[Signing] Flames sign Kadri (7 years, $7m AAV)

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

Laughable that everyone figures turning Monahan into Kadri was a GM’s decision. The people who orchestrated that are still running the team.

Treliving has a bad history with UFAs. Can't blame Murray on that one.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I think the new unwritten rule for the Flames when considering a UFA contract is a max term of 3 years. It doesn't matter how good the player is, 3 years is the max. You do well? You get another contract after those 3 years, but the reality is that even if the player does well for those 3 years, they're likely going to be less valuable or on a decline heading into their 30-31-32 year old seasons. Let someone else give them a contract after that.

The problem is there's always one team willing to sacrifice their team on the last 4 years of a deal just to get those first 3 years. It almost always hamstrings the team's cap situation.

Max UFA deal of 3 years. Spend the money on the RFA contracts instead and maybe take a guy to age 32 on one of those RFA deals. You'll likely get a lot more value that way than paying a UFA*.

*Joe Pavelski notwithstanding.

Now we're closing the barn door?

I mean obviously anyone should agree with this but then we get to summer time and it's all about these players with zero acquisition costs. And if you over pay a little, well it's OK the cap is going up, no one wants to play in Calgary, there is no comparable player in the system etc..

Kadri, Neal, Brouwer, Markstrom, Coleman, Tanev, Frolik. It's just a part of the organization's DNA and a lot of fans love some of those signings. These GM's aren't idiots, each one can be defended.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Beninho

Treliving absolutely ####ed this organization

Keeping him on without a contract extension was a big mistake. If Conroy was the plan, should've pulled the trigger a year earlier

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

Laughable that everyone figures turning Monahan into Kadri was a GM’s decision. The people who orchestrated that are still running the team.

The lengths people will go to to deflect criticism of Treliving.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Treliving has a bad history with UFAs. Can't blame Murray on that one.

Would you call any of his UFAs a success? He always overpays them on retirement contracts.

Huberdeau
Kadri
Markstrom (TBD)
Neal
Coleman
Brouwer
Hiller
Tanev (good)
Ramo
Stone (pass)
Zadorov (good)
Raymond
Ryan
Engelland
Talbot
Gudbranson (pass)
Versteeg
Johnson
Rooney
Czarnik
Meloche
Ritchie

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Would you call any of his UFAs a success? He always overpays them on retirement contracts.

Huberdeau
Kadri
Markstrom (TBD)
Neal
Coleman
Brouwer
Hiller
Tanev (good)
Ramo
Stone (pass)
Zadorov (good)
Raymond
Ryan
Engelland
Talbot
Gudbranson (pass)
Versteeg
Johnson
Rooney
Czarnik
Meloche
Ritchie

Weegar is good so far. Huberdeau I get.
It was his insistence on overpaying for guys like Neal/Brouwer/Coleman that is mind bottling. Never learned his lesson.

[redmile04]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Treliving has a bad history with UFAs. Can't blame Murray on that one.

Yes, and pretty sure the owner didn't tell Brad to fire half a dozen coaches. The owner i am sure is not happy that he paid for Hartley,Gulutzan, Ward, Sutter etc for not coaching the team. ( some of those names i mentioned maybe had contracts expiring, not sure but the overall point sticks)

UFA signings also a major problem with Treliving, again- i am sure the owners werent happy paying for Raymond, Brouwer, Bouma etc buyouts.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

The lengths people will go to to deflect criticism of Treliving.

Afraid he will ruin them like he ruined the Flames

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

Keeping him on without a contract extension was a big mistake. If Conroy was the plan, should've pulled the trigger a year earlier

I agree. UFA GMs are dangerous man..

Trelliving pulled his version of a Chiarelli on his way out of Edmonton. Felt less pressure since he could walk soon so made a series of impulsive moves that he wouldn't have to stick around to see the consequences of if they didn't pan out.

[Hockey_Ninja]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

The lengths people will go to to deflect criticism of Treliving.

Both Tre and ownership are responsible for why the team is where it is. Ownership for forcing a “no rebuild” mandate and Tre’s poor “win now” signings and other moves

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by redmile04

Yes, and pretty sure the owner didn't tell Brad to fire half a dozen coaches. The owner i am sure is not happy that he paid for Hartley,Gulutzan, Ward, Sutter etc for not coaching the team. ( some of those names i mentioned maybe had contracts expiring, not sure but the overall point sticks)

UFA signings also a major problem with Treliving, again- i am sure the owners werent happy paying for Raymond, Brouwer, Bouma etc buyouts.

In hindsight one of the biggest failings with ownership was having too much faith in Treliving and giving him another coach. Should have fired him before forcing Sutter onto him.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Now we're closing the barn door?

I mean obviously anyone should agree with this but then we get to summer time and it's all about these players with zero acquisition costs. And if you over pay a little, well it's OK the cap is going up, no one wants to play in Calgary, there is no comparable player in the system etc..

Kadri, Neal, Brouwer, Markstrom, Coleman, Tanev, Frolik. It's just a part of the organization's DNA and a lot of fans love some of those signings. These GM's aren't idiots, each one can be defended.

Zero acquisition cost, but massive opportunity cost. If the only way to get a player is to give him 7 years, the first response should always be no. It precludes you from getting another UFA in 3 years time that will still deliver quality play. Instead, you're stuck with an aging and depreciating asset that blocks that opportunity due to hard caps, and worst case scenario is you would use futures to get rid of the depreciating asset, thereby doubly harming your franchise long term.

It no longer makes sense to do it, even if it's a really great player. Take the risk that you may not be able to bring them back after 3 years. More times than not, the player will no longer be worth whatever contract you gave them to sign in the first place. There are countless examples of it not being a good idea from other teams, not just the Flames.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

The lengths people will go to to deflect criticism of Treliving.

Especially considering that Treliving had tried to acquire Kadri years earlier. It was very obviously a player he had his mind set on, and every time Treliving that happened where the cost to doing so should have been prohibitive, Treliving went ahead and did it anyway.

There might be no move more “Treliving” than the Monahan/Kadri fiasco. Which is also why I think Conroy should shop Kadri to Toronto, because I 100% believe that’s a mistake Treliving will make twice.

And I say that as someone who defended Treliving constantly and was extremely excited we got Kadri even at the cost we got him at. I’m embarrassed.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Zero acquisition cost, but massive opportunity cost. If the only way to get a player is to give him 7 years, the first response should always be no. It precludes you from getting another UFA in 3 years time that will still deliver quality play. Instead, you're stuck with an aging and depreciating asset that blocks that opportunity due to hard caps, and worst case scenario is you would use futures to get rid of the depreciating asset, thereby doubly harming your franchise long term.

It no longer makes sense to do it, even if it's a really great player. Take the risk that you may not be able to bring them back after 3 years. More times than not, the player will no longer be worth whatever contract you gave them to sign in the first place. There are countless examples of it not being a good idea from other teams, not just the Flames.

Just like giving Huberdeau big money. Atrocious.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by memphusk

Just like giving Huberdeau big money. Atrocious.

That one is a little more defensible based on what he had accomplished in his career, his general star player status, and the fact that he was a little younger than Kadri. But yeah, it's looking more like a bad contract. Not because Huberdeau won't still produce, but he isn't worth that type of AAV or term.

I say that as someone who is a big Huberdeau fan as well.

[Heavy Jack]

I think contracts should be structured as the following

Ages 23 to 27 - teams have ability to sign a player up to 8 years

Age 27 to 28 - UFA can sign max 7 year deal

Age 28 to 29 - UFA can sign max 6 year deal

Age 29 to 30 - UFA can sign max 5 year deal

Age 30 to 31 and beyond - UFA can sign max 4 year deal


These 7 to 8 year long deals are ridiculous anymore and it’s actually hurting the product at this point, putting caps on max term based on age helps protect the product while keeping the players a little more honest with their play, no more ‘retirement’ contracts and if players want longer term they’re going to be motivated to earn the longer terms with better play. The older they get the less max term then can achieve because it’s a physical sport and becomes harder to live up to contracts signed 4 to 5 years prior in the back half of these mega term deals.

My 2 cents.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Copy/pasting the "desperate hail mary" gaudreau contract was stupid. Appears they didn't even negotiate with Huberdeau. Just wined, dined and served up the keys to the kingdom. To do that with a brand new player is, in some ways, pathetic.

A novice move. And one that I'm surprised the process-preaching gm made. I just hope Toronto is similarly screwed when all is said and done

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

I think contracts should be structured as the following

Ages 23 to 27 - teams have ability to sign a player up to 8 years

Age 27 to 28 - UFA can sign max 7 year deal

Age 28 to 29 - UFA can sign max 6 year deal

Age 29 to 30 - UFA can sign max 5 year deal

Age 30 to 31 and beyond - UFA can sign max 4 year deal


These 7 to 8 year long deals are ridiculous anymore and it’s actually hurting the product at this point, putting caps on max term based on age helps protect the product while keeping the players a little more honest with their play, no more ‘retirement’ contracts and if players want longer term they’re going to be motivated to earn the longer terms with better play. The older they get the less max term then can achieve because it’s a physical sport and becomes harder to live up to contracts signed 4 to 5 years prior in the back half of these mega term deals.

My 2 cents.

I like this idea. I have a hard time seeing the NHLPA agree to this. Even some GMs would balk at it because in the future I'm sure some GM will want to lock in a 28 year old Cale Makar to 8 years at $14+million per year just so they can have this generations best defenseman on their team when he retires.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

I think contracts should be structured as the following

Ages 23 to 27 - teams have ability to sign a player up to 8 years

Age 27 to 28 - UFA can sign max 7 year deal

Age 28 to 29 - UFA can sign max 6 year deal

Age 29 to 30 - UFA can sign max 5 year deal

Age 30 to 31 and beyond - UFA can sign max 4 year deal


These 7 to 8 year long deals are ridiculous anymore and it’s actually hurting the product at this point, putting caps on max term based on age helps protect the product while keeping the players a little more honest with their play, no more ‘retirement’ contracts and if players want longer term they’re going to be motivated to earn the longer terms with better play. The older they get the less max term then can achieve because it’s a physical sport and becomes harder to live up to contracts signed 4 to 5 years prior in the back half of these mega term deals.

My 2 cents.

No way NHLPA allows this. GM's sign dumb contracts, they have to live with them. Or as we see now, whoever else is steering the ship has to live with them.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

Keeping him on without a contract extension was a big mistake. If Conroy was the plan, should've pulled the trigger a year earlier

The plan was to keep Treliving.

It’s debatable Conroy was ever ‘the’ plan. If Conroy was the plan they sure dragged out his hiring. Truth is, Treliving left the organization after the Flames tried to extend him. He left because they wouldn’t fire Sutter, ironically. This is well documented but, unsurprisingly, some here have either forgotten that or have put their tinfoil hats on to concoct some hair brain theory that Treliving was in fact fired despite literally no one with any journalistic credence saying as such. The organization itself stated they decided to ‘mutually part ways’. Put another way, Treliving walked.

You’re also suggesting the Flames should have fired Treliving, who had one year left on his deal, after the second best regular season in franchise history. That wasn’t going to happen.

Look, the Kadri deal looks bad. No question. But for Kadri to look this bad in year one and two is what’s most troubling. Is that on Treliving, or Flames management, or Kadri? I’d say it’s first and foremost on Kadri. He has to pull his head out of his a$$. He played well up to the all star break and then his play fell off significantly. Not too sure what the issue is this year but if there are any excuses, they’re not readily available. He seems to be pouting his way to the press box for reasons.

Blaming the guy who is no longer here is lame and serves no purpose other than snivelling and whining. The onus is on Kadri to turn it around. Let’s also bear in mind, the question at this time a year ago in and out of Calgary was whether the 2022/23 Flames were going to be better than the 2021/22 Flames.