[News] Flames begin contract negotiations with Russell

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

1) bull#### - lots and lots of players have consistent +/- stats throughout their careers

2) look at his numbers in Columbus - his possession numbers haven't been consistent.

So, not much of a rebuttal there.

1)

2) Since playing regular minutes he's consistently had worse possession metrics than team average

[DJones]

Hope we can get him for 3 or 4 more years. Anyone that he thinks he's not effective because of his advanced stats must be watching a different game than I am.

Widemans gone, don't see how he could possibly fit

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

well, no.

Because possession numbers have an inherently larger sample size, you can look at With-or-Without-You stats to see whether players positive or negatively influence possession.

I love Kris Russell, but I don't need possession stats to know that there are things about his game that cause him to get hemmed in defensively. Random icings, giving opponents too much space on zone entries, and struggles re-acquiring the puck on the cycle.

Am I saying that with the right partner and a clever coach you can't work around his shortcomings? No, in fact I think he can be a #4 on a cup winner - but I am saying that you have to consider his shortcomings along with his positive delivered results when looking at the future. We have guys pushing for spots with legitimate #4 upside. Hickey. Kylington. Andersson. Culkin. Wotherspoon. Kulak. Maybe they won't provide the exact combination of things that Russell does, but maybe what they provide can have the same net effect with respect to a cup.

it's not an easy decision but it's the kind you have to make in a cap world. Russell's struggles with possession don't make him a scrub, but they shed light on some limitations in his game that influence his value. Identify your core and periphery players. The Hawks have done it with very good players - #1A G Niemi, #1D Byfuglien, #1W Ladd, #1D Leddy, #1 WSaad, #3W Frolik, #4D Oduya, #3D Campbell, etc. The cap forces you to be very careful with the money you spend.

Did Russell lead the teams in +/- last year? Yes but that doesn't mean he necessarily even be top 5 among defensemen this year because +/- isn't that kind of repeatable stat. Look at Alex Edler.

lol - speaking of sample sizes.

I can play too: look at Nick Lidstrom. Or Bobby Orr. Or Gretzky. or the substantial list of other players who had consistent +/- numbers throughout their careers.

More importantly though, larger sample sizes only means that the data is more reliable. It does not necessarily mean that the data is more informative.

Possession numbers have the same inherent problems as +/- being that there are 12 players on the ice and a lot happens that is out of the control of any one player.

The fact that there is MORE of that data does not automatically make that data more valuable, only more voluminous.

[Strange Brew]

ER - I can't follow your logic. You mentioned his plus minus several times in the previous page and now seem to be arguing how useless it all is.

So what is it - where does Rusell slot in on a championship team?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

ER - I can't follow your logic. You mentioned his plus minus several times in the previous page and now seem to be arguing how useless it all is.

So what is it - where does Rusell slot in on a championship team?

My point was pretty straight-forward:

His possession numbers suck - worst on the team.

His +/- is the exact opposite - best on the team.

Some people beat the crap out of his possession numbers, like they are proof that he is a poor defenseman.

My point was that both numbers are weak. Neither one, on their own, should ever be taken as conclusive of anything.

And when two such numbers are polar opposites, that is a situation where you really have to step back and ask yourself what is going on here. Clearly, neither one can claim any kind of stranglehold on the truth by themselves.

That's the point: when two numbers are so contradictory, the sensible approach is to look for other reasons why, not simply dismiss one and run with the other.

[Samonadreau]

Sometimes there is an exception to the the rule and Russell may fallninto that category. He seems to defy what Corsi trys to prove in the way that the ice is tilted. He has found a niche and it works for him.

It also sounds like he is a good role model for the younger guys in the room.

[T@T]

I haven't been around forever so I won't say ever but I personally think Kris is the best 5'10 180lb Dman in the league today.

[BlackWallStreet]

I love kris Russell he's my favourite player

[Da_Chief]

I like Russell but I don't see how you can pay him and all the other guys. The guys on D that needed to get paid have been. The other 4 guys have to be really cost effective.

Wideman is signed as the #4 with Kulak/Nakladal/Morrison etc coming soon. I don't see it unless it's less then 3 mill.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

I like Russell but I don't see how you can pay him and all the other guys. The guys on D that needed to get paid have been. The other 4 guys have to be really cost effective.

Wideman is signed as the #4 with Kulak/Nakladal/Morrison etc coming soon. I don't see it unless it's less then 3 mill.

By the time Russell's contract kicks in the team will probably look a lot different. Dollars will obviously have to go out to accommodate Russell and Treliving has tools at his disposal to make that happen.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

I like Russell but I don't see how you can pay him and all the other guys. The guys on D that needed to get paid have been. The other 4 guys have to be really cost effective.

Wideman is signed as the #4 with Kulak/Nakladal/Morrison etc coming soon. I don't see it unless it's less then 3 mill.

This is where I'm at. He'll want to get paid like a #3/4 D and he's going to be a UFA, so it'll be pricey. He's also not a #3/4 D on this current team. That means to me it's inefficient to pay a very good bottom pairing defensemen that much when big raises will soon be needed for forwards

[Fire of the Phoenix]

But really, we are talking about maybe 1.5m extra for Russell. It's not some huge, cap-strangling obstacle.

[Kaine]

Treviling will offer Russell fair value that favors the Flames. Russell will be glad to have it.

[calgaryblood]

4 years $3.2 million would be the absolute max I'd give him.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

But really, we are talking about maybe 1.5m extra for Russell. It's not some huge, cap-strangling obstacle.

Well if you give extra 1.5 mill to one player, then the next one gets extra mill. If you have 4-5 of those guys getting extra mill or so then you've up screwed up your cap space by losing 6-7 mill. Thats a top line player you cannot re-sign in couple years.

Kinda what happened to Hawks and Bruins.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

But really, we are talking about maybe 1.5m extra for Russell. It's not some huge, cap-strangling obstacle.

When you're a cap team (which the flames will be), that $1.5 will be the difference between $1.5 and $3 for someone else too

[Vinny01]

I was thinking something in the 4-5 year term at 3.5-4M per season. I do think if they get Russell signed Wideman will be on his way out

I wonder how Russell and Brodie would look as a pairing?

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

When you're a cap team (which the flames will be), that $1.5 will be the difference between $1.5 and $3 for someone else too

Wideman will likely be gone as a result of Russell signing, I don't think this is a problem personally. He's getting older and with how slow he already is, I don't think the Flames will be the ones giving him his next contract that will take him to his late 30s.

You don't want to overpay any player in the cap world but I don't think 3.5-4m is an overpayment for a 4/5 guy (which is what I think Russell is. Term is important, hopefully it's 3-4 years tops.

We have enough quality depth in the organization to build around Gio, Brodie, Hamilton and Russell. I could see Andersson or Kulak on the team full time next year. That only leave two spots to worry about.

I just don't think Russell's next contract is going to be a problem for us. It comes down to if you like Russell or not I guess.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

This is where I'm at. He'll want to get paid like a #3/4 D and he's going to be a UFA, so it'll be pricey. He's also not a #3/4 D on this current team. That means to me it's inefficient to pay a very good bottom pairing defensemen that much when big raises will soon be needed for forwards

You think guys will be greedy after seeing the market this summer? Cody Franson may be a cautionary tale for 4-5 guys who think they could be 3-4 elsewhere.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

I think Russell is a solid player and seems like a key leader on this team. That said, contract negotiations with a player like this make me nervous. Even on a Stajan like deal, that will be decent term and money to a player who isn't going to be a core player for this club moving forward, and can't be if we are going to be successful. Scary to get locked in with guys like that, it can come back to bite you. Also, I don't think you want to lock yourself in with every player you feel positively contributed to one successful season.

They have Gio locked up as the vet leader, they have committed to Hamilton and Brodie as the future of our D. At some point you have to put faith in the young guys you committed too and trust they will bring the leadership Russell does and trust you can find and develop another solid number 4 sooner than later with your prospects.

All of that said, I think the Flames need Russell for the next couple of years, but it's one that worries because I don't think the ideal length of contract would ideally sign lines up with what Russell has earned and will get. This one (and Hudler's for that matter) are huge risks for over commitment on the term front, and could come back to hurt us in the not so distant future when a lot of our new young core will be at the prime of life.