[Trade] Wild acquire Bjugstad (50% retained) from the Pens for a conditional 7th round pick

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Ugh, that jersey purchase I made years ago after his 24 goal season doesn’t look like the wisest purchase now.

I could’ve told you a Nick Bjugstad jersey purchase was unwise at any time had you but asked.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

The condition on the pick is that Bjugstad plays in 70 games or scores 35 points next season. Otherwise the pick does not transfer.

I wonder if they're writing deals this summer (and forever ever after) to ensure that everything like this is prorated if there's another shortened season?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by agulati

We probably see more of such deals with the cap staying flat.

Yep, it's important to get things done early before your options run out.

Two significant trades from the Penguins already this offseason.

[AC]

Several reports of teams instituting an internal cap closer to $70M.

That should be something the Flames can take advantage of, whether it's by being one of the few able to offer Hall term and money, or acquiring bigger ticket players from team's looking to shed.

[topfiverecords]

We should be able to get a conditional 12th for Jankowski then.

[ForeverFlameFan]

This is actually great news, because I see a lot of Oilers fans wanting to get rid of Neal's contract. If that is the case, then they are going to have to pay a premium to get rid of cap space.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

This is actually great news, because I see a lot of Oilers fans wanting to get rid of Neal's contract. If that is the case, then they are going to have to pay a premium to get rid of cap space.

It would take a king's ransom to move out $6M of dead cap space this year

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It would take a king's ransom to move out $6M of dead cap space this year

Agreed. It would take 14th OA and more.

They still have to get rid of Russell's last year of his deal. The funny part is the one of the two 2nd round picks they traded (when acquiring AA) could have helped with that.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Agreed. It would take 14th OA and more.

They still have to get rid of Russell's last year of his deal. The funny part is the one of the two 2nd round picks they traded (when acquiring AA) could have helped with that.

Don't worry, they have more 2nd round picks from the future that they can trade. How about 2022? I hope they continue spending assets on poor players, and then spend assets to get rid of poor players.



It is kind of like the gift that keeps on giving.

[Jacks]

Just a horrible trade for PIT, minimal cap savings.No risk for MIN and if Bjugstad has a decent contract year they could get a nice return at the deadline.

If this wasn't done for strictly money reasons then Rutherford should be sacked.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by AC

Several reports of teams instituting an internal cap closer to $70M.

That should be something the Flames can take advantage of, whether it's by being one of the few able to offer Hall term and money, or acquiring bigger ticket players from team's looking to shed.

Controllable spending Calgary Flames:

A 20 per cent reduction for all staff, effective Sept. 1.

a 20% drop in the internal cap would leave Brad T with effective cap of 65.2... basically what they have committed to for 2020-21

Why would the Flames be one of the clubs not looking at a $70M internal cap?

1) Their success with spending to the cap since 2005?

2) They are not a small market team in a location that is going through the worst economic down turn of all the NHL teams


3) Their ownership group doesn't have enough losses and they need a larger tax deduction?


4) They will be getting unlimited support in building a new area and more revenue stream from the various levels of government

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Controllable spending Calgary Flames:

A 20 per cent reduction for all staff, effective Sept. 1.

a 20% drop in the internal cap would leave Brad T with effective cap of 65.2... basically what they have committed to for 2020-21

Why would the Flames be one of the clubs not looking at a $70M internal cap?

1) Their success with spending to the cap since 2005?

2) They are not a small market team in a location that is going through the worst economic down turn of all the NHL teams


3) Their ownership group doesn't have enough losses and they need a larger tax deduction?


4) They will be getting unlimited support in building a new area and more revenue stream from the various levels of government

Of all the years to cut salary, this is the one.

Nobody’s going to be watching this team in person until calendar year 2022 in all likelihood.

They’re not one player away - if the core of a team is their two best centres, two best wingers, best D and goalie - the Flames are debatably missing 5 of 6 core pieces.

They shouldn’t be a cap team this year. They should spend money on a goalie who can start the bulk of the games for the next five years, and otherwise should avoid any long term commitments.