cross16 Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 As per Feaster At the end of the link Rob Kerr asks about these players. Spencer Bennet who finished up with the Giants, Henrik Bjorklund and Alex Deilert who both bounced around Sweden are NOT going to be signed and will be allowed to go back into the draft. For me there are no suprises. I thought Bennet was a bad pick when they made it and he never changed. Was a little hopefully on Bjorklund but sounds like he never made any progression. The reasoning from jay was very simple "We don't believe they will play in the NHL". Glad to see them not waste contract space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil_Reaper Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 I'm glad we didn't offer anything if we don't think they're going to be in the NHL. Wish them the best of luck whatever happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens-1 Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 I'm glad with this,too! It seems like feaster is cleaning up the organisation of bad picks that darryl made... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JA_Boomer Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 I thought Alex Deilert was drafted in 2008, so when we didn't sign him after June 1, 2010 we lost his rights. No problem with any of this, smart moves as J Feaster pointed out we have to be smarter with how we use our 50 NHL contracts. I'd offer Spencer Bennet an AHL contract for next year if he'd be interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baalzamon Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 I guarantee none of these players will be taken in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted June 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 And I would agree with that. In regards to Bennet I don't see the need to offer an AHL deal. If your going to do that, why not get an AHL vet who is more seasoned and can offer far more to the AHL rookies than Bennet can. I dont' see any NHL potential for Bennet so I see no need to keep him in the organization. I'm find with signing Vets for the farm, just prefer they be of actual experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baalzamon Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 And I would agree with that. In regards to Bennet I don't see the need to offer an AHL deal. If your going to do that, why not get an AHL vet who is more seasoned and can offer far more to the AHL rookies than Bennet can. I dont' see any NHL potential for Bennet so I see no need to keep him in the organization. I'm find with signing Vets for the farm, just prefer they be of actual experience. like Quintin Laing? that was a great move by the Heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JA_Boomer Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 And I would agree with that. In regards to Bennet I don't see the need to offer an AHL deal. If your going to do that, why not get an AHL vet who is more seasoned and can offer far more to the AHL rookies than Bennet can. I dont' see any NHL potential for Bennet so I see no need to keep him in the organization. I'm find with signing Vets for the farm, just prefer they be of actual experience. Ya you're right, now that I look at it we should have around 12 forwards under NHL contract next season that will play on the Heat. And if we do find ourselves short of a forward or too, I'd rather see if Rheault or Bancks is available (if not you're right veterans would be more helpful to the situation). Idea withdrawn haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 During that part of the interview Feaster also talked about how the 50 contract limit was/had caused problems. Something about the entry level contracts are ironclad thus leaves no room to maneuver. So I take it he was cleaning up some space for some who might make the NHL. At least that seems to be a move towards that goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted June 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 During that part of the interview Feaster also talked about how the 50 contract limit was/had caused problems. Something about the entry level contracts are ironclad thus leaves no room to maneuver. So I take it he was cleaning up some space for some who might make the NHL. At least that seems to be a move towards that goal. I think Feaster just wants flexability, both in salary and contract space. That hasn;t been in Calgary for several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolven Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 During that part of the interview Feaster also talked about how the 50 contract limit was/had caused problems. Something about the entry level contracts are ironclad thus leaves no room to maneuver. So I take it he was cleaning up some space for some who might make the NHL. At least that seems to be a move towards that goal. As cross said I think this comes down to flexibility. With the weak state of the Flames prospect pool we are going to need to get creative in order to try to improve on our situation. Right now with us being up at the 50 contract limit it restricts our ability to make trades or more importantly it keeps us from being able to sign any undrafted players we may find in places like the NCAA, like Giordano. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.