Weekend Open Thread: Race to The Cap Floor

Ryan Pike
May 10 2014 09:15AM

A good many people, myself included, have spent the first part of spring actively contemplating the future of Dennis Wideman.

It's no small wonder. To be charitable, he didn't have a good season. To be blunt, he wasn't very good at all. We'll dig into the team-wide possession stats a bit next week, but let me spoil it for you: however you slice it, Wideman wildly under-performed.

He's also making more than any Flame not named Mike Cammalleri, and he's on the richest deal on the books for next season. He's been floated out there as a prime compliance buyout candidate, as who wants a third-pairing blueliner making $5.25 million on the books?

Well, probably these guys might.

THE CAP

The salary cap is projected to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $68 to $71 million next season, depending on the impact of the fluctuating Canadian dollar. That would place the cap floor between $52 and $55 million.

MONEY ALREADY SPENT

If you look at one-way deals and players that are virtually guaranteed to be on the NHL roster next season, here's how Calgary's roster works out.

Goalies: $2.75m (1 body) - Karri Ramo $2.75m

Blueline: $17.495m (5 bodies) - Dennis Wideman $5.25m, Mark Giordano $4.020m, Ladislav Smid $3.5m, T.J. Brodie $2.125m, Kris Russell $2.6m

Forwards: $17.7m (7 bodies) - Jiri Hudler $4m, David Jones $4m, Matt Stajan $3.125m, Curtis Glencross $2.55m, Mikael Backlund $1.5m, Sean Monahan $1.775m, Brian McGrattan $0.750m

If you add that up, you get approximately $37.945 million committed to 13 players, leaving 10 roster spots needed to be filled with between $14 and $17 million needed to be spent to hit the floor.

Okay, let's go one step further.

If you look at Calgary's many, many restricted free agents, there are three players that have basically forced Brad Treliving's hand - Joe Colborne, Lance Bouma and Paul Byron. While I can't figure out precisely how much they'll each make individually, let's operate under the not-so-terrible assumption that the three of them combined will earn around $4.5 million.

That gives the Flames 1 goalie, 5 defensemen, 10 forwards and 7 roster spots to fill with between $9 and $12 million left to hit the floor. If you presume they bury Shane O'Brien's contract in the AHL again (I think they buy him out), knock off another million. The three most likely bubble players to make the team - Tyler Wotherspoon ($925k), Max Reinhart ($878k) and Markus Granlund ($925k) all have cap-friendly deals.

And even with those three (or their equivalents) in the NHL, you still need to fill four NHL roster spots and spend a minimum of between $6.25 and $9.25 million to hit the bare minimum of NHL payroll.

SO?

Can you fathom this ownership group (1) paying Dennis Wideman his money owed to play elsewhere and then (2) having to probably wildly, wildly over-spend to hit the cap-floor?

Even without buying out Wideman, it'll be incredibly difficult for the Flames to hit the cap floor without going out of their way to add salary from somewhere or to really, really encourage some of their rookies with incentive-laden deals (like Sven Baertschi, Corban Knight or Johnny Gaudreau) to spend time in the NHL to take advantage of their resultant cap hits.

In short: Dennis Wideman has a bad, bad deal for what he brings to the table, or at least for what he brought to it last year. But I cannot foresee a buy-out in his near-future for the simple logistical reason that I can't see how the Flames can manage the cap situation a compliance buy-out would produce.

51a8cdc527ce12d222fdc583f3cf4368
Ryan Pike is a Calgary native and FlamesNation's managing editor. He's covered the Flames and the NHL since 2010. His work can also be found at The Hockey Writers and The Wrestling Observer.
Avatar
#1 BJ
May 10 2014, 09:40AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
4
props

Yes, much better to hope he has a bounce back season.

As the cap rises over the next couple of seasons his deal won't look so bad.

I think his performance this season is somewhat (who knows really) attributed to injuries and to that he had to carry the second pairing all of the time when healthy. In reality he is a decent #3/4 puck mover who can play the powerplay at an acceptable level. To get the most out of him he needs a better partner:

So, if you keep Brodie with Gio, then that second pairing will still be a weakness. Russell and Smid would be a good 3rd pairing I think. None of our prospects are ready so if we want to get the most out of Wideman we have to fill that #3 D spot.

Can this spot be filled best via Free Agency or trade.

Who are our FA candidates?

Who are our trade chips that have actual value?

Avatar
#2 SoCalFlamesFan
May 10 2014, 10:08AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props

Off topic but has anyone heard any update on Sven? (I assume the worst with so little news and think broken neck and stuff.)

Avatar
#3 ???
May 10 2014, 10:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
21
props

My impression of Wideman's season was:

1) Out of the gates, he wasn't just good, he was really good - playing huge minutes, hitting guys hard and putting up points, getting compliments from Coach Bob.

2) Then he got hurt, and after that he wasn't good. At all.

As far as getting to the salary cap floor, you'd have to think that Treliving's at least going to consider taking another team's bad contract for a pick or two at the draft table. I know Lambert's guaranteeing 3 years of UFA Heatley at 5 mill, but really, doesn't it make more sense to get real assets when you HAVE TO throw away big money?

Avatar
#4 Aoak
May 10 2014, 10:22AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
17
props

Broken rib for Sven. Backlund with 2 goals so far, one set up by Erixon of all people.

Avatar
#5 flamesAustria
May 10 2014, 10:27AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
8
props

off topic:

backlund scorded two at the worlds against denmark. besides baertschi it looks great so far for flames players in the tournament.

Avatar
#6 T&A4Flames
May 10 2014, 10:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
29
props

Thank you, finally it's been said. Buying out Wideman would make absolutely zero sense! Keep his cap hit and hope for a rebound season. If we end up trading him, retain some salary.

Avatar
#7 Stubblejumper
May 10 2014, 11:40AM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Props
3
props

Thanks Ryan...appreciate knowing where the Flames are at in terms of making the floor.

It provides me with comfort that the Flames don't need to do anything if they are going to pursue a "patient organizational development" strategy for 2014-15 as they will make the cap floor without requiring any expensive UFA additions nor blockbuster trade for high-priced veteran talent.

Pursuing a strategy of patient organizational development would see further resources put in to scouting and minor league training, strategic redesign of consistent minor & NHL team play and coaching concepts, aligning drafting and development to fit required player profiles, and long-range planning of prospect development by position and financial cap management.

With Patient Development the 2014-15 team would see gradual replacement/trading of 1-2 more vets over 26 yrs this year, leaving 1-2 veterans to provide long-term leadership. Most of the year would be focused on additional prospect development of those players just coming up or with less than 2 years NHL experience, with a high focus on team identity/culture formation that we saw this past year.

This would then see the team have a positive year in terms of player development but also position the team for one more elite pick in the 2015 draft before then looking to ascend the ranks in 2015-16.

Pursuing this strategy incurs little financial risk but has higher customer/fan risk so care is required to send out proper messaging and expectations to the fan base so they remain supportive and patient for another year without significant backlash as has been seen in other cities e.g. BUF, EDM.

On the other hand the alternate strategy for BT/BB to pursue in 2014-15 would be to "win now at all costs". This would focus on making the playoffs this year, require spending big $$$ on high-priced UFAs, trading away picks & prospects for older more expensive veteran talent, and buying out underperforming assets eg. Wideman ($5M x 3 yrs), DJones ($4M x 2 yrs), O'Brien ($2M x 1 yr).

If this "win now" strategy is pursued it will require large $$$ expenditures and cost lost future prospect opportunity. The benefit will be to immediately upgrade current roster talent and skip 1-2 years of rebuilding time.

Pursuing the Win Now strategy will incur high financial risk but would likely receive positive fan support with several new signings, trades and roster moves, creating short-term excitement amongst the fan base (akin to some of the roster moves made during the Sutter GM era).

By jump-starting the rebuild while there may be short-term improvements this strategy will incur higher longer-term team risk by trading away high picks & prospects, losing out on another Top 5 elite/generational talent in the 2015 draft, and a reduced opportunity to develop a Top 6 Cup Contending team for the next decade.

In summary:

- the Patient Development strategy will see a one year delay in team performance in return for significantly improving prospect development, along with getting another Top 5 elite/generational talent...in return for a decade-long run of being a new Cup contender.

- the WIN NOW strategy will see faster short-term improvement but lower long-term ceiling, likely topping out at becoming a lower echelon but consistent playoff contender.

So the question is...what is the strategy that Edwards, Burke and Treliving going to pursue?

And are the Flames brain trust going to trust the Flames fan base by conveying their vision so we can all be engaged to support their vision?

Avatar
#8 BurningSensation
May 10 2014, 12:01PM
Trash it!
17
trashes
Props
9
props
??? wrote:

My impression of Wideman's season was:

1) Out of the gates, he wasn't just good, he was really good - playing huge minutes, hitting guys hard and putting up points, getting compliments from Coach Bob.

2) Then he got hurt, and after that he wasn't good. At all.

As far as getting to the salary cap floor, you'd have to think that Treliving's at least going to consider taking another team's bad contract for a pick or two at the draft table. I know Lambert's guaranteeing 3 years of UFA Heatley at 5 mill, but really, doesn't it make more sense to get real assets when you HAVE TO throw away big money?

I think this is on the money.

I can see Burke offering a contract that is both fat and lengthy to Cammalleri to get him to stay. Why bother asking him for a home-town discount when you have the money to burn?

This strikes me as way more reasonable than paying Heatley to be a powerplay spot-up-shooter who otherwise can't ger around the rink fast enough to make any kind of difference.

That said, I think the real targets are Eric Staal or Jason Spezza. Both have big ticket contracts their current teams aren't keen on having to pay, both are legit #1 Cs entering the tail end of their prime, and both could likely be had for prospects/picks without big contracts going back because their current teams have cap issues and are looking to hit the reset button.

I know it isn't a popular line of reasoning as most of the fanbase is with Lambert in thinking we should be tank-city for the next decade until we luck into a generational talent (the hockey equivalent of investing your paycheck in lottery tickets as a retirement plan), that it is highly unlikely to be Burke's way of doing things.

If we added a Staal/Spezza to fill out the top line, the Flames would be instantly more; balanced, competitive, and would have our young players slotted more appropriately (i.e Monahan wouldn't have to play above his head). I also believe we'd be knocking on the door for the playoffs.

If we also added a #3 Defender (likely by trade, I can't see us outbidding everyone for Niskanen), we might be even better than that.

Avatar
#9 BurningSensation
May 10 2014, 12:32PM
Trash it!
12
trashes
Props
8
props

@Stubblejumper

I think you overstate the dynamic at play in terms of strategies available for BB and BT to pursue.

1. Embrace the suck. Deal away any vet of any talent for picks. Take a hammer to Ramo's kneecap so that he misses a ton of time Play the hell out of Joey MacDonald. Play Smid on the top D-man unit. Let Monahan have the #1C duties. Finish last. Draft MacDavid or Eichel.

2. Steady as she goes. Keep hoarding draft picks, developing players slowly, etc. Eventually something good will emerge. In 3-6 years or so.

3. 'Accelerated rebuild'. Add a couple of missing pieces for prospects/picks/and taking back bad contracts. Add a Spezza/Staal and a D-man to round out the lineup. Keep the kids at a level where they can be successful until they push someone out of the lineup ahead of them. (this is my preference)

4. 'Win at all costs now'. Flip our best picks and prospects for immediate help. Sign expensive RFAs to long term deals. Go after; Joe Thornton, Thomas Vanek, and Dan Boyle to upgrade with vets throughout the lineup. Spend to the cap.

Lambert and the fanbase seem to be sold on #1 or #2. I'm firmly in the #3 camp. #4 is so unrealistic I think it is virtually impossible to occur.

Avatar
#10 BurningSensation
May 10 2014, 12:35PM
Trash it!
12
trashes
Props
5
props

In terms of real life analogs for what I suggested;

1. Edmonton/Islanders

2. St Louis/Columbus

3. Boston

4. Rangers

Avatar
#11 T&A4Flames
May 10 2014, 12:39PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
19
props
BurningSensation wrote:

I think this is on the money.

I can see Burke offering a contract that is both fat and lengthy to Cammalleri to get him to stay. Why bother asking him for a home-town discount when you have the money to burn?

This strikes me as way more reasonable than paying Heatley to be a powerplay spot-up-shooter who otherwise can't ger around the rink fast enough to make any kind of difference.

That said, I think the real targets are Eric Staal or Jason Spezza. Both have big ticket contracts their current teams aren't keen on having to pay, both are legit #1 Cs entering the tail end of their prime, and both could likely be had for prospects/picks without big contracts going back because their current teams have cap issues and are looking to hit the reset button.

I know it isn't a popular line of reasoning as most of the fanbase is with Lambert in thinking we should be tank-city for the next decade until we luck into a generational talent (the hockey equivalent of investing your paycheck in lottery tickets as a retirement plan), that it is highly unlikely to be Burke's way of doing things.

If we added a Staal/Spezza to fill out the top line, the Flames would be instantly more; balanced, competitive, and would have our young players slotted more appropriately (i.e Monahan wouldn't have to play above his head). I also believe we'd be knocking on the door for the playoffs.

If we also added a #3 Defender (likely by trade, I can't see us outbidding everyone for Niskanen), we might be even better than that.

Sorry BS, but I in no way advocate moves like these. Removing some of the prospect depth we just spent the last few years on rebuilding for expensive vets. If they could be had on the cheap, sure, but the cost to acquire those players would ruin what we have just built up and have neede for a long time. I would offer a sizeable contract to Mark Fayne to strengthen our D, especially on the right side. That costs only money and a contract spot, not our youth.

Avatar
#12 BurningSensation
May 10 2014, 12:44PM
Trash it!
29
trashes
Props
4
props
T&A4Flames wrote:

Sorry BS, but I in no way advocate moves like these. Removing some of the prospect depth we just spent the last few years on rebuilding for expensive vets. If they could be had on the cheap, sure, but the cost to acquire those players would ruin what we have just built up and have neede for a long time. I would offer a sizeable contract to Mark Fayne to strengthen our D, especially on the right side. That costs only money and a contract spot, not our youth.

For me it depends on what the assets being moved out are.

If the Flames dealt their 2015 1st rnd pick and Granlund to Carolina for Staal, I'd be totally OK with that. It wouldn't hurt our C depth (it would improve it substantially), and we would be a considerably better team.

For me, the assets I wouldn't move under just about any circumstances (unless Malkin becomes available), are; Johnny G, Monahan, Gillies, and Brodie. The rest I would happily consider (including either this years or next years 1st - but not both).

I like your idea of going after Mark Fayne, but don't see him being a realistic signing.

Avatar
#13 beloch
May 10 2014, 01:38PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
10
props

All NHL teams want and need players who offer high performance/cap-hit ratios (i.e. high value players). What many people don't appreciate is that players become unsigned UFA's primarily by failing to do this.

Those who espouse rebuild plan #1 often think that their club can suck for years and, when the lottery picks mature, suddenly turn everything around by signing the right UFA's. The UFA market does not offer value. It only offers expensive patches to slap over gaping holes, like bondo on a car. The Oilers are what happens when you try to make a car that's half bondo by volume.

Avatar
#14 BurningSensation
May 10 2014, 01:56PM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Props
4
props
beloch wrote:

All NHL teams want and need players who offer high performance/cap-hit ratios (i.e. high value players). What many people don't appreciate is that players become unsigned UFA's primarily by failing to do this.

Those who espouse rebuild plan #1 often think that their club can suck for years and, when the lottery picks mature, suddenly turn everything around by signing the right UFA's. The UFA market does not offer value. It only offers expensive patches to slap over gaping holes, like bondo on a car. The Oilers are what happens when you try to make a car that's half bondo by volume.

On the one hand, I agree completely that UFAs offer no extra value. But that is not the same as 'having no value'. David Clarkson's contract is a good example, he still has value as a player who can contribute to a teams success on the ice, but there is no 'extra value' to his contributions vs what he is (over)paid.

It's a function of how the NHL has set up the market for player services. As young players on ELCs and 2nd contracts, they often provide tons of 'extra value' because they are contributing way above what they are being paid for. In essence, these players are being 'robbed' of what they deserve (fair pay for their contributions) so that veteran players can be overpaid for the contributions they provide when they hit the open market.

Pittsburgh got amazing value out of both Malkin and Crosby for the first 5 yrs of their deals, value that was then redistributed to other veteran players (Hossa, Gonchar) brought in to help bring them over the top. Now that Crosby and Malkin are being more fairly paid (they still aren't being fairly paid, even at their current contracts because in an open market without a cap they would command up to twice or more than what they currently get) the team has less value to redistribute to other vets.

Edmonton's problem is that aside from their core of players drafted 1st overall, the team is filled with horrible players who aren't delivering value for their deals (Gagner, Ference, etc.).

Avatar
#15 Kevin R
May 10 2014, 02:12PM
Trash it!
11
trashes
Props
6
props
BurningSensation wrote:

For me it depends on what the assets being moved out are.

If the Flames dealt their 2015 1st rnd pick and Granlund to Carolina for Staal, I'd be totally OK with that. It wouldn't hurt our C depth (it would improve it substantially), and we would be a considerably better team.

For me, the assets I wouldn't move under just about any circumstances (unless Malkin becomes available), are; Johnny G, Monahan, Gillies, and Brodie. The rest I would happily consider (including either this years or next years 1st - but not both).

I like your idea of going after Mark Fayne, but don't see him being a realistic signing.

I think I would prefer to be somewhere in the middle. Doesn't make sense to trade a 2014 or 2015 1st that will be top 5 picks for players like Spezza or Staal. If we part with any of our 1st in the next 2 years, it will be for either ROR or Kane or some mid 20's up & coming core player. Colorado needed defence you have to wonder if Wideman & our #4 pick & a prospect, can get us ROR.

Avatar
#16 beloch
May 10 2014, 02:31PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
11
props

@BurningSensation

To make matters worse for the Oilers, they've been overpaying their rookies too.

Avatar
#17 redhot1
May 10 2014, 02:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
13
props

The Flames are in a unique position. A team at the moment struggling to make the cap floor, but with the financial backing to spend to the celling. I can't think of too many teams that have ever been in this kind of organizational limbo. At the moment, Flames have no massive contracts that will hinder them for the forseeable future (hello Maple Leafs). Brad Treliving has alot of options (and challenges) in his first year as a GM, and it should be really interesting to see how he uses the amount of cap space we have. Or, by extension, how he doesn't use the cap space, which is a very reasonable option right now. Personally, I'd like to see this team hover around the lower end of the cap for the next couple seasons, then spend away when we have a more developed (better) team. Really excited to see how the Flames shape up over the next few years.

Avatar
#18 redhot1
May 10 2014, 02:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
20
props

@BurningSensation

I wouldn't really want to go after Staal or Spezza. We have a logjam of centres at the moment that need playing time, along with a couple of them fighting for a roster spot. If you were to go after a big name player, make it RWer, like Voracek

Avatar
#19 beloch
May 10 2014, 03:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
30
props

I'm not sure how many people tuned in to the team USA game today, given that Canada was also playing. Gaudreau may not have picked up any points today, but he played well and he played a lot (The time-sheets have not yet been updated to include the third period, so I can't say what his total TOI was yet). He was a great possession player for the whole game.

One thing that stood out to me was how he creates time and space for himself. He's really good at zone-entries. There was one where two defenders were ahead of him and two forwards were closing in on him from behind, but none of his team-mates had entered the zone yet. A lot of players would chip and chase or just try to run around the defenders and get squeezed off the puck. He somehow knew where all his opponents were and slowed down just enough to maximize the time before anyone could reach him, which was just enough for another US player to enter the zone and receive a nice pass right on the tape.

Gaudreau does the little, smart things consistently. That's so rare to see in a rookie that it's probably even more impressive than watching him "dance" around other players with the puck (The words "dancing" and "Gaudreau" seemed to be on the lips of the announcers a disproportionate number of times). He uses his small size to his advantage. He nearly beat Berra with a shot that I wouldn't have believed possible to get off in the space he had.

I strongly urge Flames fans to tune into a team USA game if you haven't done so yet. Johnny Hockey is insanely fun to watch.

Avatar
#20 Skuehler
May 10 2014, 03:11PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
11
props
BurningSensation wrote:

For me it depends on what the assets being moved out are.

If the Flames dealt their 2015 1st rnd pick and Granlund to Carolina for Staal, I'd be totally OK with that. It wouldn't hurt our C depth (it would improve it substantially), and we would be a considerably better team.

For me, the assets I wouldn't move under just about any circumstances (unless Malkin becomes available), are; Johnny G, Monahan, Gillies, and Brodie. The rest I would happily consider (including either this years or next years 1st - but not both).

I like your idea of going after Mark Fayne, but don't see him being a realistic signing.

I think Granlunds gonna be a stud for a long time. And he costs very little. And he's ready to step up and take a spot next season. Why trade that?

If I'm NY I take that deal everyday and twice on Sunday. 1st round pick (top 10), Gralund and cap relief to sign other players?! Why trade away a pre-apex solid high end prospect on the cheap for an expensive post apex player??

Avatar
#21 redhot1
May 10 2014, 03:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
11
props

@beloch

The thing that stood out for me is his ability to enter the zone with the puck on his stick, and keep it. Not many players can do that consistently. Very Patrick Kane like.

Avatar
#22 ChinookArch
May 10 2014, 04:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
10
props

And speaking of Johnny Hockey . . . I received my Gaudfather t-shirt, and I'm very happy.

Avatar
#23 clyde
May 10 2014, 05:36PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
3
props

A What If for you. What if Reinhart slips to 4 and the Islanders want all the brothers for not only their ability but to help market the team. Should the Flames trade the brothers and if so, for what return? Keep in mind that Garth Snow is their gm.

Avatar
#24 ChinookArch
May 10 2014, 06:10PM
Trash it!
9
trashes
Props
0
props

@clyde

Interesting thought. They're moving to a new market in Brooklyn, so it's the kind of publicity that they might want to latch onto. Since, It's Snow I'd aim for Calgary native Thomas Hickey and the Islanders 2014 5th overall pick.

Avatar
#25 Clyde
May 10 2014, 06:27PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
1
props
ChinookArch wrote:

Interesting thought. They're moving to a new market in Brooklyn, so it's the kind of publicity that they might want to latch onto. Since, It's Snow I'd aim for Calgary native Thomas Hickey and the Islanders 2014 5th overall pick.

I'd want more for both reinharts. How about adding Lee and dehaan while adding wideman to help with the pp?

Avatar
#26 ChinookArch
May 10 2014, 06:41PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props

@Clyde

I somehow forgot the trade for Max. I know he's 30 yrs old, but I like Frans Nielsen a lot, he and De Haan, would be good.

Avatar
#27 If Only HIs Name Was Olli Postandin
May 10 2014, 07:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

SOB is still on the books, too. Add an extra 2.5 mill there.

Avatar
#28 MontanaMan
May 10 2014, 07:50PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
5
props

Don't want to turn this into a political forum but it irks me a ton to even consider paying someone an obscene amount of money, even though all would admit he's not worth it, so the organization can make a cap floor under the CBA agreement. How is this good for the team when every club has one or two players grossly overpaid and the club can't do anything about it? Yes, ownership signs the contracts and they have responsibility. But in my business (and every private enterprise organization!) even those who are paid well must produce or they're shown the door. I see VP's and EVP's fired on a regular basis for not performing at the expected level yet we seem fine with paying some slug $5.25 million a year to stink out the joint. Disgusting. Rant over.

Avatar
#29 loudogYYC
May 10 2014, 08:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
13
props
ChinookArch wrote:

Interesting thought. They're moving to a new market in Brooklyn, so it's the kind of publicity that they might want to latch onto. Since, It's Snow I'd aim for Calgary native Thomas Hickey and the Islanders 2014 5th overall pick.

If a waiver pick up like Hickey and 5th overall is all Treliving can get for Max and 4th overall, we may as well have kept Feaster around.

Considering Snow is behind the 8-ball with no 1st rounder next season, I'd ask for Pulock, 5th overall, a 2014 2nd and 3rd rounder for 4th overall, Max Reinhart and a 2014 6th rd pick.

Avatar
#30 gussey
May 10 2014, 08:51PM
Trash it!
19
trashes
Props
1
props

Is one of the staals available as burning sensation says.. if so, I'd say absolutely do what you can to get him.

Avatar
#31 MontanaMan
May 10 2014, 09:11PM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Props
2
props

Any talk with the Islanders needs to involve Travis Hamonic, one of the future stars in the league. He's endured the tough first few years as a defenceman entering the NHL and has recently shown his upside and potential. The asking price will be high but if it costs you your first round pick, his value is much higher than any d-man in the draft.

Avatar
#32 FireOnIce
May 10 2014, 09:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props
gussey wrote:

Is one of the staals available as burning sensation says.. if so, I'd say absolutely do what you can to get him.

Pretty sure the only Staal available is Marc, and the scuttlebutt has always been that all of the Staal brothers want to play together. Doubt that will be in Calgary. If anything, Marc will get traded to Carolina.

I 100% doubt Eric Staal will play in Calgary by himself. We'd have to take on 3 Staal brothers (not a bad thing) and a bajillion $$ in salary.

Avatar
#33 coachedpotatoe
May 10 2014, 10:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
8
props

Really will not be hard to hit the floor, you need a back up goalie $1-2 million, plus Ortio for the Heat, an extra defence man $1-3 million(or more if you go high end), plus some insurance in the AHL, and 1 NHL forward at $1.5-$3million(heck that doesn't even include the possibility of resigning TJG). Plus you have to have room to give MB and TJB raises. Don't worry they will hit the floor without having to go crazy.

Also if the do sign Cammi IMO they will move one of Hudler or GlenX. Trevling will have his hands full.

Avatar
#34 Baalzamon
May 10 2014, 10:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
7
props

@clyde

Honestly I think I'd rather just draft Sam.

Although, if the talks involve Hamonic... well, that's definitely a player the Flames should be interested in.

Avatar
#35 Clyde
May 10 2014, 11:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
Baalzamon wrote:

Honestly I think I'd rather just draft Sam.

Although, if the talks involve Hamonic... well, that's definitely a player the Flames should be interested in.

If the isles would overpay,it could be intriguing though. If Hamonic entered the conversation, that would be worth a conversation. No one knows how valuable the reinharts could be to wang so you never know. If draisaults name is called in the top 3, this could become a possibility

Avatar
#36 prendrefeu
May 10 2014, 11:17PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
8
props

At this point, if we aren't raising the Cup in about 13 months, we should just scuttle the ship completely and riot.

/sarcasm

Avatar
#37 loudogYYC
May 10 2014, 11:49PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
3
props
Clyde wrote:

If the isles would overpay,it could be intriguing though. If Hamonic entered the conversation, that would be worth a conversation. No one knows how valuable the reinharts could be to wang so you never know. If draisaults name is called in the top 3, this could become a possibility

The Isles kinda need to start winning now if they want to keep Tavares around. Trading away their #1 Dman for an 18 year old prospect who's another prospects younger brother isn't gonna help them win in short term.

Avatar
#38 Clyde
May 10 2014, 11:54PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
2
props
loudogYYC wrote:

The Isles kinda need to start winning now if they want to keep Tavares around. Trading away their #1 Dman for an 18 year old prospect who's another prospects younger brother isn't gonna help them win in short term.

We could add a pp def by the name of wideman

Avatar
#39 Clyde
May 10 2014, 11:54PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
3
props
loudogYYC wrote:

The Isles kinda need to start winning now if they want to keep Tavares around. Trading away their #1 Dman for an 18 year old prospect who's another prospects younger brother isn't gonna help them win in short term.

We could add a pp def by the name of wideman

Avatar
#40 Tommynotsohuge
May 11 2014, 12:01AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Props
12
props

Man am I ever glad none of you are GMs. To give up Sam for anybody would be silly. We are rebuilding. Trading these crucial picks would be so counter productive we might as well hire Darryl Sutter back.

Avatar
#41 beloch
May 11 2014, 12:06AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Props
9
props

@prendrefeu

There are two things a lot of people posting here seem to think that I just don't understand.

1) The team must either make the playoffs or tank for McDavid. Anything else is a failure.

If the team "succeeds" in sucking more than any other NHL team, the odds are still 75% against the Flames picking first. McDavid might be a generational player, but the odds that he'll be a bust are not negligible. Is it really worth stalling the progress of a club for an entire season for such a meager payoff? Make no mistake, there is a heavy price to pay for deliberately tanking. The feel-good end to this season, both for players and fans, is absolutely aberrant. I guarantee you that nobody in Calgary will be happy to finish fifth last in the league again for a very long time. On the other hand, going from fifth last to the playoffs in one season is exceptionally difficult. A return to mediocrity is likely a necessary intermediate step.

2) This team must trade rookies for veterans to improve.

The Flames still have a handful of quality veterans who are unlikely to last through the rebuild. Glencross and Stajan are both likely to bring a decent return and, believe it or not, left wing and center are currently positions of depth for the Flames (Note how many natural centers have switched to the wing for a chance to play with the NHL club). Glencross/Stajan would be missed, but both would bring back a quality return, potentially in a position the Flames are currently short on. Trading Glencross for a quality second-pairing defender seems like a smart move in particular, especially with Gaudreau demonstrating that he can look damned good playing 16-17 minutes a night against World Cup caliber competition.

The Flames would likely finish higher next season than they did this season if Burke/Treliving spent the summer trout fishing. They're not going to do that. They will make what Burke has called "hockey trades", and they will probably spend a little on UFA's too. Brace yourself for mediocrity fans. Just remember that it won't be the same kind of mediocrity that was a symptom of delaying the rebuild. It will be the kind that comes between sucking and rocking.

Avatar
#42 Clyde
May 11 2014, 12:12AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
1
props
Tommynotsohuge wrote:

Man am I ever glad none of you are GMs. To give up Sam for anybody would be silly. We are rebuilding. Trading these crucial picks would be so counter productive we might as well hire Darryl Sutter back.

Even if we could add 2 of lee, dehaan. Hamonic, strome, along with the .5th pick?

Avatar
#43 prendrefeu
May 11 2014, 12:14AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
5
props

@beloch

Exactly. I don't understand it either, but on the other hand I'm happy to see that there is a passionate fan base alive and well.

Avatar
#44 loudogYYC
May 11 2014, 12:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
6
props

@Tommynotsohuge

Odds of Sam Reinhart being available at 4 are pretty slim, so don't worry too much about it.

Avatar
#45 Howie Meeker
May 11 2014, 06:59AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
10
props

@beloch

Isn't it a nice change to enjoy watching the IIHF tournament when it wasn't all that long ago all we had to look forward was the draft. Although Feaster did make some bone head moves (I don't know any GM that hasn't shaken the dice with trades and lost) the organizations philosophy changed and the Flames started to building within, draft wisely and now are building a stronger farm team/system to develope NHL ready players. This is going to take sometime however remember our last cup win was in 89 and it took 3 years of domanence to reach that plateau. There is no quick fix here but at least for now we have some special players on the horizon so to trade any of the first 3 round picks for the next 5 years or so is stepping backwards.

Avatar
#46 coachedpotatoe
May 11 2014, 07:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
6
props
beloch wrote:

There are two things a lot of people posting here seem to think that I just don't understand.

1) The team must either make the playoffs or tank for McDavid. Anything else is a failure.

If the team "succeeds" in sucking more than any other NHL team, the odds are still 75% against the Flames picking first. McDavid might be a generational player, but the odds that he'll be a bust are not negligible. Is it really worth stalling the progress of a club for an entire season for such a meager payoff? Make no mistake, there is a heavy price to pay for deliberately tanking. The feel-good end to this season, both for players and fans, is absolutely aberrant. I guarantee you that nobody in Calgary will be happy to finish fifth last in the league again for a very long time. On the other hand, going from fifth last to the playoffs in one season is exceptionally difficult. A return to mediocrity is likely a necessary intermediate step.

2) This team must trade rookies for veterans to improve.

The Flames still have a handful of quality veterans who are unlikely to last through the rebuild. Glencross and Stajan are both likely to bring a decent return and, believe it or not, left wing and center are currently positions of depth for the Flames (Note how many natural centers have switched to the wing for a chance to play with the NHL club). Glencross/Stajan would be missed, but both would bring back a quality return, potentially in a position the Flames are currently short on. Trading Glencross for a quality second-pairing defender seems like a smart move in particular, especially with Gaudreau demonstrating that he can look damned good playing 16-17 minutes a night against World Cup caliber competition.

The Flames would likely finish higher next season than they did this season if Burke/Treliving spent the summer trout fishing. They're not going to do that. They will make what Burke has called "hockey trades", and they will probably spend a little on UFA's too. Brace yourself for mediocrity fans. Just remember that it won't be the same kind of mediocrity that was a symptom of delaying the rebuild. It will be the kind that comes between sucking and rocking.

1. I'm not a fan of intentionally tanking but it does seem that next years draft classes top end have a higher ceiling than this years. If any of us approach this year thinking this team is playoff bound we will sadly disappointed(I doubt we are Colorado) and there is even a chance we regress points wise but make real progress developmentally.

2. I agree that our veterans are fine for our current situation, upfront we are missing some of 25-28 forwards that will help us through the next phase and personally I would like to see us acquire 1 maybe 2 in that age range over the next 2 seasons and preferably via UFA signings rather than trade our prospects; I would be okay of we traded our vets for this type of player. Because of our perceived depth on the LW and center position we need to give those young guys time to develop and be assessed at the AHL/NHL level. We do need to add some talent on the backend, the difference between our top pairing and the 2nd and 3rd is quite telling and there appears to be little immediate help on the farm.

Avatar
#47 Jeff In Lethbridge
May 11 2014, 09:06AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props
prendrefeu wrote:

At this point, if we aren't raising the Cup in about 13 months, we should just scuttle the ship completely and riot.

/sarcasm

it's a good thing you added "/sarcasm", otherwide I wouldn't have known what all that dripping was from

Avatar
#48 ChinookArch
May 11 2014, 09:14AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props
coachedpotatoe wrote:

1. I'm not a fan of intentionally tanking but it does seem that next years draft classes top end have a higher ceiling than this years. If any of us approach this year thinking this team is playoff bound we will sadly disappointed(I doubt we are Colorado) and there is even a chance we regress points wise but make real progress developmentally.

2. I agree that our veterans are fine for our current situation, upfront we are missing some of 25-28 forwards that will help us through the next phase and personally I would like to see us acquire 1 maybe 2 in that age range over the next 2 seasons and preferably via UFA signings rather than trade our prospects; I would be okay of we traded our vets for this type of player. Because of our perceived depth on the LW and center position we need to give those young guys time to develop and be assessed at the AHL/NHL level. We do need to add some talent on the backend, the difference between our top pairing and the 2nd and 3rd is quite telling and there appears to be little immediate help on the farm.

I agree with you, my preference is to use veterans where the Flames have (relatively) position strength for younger vets. This is what annoys me about not capitalizing on moving Cammalerri at the trade deadline. The only way this situation improves is signing Cammalerri to a 1-year contract and trying to move him again for an asset.

I do not hold any hope that he will sign another contract in Calgary, even if the offer is for way too much money and term.

Avatar
#49 Chewbacca
May 11 2014, 09:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
18
props
BurningSensation wrote:

I think you overstate the dynamic at play in terms of strategies available for BB and BT to pursue.

1. Embrace the suck. Deal away any vet of any talent for picks. Take a hammer to Ramo's kneecap so that he misses a ton of time Play the hell out of Joey MacDonald. Play Smid on the top D-man unit. Let Monahan have the #1C duties. Finish last. Draft MacDavid or Eichel.

2. Steady as she goes. Keep hoarding draft picks, developing players slowly, etc. Eventually something good will emerge. In 3-6 years or so.

3. 'Accelerated rebuild'. Add a couple of missing pieces for prospects/picks/and taking back bad contracts. Add a Spezza/Staal and a D-man to round out the lineup. Keep the kids at a level where they can be successful until they push someone out of the lineup ahead of them. (this is my preference)

4. 'Win at all costs now'. Flip our best picks and prospects for immediate help. Sign expensive RFAs to long term deals. Go after; Joe Thornton, Thomas Vanek, and Dan Boyle to upgrade with vets throughout the lineup. Spend to the cap.

Lambert and the fanbase seem to be sold on #1 or #2. I'm firmly in the #3 camp. #4 is so unrealistic I think it is virtually impossible to occur.

BS..you state you are an advocate of an "Accelerated Rebuild" strategy, trading for Spezza/Staal/Top D-man.

To do this you will need to trade high picks and very good prospects and receive in return post-apex players, not unlike Iginla whom we just traded away for the very same reasons that OTT and CAR want to now trade their post-apex stars.

I can't agree with this approach at all and feel it is counter-intuitive. While we might(?) see 2-3 years of elite play, this would barely bring us up to playoff contention (and mid-teens drafting) and arguably prevent the Flames from becoming a bona-fide Cup contender.

Also your example of BOS as an Accelerated Rebuild belies the facts. Boston is much more an example of a Patient Development approach where they have drafted and developed a majority of their current roster players, perhaps more so than any other team.

Per Bader's article 3 elite players were drafted and developed (Bergeron, Kessel, Seguin...who were then converted to include Hamilton, Ericsson, Reilly Smith, Fraser, Morrow etc).

On top of this most of the rest of the team was drafted by BOS as 2nd and 3rd rounders including Lucic, Kreijci, Marchand, Soderberg, Boychuk, McQuaid, Spooner, Others include Krug & Miller (undrafted) and Warsofsky (1st rnd).

In short Boston has up to 16 drafted and developed players on its roster on any one night with more on the way (Khoklachev, Subban, Camara etc). They signed Chara & Iginla as UFAs, and acquired through trade fourth liners Campbell/Kelly/Paille and Seidenberg.

The facts are that Boston clearly is a team built through drafting well, particularly their 1st-3rd rounders, have never traded away their 1st round picks and rarely their 2nd or 3rd rounders. They patiently developed their prospects to become the Top 6 contending team they are today.

You diminish drafting & developing as a high-risk prayer that will see something emerge in 3-6 years, and instead promote trading your way to success by giving away Granlund and 1st rounders for 30 plus post apex has beens.

I will just politely close by saying I am completely and vehemently opposed to your approach.

Avatar
#50 Jeremy
May 11 2014, 11:13AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

Getting to the cap floor won't be too tough. The team needs to spend a few bucks in FA but with perfect talents like the D-man from Pittsburgh Niskanen available, yeah they'd overpay for him, and the oppertunity to sign a couple players on 1 year deals who the team can ship out at the deadline who cares. The rebuild plan for me is 1 more year of development and then enter the accelerated program. The reward is really great for rebuilding patiently right now.After the 2015 draft where hopefully we get a shot at McDavid or Eichel then start to sign some high end players, or trade for such.

Comments are closed for this article.