Nigel Dawes on Waivers

Calgary Flames left wing Nigel Dawes (15) receives congratulations after scoring against the Colorado Avalanche during the second period at the Pepsi Center on April 2, 2010 in Denver. Colorado holds a slim two point lead over Calgary for the eighth and final Western Conference playoff slot.  UPI/Gary C. Caskey Photo via Newscom

 

According to a tweet by Kevin Allen of USA today, Nigel Dawes has been placed on waivers by the Calgary Flames. Unlike Kotalik, Dawes has been placed on unconditional waivers according to Bob McKenzie, meaning he is eligible to be bought out.

Aside from the potential longjam at LW should Higgins get re-signed (Hagman, Dawes, Higgins, Glencross), I can’t fathom why the Flames would want to rid themselves of Dawes’ contract. At 850k, he was a good bet to outperform his cap hit, which is something he most definitely did do last year. He had periods of low productivity (just like everyone else on the team) but spent lots of time taking on tough minutes with Langkow and Bourque and was able to hold his head above water. He finished in the black in terms of possession and scoring chances to end the year and was the most efficient producer of points on the power play – moreso than Jarome Iginla. While not big, he was decent in puck battles, had acceptable vision in the offensive zone and a better than average shot. Only three players managed more than Dawes’ 14 goals on the Flames last year and they all appeared in more games.

If Dawes goes away, either due to a claim or a buy-out, the Flames free up some roster space on the left side. What they lose, however, is a young, decent player on a high value contract. This is the kind of guy the Flames should be trying to acquire and keep, not get rid of.

  • This is like the Boyd deal. In isolation, it has a very meh impact but it points to some serious issues in the logic transistor.

    Now don’t get me wrong, I’d rather our GM not be penny-wise and pound-foolish, but lately I question whether he’s not pound-foolish either.

    Anyways, it’s like the Boyd deal. Makes no sense. None of the rationalizations make any sense.

    Logjam at LW? Move the guy to RW.

    Save money? Not really, he needs a replacement.

    He’s injured and ineffective? So? His replacement won’t be much better.

    Need the roster spot? Yeah, right. Just don’t sign the perennial goon, problem solved.

    Need the contract? I don’t know, RCleave pointed out it was 42 this morning, and plus can’t we just not qualify one of our terrible RFAs (we are replete in those) and then sign an AHL only player to, you know, only play in the AHL? That’s what most of our RFAs will end up doing anyway.

  • Unbelievable. Its critical to have some of your players outplay their contracts, and the Flames pretty much dumped the only forward on the team likely to do so outside of maybe bourque and lanks.People are also forgetting he would have put up BETTER counting stats if he wasn’t given tough minutes or a place in the pressbox (which I’m still pissed about).

    I guess we can all have some CPish optimism and say “Sutter has something up his sleeve,” but that’s what we were hoping for after the Kotalik trade. Plus, there’s not much out there on the UFA market.

    Fuck me sideways with a lunchbox.

  • Unbelievable. Its critical to have some of your players outplay their contracts, and the Flames pretty much dumped the only forward on the team likely to do so outside of maybe bourque and lanks.People are also forgetting he would have put up BETTER counting stats if he wasn’t given tough minutes or a place in the pressbox (which I’m still pissed about).

    I guess we can all have some CPish optimism and say “Sutter has something up his sleeve,” but that’s what we were hoping for after the Kotalik trade. Plus, there’s not much out there on the UFA market.

    Fuck me sideways with a lunchbox.

  • Un-fucking-believable. That’s all I got.

    In the cap world, it is critical to have your players outplay their salary. And the Flames dumped the only player in their top 9 likely to do so next year outside of maybe Bourque or Langkow. Can’t be throwing those types of guys away, especially one who’s cheap and can play occasional tough minutes.

    We can at least have some Calgary Puckish optimism and say, “Sutter has something up his sleeve,” but it makes it harder to make the big transactions when you are constantly losing them (adding salary, dumping assets and making your team a less desirable place to play).

    And to think I was mad about the Boyd trade.

  • With so few guys that can actually put the puck in the net why oh why…?

    Not much to add to everything that has been said.

    Good contract for a guy that is a pretty good third liner, can hold his own at times on the second and had 4 PP goals.

    With Nystrom leaving I don’t see a problem on the left. If they are adding another L wing AND keeping Higgins then move over to the right.

    Whatever…