Every trade needs a partner and you don't want your GM selling off players for less than he values them do you?
Why on earth should I care about how much Feaster values his bottom-of-the-conference roster? We should be sellers, and the right value for the players will be what we get. That's how a market system works. If Feaster has such severe illusions on the value of his players that he refuses to sell them, it just makes him a terrible GM.
But indeed, I am slightly worried about Feasters ability to get value for our players. That is why I'd like us to be open about being sellers, so that as many teams as possible will take a good look at our roster and start making offers. What I would love is for media to speculate on where each guy goes, which team "needs" what, and for other teams fans to talk about which players they'd love to have.
Firstly, I would agree with the folks who assess the situation realistically, noting that it takes two to make a trade. Last year there were no trades, and likely that is related to other teams not valuing the Flames assets as the Flames do.
Whether or not the team ends up selling assets, there is something that should be said for Feaster. Let's add to the asset management discussion the maximization of value of existing assets. Last year a lot of assets were at an all time low. Selling at that point would have been disastrous. Hartley is the guy he brought in, and I would say that several existing assets have increased in value based on the metrics a lot of people look at.
- Cammalleri at 22 points in 24 games. Nearly point per game hockey. Big improvement from the ~0.7 point per game pace he was at the past few years
- Bouwmeester on pace for his Florida numbers after 3 years of floundering offensively under Brent
- Stajan playing a confident well rounded game and on pace for 50+ points after the last 3 years nearly left him without value
- Stempniak on pace for a career high 63 points over 82
The above assets should be worth more this year than they were last year. That can be a pretty big deal.
Backlund has taken a significant step forward in his development (and very unfortunately this is offset by injuries), and so has Brodie, but this may well be a natural progression given their ages and stage of development.
Those guys are obviously worth more than they were last year (although Cammalleri should hardly be included since we added him in the middle of the season), but the same logic applies to other guys:
- Sarich's value is basically zero. He was playing well to end the year last season and was movable as a UFA.
- Iginla's value is obviously deflated being a UFA and having a mediocre year (by his standards).
- Mark Giordano was still a productive defenseman last year and he's taken a huge step back this year.
- Olli Jokinen was having a very good season and we let him walk for nothing.
You can't simply look at what assets went up in value without considering the flip side.
The Following User Says Thank You to JayP For This Useful Post:
The financial foundation of the team is based on box seats and season tickets. Most of those are owned by companies with deep pockets, who use them as schmoozing opportunities. They're not going to cancel their tickets because the team on the ice sucks. The team on the ice matters only insofar as it's NHL hockey.
All that will happen if the team sits in the basement of the conference for a few years is those tickets find their way into the hands of receptionists and lower level employees, rather than the executives and clients. This panic about the fanbase is completely unfounded.
If the Flames ownership do have any interest in the immediate competitiveness of the team and the opinion of casual fans, it's because in a year or two they'll be going to the city hat in hand asking for public money for a new arena. And the public will probably be more compliant if the Flames have recently played in the playoffs - or better yet, gone on a miracle run. Ideally (from ownership's point of few) with Iginla flashing that aw-shucks smile on the TV.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 03-19-2013 at 03:08 PM.
Watch the complete opposite happen of what most here (in this thread) want to happen...
Calgary's 1st for Mike Ribeiro. (who re-signs a three year deal with the Flames)
I just can't see the Flames trading their first for a 30+ year old. I get that they did it for a 22 year old early in the season but they will keep that first now being 14th halfway through the year.
Flames schedule up to the trade deadline is actually pretty favorable since they only play two current playoff teams in the next 7 games before the deadline. So Flames likely will be in around the playoff bubble position that Flames do absolutely nothing, or trade their first for a marginal player. I've come to accept that Flames management is going to do the wrong thing here which continues to screw the team for the future.
I'm sorry, but this is a bit much. At no time, in my opinion, have we traded, or tried to trade, a first for a marginal player.
Those guys are obviously worth more than they were last year (although Cammalleri should hardly be included since we added him in the middle of the season), but the same logic applies to other guys:
- Sarich's value is basically zero. He was playing well to end the year last season and was movable as a UFA.
- Iginla's value is obviously deflated being a UFA and having a mediocre year (by his standards).
- Mark Giordano was still a productive defenseman last year and he's taken a huge step back this year.
- Olli Jokinen was having a very good season and we let him walk for nothing.
You can't simply look at what assets went up in value without considering the flip side.
It's been pointed out 1 million times already, but Olli Jokinen declined to be traded. It was his choice and he said no.
Firstly, I would agree with the folks who assess the situation realistically, noting that it takes two to make a trade. Last year there were no trades, and likely that is related to other teams not valuing the Flames assets as the Flames do.
I guess the question should be asked, does Feaster have credibility with other GM's in the league if he has so much trouble trying to make a trade?
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
Those guys are obviously worth more than they were last year (although Cammalleri should hardly be included since we added him in the middle of the season), but the same logic applies to other guys:
- Sarich's value is basically zero. He was playing well to end the year last season and was movable as a UFA.
- Iginla's value is obviously deflated being a UFA and having a mediocre year (by his standards).
- Mark Giordano was still a productive defenseman last year and he's taken a huge step back this year.
- Olli Jokinen was having a very good season and we let him walk for nothing.
You can't simply look at what assets went up in value without considering the flip side.
Fair comments.
The guys I mentioned are all guys playing top 9/top 4 minutes, in the 27-30 age range, and signed through the end of next season. And also the ones that have come up a lot of the time as assets available to move.
As for the flip side you mention -
Sarich - did his value really change that much? Didn't he have a no trade clause last year? Even so, maybe he would have gotten a late 2nd or 3rd rounder. No big deal really. I suspect he would be valued as a depth defender on a team entering the playoffs last year, and probably this year too. (I can say too that I don't get why he starts every year as the 7th d man. He did last year too then proved to be serviceable, and he has an element to his game missing from a lot of guys here.)
Iggy - There are enough threads about Iggy. I like his game this year for the most part, do not mind if the Flames plan to keep him, and frankly do not think that his trade value is really that volatile.
Gio will be fine, he is not on the PP as much with Wideman here, playing tough minutes against top competition, and it appears Bouw has the green light to jump in, so you have seen him stay back more (whereas he was jumping in with a guy like Sarich as his partner). It seems like a development year for him, a challenge to step to the next level. And he is signed for several years, I don't necessarily think he is a guy that we are talking about selling low this year vs last.
I am not sure what the subject about Hartley improving value of assets has to do with Olli. Last year I thought Olli was mediocre. Bad on faceoffs, terrible defensively, and ok but not great offense for a top line C. Definitely identified as a guy who is not a big game player and not in the plans moving forward. So if you are saying they should have dumped him last year, I agree (especially with the full benefit of hindsight, given his play post trade deadline, down the stretch).
So given all that, I still like overall the maximizing of value of the assets I mentioned under Hartley, he generally uses people to their known strengths.
Whether Jokinen was assured he wouldn't be asked, or was told he wouldn't waive, he rewarded the ability to stay with playing like hot garbage after the deadline.
So glad he's gone.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
The team can't perform much worse in the standings. Just about the only thing they could do to be worse is to throw away opportunities for improvement. Sadly, this is what I expect.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
The guys I mentioned are all guys playing top 9/top 4 minutes, in the 27-30 age range, and signed through the end of next season. And also the ones that have come up a lot of the time as assets available to move.
As for the flip side you mention -
Quote:
Sarich - did his value really change that much? Didn't he have a no trade clause last year? Even so, maybe he would have gotten a late 2nd or 3rd rounder. No big deal really. I suspect he would be valued as a depth defender on a team entering the playoffs last year, and probably this year too. (I can say too that I don't get why he starts every year as the 7th d man. He did last year too then proved to be serviceable, and he has an element to his game missing from a lot of guys here.)
Well when you clearly don't have any value placed on a 2nd/3rd rounder so it's tough to debate. Sarich's value has gone from something to nothing - that's not debatable. If you want to bring up Stajan as a valuable asset then Sarich of last season is in the conversation too. Depth d-men are always more valuable than depth forwards. And 25 decent games this year doesn't over-ride two years of crap from Stajan. Add in Stajan's bad contract and Sarich having all the intangibles teams look for and they are similar assets (for their time).
Quote:
Iggy - There are enough threads about Iggy. I like his game this year for the most part, do not mind if the Flames plan to keep him, and frankly do not think that his trade value is really that volatile.
Enough has been said about Iginla, but it's hard to argue his trade value hasn't gone down. UFA. On pace for 20 goals, 60 assists.
Quote:
Gio will be fine, he is not on the PP as much with Wideman here, playing tough minutes against top competition, and it appears Bouw has the green light to jump in, so you have seen him stay back more (whereas he was jumping in with a guy like Sarich as his partner). It seems like a development year for him, a challenge to step to the next level. And he is signed for several years, I don't necessarily think he is a guy that we are talking about selling low this year vs last.
He is taking on tougher competition, but I don't see why he's not valid to be brought up. You love to rag on J-Bouw for facing tough competition, but getting schooled by it. Giordando is the exact same this year.
Quote:
I am not sure what the subject about Hartley improving value of assets has to do with Olli. Last year I thought Olli was mediocre. Bad on faceoffs, terrible defensively, and ok but not great offense for a top line C. Definitely identified as a guy who is not a big game player and not in the plans moving forward. So if you are saying they should have dumped him last year, I agree (especially with the full benefit of hindsight, given his play post trade deadline, down the stretch).
So given all that, I still like overall the maximizing of value of the assets I mentioned under Hartley, he generally uses people to their known strengths.
Well, the topic is maximizing assets this deadline vs. last deadline. You can't simply ignore a guy like Jokinen who would've brought back a lot. Him being gone gives more opportunities to guys like Stajan so is it really a question of Hartley better utilizing players? Like I mentioned, J-Bouw is doing better, but another of our better defenseman in Giordano is doing worse - you can't just cherry pick the positives.
