travel_dude Posted February 25 Author Report Share Posted February 25 37 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said: During the post game tonight. Friedman mentioned there’s a misconception out there, that Calgary won’t retain. He’s said that isn’t true. It’s just that the Flames have made it clear, if you want retention, it’s going to cost you. Merek quoted him saying that earler in the week, so Friedman is just repeating himself. National audience, so I get why he said it again. He did say it slightly differently, though. He said he understood the deal with NJ didn't break down over retaining salary. It broke down becuase the price for that was not being met. Thinks they will circle around on it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 Saw an interesting report yesterday.. apparently one team was given permission to speak with Tanevs team about an extension and talks " didn't go well".. there's a feeling that he will circle back to only Calgary or Vancouver in UFA .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebrewcrew Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 7 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: Saw an interesting report yesterday.. apparently one team was given permission to speak with Tanevs team about an extension and talks " didn't go well".. there's a feeling that he will circle back to only Calgary or Vancouver in UFA .. If I was a team trading for Tanev, I would want it to be a pure rental. He’s going to get three or four years in UFA. Do I want to be paying Tanev when he’s 37 or 38? Nope. Right now he’s still playing at a high level. The New England Patriot idea of cutting bait a year early as opposed to a year late still hasn’t really stuck in the NHL. Lots of the GM’s have the mindset “I paid a 30th overall pick, now I’ve gotta extend him”. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 1 minute ago, Thebrewcrew said: If I was a team trading for Tanev, I would want it to be a pure rental. He’s going to get three or four years in UFA. Do I want to be paying Tanev when he’s 37 or 38? Nope. Right now he’s still playing at a high level. The New England Patriot idea of cutting bait a year early as opposed to a year late still hasn’t really stuck in the NHL. Lots of the GM’s have the mindset “I paid a 30th overall pick, now I’ve gotta extend him”. Ya to me my gut says it was Ottawa or Arizona ..thoe were the only 2 I've heard in the past as having extension Interest.. Tbh I'd have interest in resigning him for 2 years..maybe 3 to get the aav down.. he's the perfect player to teach the kids what it takes .. just look at what he did for kyllington... But let's worry about that in the offseason..get the return for now .. I could see it going down right on the 8th.. Connie has a long list of teams willing to give a second..he's playing chicken waiting for a team to blink on a first 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 39 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said: If I was a team trading for Tanev, I would want it to be a pure rental. He’s going to get three or four years in UFA. Do I want to be paying Tanev when he’s 37 or 38? Nope. Right now he’s still playing at a high level. The New England Patriot idea of cutting bait a year early as opposed to a year late still hasn’t really stuck in the NHL. Lots of the GM’s have the mindset “I paid a 30th overall pick, now I’ve gotta extend him”. I even wonder now if we've seen the last of hanifin... It was widely reported he was Close to signing more than once ... He's playing like a guy that wants to be here ..not mailing it in like Lindholm most of the year Yes he's apparently indicated he wants to go to market ..so for that reason he has to be moved .. but I truly wonder if that offer hasn't been stuffed in Connie's top drawer for July ( less a year of course ).. go see what the market is and come back and see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebrewcrew Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 I think the Tanev deal will look like the Kris Russell trade to Dallas. 2nd with a chance of becoming a 1st 4th Brett Pollock Jokipakka That might translate to Ty Dellandrea and Justin Ertel/Brad Gardiner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 6 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said: I think the Tanev deal will look like the Kris Russell trade to Dallas. 2nd with a chance of becoming a 1st 4th Brett Pollock Jokipakka That might translate to Ty Dellandrea and Justin Ertel/Brad Gardiner Not sure if you saw it but isl saw this exact offer as one being on the table .. just didn't know the source so didn't give it much time Dallas gets tanev We get a conditional first and dellandrea and an additional pick or prospect for eating salary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebrewcrew Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 10 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: Not sure if you saw it but isl saw this exact offer as one being on the table .. just didn't know the source so didn't give it much time Dallas gets tanev We get a conditional first and dellandrea and an additional pick or prospect for eating salary Dellandrea looks like a player needing a fresh start. Highly drafted, but lots felt like it was a reach that early. Drafted as a C though, looks like he’s been primarily a RW in Dallas. Curious as to your opinion, which of the following deals would you rather have. - one for one, Tanev for a 1st - or the conditional 2nd plus 4th, etc. Im taking the conditional second. I would love the first, but I think I would rather have four or five assets than just one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 10 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said: Dellandrea looks like a player needing a fresh start. Highly drafted, but lots felt like it was a reach that early. Drafted as a C though, looks like he’s been primarily a RW in Dallas. Curious as to your opinion, which of the following deals would you rather have. - one for one, Tanev for a 1st - or the conditional 2nd plus 4th, etc. Im taking the conditional second. I would love the first, but I think I would rather have four or five assets than just one. I would take the dallas one for example ..but my gut says if the first appears it will also come with a body or 2. the first is on the radar because of Toronto..they only have a first and they want Tanev bad.... if they crack and offer it , one or more other teams will up the ante and the seal will be broken I also like Dallas's chances of making the WCF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 3 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said: If I was a team trading for Tanev, I would want it to be a pure rental. He’s going to get three or four years in UFA. Do I want to be paying Tanev when he’s 37 or 38? Nope. Right now he’s still playing at a high level. The New England Patriot idea of cutting bait a year early as opposed to a year late still hasn’t really stuck in the NHL. Lots of the GM’s have the mindset “I paid a 30th overall pick, now I’ve gotta extend him”. I agree. Tanev is the type of player everyone wants in the short term, but don't want to commit to long term. Won't surprise me if he only ends up getting a year or 2 in FA Why I'm also not convinced he returns a haul at the deadline. 1 hour ago, Thebrewcrew said: Dellandrea looks like a player needing a fresh start. Highly drafted, but lots felt like it was a reach that early. Drafted as a C though, looks like he’s been primarily a RW in Dallas. Curious as to your opinion, which of the following deals would you rather have. - one for one, Tanev for a 1st - or the conditional 2nd plus 4th, etc. Im taking the conditional second. I would love the first, but I think I would rather have four or five assets than just one. I'd really like Dellandrea but I have a hard time seeing the Stars giving up a player off their roster. Give me multiple picks over a 1st any day. I think once you get out of the teens int he first round there is little difference between a pick in the 20s and the 2nd round, so give me the extra lottery ticket. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 3 hours ago, phoenix66 said: Saw an interesting report yesterday.. apparently one team was given permission to speak with Tanevs team about an extension and talks " didn't go well".. there's a feeling that he will circle back to only Calgary or Vancouver in UFA .. That's the danger of letting other teams speak to players. They aren't serious about making a trade. Just want to gather Intel and spread rumours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 4 minutes ago, The_People1 said: That's the danger of letting other teams speak to players. They aren't serious about making a trade. Just want to gather Intel and spread rumours. Speculation I heard was that it was Ottawa. It sounds like they really like Tanev and feel that's a player they need but obviously are not in the rental market. Would have been interested in making a deal to get a head start in signing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 It be interesting to see where Tanev sits now. Rumors were the initial talks he and the Flames had didn't go well either but perhaps that tune has changed. I think he wanted term and the Flames weren't interested. If he has changed his tuned (willing to sign for 2 years or something) and you can't get a first out of a team I think keeping Tanev is still a strong option. But if he is after term I think you have to move him, or move him if you get a 1st plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 11 minutes ago, cross16 said: Speculation I heard was that it was Ottawa. It sounds like they really like Tanev and feel that's a player they need but obviously are not in the rental market. Would have been interested in making a deal to get a head start in signing him. Weegar is the perfect D for OTT... Just sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 40 minutes ago, cross16 said: I agree. Tanev is the type of player everyone wants in the short term, but don't want to commit to long term. Won't surprise me if he only ends up getting a year or 2 in FA Why I'm also not convinced he returns a haul at the deadline. I'd really like Dellandrea but I have a hard time seeing the Stars giving up a player off their roster. Give me multiple picks over a 1st any day. I think once you get out of the teens int he first round there is little difference between a pick in the 20s and the 2nd round, so give me the extra lottery ticket. That's where Toronto is stuck..they have no second ... Nyi 3rd rounder .. their own 4th and multiple 5ths (including ours ).. word is Brad has been offering a package of multiple late rounders in the 4/,5 range 5 minutes ago, The_People1 said: Weegar is the perfect D for OTT... Just sayin. Pretty sure that's one player Craig is hanging the phone up on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 Just now, phoenix66 said: Pretty sure that's one player Craig is hanging the phone up on What's the price you wouldn't? If OTT gives us their top 10 pick this year, then I'm listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 1 minute ago, The_People1 said: What's the price you wouldn't? If OTT gives us their top 10 pick this year, then I'm listening. Im not sure you can put a price on true leadership.. and add in the skill he is being free to show.. I agreed with Backs being captain but Weegs was my top choice .. this would truly need to be an embarrassing overpay for me to listen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 4 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: Im not sure you can put a price on true leadership.. and add in the skill he is being free to show.. I agreed with Backs being captain but Weegs was my top choice .. this would truly need to be an embarrassing overpay for me to listen But quantify that. OTT currently picks 7. Can we get Sam Dickinson at 7th and move on with new leadership? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 Just now, The_People1 said: But quantify that. OTT currently picks 7. Can we get Sam Dickinson at 7th and move on with new leadership? Quantify? For the leadership he brings ..the value be brings to the development of the kids . His skillset as well( the WC I think probabaly surprised aot of people) and the Fact he's embraced Calgary and has bled red and gold since he got here? Players like that are the reason teams win.. and it takes it above his skill level (which is impressive in its own right ) Give me Tkachuk. Steutzle..and the first ..I'll listen ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted February 25 Author Report Share Posted February 25 36 minutes ago, cross16 said: It be interesting to see where Tanev sits now. Rumors were the initial talks he and the Flames had didn't go well either but perhaps that tune has changed. I think he wanted term and the Flames weren't interested. If he has changed his tuned (willing to sign for 2 years or something) and you can't get a first out of a team I think keeping Tanev is still a strong option. But if he is after term I think you have to move him, or move him if you get a 1st plus. So, let it be know to the player and agent that you will sign him as a UFA to a specific term and dollar. Say you are going to trade him to a contender that likely won't re-sign him. He gets to chase the cup for a season and knows what the receiving team has to beat to keep him past the playoffs. I wouldn't say that's against the rules. It involves trust and honor between the player and team. It's unwritten of course. By not re-signing him now, teams looking for a rental would still be interested. They have the opportunity to offer an extension. We don't lose out. That team has a chance to win the cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 1 minute ago, travel_dude said: So, let it be know to the player and agent that you will sign him as a UFA to a specific term and dollar. Say you are going to trade him to a contender that likely won't re-sign him. He gets to chase the cup for a season and knows what the receiving team has to beat to keep him past the playoffs. I wouldn't say that's against the rules. It involves trust and honor between the player and team. It's unwritten of course. By not re-signing him now, teams looking for a rental would still be interested. They have the opportunity to offer an extension. We don't lose out. That team has a chance to win the cup. Not sure if the rules per se..but it's done a million times for sure.. Mark Recchi made a late career out of it ... You can technically say anything you want to the player while you still own him ..even if it's " I'm putting this offer right here.. if you EVER want to revisit it *wink* it will be here ..." There's also the legal tampering period .. where they can solidify it ... It was that period that made up Chuckys mind in the end to leave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 4 hours ago, phoenix66 said: Quantify? For the leadership he brings ..the value be brings to the development of the kids . His skillset as well( the WC I think probabaly surprised aot of people) and the Fact he's embraced Calgary and has bled red and gold since he got here? Players like that are the reason teams win.. and it takes it above his skill level (which is impressive in its own right ) Give me Tkachuk. Steutzle..and the first ..I'll listen ) So Tkachuk + Stutzle + 1st round pick (top 10) for Weegar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 51 minutes ago, The_People1 said: So Tkachuk + Stutzle + 1st round pick (top 10) for Weegar... In other words, imo, he's about as untouchable on this team as u can get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 I really think the Flames come back next year with Markstrom. It's too hard to believe that Jersey will come at them at the deadline now, considering they're falling further and further out. Not to say that Jersey is the only suitor for Marky, just that they are one of the bigger ones. Conroy may not have been super serious about trading him and maybe that's ok, but in the end, I think they will not trade him, thus making the Flames draft in the 10-15 range opposed to the 7-12 range. I'm just throwing numbers out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, robrob74 said: I really think the Flames come back next year with Markstrom. It's too hard to believe that Jersey will come at them at the deadline now, considering they're falling further and further out. Not to say that Jersey is the only suitor for Marky, just that they are one of the bigger ones. Conroy may not have been super serious about trading him and maybe that's ok, but in the end, I think they will not trade him, thus making the Flames draft in the 10-15 range opposed to the 7-12 range. I'm just throwing numbers out there. Which is just not smart as that guarantees your sending a low teens pick to Montreal. The 2025 pick is only top 10 protected. The Flames should only keep Markstrom if they think they can be a playoff team next year, if they don't think they can be a playoff team then IMO they need to trade him. not worth the risk of giving up a 11-15 pick to Florida Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now