cccsberg
-
Posts
3,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by cccsberg
-
-
I think Colborne is a fringe NHL player that only fits on a competitive team if at a budget salary that clears you cap to spend elsewhere. I think he is going to get around 3.2 in arbitration which removes his value. So I totally agree the Flames should walk.
It's possible they can trade him and I think they should if they can. Maybe they can do something for another player in a similar situation of probably getting overpaid (ie Hayes). But it also possible they can't move him.
In which case they have three options. Take the arbitration number at 1 year, take the arbitration number at 2 years, or sign him to a three year deal to try and get value out of the contract. In that scenario I hope for option 1 but fear option 3.
They were in the exact same situation with Bouma which is why I think they ended up in a bad contract
At this point I don't think I would even qualify Colborne and risk the arbitration case.
A fringe NHLer with 15-20 goals? Right. This whole Colborne discussion is so biased with prejudice it's not even worth joining in.
He's a good middle 6 NHLer. If the Flames don't want that or can't afford it, so be it.... A trade.
-
The biggest sticking point seems to be the dollar value.
He's big, covers the net well, is a good coach, manages equipment like there's no tomorrow, makes a mean omelet. He sounds like he is ready to sign a Flames offer. Doesn't think it will take long.
The troops are really getting stir crazy for some solid Flames news.....
-
I dont think it will ever get fixed, it will just continue to cycle from CBA to CBA.like I mentioned before I think we need a football style system. Franchse tags, non guaranteed deals. I can see the next cba addressing ELC exit contracts
Non-guaranteed (performance-based) contracts would go a long ways to fixing these many contract issues, as well as keeping guys motivated every year. Personally I don't like the Franchise tags, why needed?
-
To me anything 3 years or less is a disaster. You are saving money at a time when you are not a contender only to spend more when you are?
Makes no sense to me. I know the response is going yk be well they can then sign guys in Ufa that can help now and make them a contender but do you really think those players are going k sign short term deals?
Anything less than 5 years is a recipe for disaster IMO.
I believe 8 years is the best, but the Cap controls all, and if it remains flat for several years (even 1) it is going to wreak havoc on a lot of teams. The one thing that short contracts do is give you a much better view on the Cap and its implications for a team. Look at Montreal with PK, going LT has hampered them once the Cap flattened out versus what they were presuming when the deal was signed.
-
It's starting to sound like the most likely scenario is that the NHL defers for one year to give Seattle the chance to get their stuff together. Bad news for the Flames. Means more of our players move into unprotected status, delays getting a top 4D for another year, and it limits which goalies will be available this summer.
Well if so that MAY be the case, but even this year is still fine. On the other hand, since we have a massive number of contracts, including Johnny & Mony to be signed in the next few months, do you think some guys COULD get a full NMC for at least a year or two?
This could easily be Monahan, Gaudreau, Colborne and let's say Nakladal on D? It would also make it IMPERATIVE to trade/waive Wideman and his NMC by next TDL at the latest. If expansion is deferred, you could also add Bennett, Ferland, Jokipakka.... to the NMC lists. I don't think its going to be an issue either way. If you did that you could still bring in a great 4D (although I believe we already have one) and go the Protect 8 player scenario in an expansion draft.
-
Didn't see this posted already, so, just yesterday, some Expansion information came to the surface regarding how No Trade and No Movement clauses would be handled. From Sportsnet here:
They’ve also worked through how no-movement protection will be handled – with players that have full no-movement clauses required to be included among a team’s list of protected players. There are varying degrees of trade and waiver protection included in standard player contracts, but those with only no-trades can be exposed.
“A trade is a trade, and if you have a no-trade clause it doesn’t mean you can’t be exposed in an expansion draft,” said Daly.
In addition:
Another important aspect of the conversation is what happens if a team has too many no-movement clauses and can’t fulfill the specifics outlined in the expansion draft rules. Daly indicated the penalty would be “significant.”
“It’s a loss of draft picks and/or players,” he said.
Also, the league has dropped the % of team cap that has to be exposed for the draft as well.
It was originally contemplated that the total salaries exposed by teams would have to amount to at least 25 per cent of their previous season’s payroll. That has since been dropped.
To make this relevant in this topic:
M.A.Fleury - Limited NMC (starting July 1, 2010, only prevents being placed on waivers); Limited NTC (can designate a list of teams he will accept a trade to) - from GeneralFanager via Capgeek.
The way I read it, since MAF doesn't have a FULL no move clause, Pittsburgh isn't forced to protect him in the event of expansion. Thus, Murray can be protected, and they can "explore" trade options with Fleury if they so desire.
Fleury's contract going forward has a Full NMC, the "Limited" portion only refers to 2010. Fleury will be the Only goalie protected or traded. Go back and check your source. The only news on the announcement is the dropping of the 25% Salary inclusion, and that we still have 2-3 weeks before we actually know whether it is going forward or not.
-
I also don't think it's fair to assume that Johnny and Mony are not signed becaue of Treliving. What's to say it's not Johnny and Mony that are waiting?
If I were them I'd want to know who my coach is before committing the prime of my career to an organization
I would agree that the new coach may be impacting things. But on the other hand, NOTHING is coming out of the Flames. No UFA re-signings (Nakladal, Ortio), No RFA re-signings nor qualifications. No news about the coaching search. No trades. No buy-out information. I realize it is still premature for some of this, but man, its going to be(should be) VERY busy in the next month.
-
Ramo will be in the NHL next season, where will depend on who our target is.
In terms of targets, ill probably take some heat for this, but the semi final showed me that Vasilevsky is not ready.
Now, he played well, even very well, but didnt rise to the level he needed to. When left hung out to dry he didnt slam the door. At least 2 of his 4 losses were stealable. Game 7 especially.
Now he will get better, no doubt. Just saying uf he IS our target he will need veteran support at first.but I still believe tampa wont be trading him.
Speaking again of targets, aside from the much debated sexy ones, theres a good chance our current target is currently under the radar.
Who could we be overlooking that hasnt been mentioned?
Markstrom in Vancouver could be one target. Vancouver has no issues trading with us, and just gave up their second rounders,
Agree with you that Vasilevsky showed some growing pains this playoffs, while still playing very well overall. I would say the same for Matt Murray with Pittsburg. In fact, there hasn't been ANY goalie this playoffs who has been lights out through and through. I would probably say Jones w/SJS has been the best, but even he has had a couple of off games. What has separated the top tier from the rest is their ability to rebound, their resilience to adversity. We need to find that guy.
-
Go check out the last one in 2000. 6 goalies chosen, only one was on the opening day roster. One was traded. The other 4 were free agents and went elsewhere.
Its no different than the many times we have seen teams trade a player at the TDL only to resign him in the offseason.
Just because you are letting a player hit July 1 doesn't make it harder to sign him. Negotiations have already happened.. I think youll see a lot of contracts in gm's drawers just waiting to be filed on July 1.
If Bishop (or whoever) really wants to be in tampa, and Stevie has made it clear theyre serious about keeping him, it makes no difference if tgey expose him and then let him hit UFA.
That may well be the case. I'm sure if it happens there will be many interesting strategies revolving around the draft and putting together a team.
-
I'd argue the opposite. They'd be fools to pickup a goalie on an expiring contract that has no loyalty to them whatsoever. If they nab him and he doesn't stick around... ouch! I don't see an expansion team throwing away a goalie pick on a soon to be UFA... heck, they could wait until the window before free agency to talk to Bishop about signing with them without using a pick on him.
Guess we'll disagree. Unless the league goes ahead with expansion its all moot anyways. I'd expected to have heard something by now, so the longer this delays the more likely it is not happening.
-
I'm not sure what you are implying, but being a pending UFA has no bearing on whether they have to be protected or exposed. The proposed rules (not 100% agreed to yet) say you have to expose 25% of your salary cap. You have to protect a player on a NMC, regardless of whether they have term remaining.
The 25% rule is going to be very significant. Sure, anyone can sign a UFA after July 1, but if you wait till the end you provide other teams with the opportunity to show love/$s that was only speculation before. Not many guys re-sign with their old teams, even though they were able to. I would expect that dragging the player along all through their last UFA season doesn't really engender a lot of happiness between the team and the player and by the time July 1st hits, players are looking elsewhere, especially if there is interest from other teams.
-
My guess:
St. Louis - Allen is the more likely to become available out of the 2 if they choose to let one go
- I think they keep Elliott because they still have a Stanley Cup window of opportunity, and Elliott > Allen in the eyes of St. Louis at this point (they preferred Elliott over Allen in these playoffs, and I think that's indicative)
Penguins - Fleury is the more likely to become available out of the 2, as much as that upsets me
- Even though the GM said Fleury isn't going anywhere in a recent interview, he couldn't have answered that question any other way given that his team is battling for a Cup right now and they may need to lean on Fleury too to realize it. You couldn't possibly drop a bomb like that on one of your goalies when you're challenging for a cup.
Tampa Bay - this one is tougher to predict for me.
1. I see this as the most likely scenario *if* Stamkos signs with another team this summer. They keep both - they have a stanley cup window open right now, 2 solid goalies to back them up, and Stamkos' salary coming off the books. Even with expansion, Bishop and Vasilevskiy's contracts both end after next season in which they'll be UFA and RFA respectively. So Bishop doesn't need to take up a protected spot but can be re-signed, and Vasi can be protected. No rush or need to move either goalie.
2. If Stamkos re-signs, Bishop will be more likely on the trading block out of the 2, or they could still keep him and not re-sign him as a UFA due to his cap hit being high, as Vasilevskiy will be the cheaper option. I don't see Bishop taking much of a discount from what he's currently making, especially with his regular season and playoff performances.
3. (Most unlikely imho) If Tampa feels Bishop is their guy, and that Vasi might be sent an offer-sheet, or if he's unhappy in his backup role, or if they feel that their goalie prospect pool is good, Vasi could be moved out.
Fleury has a NMC so unless he agrees to a trade he must be protected and Murray will be traded.
Bishop is UFA but the expansion draft purportedly would be before July 1 so he will be available. An expansion team would be a fool not to pick him up and try to sign him or flip him to another team. It is doubtful TBL would let him walk for nothing or give him up to the expansion draft.... But then again, that's what they are doing with Stamkos, so who knows?
-
So who is going to be available if the expansion draft happens?
So my guess is:
Allen or Elliott
Fleury or Murray
Bishop or Vasilevsky?
I think that it will be Bishop and Fleury on the trading block and I don't know who the Blues prefer, Allen or Elliott?
You forgot:
Andersson or Gibson
Halak or Greiss
-
1
-
-
Kane and Towes were up for new contracts and bowman got it done quickly. Our best players are waiting on BT to get it done and BT doesn't seem to think that it's an urgent matter. Out of anything towards BT that irks me the most is sign your best players now and quit waiting to get to them. Hes had 2 months to get it done. Throws money at useless players then makes his best players wait. I don't get it.
Moderators, who is this new irock19? I note his posts is frozen at 79........
-
Why do most teams lock up there core players before there entry level deals run out then? I know there is zero leverage for Johnny and, Sean but it's kind of bizarre the way BT negotiates. Reimer comment was out of frustration!!
One thing clear with BT's (recent) signings, is they are all pretty good deals, better than people have anticipated. There is a lot on the plate. Hopefully news will start coming out soon.
-
I know it's been slow. He's a smart guy but give market value to your top guys. Here's the figure and the contract shouldn't be hard to get Johnny and Sean signed.
Burke will stick his nose in and tell BT to sign Reimer and easily give him 7 mil. But play hard ball with Johnny and Sean's agent. Just assuming of course.
Lots of tin foil thinking there.... Time for a break.
-
Mr Treliving is getting to me now. Why is Gaudreau and Monahan not signed yet? He easily gives money away to Useless Derek England. Is he playing hard ball with a crucial part of the teams core? Trying to save the club 50,000 dollars? He let Troy Ward go for Huskasa I'm sure I misspelled his name. Ward did a good job at the Ahl level. Not sure I trust his judgment on a new coach. He's a tireless worker though I will give Treliving that.
BT not an issue, but frustrating waiting after season's end and no Flames news for weeks.
-
1
-
-
So while we await BT's return from Russia, how would you rate his team at this year's WC?
-
I am personally not too fond of Fleury myself. I'm just attempting to put myself in BT's shoes and measure the options as I think he would. For all the aforementioned reasons - Anaheim not trading Andersen in conference, Murray likely taking the reigns in Pittsburgh, and Tampa likely not trading Bishop with this Stanley Cup window of opportunity open, I'm looking at what's left over.
Granted, I did label Fleury a playoff performer - perhaps I should've been more elaborate in that he has a lot of playoff experience and has a cup to his name. You can disagree with me if you want, but I believe that holds added value in a GM's evaluation. That said, I'm guessing BT is going to look hard at Fleury. Our team visibly lacked confidence in our goaltending last year - you could see the deflation when a crummy goal was scored (not to say the Fleury doesn't let in crummy goals - but he's an improvement in the position). Personally, I think the confidence of our team heading into next season hinges on the goaltending position a lot. New coach and new goalie, I think it's going to be an exciting start to the next season regardless.
Couple of things, your last statement kind of reminds me of the Oilers from last summer. New promise but look where it got them. Still lots of work to do to make-over the team into a strong, cohesive possession-dominant force. Coach and goalie will go a long ways but they are not the full answer. A different style of play means everyone is going to be learning and its hard to sit here and project success all across the board. I'm betting next year an improvement but transitional year.
Secondly, glad the WC are over this weekend. That should mean that BT returns shortly thereafter and hopefully we start seeing some real progress on a new coach and player signings. That would be huge and hopefully some meaningful trades follow quickly thereafter. The next 6 weeks are going to be pretty crucial for the Flames' next several years.
-
I think maybe we should consider that Vasilevsky wasn't just a 1st rd pick, but a viable first rd pick in most drafts for a goalie. We won't get him for a 2nd. You actually have to give up something for him, but no one seems ready to give up anything we have to improve other positions. So if we aren't ready to part with anyone that has potential, we should be ready to stay status quo.
That's so true, however with the tendency of bloggers/fans to oversell other team's players and undersell our own (grass is greener syndrome) its hard to work out what really is fair value. Classic case in point, the recent Russell trade. Most people here seem to believe we robbed Dallas blind in that trade, even with the 2nd, but probably its much closer to a reasonable trade for both sides and the cost of doing business. That along with we tend to get tunnel vision and focus in on how a player performed for us recently in a very particular situation rather than a broader, more realistic evaluation of the guy's overall talents.
As I've said elsewhere on Vasilevsky, he hasn't won anything yet. Like last night he played great early, but still lost. Whereas Murray played average, at best early but in the end won. One game doesn't mean anything, but you get the point. The Flames have multiple options, including going with Ramo/Ortio and a new, more D-focused coaching scheme so I'm not overly concerned at this point with focusing in too much on one guy. The expansion issue is another huge reason. Because of that I'm not willing to part with what appears at this point to be very valuable prospect chips whose full potential we really don't know.
-
2
-
-
I don't agree Hickey has been passed. I would trade Kylington and Andersson before Hickey in a heartbeat. His upside is greater than those 2. I wouldn't be quick to part with any of the 3 though because I don't think the Flames are in a position to deal from depth on D. Looks good on paper, but logistically probably 1 of those 3 will turn out to be a solid NHLer. Don't reduce your odds at this point. You can get good goaltending by giving up picks/lesser prospects. I really don't think the prices are going to get as high as some think. I think plenty of goalies are going to be available and the Flames are 1 of 3 that will be heavily shopping for a starter. That gives them a lot of control over what they want to pay.
I agree we should try and not trade a D at this point, unless Kulak... Not sure logistics has much to do with their success, though I guess if there is no spot even a great player may not make it, and Yes, I think that is a general Flames issue that needs addressing.
As for goalies, nothing is going to happen till we get clarification on the expansion draft because that changes everything. Till then its all idle speculation.
-
1
-
-
The + depends on what they want/need. I would add Hickey, if that's what they wanted. Or a forward prospect not named Shinkaruk or Poirier or Janko. The 6th overall is not on the table, not for just a goalie.
I think that's in the ball park. Not because I think Vasilevsky has proven anything yet, but Hickey may be expendable as we have a glut of D prospects and can't play them all.
If expansion goes ahead and they must protect Bishop due to a NMC, its way overpayment.
-
Just throwing it out there....
Would there be any interest at all in trading MacDonald + for Vasilevskiy? This is, of course, assuming an expansion draft in 2017. Bishop has to be protected (NMC), so they can't also protect Vasilevskiy. MacDonald may not be in the same class (or even close), but he does get them something exempt from the draft. The + would have to be something interesting, but there is not a lot of teams that need a starter this season.
Could be an ideal solution for both teams.... yes I would do that, depending on the "+" of course.
-
Playing 1b for your home team at same money vs being traded to a Canadian team (CDN taxes) or some other team not a contender. Generally speaking, he would lose net salary coming to Canada. I can't speak to the player's mindset, but a new team with less salary sounds like a reason to stay put. If he values money versus opportunity that is.
The tax situation varies greatly depending on which State or Province he actually works in. In any case since he is paid in US$ and considering exchange rates, he'd have a massive raise coming to Canada due to that alone.
Goaltending
in Flames Talk
Posted
Making assumptions again or did I miss something? Has he signed with the Flames or the Heat?