Huberdeau and Weegar Signing Discussion Thread

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I get what you are saying, but I completely reject this dichotomy. Having Weegar NOW and for the duration THIS SEASON is the best value asset. Anything beyond that is just gravy.

Cool.

That being said, I dont really think either of you are wrong.

Treliving pulled off, what, the first effective 'Sign and Trade' in NHL history?

We also lost the #1 UFA on the market for nothing and replaced him immediately.

I think its safe to say that the NHL trade market is undergoing some changes and reformation.

I would not be surprised if Weegar, unsigned, is traded by the deadline. I'd also not be surprised if he wasnt.

The paradigm has been challenged and is now unpredictable. Ladies and Gentlemen...Welcome...to 'The Undiscovered Country.'

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Its preseason and doesn't mean a damn thing but Tkachuk looked like #### tonight

Panthers fans will soon realize Huberdeau/Weegar/Schwindt/1st >>>Tkachuk

[Flaming Horse]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I get what you are saying, but I completely reject this dichotomy. Having Weegar NOW and for the duration THIS SEASON is the best value asset. Anything beyond that is just gravy.

This is the wrong way to look at it. He is a big asset and you don't lose him for nothing.

[dino7c]

the best teams lose players for nothing every season

ask the Avs, ask Tampa

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by dino7c

the best teams lose players for nothing every season

ask the Avs, ask Tampa

Hey, no sense in asking those idiots. Clearly they both made massive mistakes by winning the Stanley Cup instead of trading Coleman and Kadri for sweet, sweet futures.

[SebC]

You never lose a player for nothing any more. You lose them for cap space. Surely after the offseason we just had, we can all see the value that has?

[dino7c]

and eventually you have to piss or get off the pot

heck most good teams trade assets for players at the deadline and lose them for nothing in a couple months

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flaming Horse

This is the wrong way to look at it. He is a big asset and you don't lose him for nothing.

This is simply naive. Players are "lost for nothing" all the time. Anything that the Flames could recoup through a trade is not close to the value that Weegar provides now—this season. Even if he is not resigned the Flames still walked away with a full year's service at a crazy-good cap hit. That in itself has huge value.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by dino7c

the best teams lose players for nothing every season

ask the Avs, ask Tampa

Yeah but they lost players after winning cups not before. Both teams loaded up to win Stanley Cups and the byproduct of that is losing players after.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yeah but they lost players after winning cups not before. Both teams loaded up to win Stanley Cups and the byproduct of that is losing players after.

Sure, but neither team had any assurances that the players they lost would still be with them had they not one. The decision to keep Coleman/B.Gaudreau/Kadri etc. was made well before they won the cup. As a GM, who intends to compete for a cup, you have to be willing to take on risk. It’s simply the cost of business.

[1qqaaz]

If the Flames traded Hanifin, and Weegar walker, it could be a bad situation, to put it lightly. The team should have two or so years left in the competitive window at that point, you wouldn't want to waste it.

As long as Weegar is not signed, Hanifin has to stay on the team.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Flaming Horse

This is the wrong way to look at it. He is a big asset and you don't lose him for nothing.

I disagree. This whole idea of 'losing him for nothing' is incorrect. What if we win the cup this season and lose him in the summer? Pretty damn good asset management in that case. I think people get caught up in this whole 'asset management' idea and forget about the ultimate point of hockey - to win. We could trade Weegar for picks if he doesn't want to sign, and as a result not have as successful of a season. Some would consider that great asset management. Sure, if you think the purpose of hockey is to manage assets and not actually win. It was the same idea with Gaudreau. Some people said we should have traded him last offseason when he didn't re-sign, and because we didn't we lost him for nothing. That isn't correct though, we got 1 year of a 115 pt winger and an opportunity to win the cup. It's the whole point.

[Lanny_McDonald]

You should only be comfortable in losing a player if you have another in the system to backfill that position. It is arguable if the Flames are in that position, considering we don't have any high end defensive prospects in the system. Flames need to sign Weegar or put the fans through the same crap they did this past summer. Losing a top end player for nothing would be mistake, something Trelving is very aware of. He managed to wiggle his way out of the noose this past summer, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to be facing the same situation come next summer. He'll get Weegar signed.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SebC

You never lose a player for nothing any more. You lose them for cap space. Surely after the offseason we just had, we can all see the value that has?

It is amazing that this still doesn't seem to have fully sunk in for a lot of fans.

The cap is like a big box and each year, you have to fit your players into that box. Some take up more space than others, but they all take up space. When a player like Gaudreau is taken out, it leaves a lot of space for other players.

Gaudreau, Tkachuk and Monahan had a combined cap hit of $20.1M last year. And they would have been $25.875M this year. They would have had to move Monahan, just to keep the team together.

Huberdeau, Weegar and Kadri have a combined hit of $16.15M this year. That savings allowed them to re-sign Mangiapane and Zadorov. The total for these 5 is $25.7M (exactly the cost of the other 3).

Huberdeau + Weegar + Kadri + Mangiapane + Zadorov >>>>>>>>>> Gaudreau + Tkachuk + Monahan

We most definitely did NOT lose Gaudreau for nothing.

[The Cobra]

If the Flames were not a particularly good team this year, and had little chance to contend, absolutely they should be trading Weegar if they can't sign him to an extension. better to recoup value and wait for a better time to roll the dice.

But they are a contender, so they need to keep him and see what happens. Now, the odds are that they will not win the cup. That's the odds for every team. But that's the cost of contending. At some stage you need to hold your cards and see how it goes.

There is a reason why Huberdeau and Weegar were obtained relatively cheaply. They were older players in the last year of their contracts who needed huge extensions. As good of players they were, that decreased their value. And while Tkachuk was in a similar place contract wise, he was a very young player who would agree to an extension. That increased his value immensely. Florida decided that they wanted to extend their window for a number of years, as I assume they knew that they would not be as good this year with the trade.