2021 Waiver News

[The_People1]

23 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Here is your cautionary tale for those who seems to think losing Ryan would be no big deal. Based on tonight's scrimmager here is likely how the season looks to start

 

Tkachuk-Lindholm-Dube

Gaudreau - Monahan - Simon

Leivo - Backlund - Mang

Lucic - Bennett - Nordstrom

 

That is a scary as heck 4th line and not in a good way. The Flames will be paying 2.2 million, in stead of 3.1mill for for their 4th line center, have no RS center, and will have lost 2 important Pkers in 1 offseason with one outside replacement. 

 

It's just stupid business when you add it up. 

 

Ryan is a good player, just not cap wise.  If the plan was to replace him then that should've happened on day 1 of off-season. 

 

- target RHS C for the bottom 6

- target PK specialist

 

Evidently, none of this was done unless the moving of Lindholm to Center was the team's idea of replacing Ryan's RHS C.  And we can only assume Backlund is moving to full time bottom 6 given Lindholm's move to Center and so therefore Backlund replaces Ryan in a slight of hand circular logic.

 

If the idea from the beginning was to park $3.15-mil on the taxi squad, what a failure.  This reeks of a lack of planning or a failure to sign the target UFAs this off-season.

[sak22]

22 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ryan is a good player, just not cap wise.  If the plan was to replace him then that should've happened on day 1 of off-season. 

 

- target RHS C for the bottom 6

- target PK specialist

 

Evidently, none of this was done unless the moving of Lindholm to Center was the team's idea of replacing Ryan's RHS C.  And we can only assume Backlund is moving to full time bottom 6 given Lindholm's move to Center and so therefore Backlund replaces Ryan in a slight of hand circular logic.

 

If the idea from the beginning was to park $3.15-mil on the taxi squad, what a failure.  This reeks of a lack of planning or a failure to sign the target UFAs this off-season.

67 points over the past 2 seasons and 55% faceoff winning, can play up and down the line up and both special teams.  You could do a lot worse in terms of players and find way.  worse contracts than that.  In a normal season or economic world, I would say he would definitely get claimed.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ryan is a good player, just not cap wise.  If the plan was to replace him then that should've happened on day 1 of off-season. 

 

- target RHS C for the bottom 6

- target PK specialist

 

Evidently, none of this was done unless the moving of Lindholm to Center was the team's idea of replacing Ryan's RHS C.  And we can only assume Backlund is moving to full time bottom 6 given Lindholm's move to Center and so therefore Backlund replaces Ryan in a slight of hand circular logic.

 

If the idea from the beginning was to park $3.15-mil on the taxi squad, what a failure.  This reeks of a lack of planning or a failure to sign the target UFAs this off-season.

 

I agree with your logic. I feel like the center depth is equal to or even better now with moving Lindholm to C. 

 

What column would we prefer?

 

Lindholm - OR - Monahan

Monahan - / - Backlund

Backlund - / - Ryan

Bennett - / - Bennett

 

I prefer Lindholm, Monahan, Backlund and possibly Bennett.

Although, I am sure that Cross actually means having Ryan at C over Bennett on the 4th line is the his better situation here. I guess there could be a third column of

 

Lindholm

Monahan

Backlund

Ryan

 

That's definitely better than having Benny there, but what then, and when are they ever going to develop young centers to play C? 

 

I would hope that Bennett can actually grow from his experience playing C. Though, I wonder if they're going to put him with lower end guys and then he becomes a poor #4C, which I think is the fear on my end. I think sometimes guys can play well with better guys but when given guys crap to play with, can't boost them. I think Bennett is that kind of player. It's why I wish they would have kept him with a young Dube to allow them to grow together. 

 

Do the Flames re-sign Ryan? I don't think they're going to, which really makes him sort of expendable. But then, he could be of use and help the team push forward. The Flames have got to start developing the kinds of players that will kill penalties, or play certain role positions. That's something they've should have done with players like Bennett. 

[travel_dude]

15 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

Do the Flames re-sign Ryan? I don't think they're going to, which really makes him sort of expendable. But then, he could be of use and help the team push forward. The Flames have got to start developing the kinds of players that will kill penalties, or play certain role positions. That's something they've should have done with players like Bennett. 

 

As of December, he was talking like he wanted to re-sign.

I think he would be a good guy to re-sign to a decent deal.

He wouldn't be getting $3m+ this time around.

Expose him during the draft.

Doubt he gets chosen, but you never know.

Especially when Bennett may be the guy to not be protected.

 

He's effective and would be a smart choice for a building team, but it depends on what else they select.

If his salary was $1.5m or less, then he would be a decent risk.

 

[cross16]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I think the value is in the trade deadline, having the space to soak up a higher value contract that can help you win. 
 

I get it, he helped the player, but he also didn’t seem to move the needle either way 5v5 during any of the playoffs he has played for the Flames. He’s a good guy to have for the regular season. But like most Flames players, he becomes moot when it counts most. 

 

But what is the point of weakening your roster from now until the trade deadline? Look if you have an inhouse replacement i'm all for creating cap room but what I am saying, and IMO I think it's really clear when you look at the roster, is the Flames have a big drop off after Ryan. 

 

Ryan played with Zac Rinaldo for much of the playoffs and that line still held their own and against Colorado he and Mang were 2 of their better players in the series. I don't know what people's expectations are here but they are looking pretty out to lunch to me. 

 

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

do you think they’ll re-sign Ryan next off-season?

 

I think they will look at it yes. I don't think they'd give him term but I would think there would be interest on a short term deal at less money. He's a really useful player.

 

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ryan is a good player, just not cap wise.  If the plan was to replace him then that should've happened on day 1 of off-season. 

 

- target RHS C for the bottom 6

- target PK specialist

 

Evidently, none of this was done unless the moving of Lindholm to Center was the team's idea of replacing Ryan's RHS C.  And we can only assume Backlund is moving to full time bottom 6 given Lindholm's move to Center and so therefore Backlund replaces Ryan in a slight of hand circular logic.

 

If the idea from the beginning was to park $3.15-mil on the taxi squad, what a failure.  This reeks of a lack of planning or a failure to sign the target UFAs this off-season.

 

See and I see this as the opposite, it's smart. If the idea is to leverage the taxi squad to gain additional cap space then this is a great plan to be able to have an aggressive off-season but still be cap compliant. With a flat cap you need to get creative and use the tools you have and this is the Flames doing that. The alternative was not signing Markstrom or Tanev. 

 

[cross16]

53 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

Although, I am sure that Cross actually means having Ryan at C over Bennett on the 4th line is the his better situation here. I guess there could be a third column of

 

 

yes. If the Flames are going to deploy Bennett as a 4th line center they've once again missed the boat. Should have traded him in the off-season if that was the plan because IMO it's a waste. 

 

one of the biggest weaknesses of the Flames is not all of their centers drive player. Backlund and Ryan do and while Lindholm "might" I'm very skeptical it will work and while I still argue Bennett has some potential I don't think he's driving play from the 4th line. Ryan does which is why I am so adamant that taking him out of the lineup is not a good thing. 

 

But i'll stop and wait for tomorrow. As I said i suspect this will all be nothing and they just plan to leverage him and the taxi squad to gain some extra space. 

[robrob74]

48 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

As of December, he was talking like he wanted to re-sign.

I think he would be a good guy to re-sign to a decent deal.

He wouldn't be getting $3m+ this time around.

Expose him during the draft.

Doubt he gets chosen, but you never know.

Especially when Bennett may be the guy to not be protected.

 

He's effective and would be a smart choice for a building team, but it depends on what else they select.

If his salary was $1.5m or less, then he would be a decent risk.

 

 

 

That number makes more sense, but i do worry about how BT tends to reward his guys, like Stone. There was in no way shape or form a reason for the player to get that contract when he signed him. BT is good and bad at signing players. If Ryan came in at 1.5, then that is ok...

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, sak22 said:

67 points over the past 2 seasons and 55% faceoff winning, can play up and down the line up and both special teams.  You could do a lot worse in terms of players and find way.  worse contracts than that.  In a normal season or economic world, I would say he would definitely get claimed.

 

In any world, can't have 4th liners tie up that much money.  While some teams would have claimed him 2 years ago, definitely not this season considering his age.

[travel_dude]

11 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

That number makes more sense, but i do worry about how BT tends to reward his guys, like Stone. There was in no way shape or form a reason for the player to get that contract when he signed him. BT is good and bad at signing players. If Ryan came in at 1.5, then that is ok...

 

Stone is not a great example.

He played 19 games on the original deal, and was decent enough.

Maybe not worth 3.5m but there were not a lot of deals at the time.

He was bought out when it became apparent he was not the same player.

Brought back for cheap.

 

My problem with Stone is that he appears to be effective but for me the impact is the puck stays in our end a lot.

He does some things that make you think otherwise.

When I watch, I see ineffective breakouts and clearing.

For the money, I would rather see Yelesin or Kyl play.

 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

He wouldn't be getting $3m+ this time around.

 

Pretty much exactly this.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, sak22 said:

67 points over the past 2 seasons and 55% faceoff winning, can play up and down the line up and both special teams.  You could do a lot worse in terms of players and find way.  worse contracts than that.  In a normal season or economic world, I would say he would definitely get claimed.

 

If he was UFA right now, then would you offer him $3.15-mil for 1 season?

[robrob74]

33 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Stone is not a great example.

He played 19 games on the original deal, and was decent enough.

Maybe not worth 3.5m but there were not a lot of deals at the time.

He was bought out when it became apparent he was not the same player.

Brought back for cheap.

 

My problem with Stone is that he appears to be effective but for me the impact is the puck stays in our end a lot.

He does some things that make you think otherwise.

When I watch, I see ineffective breakouts and clearing.

For the money, I would rather see Yelesin or Kyl play.

 

I think Stone is a good example. BT has shown a history of signing some players for too much. Stone played with the Flames before he re-signed. I get the talent comparisons are a bit off. The difference is, in no absolute universe should Stone have gotten the 3M. Even I knew at the time of the signing it was Satoshi Nakamoto, and most of the posters on this forum.

 

so yes, I worry BT will give Ryan a poor contract and have to buy it out. Ryan will look ok going forward and that’s what I worry about. He does all of the little things that will add up to 2.5+ to BT. 
 

anyway, it’s a bit off topic. It’s why I don’t mind him getting claimed. Some here argue that the Flames keep vets from youth taking a spot. There’s no where to learn to play in the NHL if there are no spots on the NHL team. But guys have got to also take the opportunity or push others out. I get that too. Someone has to learn to play those roles. Ryan isn’t a spring chicken anymore.

 

I with Peeps! He is on the 4th line, along with Lucic, taking up 8+M of cap. Some could argue Looch is a 3rd liner and Ryan gives you depth to move up when need be. But he’s also going to be using that as a negotiation tool. 
 

save his cap, trade for a big ticket item come TDL, maybe Hall? Maybe someone else?

[travel_dude]

23 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

I think Stone is a good example. BT has shown a history of signing some players for too much. Stone played with the Flames before he re-signed. I get the talent comparisons are a bit off. The difference is, in no absolute universe should Stone have gotten the 3M. Even I knew at the time of the signing it was Satoshi Nakamoto, and most of the posters on this forum.

 

so yes, I worry BT will give Ryan a poor contract and have to buy it out. Ryan will look ok going forward and that’s what I worry about. He does all of the little things that will add up to 2.5+ to BT. 
 

anyway, it’s a bit off topic. It’s why I don’t mind him getting claimed. Some here argue that the Flames keep vets from youth taking a spot. There’s no where to learn to play in the NHL if there are no spots on the NHL team. But guys have got to also take the opportunity or push others out. I get that too. Someone has to learn to play those roles. Ryan isn’t a spring chicken anymore.

 

I with Peeps! He is on the 4th line, along with Lucic, taking up 8+M of cap. Some could argue Looch is a 3rd liner and Ryan gives you depth to move up when need be. But he’s also going to be using that as a negotiation tool. 
 

save his cap, trade for a big ticket item come TDL, maybe Hall? Maybe someone else?

 

I think what you have to consider is the perceived depth at C versus the actual depth.

Actual = full time C's or those that have played a good portion of NHL games at C.

We have Lindy, Bennett, Dube as part-timers.

Monahan, Backlund and Ryan are the full timers.

An injury to any of the top 2 leaves us short.

 

Lucic is the problem much more than Ryan.

But I digress.

[robrob74]

37 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I think what you have to consider is the perceived depth at C versus the actual depth.

Actual = full time C's or those that have played a good portion of NHL games at C.

We have Lindy, Bennett, Dube as part-timers.

Monahan, Backlund and Ryan are the full timers.

An injury to any of the top 2 leaves us short.

 

Lucic is the problem much more than Ryan.

But I digress.

 

well, that’s part of the problem is this team is against development of players in positions they were drafted in. Not all can play C when drafted there, but the fact they don’t develop some there is their own fault.

 

bennett should have been developed there. They gave up on a player they adamantly put in the position over him. Dube was a C and could’ve been developed as one. 
 

Ryan is great to have, but young players have to play C to become a Cs in the NHL. 
 

it is time to stick with someone and develop them into the spot. 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

well, that’s part of the problem is this team is against development of players in positions they were drafted in. Not all can play C when drafted there, but the fact they don’t develop some there is their own fault.

 

bennett should have been developed there. They gave up on a player they adamantly put in the position over him. Dube was a C and could’ve been developed as one. 
 

Ryan is great to have, but young players have to play C to become a Cs in the NHL. 
 

it is time to stick with someone and develop them into the spot. 

 

One reason I like Ward is he's playing Bennett at C.  He's willing to move Lindholm to C.  He's willing to bump Backlund down the depth chart.  So far so good.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

One reason I like Ward is he's playing Bennett at C.  He's willing to move Lindholm to C.  He's willing to bump Backlund down the depth chart.  So far so good.

exactly! It has been too long that some haven’t been given the long look enough to develop at the position.

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

well, that’s part of the problem is this team is against development of players in positions they were drafted in. Not all can play C when drafted there, but the fact they don’t develop some there is their own fault.

 

bennett should have been developed there. They gave up on a player they adamantly put in the position over him. Dube was a C and could’ve been developed as one. 
 

Ryan is great to have, but young players have to play C to become a Cs in the NHL. 
 

it is time to stick with someone and develop them into the spot. 

 

I'm not suggesting you are wrong to develop C's, just that forcing the issue may not be wise in a short season.

I get it, go for broke and hope it works out.

Other teams do it all the time and it works out.

Or it doesn;t.

 

Let me put it another way.

Are you willing to risk missing out on the playoffs becuase you traded an effective C and your replacements couldn't get to the right level fast enough.

It can be a two year strategy.

Better draft picks.

Owners are PO's because you traded away depth you actually needed.

 

I watched Bennett and Ryan play the same position tonight.

One was okay, the other was regular season Bennett.

Neither was a big difference maker.

 

Maybe you are right.

Trade Ryan and Bennett.

Insert Gawdin (RW) and Ruzicka (4C).

Roll 3 lines and about 8-10 for 4th line with Lucic.

Pray there is no injuries to Mony, Lindholm and Backlund.

Make a TDL trade for a couple of weeks of Hall or a decent C.

Win maybe a round in the playoffs.

 

[robrob74]

14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm not suggesting you are wrong to develop C's, just that forcing the issue may not be wise in a short season.

I get it, go for broke and hope it works out.

Other teams do it all the time and it works out.

Or it doesn;t.

 

Let me put it another way.

Are you willing to risk missing out on the playoffs becuase you traded an effective C and your replacements couldn't get to the right level fast enough.

It can be a two year strategy.

Better draft picks.

Owners are PO's because you traded away depth you actually needed.

 

I watched Bennett and Ryan play the same position tonight.

One was okay, the other was regular season Bennett.

Neither was a big difference maker.

 

Maybe you are right.

Trade Ryan and Bennett.

Insert Gawdin (RW) and Ruzicka (4C).

Roll 3 lines and about 8-10 for 4th line with Lucic.

Pray there is no injuries to Mony, Lindholm and Backlund.

Make a TDL trade for a couple of weeks of Hall or a decent C.

Win maybe a round in the playoffs.

 

or trade for Gustafson and Forbort and not win. If there are that many injuries to the C’s, Bennett will surely have to play C anyway, if they still keep Ryan. 
 

what I don’t get is why they changed the Lucic, Bennett, Dube line when it was effective. 
 

 

[MP5029]

5 hours ago, robrob74 said:

or trade for Gustafson and Forbort and not win. If there are that many injuries to the C’s, Bennett will surely have to play C anyway, if they still keep Ryan. 
 

what I don’t get is why they changed the Lucic, Bennett, Dube line when it was effective. 
 

 

well maybe Bennet and Dube can be more effective elsewhere...

 

I’m not certain but maybe c could be looking like:

 

monahan

backlund/Bennet 

Bennet/Backlund 

Dube/other?

 

im not a fan of more so I think moving Lindhom to C is a good idea whatsoever but it’s an option so...

 

Lindholm

Monahan

Bennet/Backlund 

Backlund/Bennet 

 

but not my idea of a good ways to go, however in any case, the Ctr position has tons of options which is good...we are also super solid on LW so the glaring hole this year like every year since Iggy was traded is RW, maybe Freeing up Ryan’s salary could open a trade of some kind for  a better RW than we have now...let’s be real it won’t be a legit top 6 RW but maybe someone a tad better than what we have now? If they are looking to move Lindholm to Ctr, it’s gonna be needed, if not, it’s still a huge weak side for Cgy so hopefully there is something brewing for it.

 

im still wondering why sign Kylington and then put him on waivers? He’s sure to be claimed? 

[rocketdoctor]

Think a lot of you are missing the point of the Ryan waiver.

 

BT is making use of the taxi squad to accrue cap space over the season.

 

Placing Ryan on taxi squad makes perfect sense.  ".....you can only bury a maximum of $1.075 million of his contract, the Flames’ cap benefit for sending him to the taxi squad between games would be $1.075 million divided again by 116. That amounts to $9,267 a day"  from Hailey Salvian's excellent piece in The Atheletic - on how the Flames could save 72k of cap spce in 5 days.  Moving Dube & Valimaki, as waiver expempt, back and forth to the taxi squad would also accrue the Flames cap space but unlike Ryan they are on a 2 way contract they would therefore be paid AHL money when on the Taxi squad and they may not like that!!!

[Horsman1]

12 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

In any world, can't have 4th liners tie up that much money.  While some teams would have claimed him 2 years ago, definitely not this season considering his age.

in a cap world  where most every team is up against the cap . renegotiate and drop 2 players from the game roster !Nobody in the league is worth a million bucks a year playing 5 to 10 minutes a game.. go with 10 forwards..

 

[travel_dude]

4 hours ago, rocketdoctor said:

Think a lot of you are missing the point of the Ryan waiver.

 

BT is making use of the taxi squad to accrue cap space over the season.

 

Placing Ryan on taxi squad makes perfect sense.  ".....you can only bury a maximum of $1.075 million of his contract, the Flames’ cap benefit for sending him to the taxi squad between games would be $1.075 million divided again by 116. That amounts to $9,267 a day"  from Hailey Salvian's excellent piece in The Atheletic - on how the Flames could save 72k of cap spce in 5 days.  Moving Dube & Valimaki, as waiver expempt, back and forth to the taxi squad would also accrue the Flames cap space but unlike Ryan they are on a 2 way contract they would therefore be paid AHL money when on the Taxi squad and they may not like that!!!

 

So Kylington should only make $70k on the taxi squad while they will pay Ritchie and Stone full NHL salaries if they sign and waive them?

Nickel and dime a player that the coach won't trust.

Was waived before he even had a single scrimmage.

Last to be signed from RFA's.

Forced to accept a 2 way deal.

Hey you can practice with the team and we'll pay you $70k to travel with the team and live in Calgary.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's a decent gig for most people in these times.  I don't like the nickel and diming BT does with young players just because he overpaid elsewhere.

And I'm not talking about core players like Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm, Hanifin and Tkachuk.

$2.6m owed to buyouts.

Neal traded for Lucic.

 

[rocketdoctor]

8 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

So Kylington should only make $70k on the taxi squad while they will pay Ritchie and Stone full NHL salaries if they sign and waive them?

Nickel and dime a player that the coach won't trust.

Was waived before he even had a single scrimmage.

Last to be signed from RFA's.

Forced to accept a 2 way deal.

Hey you can practice with the team and we'll pay you $70k to travel with the team and live in Calgary.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's a decent gig for most people in these times.  I don't like the nickel and diming BT does with young players just because he overpaid elsewhere.

And I'm not talking about core players like Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm, Hanifin and Tkachuk.

$2.6m owed to buyouts.

Neal traded for Lucic.

 

 

As I understand it if you on a one way contract then you get your full salary, 2 way contract you get the AHL salary, whilst on the tax squad.

 

Not saying it is fair just how BT could use the rules.  Kylinigton was probably going to the AHL this year to start anyways but hear you loud and clear about Stone!!  Your favorite player!!!

[cross16]

19 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

So Kylington should only make $70k on the taxi squad while they will pay Ritchie and Stone full NHL salaries if they sign and waive them?

Nickel and dime a player that the coach won't trust.

Was waived before he even had a single scrimmage.

Last to be signed from RFA's.

Forced to accept a 2 way deal.

Hey you can practice with the team and we'll pay you $70k to travel with the team and live in Calgary.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's a decent gig for most people in these times.  I don't like the nickel and diming BT does with young players just because he overpaid elsewhere.

And I'm not talking about core players like Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm, Hanifin and Tkachuk.

$2.6m owed to buyouts.

Neal traded for Lucic.

 

 

 

This is NOT a BT thing it is an NHL thing. This is the way they designed their CBA. 

[LouCifer]

I also question why it took Kyl so long to sign as an RFA and arrive in Calgary... given the times, the writing seemed to be on the wall what would happen for a long time. He could've looked at Mangiapane's situation last season for reference, and COVID wasn't even a thing at that time! Kyl and his agent held out too long IMO. And I like the player.