It’s very simple. A soon to be 30 year old UFA is most likely going to be paid for what he did, not what he’s going to do. Obviously no one excepted such a steep drop off in points but his point total was coming down.
True but he isn't being paid like a 115 point player either. Guy gets 85-90 and we are laughing
I don’t think it was Feaster’s call to rebuild. Jarome Iginla leaving forced the rebuild. That was Jarome’s decision, not Feaster, not Edwards.
I point to his hiring of Brian Burke. Burke was infamous for stating at the beginning of his Leafs tenure that he was not a patient man and ‘rebuild? My ass’ (I believe were his words). If there was a rebuild it was going to be a short as possible. I suspect it will be similar this time around too.
Think about it. If you were a GM, why wouldn’t you want to take 5,6,7 years to rebuild? Doesn’t work that way.
If you’re Steve Yzerman in Detroit, maybe you have that leeway but even he admitted recently that the pressure is starting to mount.
That's not exactly how things transpired with Iginla here. The talk that season was: "Will Iginla re-sign?", and Iginla publicly had to state that he wants to re-sign here and win, but that if the Flames are rebuilding, then he doesn't really want to be a part of that. Even ignoring this, one single person leaving the organization doesn't mean rebuild. After all, Gaudreau left for nothing unlike Iginla, and it did not trigger a rebuild until the subsequent moves proved more or less disastrous. Feaster could very well have turned around and traded Iginla for a 'win now' move, or moved those assets that he got for a 'win now' move to another team. He also didn't have to move Bouwmeester, who was signed for another year. That was his choice, and I am sure he got the buy-in from Edwards to do so.
Burke wasn't famous for "Rebuilding my ass'. He was famous for: "I am impatient". His thing was that rebuilds shouldn't take 5+ years to do. That a rebuild should only take a couple of seasons. I don't doubt that Burke contributed to the shortening of the rebuild, but this was not why he was hired. He was hired because the Flames' house was no longer in order and became a laughing stock around the league. Burke was brought in fix the Flames' reputation.
If I am a GM, I wouldn't want to take 5,6,7 years. Why would I? Other teams that have taken that long have rarely worked out well. I am in no way advocating for a rebuild to take that long, and I don't think that Conroy is planning for one that long. Now, I guess what is the definition of the 5-7 years. is the 5th year the 5th straight year you are picking high in the draft, or is it competing and making a 'run' that year? If it is the latter, then yes, my plan would be 5 years. 1 year to tear it down and pick reasonably high (what we just saw. 2 years of pickig high in the draft. Then naturally coming out of it - 1 more year in the top 10 or so, and then a bubble team/playoff team the following year. By year 7 you should have had at least a run if you did things well.
Yzreman's pressure is starting to mount because the team is stuck in quicksand there. They have been rebuilding for a long time and they look like a perennial rebuild now. They haven been rebuilding since 2017. https://thehockeynews.com/nhl/detroi...of-the-rebuild
My point really is that Edwards isn't going to put his fingers in his ears and and demand that the Flames do not rebuild under any circumstances. They rebuilt in 2013 and now they are rebuilding again. All it takes is a GM to come in and put forth a solid plan. My whole entire point is built around Edwards not being a moron who hires puppets. He hires experts to guide this organization, and I believe that he listens to what they believe the organization should do. Maybe he doesn't always agree with them, but this is the 2nd rebuild in 11 years that this organization is undertaking. That doesn't scream: "No rebuild" to me.
That's not exactly how things transpired with Iginla here. The talk that season was: "Will Iginla re-sign?", and Iginla publicly had to state that he wants to re-sign here and win, but that if the Flames are rebuilding, then he doesn't really want to be a part of that. Even ignoring this, one single person leaving the organization doesn't mean rebuild. After all, Gaudreau left for nothing unlike Iginla, and it did not trigger a rebuild until the subsequent moves proved more or less disastrous. Feaster could very well have turned around and traded Iginla for a 'win now' move, or moved those assets that he got for a 'win now' move to another team. He also didn't have to move Bouwmeester, who was signed for another year. That was his choice, and I am sure he got the buy-in from Edwards to do so.
Burke wasn't famous for "Rebuilding my ass'. He was famous for: "I am impatient". His thing was that rebuilds shouldn't take 5+ years to do. That a rebuild should only take a couple of seasons. I don't doubt that Burke contributed to the shortening of the rebuild, but this was not why he was hired. He was hired because the Flames' house was no longer in order and became a laughing stock around the league. Burke was brought in fix the Flames' reputation.
If I am a GM, I wouldn't want to take 5,6,7 years. Why would I? Other teams that have taken that long have rarely worked out well. I am in no way advocating for a rebuild to take that long, and I don't think that Conroy is planning for one that long. Now, I guess what is the definition of the 5-7 years. is the 5th year the 5th straight year you are picking high in the draft, or is it competing and making a 'run' that year? If it is the latter, then yes, my plan would be 5 years. 1 year to tear it down and pick reasonably high (what we just saw. 2 years of pickig high in the draft. Then naturally coming out of it - 1 more year in the top 10 or so, and then a bubble team/playoff team the following year. By year 7 you should have had at least a run if you did things well.
Yzreman's pressure is starting to mount because the team is stuck in quicksand there. They have been rebuilding for a long time and they look like a perennial rebuild now. They haven been rebuilding since 2017. https://thehockeynews.com/nhl/detroi...of-the-rebuild
My point really is that Edwards isn't going to put his fingers in his ears and and demand that the Flames do not rebuild under any circumstances. They rebuilt in 2013 and now they are rebuilding again. All it takes is a GM to come in and put forth a solid plan. My whole entire point is built around Edwards not being a moron who hires puppets. He hires experts to guide this organization, and I believe that he listens to what they believe the organization should do. Maybe he doesn't always agree with them, but this is the 2nd rebuild in 11 years that this organization is undertaking. That doesn't scream: "No rebuild" to me.
Fair enough and good points.
I don’t think a ‘win now’ trade for Iginla was available for Feaster in an Iginla trade and even if it was, Iginla had complete control of where he went and he exercised that right. What’s the ‘win now’ equivalent of Ben Hanowski and a late 1st round pick? A third line LW, maybe? In the waning days of Sutter’s GM tenure I recall a fairly legitimate rumor of the Kings offering up Brayden Schenn, Wayne Simmonds, and a first. Sutter didn’t do it. We can haggle over whether that was Sutter’s or King’s decision or Edwards or, most likely, both.
I’m probably not making my case as balanced as intended. Yes, I do think the GM’s in Calgary have had a great deal of autonomy but I also believe Edwards controls the overall direction.
Remember when Treliving’s first contract was coming up? He was in lame duck status, and had not resigned/extended and as I recall it, it was due to Treliving not having the autonomy he wanted.
I e read here, for decades, many posters say at great length ‘why don’t the Glames rebuild?’ Or ‘why don’t the Flames properly rebuild?’ We’ve seen three/four GM’s over that span (4if you want to uncles Burke). The constant? Edwards/ownership.
The Following User Says Thank You to TOfan For This Useful Post:
If you expected him to be leading the league in scoring that is a YOU problem.
Everyone knew the contract would probably not look good at the back end. He was also on a value contract, so we paid a premium for him out performing that contract. Just like the Blue Jackets paid Johnny.
Obviously no one thought his points would plummet like they did. It also didn't help his first season was under Darryl Sutter who has only coached 3 100 point players in his coaching career 30 years apart. It also didn't help Sutter was at his grumpiest that season for whatever reason, and it seemed like Huberdeau tried his best to dedicate to the defensive aspect of his game.
Go back to the Gaudreau and Tkachuk years they blew the zone and played east west hockey.
Huberdeau could have done more on the powerplay, but for whatever reason the Flames decided to play a 3 man game and ignore the left side of the ice.
The Following User Says Thank You to Paulie Walnuts For This Useful Post:
Not sure why people are still beating this deadhorse. No one can deny it's a brutal contract, one in hindsight, that we shouldn't have signed. But it is what it is. Thankfully, Flames have so much cap space, this contract in a weird way, helps them get to a capfloor now. Once the team is in contention again, the cap will be close to $100M, so that also mitigates the number.
At this point, we're stuck with Huberdeau and the contract, you might as well try to make the best out of a bad situation. If he can even return to 60-70 points, that's a massive win IMO.
The Following User Says Thank You to The Yen Man For This Useful Post:
13th highest and dropping...
How many players had 115+ points last season again? the answer is 4
He isn't being paid like a 115 point player
A consistent 115 point player would be players like McDavid or MacKinnon who get paid more and play a more important position.
If Huberdeau scored 85-90 point pace in his last Florida season, he's not making this same salary. The rush to give him the Gaudreau offer (which the market proved was an overpay) was not a great decision.
A consistent 115 point player would be players like McDavid or MacKinnon who get paid more and play a more important position.
If Huberdeau scored 85-90 point pace in his last Florida season, he's not making this same salary. The rush to give him the Gaudreau offer (which the market proved was an overpay) was not a great decision.
True. It was not a big negotiation. But 85-90 point players do get paid at or around the Huberdeau rate: Tavares, Marner, Nylander, Petterson, Eichel.
Points position and and salary position are never going to be a perfect match, because of high performing guys on ELCs and first RFA contracts.
True. It was not a big negotiation. But 85-90 point players do get paid at or around the Huberdeau rate: Tavares, Marner, Nylander, Petterson, Eichel.
Points position and and salary position are never going to be a perfect match, because of high performing guys on ELCs and first RFA contracts.
If you dig into those comparables, there are reasons each one aredifferent than Huberdeau.
Marner is often cited as a not so great contract for a winger At 26 years old, his career average full season point pace is 91 points. At that age, Huberdeau's average was 67 points. Marner's contract also gives you more premium years. Of course as you point out, it was signed earlier and not buying many UFA years. So not apples to apples.
I don't really think the Huberdeau contract was great when it was signed and no discount for the 8 year term at all. Those praising it absolutely looked at the record setting 115 point season. The hope was certainly for more than an occasional 80 point season, that was kind of hoped to be the absolute lowpoint with more higher point totals offsetting it.
