Opinion...Sell Kadri Now?

[bear120]

I know I have my couch coach opinion but looking for everyone's input.

[taz89]

45 minutes ago, bear120 said:

I know I have my couch coach opinion but looking for everyone's input.

hell yes...

[bare-knuckles]

Selling low, with a contract that isn't going to age well (which every GM knows)

[Heartbreaker]

In a heartbeat, but like, to who?

 

You know that to sell Monahan, who had one year remaining, it cost them a first round pick, right?

 

What do you think it costs to sell Kadri with six years at 7 million?

 

Love.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, Heartbreaker said:

In a heartbeat, but like, to who?

 

You know that to sell Monahan, who had one year remaining, it cost them a first round pick, right?

 

What do you think it costs to sell Kadri with six years at 7 million?

 

Love.

 

To make him look good you need other players looking good.  I would say he's been about mid pack for suckitude.  No players like Nichushkin to lean on or make him look better.  Honestly, I haven't seen anything like the guy who beat the Oilers when he won the cup.  Nothing close.  

 

As far as selling him after a year?  Yeah right.  We may have a better chance long term by selling Lindholm and Hanifin.  Not because the trade would make us immediately better, just that long term it would help reset the bar.  Two semi-soft players that are going to get big raises.  Lindholm isn't really soft, just that he's not going to war without others putting in as much.  

[jjgallow]

Biggest thing we can do is stop creating  these  situations. 

 

Which, so far Conroy has been good with.

 

I remember when Kadri was acquired it was largely cheered.   But, really, what we should have done is got something back for Gaudreau and Tkachuk. 

 

The comparable now is Lindholm and Hanifin

[robrob74]

19 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

Biggest thing we can do is stop creating  these  situations. 

 

Which, so far Conroy has been good with.

 

I remember when Kadri was acquired it was largely cheered.   But, really, what we should have done is got something back for Gaudreau and Tkachuk. 

 

The comparable now is Lindholm and Hanifin

conroy's hands are tied by being right up to the cap. We won't know what kind of GM he is for another season or two, and if the Flames flame out, it is possible they fire him before we see what he can do.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

conroy's hands are tied by being right up to the cap. We won't know what kind of GM he is for another season or two, and if the Flames flame out, it is possible they fire him before we see what he can do.

 

I guess we will see.  

 

There's not a lot of love for Feaster in here but he is the only GM in modern times that convinced Flames ownership to rebuild.  

The pieces he got defined us for a decade.

 

The only things I ever faulted him with were some of the draft choices (Jankowski in particular), and not taking the rebuild far enough.

 

Will be interesting to see how Conroy plays his cards.  He still has options.  Just tougher ones.

[cross16]

10 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I guess we will see.  

 

There's not a lot of love for Feaster in here but he is the only GM in modern times that convinced Flames ownership to rebuild.  

The pieces he got defined us for a decade.

 

The only things I ever faulted him with were some of the draft choices (Jankowski in particular), and not taking the rebuild far enough.

 

Will be interesting to see how Conroy plays his cards.  He still has options.  Just tougher ones.

 

No he didn't. Jarome made that call for them when he told them he wasn't going to re-sign at the end of his contract and then Kipper retired. The marching orders after that season were to get back into the playoffs. They also went out to hire Burke, in large part due to the fact that they weren't impressed with Feaster's performance. 

 

The Flames owners have shown they are understanding of a bad year in order to get a high draft pick. But to date no one has been able to convince them to sustain a multi year rebuild. 

[cross16]

13 hours ago, Heartbreaker said:

In a heartbeat, but like, to who?

 

You know that to sell Monahan, who had one year remaining, it cost them a first round pick, right?

 

What do you think it costs to sell Kadri with six years at 7 million?

 

Love.

 

This. 

 

Maybe, maybe in 2 season if the cap jumps up as much as they are suggesting someone might take a bite but there is some wishful thinking in there on my part too. He'd have to really raise his level of play which has been pretty rough to start the season. 

 

Don't think he's going anywhere. 

[jjgallow]

49 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

No he didn't. Jarome made that call for them when he told them he wasn't going to re-sign at the end of his contract and then Kipper retired. The marching orders after that season were to get back into the playoffs. They also went out to hire Burke, in large part due to the fact that they weren't impressed with Feaster's performance. 

 

The Flames owners have shown they are understanding of a bad year in order to get a high draft pick. But to date no one has been able to convince them to sustain a multi year rebuild. 

 

I agree with your conclusion,  just not how you got there.

It ignores the drafting of Jankowski, Baertshi,  Gaudreau.

 

Iginla and Kipper had both already lost a big step and the Flames were already drafting high and most in here already considered it a rebuild before we traded Iginla

 

I would agree that it's hard to pin it on any one GM and is often more a case of circumstance.   Usually a matter of players aging with an empty pipeline.   Bouwmeester was another bug functional piece of the story.

 

What I mean is that Feaster actually talked about it, which I assume means he had some level of okay from the owners.

 

Ultimately, yes...like I said, I fault Feaster with not taking it far enough.  Maybe if he had drafted better than Jankowski he would have been given those 2 extra years he needed

 

Was trying to be positive, being in a somewhat parallel situation now and havi g just drafted Honzek

Not quite as crazy, but it was in a much stronger draft with less tolerance from that

 

If Conroy talks his way into a full rebuild then we could have a decade or more of fantastic hockey 

  If anyone can talk it's him.   Although I think he may have already set himself back a year like Feaster did.

 

[cross16]

35 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I agree with your conclusion,  just not how you got there.

It ignores the drafting of Jankowski, Baertshi,  Gaudreau.

 

Iginla and Kipper had both already lost a big step and the Flames were already drafting high and most in here already considered it a rebuild before we traded Iginla

 

I would agree that it's hard to pin it on any one GM and is often more a case of circumstance.   Usually a matter of players aging with an empty pipeline.   Bouwmeester was another bug functional piece of the story.

 

What I mean is that Feaster actually talked about it, which I assume means he had some level of okay from the owners.

 

Ultimately, yes...like I said, I fault Feaster with not taking it far enough.  Maybe if he had drafted better than Jankowski he would have been given those 2 extra years he needed

 

Was trying to be positive, being in a somewhat parallel situation now and havi g just drafted Honzek

Not quite as crazy, but it was in a much stronger draft with less tolerance from that

 

If Conroy talks his way into a full rebuild then we could have a decade or more of fantastic hockey 

  If anyone can talk it's him.   Although I think he may have already set himself back a year like Feaster did.

 

 

Well then we differ on what constitutes a rebuild. I don't think drafting outside the top 10, and a 4th round pick means your in a rebuild. Especially in all of the years before that they were adding to their team to try and get back into the playoffs. 

 

He did mention they were in a rebuild but it was mostly in the context of playing young players. He was also honest that their goal in the 13/14 season was to get into the playoffs and that's not a rebuild in my books. 

 

But could just be a difference of semantics. 

[jjgallow]

31 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Well then we differ on what constitutes a rebuild. I don't think drafting outside the top 10, and a 4th round pick means your in a rebuild. Especially in all of the years before that they were adding to their team to try and get back into the playoffs. 

 

He did mention they were in a rebuild but it was mostly in the context of playing young players. He was also honest that their goal in the 13/14 season was to get into the playoffs and that's not a rebuild in my books. 

 

But could just be a difference of semantics. 

 

Most definitely semantics.  At the end of the day I'm not trying to put Feaster up on a pillar.   Rather, he was the last to attempt.   And we did get some pieces.

 

The thing about Jankowski was how we downgraded to get it and how he talked him up to be the Niewendyk Iginla needed.   He was targeted and talk of as a very specific rebuild piece.   And it was all nonsense, I think we can all agree that Jankowski did Not constitute a rebuild at the end of the day.  lol.

And then Baertschi was just barely outside of top 10.   At some points after the draft, would have ranked top 5.  Injuries.

 

But  Feaster was trying.  He was trying to shift to skill, and he had some success at it in that draft.  Wild success actually with Gaudreau.   For that reason I think history has been hard on him.  He's the only GM I can think of in modern times that didn't  take a 2nd mortgage out on our future.  

[cross16]

33 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Most definitely semantics.  At the end of the day I'm not trying to put Feaster up on a pillar.   Rather, he was the last to attempt.   And we did get some pieces.

 

The thing about Jankowski was how we downgraded to get it and how he talked him up to be the Niewendyk Iginla needed.   He was targeted and talk of as a very specific rebuild piece.   And it was all nonsense, I think we can all agree that Jankowski did Not constitute a rebuild at the end of the day.  lol.

And then Baertschi was just barely outside of top 10.   At some points after the draft, would have ranked top 5.  Injuries.

 

But  Feaster was trying.  He was trying to shift to skill, and he had some success at it in that draft.  Wild success actually with Gaudreau.   For that reason I think history has been hard on him.  He's the only GM I can think of in modern times that didn't  take a 2nd mortgage out on our future.  

 

If the discussion is his legacy, I think it's fair to credit him for modernizing the Flames F/O. He hired more scouts, brought in Chris Snow and analytics, and updated their scouting criteria to more modern times. Agree with crediting him for that. 

 

Just was a really poor hockey guy. 

 

[Heartbreaker]

4 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

This. 

 

Maybe, maybe in 2 season if the cap jumps up as much as they are suggesting someone might take a bite but there is some wishful thinking in there on my part too. He'd have to really raise his level of play which has been pretty rough to start the season. 

 

Don't think he's going anywhere. 

 

Yeah, it's almost an asinine question. I hear it all the time on the call in show, and read it in all the comments. They can't move Kadri. The other part is that if he elevates his play, they won't move Kadri.

 

In my opinion, the steps that were taken in order to sign this contract, and then the actual contract itself are the worst moves that the Flames have made in many years. I can't think of an error off the top of my head that comes close. Everyone will point at James Neal - but even that only cost money. I am a staunch defender of Brad Treliving, and his time as our GM, and I have to think that this is more of a directive from above because I don't think anyone with a halfway decent hockey mind thought that this was the right move. And to be clear, I don't have any issues with Kadri as a player, or as a person, I just didn't believe at the time, and I definitely don't believe now that this was the right target.

 

Love.

[travel_dude]

52 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

Yeah, it's almost an asinine question. I hear it all the time on the call in show, and read it in all the comments. They can't move Kadri. The other part is that if he elevates his play, they won't move Kadri.

 

In my opinion, the steps that were taken in order to sign this contract, and then the actual contract itself are the worst moves that the Flames have made in many years. I can't think of an error off the top of my head that comes close. Everyone will point at James Neal - but even that only cost money. I am a staunch defender of Brad Treliving, and his time as our GM, and I have to think that this is more of a directive from above because I don't think anyone with a halfway decent hockey mind thought that this was the right move. And to be clear, I don't have any issues with Kadri as a player, or as a person, I just didn't believe at the time, and I definitely don't believe now that this was the right target.

 

Love.

 

The signing itself was not the big problem.  You sign players like this that you expect to help the core.  He hasn't.  Had we kept Gaudreau and Tkachuk, this would have been more of a help.  Trading Monahan was a sideways move, so I am not in favor of the total cost.

 

Without play driving 2nd line players that fit with Kadri's game, this won't be fixed any time soon.  I have liked what I saw from Ruzicka and Dube, but they don't seem to take this into account and make changes that negate this little bit of chemistry.  I would almost swap Kadri with Ruzicka just to put him in a better passing situation or allow him to have a better shot.  

[Heartbreaker]

8 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

The signing itself was not the big problem.  You sign players like this that you expect to help the core.  He hasn't.  Had we kept Gaudreau and Tkachuk, this would have been more of a help.  Trading Monahan was a sideways move, so I am not in favor of the total cost.

 

...

 

Right, but those guys were gone when the signing was made. If he hadn't kyboshed the trade the first time around, it's a different story. In this case, that team didn't exist anymore, so it was never the right add.

 

Love.

[travel_dude]

50 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

Right, but those guys were gone when the signing was made. If he hadn't kyboshed the trade the first time around, it's a different story. In this case, that team didn't exist anymore, so it was never the right add.

 

Love.

 

Yeah, I know.  It was a plan that was acted upon late.  Then again, perhaps the big egos of him and Tkachuk couldn't survive the same team.

[sak22]

5 hours ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

Yeah, it's almost an asinine question. I hear it all the time on the call in show, and read it in all the comments. They can't move Kadri. The other part is that if he elevates his play, they won't move Kadri.

 

In my opinion, the steps that were taken in order to sign this contract, and then the actual contract itself are the worst moves that the Flames have made in many years. I can't think of an error off the top of my head that comes close. Everyone will point at James Neal - but even that only cost money. I am a staunch defender of Brad Treliving, and his time as our GM, and I have to think that this is more of a directive from above because I don't think anyone with a halfway decent hockey mind thought that this was the right move. And to be clear, I don't have any issues with Kadri as a player, or as a person, I just didn't believe at the time, and I definitely don't believe now that this was the right target.

 

Love.

Can we get past this stupid equation.  Good move = Pure Treliving, Bad move= Purely ownership.  I liked Treliving more than many, but I don't for a second believe he had no desire to sign an 87 point C that he had previously tried to acquire, the move was done in hopes of having great C depth and it just hasn't worked.  His first move in Toronto was signing a soon to be 37 year old 4th liner to a 3 year deal, or was that just Tannenbaum and Shanny pulling the strings there?  For as much as we think Tre was eager to have Looch out of the lineup the guy still made a call to him in the offseason before he went to Boston.

[cross16]

5 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Can we get past this stupid equation.  Good move = Pure Treliving, Bad move= Purely ownership.  I liked Treliving more than many, but I don't for a second believe he had no desire to sign an 87 point C that he had previously tried to acquire, the move was done in hopes of having great C depth and it just hasn't worked.  His first move in Toronto was signing a soon to be 37 year old 4th liner to a 3 year deal, or was that just Tannenbaum and Shanny pulling the strings there?  For as much as we think Tre was eager to have Looch out of the lineup the guy still made a call to him in the offseason before he went to Boston.

 

 

Not really how it gets framed, at least it shouldn't. It comes down to the directive. When the 2 stars walked who make the call that the team had to return to 100pt form? I don't think that was Treliving and had that not directive not come down I don't think the Flames would have signed Kadri. 

 

He signed the deal so he is 100% accountable for the player but I don't think it was his decision or directive to think that this team should go all in to try and stay a 100pt team. 

[sak22]

32 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

 

Not really how it gets framed, at least it shouldn't. It comes down to the directive. When the 2 stars walked who make the call that the team had to return to 100pt form? I don't think that was Treliving and had that not directive not come down I don't think the Flames would have signed Kadri. 

 

He signed the deal so he is 100% accountable for the player but I don't think it was his decision or directive to think that this team should go all in to try and stay a 100pt team. 

I disagree, if I recall correctly Treliving checked in on him the first day of free agency which was after Gaudreau informed and before Tkachuk did, the delay in getting things done was just as much on Kadri waiting out for a competitive team to clear space as opposed to any change in direction.  Just a thought but in this business its all about winning, a guy in the last year of a deal is going to take the best option to win next year vs rebuild.  It didn't work out but I'm not crapping on him for it not working out, I heaped a lot of praise on the Summer of Brad and to this day will not fault him for a coach losing it and players not living up to their end of the bargain.  At the same time my all time fav was Jarome and most years he didn't get going to November, so I'm trying to practice a little patience with this group.

[Thebrewcrew]

My concern with Kadri is the way he ended last year. It was a really rough end to his season. Highlighted by that game against Chicago, late in the year.

 

Hasnt been much better to start this year.

 

I think it’s a question of when, not if, with regards to a buyout.  But the hope has to be a couple more seasons of 20 goals, at minimum for the contract to be anything but an albatross.

[420since1974]

"I think it’s a question of when, not if, with regards to a buyout."

 

I'm definitely not there yet.

I feel that sooner, rather than later, he will click with the right line mates and be a decent 2C.

That doesn't mean that I don't feel that he is overpaid, I just can't see a buyout in the future.

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

My concern with Kadri is the way he ended last year. It was a really rough end to his season. Highlighted by that game against Chicago, late in the year.

 

Hasnt been much better to start this year.

 

I think it’s a question of when, not if, with regards to a buyout.  But the hope has to be a couple more seasons of 20 goals, at minimum for the contract to be anything but an albatross.

 

So, that game against CHI.....

Wasn't that one the game that Sutter ripped apart Pelletier for his OT play?

AT the time I felt it was as much Kadri and the D overplaying the puck in the O-zone.

Pelletier got burned at the O-zone line.

Don't remember his real mistake on the play so clearly, but no worse than Kadri's.

 

From Jan.1/22 to end of season, he collected 26 points in 44 games.

He ended the season at 56 points, 2nd in goals and 3rd in points.

 

I can understand not liking the player or feeling he's not worth the money.

Or is playing like crap right now.

But to suggest we will have to buy him out, is a little over the top.

 

[Thebrewcrew]

7 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, that game against CHI.....

Wasn't that one the game that Sutter ripped apart Pelletier for his OT play?

AT the time I felt it was as much Kadri and the D overplaying the puck in the O-zone.

Pelletier got burned at the O-zone line.

Don't remember his real mistake on the play so clearly, but no worse than Kadri's.

 

From Jan.1/22 to end of season, he collected 26 points in 44 games.

He ended the season at 56 points, 2nd in goals and 3rd in points.

 

I can understand not liking the player or feeling he's not worth the money.

Or is playing like crap right now.

But to suggest we will have to buy him out, is a little over the top.

 

I don’t think it is. 
 

The contract was structured as such. It’s not going to happen soon.  I don’t think he will be here for the 5yrs of term he will have left. Could be wrong,  but I don’t see the value in 7m when he’s 36-38.