Flames have an overage penalty against their cap for 16/17

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I don't understand this ownership sometimes. They won't retain salary, yet they're OK with signing Stajan to 5 years or Engelland to over 3 million. And they'll trade for Riberio? Be prudent with Gaudreau, the franchise forward?

Yes, because those are all in the proper context.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Is there Smid/LTIR news that I'm not aware of?

Everyone else seems confident he'll go to LTIR - me, not so much. I get the feeling that Smid has every intention of being ready for game 1.

Haven't you heard? The majority of CP has been very confident that Smid will be moved to LTIR any day now...for the past three seasons.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Agreed. If the Flames win a cup, it won't be due to Frolik, Brouwer, Engelland, Wideman, Bollig or Stajan, which are all bottom six/bottom pair guys, it will be based on Monahan, Gaudreau, Hamilton, Brodie, Bennett, etc. showing up in the playoffs or taking those next steps.



That's true for any cup winning team. When Crosby and Malkin show up, they win a cup...

Not always. While it is impossible to win without a team's stars leading the way, it is also true that a team cannot win without tremendous performances from it's secondary scorers and depth players. It is a huge mistake to ignore the importance of contributions from players like Frolik, Brouwer, Engelland, etc.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Not always. While it is impossible to win without a team's stars leading the way, it is also true that a team cannot win without tremendous performances from it's secondary scorers and depth players. It is a huge mistake to ignore the importance of contributions from players like Frolik, Brouwer, Engelland, etc.

Absolutely true. But generally speaking, you hope those secondary players outperform their contracts. For the players you mentioned that is nearly impossible.

[Strange Brew]

See both extremes n the thread. Horrible cap management, how could they be so dumb etc. Or its only $600k, don't blow it out of proportion.

Who knows what happened, but $600k seems very important in current negotiations with our best player.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Not always. While it is impossible to win without a team's stars leading the way, it is also true that a team cannot win without tremendous performances from it's secondary scorers and depth players. It is a huge mistake to ignore the importance of contributions from players like Frolik, Brouwer, Engelland, etc.

Of course the Pens needed Crosby, etc. Absolutely.
But do Pens win without 18 playoff points from Nick Bonino?

Nope.

That said, Treliving free agent acquisitions have been less than stellar, to say the least.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Absolutely true. But generally speaking, you hope those secondary players outperform their contracts. For the players you mentioned that is nearly impossible.

Sure, it's nice to hope, but how often does a UFA outperform their contract? If a team has to rely on that they're not going anywhere. Better to pay market price and hope you get the increased pay/performance ratio from your ELCs and RFAs.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by the2bears

Sure, it's nice to hope, but how often does a UFA outperform their contract? If a team has to rely on that they're not going anywhere. Better to pay market price and hope you get the increased pay/performance ratio from your ELCs and RFAs.

Therein lies the problem.

[TheoFleury]

I want to say this is Feaster's fault for Wideman or Burke's for Stajan but Treliving probably just would've used that $8m on two other guys. The upper limit of the cap is a magnet that will always draw the Flames, and many others to it. Hopefully in the future they make smarter choices.

[PugnaciousIntern]

UFAs rarely outperform contracts, players like Hudler are the exception. Those contacts need to be taken in context, as most teams' fans are generally quite disappointed with their UFA contract worth - to - production.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

UFAs rarely outperform contracts, players like Hudler are the exception. Those contacts need to be taken in context, as most teams' fans are generally quite disappointed with their UFA contract worth - to - production.

This is why I'm surprised most people were very supportive of the Brouwer contract. Committing 4.5M / year to a 31 yr old middle six UFA....

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by heep223

This is why I'm surprised most people were very supportive of the Brouwer contract. Committing 4.5M / year to a 31 yr old middle six UFA....

I agree. It'll be tough not to get burned on the back nine of that contract, unless he really clicks with 13 and 23.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

UFAs rarely outperform contracts, players like Hudler are the exception. Those contacts need to be taken in context, as most teams' fans are generally quite disappointed with their UFA contract worth - to - production.

I think it comes down to where management projects the player. It's okay to bring in a UFA that plays a prominent role on the team (top 4D, top 6F, 1G) but the Flames always seem to be targeting depth players AND giving them term and a fat cap hit. I have no problem with depth UFA's to a point, you need to fill out the roster. You just can't give them 3-4 years, it's just too risky. I wonder how a team like the Penguins can manage to fill out it's roster with no draft picks and nearly all of their money going to top players? Yes, depth has been a problem with Pittsburgh at times throughout the years but it's also always a problem here, even though the Flames throw gobs of money at it.

People are going rabble about the cap floor in 2014, but I don't buy it. If that was the case, offer less term and more $$$. It's impossible to project two+ years into the future so it's better to be safe than sorry. The cap floor is such a problem that literally NO team has ever been penalized for being under it. Calgary has got to be the only team ever that turned cap floor problems into cap ceiling problems within two years. Pretty impressive actually. There's like 20m between both extremes, I think a little more finesse and better planning was needed tbh, and I like Treliving.

Guys like Stajan and Wideman for instance, where were they projected? Wideman was projected as at top 4/PP QB, so given that his salary/term is fair. What cripples that deal is the NMC. Just say no to NMCs for anyone, ever. Luckily the Flames now seem to be doing just that.

Stajan was always so puzzling to me. What was the rush? If he goes to UFA and you lose him... so what? Offer him 2 x 3.5m, take it or leave it. His ceiling was bottom 6 at the time... so why? Leadership? Intangibles? That's great and all but a it's not worth $3m. Should've said see ya to Matt and given Cammalleri what he eventually got. That deal's not great either but at least you could be reasonably assured that he would play in the top 6. I'm not sure Stajan is has so many more intangibles than Cammalleri that it makes up for being 1/4 the hockey player. I mean, he is making a couple million less, but still...

Deals like Stajan's, Raymond's, Smid's and Engelland's add up to a whole lot of pain down the road. All we can hope is the Flames learned a lesson. People laugh at Lucic's deal but at least he is a proven top 6 player. The guys the Flames usually target are fringe guys. If Lucic declines, he's probably still in your top 9, what happens when Brouwer declines?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by heep223

This is why I'm surprised most people were very supportive of the Brouwer contract. Committing 4.5M / year to a 31 yr old middle six UFA....

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I agree. It'll be tough not to get burned on the back nine of that contract, unless he really clicks with 13 and 23.

It's a four year deal, the "back nine" of that contract is two years. He'll be 34 when that contract ends and I'd imagine will still have some hockey left in him. The way some talk about this contract is that it's an 8 year deall.

Brouwer fills a massive hole in this line up. Tough, durable, up and down winger with leadership. He is always hovering around 20 goals and 40 points. The potential to be a perfect compliment winger to Gaudreau and Monahan is huge.

4 years at 4.5/per isn't a steal but it's an easy pill to swallow.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Therein lies the problem.

Are you saying it's a problem in general, or more specifically in the Flames' case? There's little chance as a GM of somehow changing your approach and getting UFAs for cheaper than market (at least consistently). So I don't see it as an inherent problem, it's part of the structure that has to be worked accounted for.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Therein lies the problem.

There is no problem, your 'problem' is based on a false premise...

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Absolutely true. But generally speaking, you hope those secondary players outperform their contracts. For the players you mentioned that is nearly impossible.

No, you win (or lose) as a team - on the ice.

The cap is what it is, and you acquire as much talent as you can. Players are paid what they're paid.

On the ice, in order to win, you need all your players playing at - or above - their best. Regardless of what they are being paid.

All older players are going to be higher paid. And young guys lower paid.

That doesn't mean there isn't value to the older guys. Look at 2 years ago... two of the guys that played great and helped us beat Vancouver? Stajan and Jones. Did they outperform their contracts? No. Did they play well? Yes.

You can't have 20 guys all outperforming their contracts. Doesn't happen. But on the ice, it doesn't matter who is getting paid what. The only thing that matters is that your players are getting it done.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There is no problem, your 'problem' is based on a false premise...


No, you win (or lose) as a team - on the ice.

The cap is what it is, and you acquire as much talent as you can. Players are paid what they're paid.

On the ice, in order to win, you need all your players playing at - or above - their best. Regardless of what they are being paid.

All older players are going to be higher paid. And young guys lower paid.

That doesn't mean there isn't value to the older guys. Look at 2 years ago... two of the guys that played great and helped us beat Vancouver? Stajan and Jones. Did they outperform their contracts? No. Did they play well? Yes.

You can't have 20 guys all outperforming their contracts. Doesn't happen. But on the ice, it doesn't matter who is getting paid what. The only thing that matters is that your players are getting it done.

Salary does matter. It can make a player impossible to trade, buy-out, sent down, scratch, or otherwise manage. Moreover, it effects future negotiations with other players. It's hard to ask Kylington, for example, to take less than 5.25 million if he's playing way better than Wideman, who's making way more money and performing far worse.

It also effects a teams ability to fill holes via trades or free agency or even sign players. For example, Treliving wanted to negotiate with Russell during the regular season but traded him because there was only so much dollars they can have on the blue-line. Also, if you can't part with bloated contracts, that might impede your ability to develop players. Would I prefer giving Culkin, Kulak, or Wotherspoon some regular NHL time over Wideman, Engelland and Smid?

This is why good managers manage the cap, as well as the on-ice product.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Salary does matter. It can make a player impossible to trade, buy-out, sent down, scratch, or otherwise manage. Moreover, it effects future negotiations with other players. It's hard to ask Kylington, for example, to take less than 5.25 million if he's playing way better than Wideman, who's making way more money and performing far worse.

It also effects a teams ability to fill holes via trades or free agency or even sign players. For example, Treliving wanted to negotiate with Russell during the regular season but traded him because there was only so much dollars they can have on the blue-line. Also, if you can't part with bloated contracts, that might impede your ability to develop players. Would I prefer giving Culkin, Kulak, or Wotherspoon some regular NHL time over Wideman, Engelland and Smid?

This is why good managers manage the cap, as well as the on-ice product.

Of course salary matters.

But there are two separate things here:

1) building a team - where salary matters a TON.

2) actual play on the ice. Once they are on the ice, their salary is irrelevant. It just comes down to winning.

Bonino played great in the playoffs. Whether he was making $1M or $5M doesn't change how he played.

This conversation has been about the on ice factor.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Of course salary matters.

But there are two separate things here:

1) building a team - where salary matters a TON.

2) actual play on the ice. Once they are on the ice, their salary is irrelevant. It just comes down to winning.

Bonino played great in the playoffs. Whether he was making $1M or $5M doesn't change how he played.

This conversation has been about the on ice factor.

I disagree. Let's say Stamkos playing at 50% of his effort is better than what Craig Smith plays like at 100% capacity, therefore a teams value for every dollar spent is justified in Stamkos being paid 8.5 million to play better than any capacity of Smith, who's being paid 4.25 million. Even assuming Stamkos is only putting in 10% of his effort, he's still better than Rinaldo at 100% capacity, then likewise, it's better to have 8.5 million in a 10% of a Stamkos than it is to have 850K full-effort Rinaldo.

But is there really any reason a player should only be playing to 10% of their effort? I wouldn't suggest that Stamkos is justified in playing only 50% or 10%, and nor should any player. To suggest it doesn't matter what a player makes as long as they're the best on-ice product is to suggest it doesnt matter if Stamkos makes 100 million a year or 8.5 million so long as he's a better option than anyone else available.

When a high paid player is garbage, it's poisonous to the team. Horcoff was always answering to the media about his production levels and all he said was that he was trying his best. Fans didn't want him on their team and even management shipped him out when it was possible. But he was the best centre option the Oilers had during those bad years. Horcoff continued to play hockey, and once he made reasonable money, nobody complianed about him.

Because hockey is not about on-ice product. It's about entertainment. Just because you expect your circus clown to be in tip top shape and produce great juggling stats for their salary doesn't mean they're still not a circus clown. People want to cheer for their players, and hence they buy jerseys and tickets and TV packages. If you had a highly paid roster who's only putting in a lackluster effort (ie, 2011 Flames), people are no longer entertained so it does matter.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Of course salary matters.

But there are two separate things here:

1) building a team - where salary matters a TON.

2) actual play on the ice. Once they are on the ice, their salary is irrelevant. It just comes down to winning.

Bonino played great in the playoffs. Whether he was making $1M or $5M doesn't change how he played.

This conversation has been about the on ice factor.

Sorry I just don't follow your last comment. This thread is about a salary issue and its the offseason, so there are really no games or on ice performance to discuss.

Of course games are won and lost on the ice. But we are precisely talking about building a team. And as noted by another poster, UFA's rarely out perform their contracts, so you rely on ELC players and early in career RFA's to give you great value and hopefully ice a championship team.

Since he was brought up, Bonino is a nice example. He was making $1.9 million last year giving Pens great value and allowing them to afford Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Kessel etc. If he's making $3 million, he's not on that team.

My concern is whether Flames are relying a little too much on high priced mid tier guys to fill the roster. Where will upside come from?

Back to thread title. I see now why Raymond had to be bought out and Colborne was let go. Seems this team is going to barely make it under the cap/. Next year should be better but we will still have to pay a lot more for goalies.