[News Roundup] O'Brien awaits trade. Flames scatter for Olympics.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Using a buyout on Tanguay would have been more beneficial if he needed to go that badly, and value wasn't there. There was no need to burden the Flames further with an even worse contract.

I do think Tanguay 'had' to go. It doesn't mean the Flames should have brought back a tough contract in return, however. I hated that trade when it happened, and outside the first 10 games or so of Jones start to the season, still hate that trade.

Sarich - he was a good mentor. In light of the 'Vegas' rumors surrounding Colorado near the end of last season, entering a rebuild, etc., it just doesn't make sense to trade one 6th/7th D-man who has proven to be an excellent mentor and leader for another 6-7th D-man with rumored off-ice issues and a worse contract.

Flames got a lot of dead-weight back. It is simply difficult to justify the return as 'garbage for garbage', as at least the garbage that needed to be removed was cheaper and slightly better performing.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by FAN

I don't think anyone her is arguing that Tanguay and Sarich didn't need to go. There seems to be two camps where some posters simply feel that getting rid of them for anything was a good move where some posters such as myself feel you don't take on someone's garbage just to get rid of your own because it doesn't smell any better. Burke specifically mentioned that he didn't think Feaster got good value from his trades and that's why Feaster was fired. Sometimes you just got to hold onto your cards and wait and see if a market materializes.

A comment about optional skates... I think optional skates/practices are made optional for a reason. Skating in them doesn't prove anything and some like to have that extra practice and some don't. Players are very well-conditioned nowadays and players should first and foremost take care of their body. Plenty of veterans do not take part in optional practices because rest does more good for them. Tanguay is not a young player and he has a history of missing games due to injury. If anything, I wouldn't want a coach who expects his veterans to take part in optional skates.

Perhaps it was not an issue of missing games due to injury or taking his option in not attending pre game practices, but rather not competing or playing to his level in too many of the games he played healthy.
You may have been inferring that, wasn't sure.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Using a buyout on Tanguay would have been more beneficial if he needed to go that badly, and value wasn't there. There was no need to burden the Flames further with an even worse contract.

I do think Tanguay 'had' to go. It doesn't mean the Flames should have brought back a tough contract in return, however. I hated that trade when it happened, and outside the first 10 games or so of Jones start to the season, still hate that trade.

Sarich - he was a good mentor. In light of the 'Vegas' rumors surrounding Colorado near the end of last season, entering a rebuild, etc., it just doesn't make sense to trade one 6th/7th D-man who has proven to be an excellent mentor and leader for another 6-7th D-man with rumored off-ice issues and a worse contract.

Flames got a lot of dead-weight back. It is simply difficult to justify the return as 'garbage for garbage', as at least the garbage that needed to be removed was cheaper and slightly better performing.

You honestly think ownership was going to pay Tanguay $7 million to buy him out? While from our perspective that sounds better, but if you were signing the checks you'd rather overpay someone to play for us than pay someone to play elsewhere.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

You honestly think ownership was going to pay Tanguay $7 million to buy him out? While from our perspective that sounds better, but if you were signing the checks you'd rather overpay someone to play for us than pay someone to play elsewhere.

Buy-outs happened quite a lot this past off-season, even from ownership groups that were notoriously tight with money. Burke (and Feaster before being let go) stated that he has the green-light to spend to the cap. I do not think it is a far-fetched idea that the ownership group would refuse to buyout Tanguay. I could see them telling Feaster to go out and try to make a trade, but if Feaster came back and said that the only trade possible was another buyout candidate with more money and term on his contract, would the owners really say no at that point? There were so many buy-outs last year - surely the Flames' owners aren't the 'cheapest' in the league, are they?

Do I think the owners would 'love' the idea? Of course not. I do not think Feaster would even attempt to do so. "Yes, I just gave this guy a long-term deal last season, but I feel we need to buy him out now. Sorry, my bad." Besides, this was the 'worst case scenario' if the Flames couldn't move him. Tanguay's value would have indeed been low, but I am not convinced it was 'buy-out' low given his salary structure and point production.

Bad trades of the 'garbage for garbage' variety should be a wash in salaries/term. That is the point. Flames would have been better off buying out Tanguay (if there really wasn't a better trade to be had - given Feaster's past track record on trades, you would have to question that).

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Buy-outs happened quite a lot this past off-season, even from ownership groups that were notoriously tight with money. Burke (and Feaster before being let go) stated that he has the green-light to spend to the cap. I do not think it is a far-fetched idea that the ownership group would refuse to buyout Tanguay. I could see them telling Feaster to go out and try to make a trade, but if Feaster came back and said that the only trade possible was another buyout candidate with more money and term on his contract, would the owners really say no at that point? There were so many buy-outs last year - surely the Flames' owners aren't the 'cheapest' in the league, are they?

Do I think the owners would 'love' the idea? Of course not. I do not think Feaster would even attempt to do so. "Yes, I just gave this guy a long-term deal last season, but I feel we need to buy him out now. Sorry, my bad." Besides, this was the 'worst case scenario' if the Flames couldn't move him. Tanguay's value would have indeed been low, but I am not convinced it was 'buy-out' low given his salary structure and point production.

Bad trades of the 'garbage for garbage' variety should be a wash in salaries/term. That is the point. Flames would have been better off buying out Tanguay (if there really wasn't a better trade to be had - given Feaster's past track record on trades, you would have to question that).

How?

[calgarywinning]

Sarich also exhibited a bad attitude and had publicly stated he doesn't care to play for the flames in a contract year and would prefer to be traded. Then somehow we signed him again, I think.

Although, he seemed to be a decent D-Man when he applied himself. That always rubbed me the wrong way.

[dying4acup]

If you take SOB for Sarich out of it, the trade is not horrible. For the record I dislike both SOB and Sarich as players.

Tanguay had the potential to be a cancer in a young rebuilt locker room with his lack of effort and sense of complacenency. He had to go.

So u buy him out, or trade him for a younger, bigger player for a small team. If you bought out Tanguay last year, it's more expensive than buying out jones this year. But even if jones is underperforming, he is still a player u can keep, because he plays hard, and he doesn't bring the bad that Tanguay brought. And his contract actually helps at this point in time. I think Tanguay for jones is a trade even Burke makes.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm not a Tanguay fan, and I can't say for sure the guy was a whiner or a cancer in the room.

I do know of a few stories ...

1) effort/attitude slip when Keenan reduced his ice time and tried to make him kill penalties
2) Regehr almost killed him after a game for not backchecking and blowing the zone without the puck. Suggested the team can't win with selfish players.
3) His attitude when Iginla was traded.

I think the Flames had a tough time gaining traction for 5 years under existing leadership. Iginla went out the door, and Tanguay was always attached to his hip. Giordano and Hartley have made mention carefully about optional skates, and setting the example this season ... all of which makes me think Tanguay was part of that "if those vets aren't going to do it than either am I" mentality that had the Flames floundering for a half decade.

I think he needed to go.

I don't think this team would be so consistent to show up as they are this season if guys like him were still around.

If the NHL book was tight on Tanguay, he was likely a hard guy to move.

Tanguay also made it known he didn't want to be on the PK when Keenan was coaching. In fact, wasn't that a significant basis for why he demanded a trade?

One thing Regehr and Tanguay had in common was a public disdain for the coach who was formerly "Iron"

The leadership the Flames had couldn't get it done once Darryl left the bench, and I agree, this is a great post. Many fans still view Iginla leaving as an addition by subtraction move, despite the slide in the standings.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

Sarich also exhibited a bad attitude and had publicly stated he doesn't care to play for the flames in a contract year and would prefer to be traded. Then somehow we signed him again, I think.

Although, he seemed to be a decent D-Man when he applied himself. That always rubbed me the wrong way.

Source?

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by strombad

How?

How is having 2 buyout candidates better off then just buying out Tanguay himself? It's not.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by $ven27

How is having 2 buyout candidates better off then just buying out Tanguay himself? It's not.

Who says we're going to buyout either Jones or O'Brien?

At most, we buyout Shane, which saves us considerable money compared to buying out Tanguay.

Buying out Tanguay was in no way better than trading him for assets. Just because you don't like the return doesn't mean it's not better than nothing. We are so far from the cap that having Jones eat salary is really insignificant.

Jones and O'Brien > Money spent on a player playing for someone else.

Arguing different is hilarious.

[Locke]

Tanguay was addition by subtraction. His poor attitude when things werent going his way was notorious, how do you think he'd be acting if he was playing on the Flames this season?

It was simply a matter of getting him off the team by whatever means necessary. Besides, this season the last thing the Flames needed was Tanguay chipping in his marshmallow points.

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by strombad

Who says we're going to buyout either Jones or O'Brien?

At most, we buyout Shane, which saves us considerable money compared to buying out Tanguay.

Buying out Tanguay was in no way better than trading him for assets. Just because you don't like the return doesn't mean it's not better than nothing. We are so far from the cap that having Jones eat salary is really insignificant.

Jones and O'Brien > Money spent on a player playing for someone else.

Arguing different is hilarious.

Nobody, but that's what they are, buyout candidates.
It doesn't save us money at all, combined O'brien and Jones have 16.2M left on their contracts, Tanguay has 10.5M left. (12.5M if you count Sarich but he's a UFA)
But really, Tanguay > Jones and AHL O'Brien. People will say it was addition by subtraction, but that's just grasping at straws. Value wise we should've gotten a lot more for him.

[strombad]

I know how you feel about the value of Tanguay, I completely disagree, but I'm not going to get into with you.

My point was that having Jones is better than paying Tanguay to play somewhere else, which I think is pretty fair to say.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Buy-outs happened quite a lot this past off-season, even from ownership groups that were notoriously tight with money. Burke (and Feaster before being let go) stated that he has the green-light to spend to the cap. I do not think it is a far-fetched idea that the ownership group would refuse to buyout Tanguay. I could see them telling Feaster to go out and try to make a trade, but if Feaster came back and said that the only trade possible was another buyout candidate with more money and term on his contract, would the owners really say no at that point? There were so many buy-outs last year - surely the Flames' owners aren't the 'cheapest' in the league, are they?

Look at the teams that used those buyouts, the vast majority were were done for cap reasons on because the contract was so ridiculously bloated that they were completely unmoveable even for another bad contract (Gomez and Redden). Neither Tanguay nor the Flames fit that criteria.

In addition to that, how many times have the Flames exercised their right to buyout a contract since it became a possibility? I can only think of once and it was a small contract that was a 1/3 buyout due to the age of the player.

So yes I do believe it was a far fetched idea.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

Sarich also exhibited a bad attitude and had publicly stated he doesn't care to play for the flames in a contract year and would prefer to be traded. Then somehow we signed him again, I think.

Although, he seemed to be a decent D-Man when he applied himself. That always rubbed me the wrong way.

This is not true.

Warrener claimed Sarich had demanded a trade.

[FlameZilla]

Sarich would have been a good veteran leader from the bottom pairing. This is the first I've heard of him demanding a trade. I guess Warrener would know (?).

I don't mind David Jones. When he's been 100% healthy I think he a decent power forward on the RW. Problem is I think he's always carrying niggling injuries & isn't always that effective.

Tanguay checked out before it was even obvious Iggy was leaving. He was beyond useless after that trade.

To me, David Jones for checked-out Tangs is an ok deal. I would've thought Tangs could have fetched a 2nd or 3rd round pick or a prospect. Sarich for SOB is brutal.

I wish we could turn back time and negate this trade, and the Regehr trade. And the Phaneuf trade. Don't even get me started on the Gilmour trade...

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Using a buyout on Tanguay would have been more beneficial if he needed to go that badly, and value wasn't there. There was no need to burden the Flames further with an even worse contract.

I do think Tanguay 'had' to go. It doesn't mean the Flames should have brought back a tough contract in return, however. I hated that trade when it happened, and outside the first 10 games or so of Jones start to the season, still hate that trade.

Sarich - he was a good mentor. In light of the 'Vegas' rumors surrounding Colorado near the end of last season, entering a rebuild, etc., it just doesn't make sense to trade one 6th/7th D-man who has proven to be an excellent mentor and leader for another 6-7th D-man with rumored off-ice issues and a worse contract.

Flames got a lot of dead-weight back. It is simply difficult to justify the return as 'garbage for garbage', as at least the garbage that needed to be removed was cheaper and slightly better performing.

O'Brien is an easy buyout. Jones fits into a rebuild better than Tanguay.

In terms of pure hockey skill you are right. Bad trade. But the Flames #1 issue was the culture of complacency. I don't think the Flames are the blue collar team they are with leaders like Tanguay still on the roster.

It isn't like we are winning a bunch of games with Tanguay on or off the roster. And it isn't like either Tanguay or Jones are part of the future Flames. In terms of the here and now I am more concerned with a positive culture.

My only concern with the trade is wondering if Feaster could have done better. If this is the best he could do than I am fine with the return. But I think a guy like Burke would have gotten a bit more.

[Poe969]

Can we change the thread title to; bickering about Tanguay

[calgarywinning]

Analyst Rhett Warrener

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/sarich-wants-out/

Always struck me as funny when he re-upped with us based on this and if it was they case why would want someone who doesn't want to play with the team.

Originally Posted by Cole436

Source?