Thoughts on Rasmus Andersson's season and his future here

[Pekkerhead]

Keep him if he wants to stay, but hopefully only a 5/6 year contract. He plays with heart and is a very solid player.

[Zary's-Mustache]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I will preface this by saying that I DO NOT believe in 'burn it to the ground', or 'scorched earth' rebuilds. I think they usually end up in disaster for years and years and make it difficult to come out of.


I do, however, fully believe that a rebuild was necessary, and have been wanting it for a while now.



I think the defence has been gutted enough. You have to be careful to provide a decent enough environment where everyone can grow. If your defence is too lousy, then it will certainly make it tougher on Wolf to play behind a defence that he can't trust - just like it was for Dubynk in Edmonton until he got out of that organization and won a Vezina.

Oilers are very bad at managing assets but Dubynk never won a vezina.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Zary's-Mustache

Oilers are very bad at managing assets but Dubynk never won a vezina.

Sorry, brain-fart. Vezina finalist. You are absolutely right. My bad!

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by butterfly

The smart ones will stop handing them out unless the player is coming off ELC. The not so smart ones will keep doing it, celebrate, and get canned before the piper has to be paid.

I think you still can do it for a 24 or 25 year old who maybe had a shorter second contract. I think the folly is that teams are far too liberal giving these out. Only top end players should be grtting these. Legit top line forwards or top defenceman.

By that criteria Andreson to me does not get a 8 year deal.

[dissentowner]

I think Andersson will get 6 years on his next deal.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Not sure why you think CSharp is mad.

I am, however, pretty sure why you think it's a good move to trade away all your experienced defencemen and go into a rebuild with nothing.

This is exactly my thoughts. Definitely not mad but puzzled as to why anyone would trade all assets just to get unproven assets back. I have to say that after trading Hanifin, all the last names on this team is harder to spell

On a more serious note - you gotta have some veterans to build the team up. Otherwise, you'd be rebuilding for decades with crappy results like the Oilers and Sabres. I'd only agree to trading the core player if he's going into free agency the following year and he's wishy washy on renewing his contract with the Flames or if the player isn't working out with the organization's plan. For Andersson, he's a great asset and the price is exceptional. Let's see at the beginning of his final contract year if he wants to stay as a Flames or not before revisiting this.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I think Andersson will get 6 years on his next deal.

I think 6 years is the worst possible situation for Andersson, it takes him to being a UFA just before he turns 36. That's either league min to keep playing or forced retirement territory. There are currently only 10 D-men in the league over 35. 4 of them are currently on near league min just keep playing deals (Giordano, Weber, Staal, J Johnson).

With a 6 year contract Andersson best case afterward would be Goligoski at 36 signing a $2M deal.

Ryan Suter and Kris Letang are out layers signing big at 35+ and I doubt Andersson plans to get there.

There are 2 paths he could take, Seabrook, Burns, Vlasic, sign the big 8 year deal in the late 20s. Or Martinez, Petry set yourself up for 1 more ~4 x ~$5M deal around 33/34.

I think he looks for 4 years at a high number, or 8 years at a team deal like Weegar, so that he has the chance to grab another decent contract.

I honestly am not 100% sure which the flames would prefer, generally teams should want the lower cap hit, but there is a good argument to be made for trying to sign him to the shorter term bigger payment, then check-in in 4 years to see if he is still worth another contract at a lower hit (just when all these draft picks they are building up are exiting their ECLs). Typically for a guy like Andersson you'd think you want the big contract that takes you right to 38.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by CSharp

This is exactly my thoughts. Definitely not mad but puzzled as to why anyone would trade all assets just to get unproven assets back. I have to say that after trading Hanifin, all the last names on this team is harder to spell

On a more serious note - you gotta have some veterans to build the team up. Otherwise, you'd be rebuilding for decades with crappy results like the Oilers and Sabres. I'd only agree to trading the core player if he's going into free agency the following year and he's wishy washy on renewing his contract with the Flames or if the player isn't working out with the organization's plan. For Andersson, he's a great asset and the price is exceptional. Let's see at the beginning of his final contract year if he wants to stay as a Flames or not before revisiting this.

You nailed it.

At some point a rebuild is about building. This was the demolition season we all wanted, from here on out the Flames need to improve.

[Zary's-Mustache]

I think a good comparison to Andersson is Hamonic being traded at almost the same age as Andersson is now.

Islanders really liked Hamonic but I think they saw the writing on the wall and traded him for a solid return in a 1st rounder and two 2nd rounders.

While he was valuable to their team they had no problem trading him because they got solid assets back ( one that turned into a likely future Norris winner in Dobson).

This is something I think the Flames should think about if the price is right. Doesn't mean anyone hates Andersson as I'm sure Islander fans didn't hate Hamonic.

We all know how Hamonic's career trajectory went and how solid of a trade that turned out to be for the Islanders.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Zary's-Mustache

I think a good comparison to Andersson is Hamonic being traded at almost the same age as Andersson is now.

Islanders really liked Hamonic but I think they saw the writing on the wall and traded him for a solid return in a 1st rounder and two 2nd rounders.

The fact that Hamonic had asked to go to a Canadian team and preferred one of the Western ones likely was a way bigger influencer there.

If he doesn't ask for a trade, I doubt the Islanders ever deal him. They had been a playoff team and were trying to still compete.

The situations are nothing alike.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Zary's-Mustache

I think a good comparison to Andersson is Hamonic being traded at almost the same age as Andersson is now.

Islanders really liked Hamonic but I think they saw the writing on the wall and traded him for a solid return in a 1st rounder and two 2nd rounders.

While he was valuable to their team they had no problem trading him because they got solid assets back ( one that turned into a likely future Norris winner in Dobson).

This is something I think the Flames should think about if the price is right. Doesn't mean anyone hates Andersson as I'm sure Islander fans didn't hate Hamonic.

We all know how Hamonic's career trajectory went and how solid of a trade that turned out to be for the Islanders.

Isn't the story that Hamonic asked for a trade to Western Canada for personal reasons as opposed to the Islanders making the decision on their own?

They weren't rebuilding during that time at all. They missed the playoffs by 1 point the year before the trade and were trying to sign Tavares the whole season after the trade.

[Zary's-Mustache]

Iirc he asked for a trade like a year before he got traded or even longer and then rescinded it but the Islanders traded him anyways.

Either way the trade turned out to be a good one for the Islanders. Hamonic is basically a 6/7 d man few years after that trade. And that's with Hamonic not having fitness issues like Andersson has dealt with.

[Zary's-Mustache]

https://theathletic.com/4198550/2023...samuel-bolduc/


He asked for a trade in 15-16

Snow — who isn’t presently permitted to comment publicly about matters involving the organization due to his still being on the company payroll — wanted to do right by the player. But he also had a responsibility to the organization. Hamonic was, at the time, the kind of player that any good team would covet — a responsible, two-way defenseman that often went up against the other team’s top forwards. He was coming off of his best season, too, posting 33 points (5 goals, 28 assists) in 71 games for an Islanders squad that reached 101 points and endured a tough seven-game first-round series loss to the Capitals.

Time passed, and Hamonic rescinded the trade request less than a year later. He remained with the Islanders until the 2017 offseason when Snow dealt him to the Flames (along with a fourth-round pick) for Calgary’s first-round pick in 2018 and a pair of second-round picks

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by #-3

I think 6 years is the worst possible situation for Andersson, it takes him to being a UFA just before he turns 36. That's either league min to keep playing or forced retirement territory. There are currently only 10 D-men in the league over 35. 4 of them are currently on near league min just keep playing deals (Giordano, Weber, Staal, J Johnson).

With a 6 year contract Andersson best case afterward would be Goligoski at 36 signing a $2M deal.

Ryan Suter and Kris Letang are out layers signing big at 35+ and I doubt Andersson plans to get there.

There are 2 paths he could take, Seabrook, Burns, Vlasic, sign the big 8 year deal in the late 20s. Or Martinez, Petry set yourself up for 1 more ~4 x ~$5M deal around 33/34.

I think he looks for 4 years at a high number, or 8 years at a team deal like Weegar, so that he has the chance to grab another decent contract.

I honestly am not 100% sure which the flames would prefer, generally teams should want the lower cap hit, but there is a good argument to be made for trying to sign him to the shorter term bigger payment, then check-in in 4 years to see if he is still worth another contract at a lower hit (just when all these draft picks they are building up are exiting their ECLs). Typically for a guy like Andersson you'd think you want the big contract that takes you right to 38.

That is well thought out, I would hope we could do the 4 year deal in that case.

[Sylvanfan]

Edit double post

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

That is well thought out, I would hope we could do the 4 year deal in that case.

So would I.

I expect he’ll want as many years as he can get. For a 30 year old player, he’ll want term as it’s likely his last big payday.

Unless he really wants to stay in Calgary.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Zary's-Mustache

https://theathletic.com/4198550/2023...samuel-bolduc/


He asked for a trade in 15-16

Your link proves that a main reason why he was traded was because he asked for it. Even when players rescind those requests, doesn't mean teams stop trying to trade the player. It helps give the team more leverage to make a good deal if there's more potential options.

Of course I think you have to consider the Devon Toews trade a bit too. I believe those circumstances were more contract related, but the Islanders traded a 26 year old D for futures, and it looks like a bad deal to me now. So if the base behavior is trade 26 to 28 year old D for assets rather than sign, you'll get good and bad.

I'm sure Conroy will find out who wants to be in Calgary, how much a decide to keep or move players based on the feedback. The fact that 5 pretty decent players all wanted out, or stay for a severe overpay is still fresh in his mind.

[Enoch Root]

Too many variables to assess yet. Signing him or not, and for what term, will depend on:

1) how has he performed over those 2 years?
2) how has Kylington developed?
3) how have the other young guys developed?
4) does anyone appear to be a budding #1 Dman?

If the ranks have progressed a lot, he becomes expendable. If they haven't progressed much, he is needed on the Flames, and will get a long term deal

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Too many variables to assess yet. Signing him or not, and for what term, will depend on:

1) how has he performed over those 2 years?
2) how has Kylington developed?
3) how have the other young guys developed?
4) does anyone appear to be a budding #1 Dman?

5) Does Kylington, in fact, wish to keep playing professional hockey at all?

As far as I know, the answer to that is ‘yes’, but the fact that the question is being asked publicly in the media gives me pause.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

You nailed it.

At some point a rebuild is about building. This was the demolition season we all wanted, from here on out the Flames need to improve.

What? That's not how successful rebuilds work haha. We need to hit on multiple high end picks going forward. Rebuilding is not a one season dip and then start plugging holes and improving.