[Trade] Wild trade Eric Staal to Buffalo for Marcus Johansson

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

How dare these humans achieve any right of self-determination/stability in their lives!

NTCs usually cost players some money compared to their theoretical fair market price. It's fair.

Does that mean I need to like it? This is the entertainment business and I feel these clauses really limit a teams ability to make changes and improvements. Other pro leagues don’t hand those out like candy and I don’t like that the NHL does.

Thank god the Flames got savings on that Michael Stone deal by giving him trade protection Habs just stole #5 Dman Edmunson for 3.5M and giving him trade protection. I don’t see either player leaving money on the table.

It is the GM communities fault for these clauses becoming commonplace.

[mrdonkey]

Let’s be honest, not a lot of folks would have a problem with NTCs if the Flames weren’t one of the few teams that have to worry about them. As a fan base we have to admit that we’re at least a little salty because NTCs can, and have, been exercised to protect players from going to garbage fires like Edmonton, Calgary, and Winnipeg (and the latter didn’t seem to have an issue getting players to waive a few years ago when the team was winning).

If the Flames built a winning culture internally that players might be excited to join then likely we’re not having this discussion. What we’re now experiencing is a deep-rooted culture of mediocrity perpetuating itself.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Let’s be honest, not a lot of folks would have a problem with NTCs if the Flames weren’t one of the few teams that have to worry about them. As a fan base we have to admit that we’re at least a little salty because NTCs can, and have, been exercised to protect players from going to garbage fires like Edmonton, Calgary, and Winnipeg (and the latter didn’t seem to have an issue getting players to waive a few years ago when the team was winning).

If the Flames built a winning culture internally that players might be excited to join then likely we’re not having this discussion. What we’re now experiencing is a deep-rooted culture of mediocrity perpetuating itself.

I think organizational success is one of many factors that players consider. Others include:
- Tax environment
- Additional PR/marketing opportunities
- Climate
- Size of city
- Lifestyle of city
- Where the player is from
- Where the players friends/family are
- What their partner/family wants
- Where their support structures are located

There are reasons why places like NY, LA, Phoenix, Florida, California, etc are popular and why places like Winnipeg, Buffalo, Calgary, Edmonton, are not.

And it extends well beyond what you describe as a "deep rooted culture of mediocrity".

A winning culture doesn't solve for the above.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think organizational success is one of many factors that players consider. Others include:
- Tax environment
- Additional PR/marketing opportunities
- Climate
- Size of city
- Lifestyle of city
- Where the player is from
- Where the players friends/family are
- What their partner/family wants
- Where their support structures are located

There are reasons why places like NY, LA, Phoenix, Florida, California, etc are popular and why places like Winnipeg, Buffalo, Calgary, Edmonton, are not.

And it extends well beyond what you describe as a "deep rooted culture of mediocrity".

A winning culture doesn't solve for the above.

Not entirely. The Flames will always be at a disadvantage for many of the reasons you listed.

But winning sure does help teams like the Flames overcome a lot of those factors.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Not entirely. The Flames will always be at a disadvantage for many of the reasons you listed.

But winning sure does help teams like the Flames overcome a lot of those factors.

What makes you say that? Looking at the list again:

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think organizational success is one of many factors that players consider. Others include:
- Tax environment: Better than roughly 1/2 of NHL Clubs
- Additional PR/marketing opportunities No doubt there are more of these in Canada, but Calgary is a secondary market at best
- Climate You got this one in the bag
- Size of city Calgary is a fairly large city comparatively in the NHL.
- Lifestyle of city Calgary is consistently ranked as having a very high quality of life
- Where the player is from These next four are all completely dependent per player, but given the proportion of Canadian players in the league I suspect that Calgary actually comes out favorably in many of these categories
- Where the players friends/family are
- What their partner/family wants
- Where their support structures are located

In summary, I don't see why many of these listed reasons actually put the flames at a disadvantage to, say, the Columbus Blue Jackets.
Maybe that's not being favorable though, even a California team like SJ:

Tax? No Alberta is better.
PR/ Marketing Opps? Not unless you're the undisputed best player on the team, and even then you are the 4th or even 5th market (Football, MLB, NBA, and now MLS supercedeing NHL.)
Climate: yep.
Size of City: sure but I am not sure that's of large benefit in this circumstance. Traffic is really the only result
Lifestyle of City: This one is really tricky IMO. Yes, there are definitely benefits to the california lifestyle, but the value of your dollar (even for a millionaire) is going to go MUCH farther in calgary than SJ. I guess it really depends what you're after!
Where the player is from/support/ friends and family: There are still very few players that originate in California, so I suspect Calgary would win this on balance.

Anyways. If you really put a lot of weight on Climate then it works. Some people do see it that way.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

PR/ Marketing Opps?

My name is Miikka Kiprusoff and I drive a Honda Ridgeline

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

What makes you say that? Looking at the list again:



In summary, I don't see why many of these listed reasons actually put the flames at a disadvantage to, say, the Columbus Blue Jackets.
Maybe that's not being favorable though, even a California team like SJ:

Tax? No Alberta is better.
PR/ Marketing Opps? Not unless you're the undisputed best player on the team, and even then you are the 4th or even 5th market (Football, MLB, NBA, and now MLS supercedeing NHL.)
Climate: yep.
Size of City: sure but I am not sure that's of large benefit in this circumstance. Traffic is really the only result
Lifestyle of City: This one is really tricky IMO. Yes, there are definitely benefits to the california lifestyle, but the value of your dollar (even for a millionaire) is going to go MUCH farther in calgary than SJ. I guess it really depends what you're after!
Where the player is from/support/ friends and family: There are still very few players that originate in California, so I suspect Calgary would win this on balance.

Anyways. If you really put a lot of weight on Climate then it works. Some people do see it that way.

I don't think value for money is a big deal. Real estate - presumably if you ever move you sell in the same market so it's a wash. Cost of Living for a millionaire isn't really an issue.

Friends and family - for players from Europe, the US and even eastern Canada Calgary has no advantage. Anyway, we are talking a 5-7 year time frame.

There's also the pressure factor. I saw Cam Talbot at a BC golf course a couple weeks ago. In SJ he'd have gone unrecognized. That's a selling point for some guys.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I don't think value for money is a big deal. Real estate - presumably if you ever move you sell in the same market so it's a wash. Cost of Living for a millionaire isn't really an issue.

Friends and family - for players from Europe, the US and even eastern Canada Calgary has no advantage. Anyway, we are talking a 5-7 year time frame.

There's also the pressure factor. I saw Cam Talbot at a BC golf course a couple weeks ago. In SJ he'd have gone unrecognized. That's a selling point for some guys.

Agreed that Pressure Factor should be considered- but I think it's actually an inverse proportional to the marketing/pr opportunity category. I.e. Canadian markets come with more marketing and PR opportunities for $$, but also come with higher scrutiny.

Fair enough reflection on the COL vs Property costs. I just think that it will continue to come down to a by player selection: some guys are probably interested in the idea that a couple million could by them 50 acres and a mansion in the foothills vs a nice bayside apartment.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Agreed that Pressure Factor should be considered- but I think it's actually an inverse proportional to the marketing/pr opportunity category. I.e. Canadian markets come with more marketing and PR opportunities for $$, but also come with higher scrutiny.

Fair enough reflection on the COL vs Property costs. I just think that it will continue to come down to a by player selection: some guys are probably interested in the idea that a couple million could by them 50 acres and a mansion in the foothills vs a nice bayside apartment.

The players themselves are only one part of the equation. Their wives and children will have a huge influence in city and lifestyle choice. And I don’t think Calgary is taking home any awards in that department.

[Red]

With Sutter in charge the Flames were a destination. With Tre, they are not.

Sutter spent and had some early success. Both drew players interest. Plus great fans. Treliving is a dollar store shopper with crappy results. Inspires a "meh" attitude.

Players go where the management is willing to spend to win. If I am a player, I see the Flames as a small market team just trying to survive. Under Sutter they were respected and seen as a great team.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Red

With Sutter in charge the Flames were a destination. With Tre, they are not.

Sutter spent and had some early success. Both drew players interest. Plus great fans. Treliving is a dollar store shopper with crappy results. Inspires a "meh" attitude.

Players go where the management is willing to spend to win. If I am a player, I see the Flames as a small market team just trying to survive. Under Sutter they were respected and seen as a great team.

What?

Give some examples why the Flames were a destination under Sutter? They didn’t sign any high profile UFA’s during Sutters time.

They had a Treliving like “just missed” with Niedermier, and Roenick

When Sutter was fired the Flames were the laughingstock of the league.

[Vinny01]

Calgary being a small market Western Canadian city makes it a bottom 5 market for desirability in the league. You are in a smaller metropolitan center yet you are in a fishbowl. The weather is absolutely terrible and the travel is also brutal. Luckily they are eventually getting a new barn but until then they play in the worst facility in the league.

[powderjunkie]

NTC's and UFA preference don't matter a lick until a player is at least 26 (typically later, at least until recent times). They have never played a role in determining whether you can build a contender or not. They are a silly excuse for poorly drafted/developed/constructed teams.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

What?

Give some examples why the Flames were a destination under Sutter? They didn’t sign any high profile UFA’s during Sutters time.

They had a Treliving like “just missed” with Niedermier, and Roenick

When Sutter was fired the Flames were the laughingstock of the league.

Players were willing to come here. NTC were not an issue.
It's not just the UFAs but in any case, Calgary was see as a good place to be at. Any player that rejected a trade to the Flames then?
What Sutter turned them in to matters little. My point is that Treliving is a bargain bin shopper that complains about prices being to high, contract wise or trade. Players don't want to go to a place that likes to nickle and dime you.
That screams the priority is budget and not winning.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Red

Players were willing to come here. NTC were not an issue.
It's not just the UFAs but in any case, Calgary was see as a good place to be at. Any player that rejected a trade to the Flames then?
What Sutter turned them in to matters little. My point is that Treliving is a bargain bin shopper that complains about prices being to high, contract wise or trade. Players don't want to go to a place that likes to nickle and dime you.
That screams the priority is budget and not winning.

What players were willing to come here? I only recall hearing Adrian Aucoin having to waive his NTC to come here. Other than that who are you talking about?

Let’s overpay first Cory Sarich give him 5x3.5 and a full NMC.

Jokinen coming back? Getting a washed up Tanguay back because we could promise him first line minutes?

Several players may have rejected a trade to the Flames back then. Twitter wasn’t even a thing for half of Sutter’s time here.

You proved zero evidence or proof the Flames were any more desirable in 2003-2010 than they have been in 2014-2020

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

NTC's and UFA preference don't matter a lick until a player is at least 26 (typically later, at least until recent times). They have never played a role in determining whether you can build a contender or not. They are a silly excuse for poorly drafted/developed/constructed teams.

Right, because contenders rarely have many players older than 26

[Calgary4LIfe]

A team will have no problem attracting high-profile UFAs for the most part as long as they are viewed as a contender, or perhaps a step before being a contender. Players will take a bit less to be part of that, or take equal money but prefer a destination that includes being a solid contender.


Under Sutter, it didn't change at first while the Flames didn't do anything special. Drury couldn't wait to get the heck out of here, for instance. Sutter quickly realized this as a GM, and made an emphasis on drafting WHL prospects (as well as a general lack of physical scouts to cover enough leagues anyway) as it would give the Flames a slight advantage in 'being closer to home' in the first place.


Once the Flames made their '04 run, I do think that more players were willing to sign here. Even with the first couple of disappointments, I think more players were willing to sign here than not. However, after missing the playoffs for a few seasons in a row, Feaster couldn't throw enough money at free agents like Brad Richards to convince them to come.


I think players will always go where the money (including tax implications) is first and foremost, then it is a chance to win, then it is the expected role, then stuff like team mate familiarity, climate, preference for playing in a hockey market or not, etc. Money first, then the chance to win, then everything else IMO. Players will take a bit of a haircut to get a real chance at competing for a cup, but not much it seems (at least usually).

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Red

With Sutter in charge the Flames were a destination. With Tre, they are not.

Sutter spent and had some early success. Both drew players interest. Plus great fans. Treliving is a dollar store shopper with crappy results. Inspires a "meh" attitude.

Players go where the management is willing to spend to win. If I am a player, I see the Flames as a small market team just trying to survive. Under Sutter they were respected and seen as a great team.

Sutter prioritized players who wanted to be here. So there's a self fulfilling prophecy there. Plus the Flames have spent to the cap consistently. Certainly they have shown signs that they are willing to spend to win. Unless this is just about the narrative that they won't spend on a top tier coach? That's just a single data point/element.

I think we are all making a ton of assumptions. And in your case I think you are projecting your feelings about the GM to assume that players also feel that way. That may be true, but we certainly don't know and how widespread that is.

The reality is that these decisions are highly personal to each person and family and trying to simplify down to over-arching or common themes, as we are trying to do in this thread, is just naive.

I do think there are markets that are highly attractive for reasons I outlined. Then you probably have a big bunch in the middle where it comes down to personal choice, and then a small number that are very unattractive.

But it's going to come down to what is important to each player and their families.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

A team will have no problem attracting high-profile UFAs for the most part as long as they are viewed as a contender, or perhaps a step before being a contender. Players will take a bit less to be part of that, or take equal money but prefer a destination that includes being a solid contender.


Under Sutter, it didn't change at first while the Flames didn't do anything special. Drury couldn't wait to get the heck out of here, for instance. Sutter quickly realized this as a GM, and made an emphasis on drafting WHL prospects (as well as a general lack of physical scouts to cover enough leagues anyway) as it would give the Flames a slight advantage in 'being closer to home' in the first place.


Once the Flames made their '04 run, I do think that more players were willing to sign here. Even with the first couple of disappointments, I think more players were willing to sign here than not. However, after missing the playoffs for a few seasons in a row, Feaster couldn't throw enough money at free agents like Brad Richards to convince them to come.


I think players will always go where the money (including tax implications) is first and foremost, then it is a chance to win, then it is the expected role, then stuff like team mate familiarity, climate, preference for playing in a hockey market or not, etc. Money first, then the chance to win, then everything else IMO. Players will take a bit of a haircut to get a real chance at competing for a cup, but not much it seems (at least usually).

In addition to drafting, Sutter also went out and traded for current players who would be interested in being in Calgary: Rhett Warrener, Daymond Langkow, Jay Bouwmeester. He also had success in signings some surprises like Hamrlik so it wasn't just that for sure.

I also think the opportunity to play with Iginla was a draw.

[blender]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Let’s be honest, not a lot of folks would have a problem with NTCs if the Flames weren’t one of the few teams that have to worry about them. As a fan base we have to admit that we’re at least a little salty because NTCs can, and have, been exercised to protect players from going to garbage fires like Edmonton, Calgary, and Winnipeg (and the latter didn’t seem to have an issue getting players to waive a few years ago when the team was winning).

If the Flames built a winning culture internally that players might be excited to join then likely we’re not having this discussion. What we’re now experiencing is a deep-rooted culture of mediocrity perpetuating itself.

Not to single you out, but this "culture of mediocrity" narrative is getting well out of hand around here. It unfortunate that the Flames hasn't enjoyed more playoff success but there is no accuracy in calling the franchise a garbage fire.

Its all too easy it seems to spout off anonymously on the internet but really it just sounds cheap and petty when you make outlandish statements, and then draw conclusions about what players decide to do when signing free agent contracts. Jiri's post right below yours adds some context to the discussion that is sorely needed here IMO.