funnymunk Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I guess the feeling i have towards this Frolik deal is the same i had when the Flames initially signed David Jones to $4-mil-per. At the time, it's a lot of money but fast forward 3 years, $4-mil-per seems fair for a top notch 3rd liner. I'll warm up to Frolik in about 3 years. Hmm, wasn't Jones an Avalanche signing? Frolik at 4 mil is a replacement to me for Jones after next year.. and I think Frolik is much better and still has potential to grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tachaudh Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Fact is we are thin on RW at present and Frolik was really the only way to fill that need right now. We're solid on just about every other position and this signing gives us some time to develop our talent at RW. Hopefully when he comes off the books in five years we have some kids who are ready to, or have already, make the jump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I know it doesn't. I'm not saying I wouldn't have traded Kessel only because they would have wanted a first its one of the many reason: 1- I don't think he would do well in a Canadian market like Calgary 2- He is not the type of player I think you win cups win. Not a fantastic teammate nor good locker room guy (I've read many articles/books that back this up all the way to junior). He is a very fit guy but not a guy that exactly screams work ethic. 3- He is not a two way guy so he is a VERY expensive goal scorer 4- I dont' think the Flames can fit his contract alongside all the rest and still have a competitive team going forward. They would have to lose another core member, Gio, Brodie, Hamilton, Monahan, Gaudreau or Bennett and I don't think that worth it. 5- giving up back to back first round picks isn't smart IMO 6- giving up 3 future pieces for a team that is really going to need some prospects soon is not smart either. 7- I think the Flames have the pieces to become a cup contender without adding Kessel as it stands. He is a luxury not a requirement and thus I don't believe you pay that high a price for a luxury when your not even close to a cup. There are the reasons I was against acquiring Kessel. The back to back first round picks is just 1 reasons of many I think it would have been a really stupid trade for the Flames to make. We can always trade Kessel once we need cap space. From that, we can trade for a 1st round pick back. He'll be maybe 30 or 31 when we get into cap trouble and with half the years remaining on his contract, i'm sure he's more attractive to teams than he is now. Most importantly, the Flames may have won a Cup or two by then so everything would be worth it. Anyways, it's all talk now. Too late for the Flames to do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andymo Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 We now have £7.12M in cap space, with Bouma, Ferland, Jooris, Shore and Byron still to sign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I just don't understand the logic of purposely putting yourself in cap trouble. I understand you may get there through the development of good players but putting yourself there on purpose doesn't make sense to me. The flames need to know what they are going to have to pay Gio, Monahan, Gaudreau, what they will do with Hudler and what Bennett is going to be before they look at acquiring a deal like Kessel. but as I said before I'm bias because I do not like Phil Kessel at all and really don't see him as a good fit here at all but I also think its just a poor business decision to take on a contract like that at this point, especially when its guaranteed to put you in cap jail without the guarantee of a cup. I'd honestly rather retain Hudler and less salary then give up assets required to get Kessel if we are talking about just the quality of player versus cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I think we can trade away 1st round picks every year if we can get quality like Hamilton. No? You wouldn't even break your rule for that? Time to move on but..... We traded away our 1st and two 2nds for a franchise D-man at age 22. We even had a 2nd in the bank from flipping Baertschi. That deal doesn't come around every year. There has never been any question of the kid's work ethic, nor his conditioning. Except for some slam journalism, there is no questions about his team play. With Phil, you are talking about a player with problems that have haunted him for years. HE is not a puppy, but a grown dog. You aren't going to make him a different player. We could have kept Baertschi if we only wanted offense. Johnny is not the best defensively, but I watched him dive in front of a puck to prevent a goal in the playoffs. Phil will never do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 At last count, we have 35 players signed and 11 RFA's that have been qualified. That means we are likely done with signings for now. Strange that Franson hasn't been inked yet. Green went for $6m for 3 years to the Wings. EDIT:Max Reinhart "conditional" trade to Preds. 2nd EDIT: For a 4th round pick. Good asset management, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I just don't understand the logic of purposely putting yourself in cap trouble. I understand you may get there through the development of good players but putting yourself there on purpose doesn't make sense to me. The flames need to know what they are going to have to pay Gio, Monahan, Gaudreau, what they will do with Hudler and what Bennett is going to be before they look at acquiring a deal like Kessel. but as I said before I'm bias because I do not like Phil Kessel at all and really don't see him as a good fit here at all but I also think its just a poor business decision to take on a contract like that at this point, especially when its guaranteed to put you in cap jail without the guarantee of a cup. I'd honestly rather retain Hudler and less salary then give up assets required to get Kessel if we are talking about just the quality of player versus cap hit. We will have naturally dimishing cap space as we move forward as a result of our young stars emerging into superstars. Between now and then though, there's still a two or three year window worth of good cap space and the suggestion to acquire Kessel, or anyone for that matter, is a suggestion to max out the cap and make a run for the Cup sooner rather than later. The cap in three years can be resolved by trading away Kessel, or any supporting cast member for that matter. Ultimately, keeping our core in tact. Time to move on but..... We traded away our 1st and two 2nds for a franchise D-man at age 22. We even had a 2nd in the bank from flipping Baertschi. That deal doesn't come around every year. There has never been any question of the kid's work ethic, nor his conditioning. Except for some slam journalism, there is no questions about his team play. With Phil, you are talking about a player with problems that have haunted him for years. HE is not a puppy, but a grown dog. You aren't going to make him a different player. We could have kept Baertschi if we only wanted offense. Johnny is not the best defensively, but I watched him dive in front of a puck to prevent a goal in the playoffs. Phil will never do that. Your example is a bad one travel_dude. Why spend a 1st round pick on Sven Baertschi when we could've traded the pick? We eventually traded Baertschi for a second round pick. There's no reason to have this rule that we cannot trade consecutive 1st round picks assuming we get star players from it and don't use it for one single playoff run. If we can use a 1st in a trade for a young star or emerging star that's going to play for us long term, then that's what we should consider doing even if it means trading 1st in consecutive years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andymo Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 We will have naturally dimishing cap space as we move forward as a result of our young stars emerging into superstars. Between now and then though, there's still a two or three year window worth of good cap space and the suggestion to acquire Kessel, or anyone for that matter, is a suggestion to max out the cap and make a run for the Cup sooner rather than later. The cap in three years can be resolved by trading away Kessel, or any supporting cast member for that matter. Ultimately, keeping our core in tact. Your example is a bad one travel_dude. Why spend a 1st round pick on Sven Baertschi when we could've traded the pick? We eventually traded Baertschi for a second round pick. There's no reason to have this rule that we cannot trade consecutive 1st round picks assuming we get star players from it and don't use it for one single playoff run. If we can use a 1st in a trade for a young star or emerging star that's going to play for us long term, then that's what we should consider doing even if it means trading 1st in consecutive years. http://capfriendly.com/?p=team-cap&team=Calgary%20Flames We do not have cap space to burn. £7.12M with Bouma, Ferland, Jooris, Byron and Shore still to sign... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob1974 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Agreed we should not trade away a 1st for one shot at the Cup, and that's why getting Kessel on a 7-year contract does not qualify as such. It's 7 shots at a Cup. I don't understand your love for Kessel. He's horrible, one way and when things don't go his way he pouts. Kessel is a big baby version of Iginla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 We will have naturally dimishing cap space as we move forward as a result of our young stars emerging into superstars. Between now and then though, there's still a two or three year window worth of good cap space and the suggestion to acquire Kessel, or anyone for that matter, is a suggestion to max out the cap and make a run for the Cup sooner rather than later. The cap in three years can be resolved by trading away Kessel, or any supporting cast member for that matter. Ultimately, keeping our core in tact. Your example is a bad one travel_dude. Why spend a 1st round pick on Sven Baertschi when we could've traded the pick? We eventually traded Baertschi for a second round pick. There's no reason to have this rule that we cannot trade consecutive 1st round picks assuming we get star players from it and don't use it for one single playoff run. If we can use a 1st in a trade for a young star or emerging star that's going to play for us long term, then that's what we should consider doing even if it means trading 1st in consecutive years. Well the Baertschi case is different. He was projected to be a top 6 player, but just didn't fit the team identity. That is not a waste of a pick as much as it is a pick that didn't make it. He scored 2.0 p/gp in his final junior year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zima Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Well some times I jump the Gun since you guys put it that way he could be a good signing I'm just worried about the putting a long term deal like that and he turns out to be a slug like Raymond did that would really hurt . On another note what does everyone think of the Kessel Trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob1974 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I am so glad we stayed away from Kessel. He's gonna cry when Crosby didn't pass him the puck when Crosby scores a ha trick goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeyWest Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Sorry wasent trying to insult your points on frolik. You made some good ones! Was just discussing Derek grants position. Hahaha don't worry didn't bother me I just face-palmed when I went back and reread it all, one of those "Go home you're drunk" moments it looks though that the Derek Grant signing was to either replace Reinhart or Hanowski, just to keep some potential upside depth in Stockton next year. Shall be interesting to keep tabs on him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted July 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Hopefully it was just a bad burrito that brought on that nightmare. That would undo the good moves BT made. *phew* so glad i was wrong ! Must have been having a Feaster Flashback Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Good 2way player with a 100% effort 100% of the time. Think Hudler with a little more size and grit. 1st, welcome aboard. There are a few of us that live in Mb. but have the Flames a tad > the Jets. We're in total agreement on Frolik. He'll be a great fit on the Flames top 6. (As I mentioned in a previous post I was surprised that Chevy wasn't able to re-sign him @ that price.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I was listening to Treliving on the fan. The Flames have had their eyes on Grant for some time. The scouts really like him. I don't think this was done as a Reinhart replacement. This was the Flames acquiring a player they liked. Sounds like he is a defensive specialist that is really good on face offs. There might be a fit for him on the fourth line depending how the summer goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Beleskey signed for 5 years at just less than $4m. So saad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Beleskey signed for 5 years at just less than $4m. So saad. The dollar hit isn't bad. But man, this guy has cracked 20 points twice and 10 goals once. Every analytical measurement shows this was a fluke season. A five year commitment could really burn them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 The dollar hit isn't bad. But man, this guy has cracked 20 points twice and 10 goals once. Every analytical measurement shows this was a fluke season. A five year commitment could really burn them. I hate giving out 5 year deals to role players, I think 5 years + should be reserved for your core guys. This is my biggest worry with the Frolik deal, I think we will end regretting the deal 2-3 season from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I hate giving out 5 year deals to role players, I think 5 years + should be reserved for your core guys. This is my biggest worry with the Frolik deal, I think we will end regretting the deal 2-3 season from now. I think Winnipeg will regret not re-signing the guy before this year is out. He is one of the more consistent players out there. Except for his years with the Hawks, he was 40+ points per season and a + player. He had 3 shorties and 3 GWG last season. Two GWG the year before. His "fancy stats" make him a needed player, if you think that having the puck gives you a chance to win. Just like Backlund, he will probably prevent as many goals as he scores. If three years from now we hate the player, he hasn't cost us a single asset to get. I don't see it, because he is as good a player now as he was in Florida. He is also built to play in the West, unlike Raymond or Kessel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I hate giving out 5 year deals to role players, I think 5 years + should be reserved for your core guys. This is my biggest worry with the Frolik deal, I think we will end regretting the deal 2-3 season from now. From what I've seen of Frolik he is going to be a core player, in the Backlund mold, just more scoring. Interesting that both Hamilton and Frolik are Possession/WOWY monsters. Someone in management is definitely paying attention to advanced stats and I think we should expect the team to make a major jump next year due to these pickups as well as the natural development of our youngsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I think Winnipeg will regret not re-signing the guy before this year is out. He is one of the more consistent players out there. Except for his years with the Hawks, he was 40+ points per season and a + player. He had 3 shorties and 3 GWG last season. Two GWG the year before. His "fancy stats" make him a needed player, if you think that having the puck gives you a chance to win. Just like Backlund, he will probably prevent as many goals as he scores. If three years from now we hate the player, he hasn't cost us a single asset to get. I don't see it, because he is as good a player now as he was in Florida. He is also built to play in the West, unlike Raymond or Kessel. The nay sayers are in for a pleasant surprise with Frolik. BTW, I was just reading the $s were fine for the Jets but it was the term that scuttled it. With Burmistrov back, Elhers & Armia expected to vie for a spot this year I guess Chevy figured they could afford to lose him & sign Stafford for 2 while staying competitive. There are a lot of current players with 1 year left on their contracts (pending UFAs Ladd, Buff top that list while Trouba, Scheifele, Hutchinson & Lowry top the RFAs). Jets loss, Flames gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 The nay sayers are in for a pleasant surprise with Frolik. BTW, I was just reading the $s were fine for the Jets but it was the term that scuttled it. With Burmistrov back, Elhers & Armia expected to vie for a spot this year I guess Chevy figured they could afford to lose him & sign Stafford for 2 while staying competitive. There are a lot of current players with 1 year left on their contracts (pending UFAs Ladd, Buff top that list while Trouba, Scheifele, Hutchinson & Lowry top the RFAs). Jets loss, Flames gain. I figured that the money was not the issue, since they paid the same for Stafford, two years mind you. I guess that also means that Stempy is done there too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I figured that the money was not the issue, since they paid the same for Stafford, two years mind you. I guess that also means that Stempy is done there too. Unless he's good with 2 years Stempy should be looking for other teams IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.