land. It could be that Hanifin would rather sign in Calgary than risk free agency going sideways, but has a few teams he would be comfortable signing with right now if a trade makes sense.

I would think Hanifin could be looking at how Tkachuk situation went

Left, went right to the cup finals, now with a contender etc.

[Jiggy_12]

I wonder if the Hanifin conversation may go like - Hey, there's 2-3 teams I am keen on signing with, so if we can do a sign and trade to one of those teams and the trade works for Calgary, that's my preference.
if we can't, I'd like to stay as Calgary would be my next choice

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

Even with being viewed as a "pure rental" he's still by far and away the best defensemen (and player) available on the trade market. It would be foolish to believe that only one team has seriously inquired on him. He's playing the best hockey of his career at the moment.

No one said that only one team has seriously inquired. It was said that the price isn't there. Big difference. Maybe half the league has enquired - but if they are all assuming he's a rental, then that's what they are going to base their discussions on.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It sure does.

How often do guys with seven years left on a deal get traded? Extremely rare, not to mention he will no doubt have some no move protection.

You can't sign Hanifin with the expectation he can be easily moved in a season.

Unless of course you agree to lesser term.

I mean, we’re looking at a sign and trade where a guy will have 8 years left on a deal, so…

Originally Posted by flambers

I would think Hanifin could be looking at how Tkachuk situation went

Left, went right to the cup finals, now with a contender etc.

For sure. Controlling where you go and not wanting to waste 2 months in a place like Arizona only to just hope the teams you want to go to will have space for you is probably a big deal.

[Enoch Root]

The market for players is not efficient. It is extremely thin, sigmificantly hampered by cap space, and entirely situational. It is absolutely possible to have a ton of interest in one defenseman (Tanev), and at the same time no serious interest in another defenseman (Hanifin), simply because the price for them is completely different.

If you offered Hanifin at the price for Tanev (a 1st), 31 teams would take it. But different assets have different prices. When you're selling a Honda, it's usually straight-forward, but when you're selling a Ferrari, you have to wait until there is a serious buyer.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But by that same argument, taking an iffy offer is the opposite of efficiency. At some price, moving the asset for a package makes sense (is efficient). But at another (lower) price, it becomes inefficient, and retaining the asset makes more sense.

Hanifin is a really good player, I don't want to see the Flames dump him for a pile of garbage - how is that efficient, or smart?

I hear you... but my thought pattern is that the hypothetical options we're talking about are:

1: Do nothing (He walks in the offseason)
2: Trade him for "iffy" offer
3: Overpay him on an extension

Unless the "iffy" option holds actual negative value (and I assume it doesn't) it's still the best option because the overpay is negative value and the do nothing is lost opportunity cost (the value of the iffy offer). Remember we're talking about an overpay on an extension here... not fair or only marginally surplus value... the calculation would different on that.

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No one said that only one team has seriously inquired. It was said that the price isn't there. Big difference. Maybe half the league has enquired - but if they are all assuming he's a rental, then that's what they are going to base their discussions on.

"I have also heard that while there has been plenty of tire kicking on Tanev there has been not a lot of interest in Hanifin, the market has not been there. The only consistent team that has been poking around on Noah is Arizona"

Elias Lindholm was considered a pure rental too and he had as many as five teams seriously involved in trade negotiations.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I hear you... but my thought pattern is that the hypothetical options we're talking about are:

1: Do nothing (He walks in the offseason)
2: Trade him for "iffy" offer
3: Overpay him on an extension

Unless the "iffy" option holds actual negative value (and I assume it doesn't) it's still the best option because the overpay is negative value and the do nothing is lost opportunity cost (the value of the iffy offer). Remember we're talking about an overpay on an extension here... not fair or only marginally surplus value... the calculation would different on that.

You've made up (likely) false premises to fit your argument.

1: is not an option. That is patently clear at this point
2: there is a very large range for 'iffy'
3: there is a range to overpay as well

At some set of prices, 2 is preferable to 3 But at other prices, 3 is preferable to 2

[Chingas]

Frank doesn't think that Tanev will get a first. I think that he will. Either a first or a combination of a second and good prospect equating more than a first.
If you are a team that really wants to make a push for the cup I can't think of many other players that would move the needle in a playoff game more than Tanev.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It sure does.

How often do guys with seven years left on a deal get traded? Extremely rare, not to mention he will no doubt have some no move protection.

You can't sign Hanifin with the expectation he can be easily moved in a season.

Unless of course you agree to lesser term.

If you have a guy who is waffling to even a small degree with the kind of money currently on the table, to me, it means see you later. You want people that want to play in Calgary and this is looking more and more a situation of I'll possibly sign if the grass doesn't look quite as green elsewhere, or I'll only sign if I'm confident you are far outbidding everyone else, or if my 2-3 top destinations don't come to the table.

Cut your losses and move on while his value is high - the team is at the perfect crossroads to do so. At $7-8MAAV if his offense (which is not upper echelon at the best of times) dries up even to the extent of 30 points again, you aren't moving him down the road.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

If you have a guy who is waffling to even a small degree with the kind of money currently on the table, to me, it means see you later. You want people that want to play in Calgary and this is looking more and more a situation of I'll possibly sign if the grass doesn't look quite as green elsewhere, or I'll only sign if I'm confident you are far outbidding everyone else, or if my 2-3 top destinations don't come to the table.

Cut your losses and move on while his value is high - the team is at the perfect crossroads to do so. At $7-8MAAV if his offense (which is not upper echelon at the best of times) dries up even to the extent of 30 points again, you aren't moving him down the road.

Things don't have to be that cut and dried.

They're not talking through an agent and only hearing "on the fence"

Conroy has likely talked to him for months and knows it's a tough call because he would like to be closer to home, but loves it here.

I'm sure Conroy is pretty confident that if he signs his heart is in the right place.

[Jiggy_12]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Things don't have to be that cut and dried.

They're not talking through an agent and only hearing "on the fence"

Conroy has likely talked to him for months and knows it's a tough call because he would like to be closer to home, but loves it here.

I'm sure Conroy is pretty confident that if he signs his heart is in the right place.

If there is a good trusting relationship between the GM and player, it can absolutely be like this.

A GM that runs the team logically rather than emotionally would not be offended by a player having a tough time with the most impactful decision of his life.

But...the "pick Calgary or beat it" crowd will always say otherwise

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I hear you... but my thought pattern is that the hypothetical options we're talking about are:

1: Do nothing (He walks in the offseason)
2: Trade him for "iffy" offer
3: Overpay him on an extension

Unless the "iffy" option holds actual negative value (and I assume it doesn't) it's still the best option because the overpay is negative value and the do nothing is lost opportunity cost (the value of the iffy offer). Remember we're talking about an overpay on an extension here... not fair or only marginally surplus value... the calculation would different on that.

I guess one catch is (unless its a wild gross overpay from day 1 which is possible) the overpay may have fluctuant value (I think maybe you are saying the same thing)



underpay years 1-?
fair pay years ?-?
overpay years ?-??


the net could be negative for sure, but maybe not as simple as negative from day one

[ComixZone]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1755998051637018657

[Badgers Nose]

‘Sooner rather than later.’

What a dumb expression. Right up there with ‘impactful.’

Anyways, hope he is right but only Conroy decides when it’s done, not wishful GMs that like to leak to Friedman.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I hear you... but my thought pattern is that the hypothetical options we're talking about are:

1: Do nothing (He walks in the offseason)
2: Trade him for "iffy" offer
3: Overpay him on an extension

Unless the "iffy" option holds actual negative value (and I assume it doesn't) it's still the best option because the overpay is negative value and the do nothing is lost opportunity cost (the value of the iffy offer). Remember we're talking about an overpay on an extension here... not fair or only marginally surplus value... the calculation would different on that.

There is a 4th option which is sign him to an extension at market value or even an extension where he outperforms the contract. That is a very appealing option. Not sure why one would think it is an overpay.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Well this is good. Tanev is getting pretty banged up.

Could see him being taken out before playoffs even start

"Hurry conroy" indeed.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

https://twitter.com/user/status/1755998051637018657

The only way it’s sooner if someone meets conroys price now. Can’t see him settling for a 2nd round pick if he thinks he can get a 1st round pick closer to the deadline.