MP5029 Posted July 12 Report Share Posted July 12 16 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said: With the acquisition of McLeod from the Oil Krebs prob slots in at 4th in depth at C. Hasnt really put up 17OA numbers so far so cost shouldnt be too out there. Maybe given a chance on something higher than the third line may reap rewards but I'm also in favor of auditioning any of the current crop that may transition into a decent C given the chance. Mmm sounds to Me like this would be a smart acquisition by Cgy, low cost/risk with a potential high reward…even at a 3rd liner Ctr that’s one covered, we need to fill all 4 Ctr slots cause Backlund and Kadri are aging 3rd line Ctrs and will need to be replaced over the next few years anyway, might as well bring in a guy like Krybs give him a shot. He’s never gonna be a front line Ctr but if he can grab 3rd or maybe even cap out his potential as a 2nd line Ctr that’s a solid win, and his age is perfect. the way I figure it, if we can fill lines 2,3 and 4 with our current prospect pool and fill them In via smart trades, then our draft can focus on front line Ctr, RW and LW…worst case situation some of the guys we bring in or develop turn into front liners (that’s a stretch but could happen) and if they do, that’s a nice problem to have, add to the draft capital moving forward so having a sustainable contender is possible 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted July 12 Report Share Posted July 12 Is it just me, or is, "weaponizing the cap" one of the worst misnomer sayings ever? It's gotta be top 3. That isn't remotely why you're alleviating cap problems. I seem to read, more and more weekly, we've "weaponized cap". We haven't. We've created cap space. What are we, Arizona? You create cap space to identlfy shortcomings and address them. Solid players fall out with their org almost yearly. You need cap space for a solid run at him/them. And picks as collateral. Bad contracts/LTIR for a draft pick/prospect? Wow. Arizona tried that. I see it so much now, the Flames have weaponized the cap. Do any GMs in this league buy this Satoshi Nakamoto? You're just managing yourself a budget for a few years and see if folks can see things your way. It's not rocket science. Conroy won't be flailing around his cap space. I really expect that he'll have some great moves in the next few years, not blow his load in the course of a season. Slow and steady wins the race, if I remember correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted July 12 Report Share Posted July 12 14 minutes ago, conundrumed said: Is it just me, or is, "weaponizing the cap" one of the worst misnomer sayings ever? It's gotta be top 3. That isn't remotely why you're alleviating cap problems. I seem to read, more and more weekly, we've "weaponized cap". We haven't. We've created cap space. What are we, Arizona? You create cap space to identlfy shortcomings and address them. Solid players fall out with their org almost yearly. You need cap space for a solid run at him/them. And picks as collateral. Bad contracts/LTIR for a draft pick/prospect? Wow. Arizona tried that. I see it so much now, the Flames have weaponized the cap. Do any GMs in this league buy this Satoshi Nakamoto? You're just managing yourself a budget for a few years and see if folks can see things your way. It's not rocket science. Conroy won't be flailing around his cap space. I really expect that he'll have some great moves in the next few years, not blow his load in the course of a season. Slow and steady wins the race, if I remember correctly. No one frees up cap space to "weaponize it" correct. But when you are done freeing up cap space and are a bad team, no one good wants to sign here. You're left in a position of either overpaying hardcore to attract UFAs or... "Weaponize the cap space". ARZ tried it because they had no choice really. MTL robbed BT of a 1st for Monahan, for example. We will find ourselves in September with about $10-mil in cap space and teams who need to get cap compliant will need favours from us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmac70 Posted July 12 Report Share Posted July 12 10 minutes ago, conundrumed said: Is it just me, or is, "weaponizing the cap" one of the worst misnomer sayings ever? It's gotta be top 3. That isn't remotely why you're alleviating cap problems. I seem to read, more and more weekly, we've "weaponized cap". We haven't. We've created cap space. What are we, Arizona? You create cap space to identlfy shortcomings and address them. Solid players fall out with their org almost yearly. You need cap space for a solid run at him/them. And picks as collateral. Bad contracts/LTIR for a draft pick/prospect? Wow. Arizona tried that. I see it so much now, the Flames have weaponized the cap. Do any GMs in this league buy this Satoshi Nakamoto? You're just managing yourself a budget for a few years and see if folks can see things your way. It's not rocket science. Conroy won't be flailing around his cap space. I really expect that he'll have some great moves in the next few years, not blow his load in the course of a season. Slow and steady wins the race, if I remember correctly. 100% to me it's there if you need to use it. It's a way of leveraging to add more picks or prospects from clubs that are desperate to either clear space or rid themselves of a bad contract. If am not mistaken Hanfin, Lindholm, and Tanev were all offered contracts if they took said contracts we would be up against the cap. This so-called re whatever is simply a by-product of proper asset management as is the cap space we now have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 12 Author Report Share Posted July 12 39 minutes ago, conundrumed said: Is it just me, or is, "weaponizing the cap" one of the worst misnomer sayings ever? It's gotta be top 3. That isn't remotely why you're alleviating cap problems. I seem to read, more and more weekly, we've "weaponized cap". We haven't. We've created cap space. What are we, Arizona? You create cap space to identlfy shortcomings and address them. Solid players fall out with their org almost yearly. You need cap space for a solid run at him/them. And picks as collateral. Bad contracts/LTIR for a draft pick/prospect? Wow. Arizona tried that. I see it so much now, the Flames have weaponized the cap. Do any GMs in this league buy this Satoshi Nakamoto? You're just managing yourself a budget for a few years and see if folks can see things your way. It's not rocket science. Conroy won't be flailing around his cap space. I really expect that he'll have some great moves in the next few years, not blow his load in the course of a season. Slow and steady wins the race, if I remember correctly. Regardless of what you call gaining cap space, the result is you can add players tat may be due a breakout but a team can't afford it now. We always missed out on deals that included taking on cap because we had to mostly do dollar for dollar. Connie managed to hit some line drives with getting back smaller contracts like Sharky. Anyway, if you have space to add a useful player in trade or you get one by taking a bit of a cap dump, so be it. We retained on Markstrom but could have done that at TDL. Maybe the deal really wasn't there, but we had the space to do it. If Marner was available (and it made sense), then taking the full salary without the team retaining might swing the trade to us. We can do it. I'm not talking about taking Kevin Hayes for a 6th. Kevin Hayes and Frost for a roster player is a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmac70 Posted July 12 Report Share Posted July 12 Right now just to create a Satoshi Nakamoto storm in Collierville I would offer sheet both players, then make trades with them to regain the assets +, its EDM why be nice!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak22 Posted July 12 Report Share Posted July 12 I don't see the point in going after them, I think it will take an overpay for them to accept to begin with and an overpay would put in question of whether they even match and if they don't are they really players we want, and if they didn't match highly doubtful they would trade back the compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmac70 Posted July 12 Report Share Posted July 12 12 minutes ago, sak22 said: I don't see the point in going after them, I think it will take an overpay for them to accept to begin with and an overpay would put in question of whether they even match and if they don't are they really players we want, and if they didn't match highly doubtful they would trade back the compensation. The coilers may offer 2 million to each but that's a discount to remain for the players, as 4-4.5 is more in line. They still have to move a contract out to make room for them. The window of the Coilers is this year that's it. Dry Saddle contract should be well north of $12 million MC Baby is next, you are looking at $30 million into 2 guys or 30% of your cap. The cost would be a 2nd rounder as compensation if they signed the offer sheet. One could easily get that back via trade to a different club, as an add-on for a larger prospect or trade for a roster player plus the bonus of screwing the Coilers. I don't think it will happen but just think of the story line that would create for the battle of AB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 13 Author Report Share Posted July 13 6 hours ago, tmac70 said: The coilers may offer 2 million to each but that's a discount to remain for the players, as 4-4.5 is more in line. They still have to move a contract out to make room for them. The window of the Coilers is this year that's it. Dry Saddle contract should be well north of $12 million MC Baby is next, you are looking at $30 million into 2 guys or 30% of your cap. The cost would be a 2nd rounder as compensation if they signed the offer sheet. One could easily get that back via trade to a different club, as an add-on for a larger prospect or trade for a roster player plus the bonus of screwing the Coilers. I don't think it will happen but just think of the story line that would create for the battle of AB. You can offer sheet two players if they don't involve the same picks. They won't match Holloway if he signed. They would match Broburd. I'm not sure if Holloway is any improvement over Zary or Pospisil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebrewcrew Posted July 13 Report Share Posted July 13 29 minutes ago, travel_dude said: I'm not sure if Holloway is any improvement over Zary or Pospisil. I think the Flames should be very thankful that Edmonton took Holloway instead of Zary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MP5029 Posted July 13 Report Share Posted July 13 9 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said: I think the Flames should be very thankful that Edmonton took Holloway instead of Zary Yeha Holloway has zero up side over Zary for me. We have more than enough LW, so unless they trade Hubie or someone else Holloway makes very little sense. We need Ctrs badly, and a few more RW’s around 23 years of age, power forward types that can skate and score for RW and Ctrs that can skate pass and most importantly win FO’s. Broburd has an interesting up side as he has NHL experience so he would slot in and fill the Kylington void…allow time for our newly acquired young D to develop in the AHL and build some chemistry together. however, there are a few things that don’t make sense: 1. what if one or two of your newly acquired young D are NHL ready, OS and adding Broburd would kinda block them from getting regular NHL ice time. 2. the cost of the OS, if it’s too high, then it’s an over pay, if it’s too late Edm will probably match it and it’s wasted time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted July 13 Report Share Posted July 13 Let's not mess around with offer sheets. We don't need to do that. If they stalemate in contract talks, then talk trade. I really don't want to hang a big sign on the Flames that says, "Offer Sheets Welcomed". Let's just not even peek into that room. Everybody struggles with cap mgmt. Oilers or not, let's not open that door. Please don't operate that way. It's dirty pool and 31 other GMs that are just as smart as you get the message that you're okay Blockchaining with other mgrs assets. Just a horrible and petty look. Stay classy. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otown72 Posted July 13 Report Share Posted July 13 4 hours ago, conundrumed said: Let's not mess around with offer sheets. We don't need to do that. If they stalemate in contract talks, then talk trade. I really don't want to hang a big sign on the Flames that says, "Offer Sheets Welcomed". Let's just not even peek into that room. Everybody struggles with cap mgmt. Oilers or not, let's not open that door. Please don't operate that way. It's dirty pool and 31 other GMs that are just as smart as you get the message that you're okay Blockchaining with other mgrs assets. Just a horrible and petty look. Stay classy. True, could the same dirty pool could be said about the Monahan for 'future considerations' trade with MTL? Extorting a First as sweetener seems a little greedy and perhaps dirty for getting a free roster player with potential upside. We all know how that turned out for MTL- ended up getting another first rounder😆 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted July 13 Report Share Posted July 13 11 minutes ago, Otown72 said: True, could the same dirty pool could be said about the Monahan for 'future considerations' trade with MTL? Extorting a First as sweetener seems a little greedy and perhaps dirty for getting a free roster player with potential upside. We all know how that turned out for MTL- ended up getting another first rounder😆 I'll take, "Reeks of desperation to save face for $1,000, Alex". MTL wasn't playing dirty pool. They were playing pool. How you have 9 conditions tied to one trade, and appear to have lost all of them, is a bit beyond my Grade 4-level comprehension. That's as nice as I can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 13 Author Report Share Posted July 13 2 hours ago, conundrumed said: I'll take, "Reeks of desperation to save face for $1,000, Alex". MTL wasn't playing dirty pool. They were playing pool. How you have 9 conditions tied to one trade, and appear to have lost all of them, is a bit beyond my Grade 4-level comprehension. That's as nice as I can be. And simehow we couldn't get rid of Lucic for a cost similar without taxing your gradw 4 edumucation. Lucic could have bee traded to more than one team, and yes I know the NMC, but seriously? We gave up a 1st for a former scoring star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefsmi Posted July 13 Report Share Posted July 13 On 7/11/2024 at 10:00 AM, travel_dude said: Ugg, I hate the lack of Capfriendly. There are alternatives of course, but I hate change. I am okay withh change on the team but the NHL and other sites suck for change management. Here ya go is their motto. If I am the Flames, I am contacting teams close to the cap and seeing what they are offering. Mantha and Bean are closer to being rebuild stewards than longer term meaningful players. I don't mind the former and perhaps the latter gives us some options, but I think we need some middle term players that can help the kids now and maybe be the longer term vets to straddle the next wave. Necas may be out of reach, but there are others a bit older that won't cost a ton. Nothing in FA really works, other than Kylington. I fear that pride and bad advice will close that door. puck pedia is the new cap friendly, im almost as used to it now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MP5029 Posted July 13 Report Share Posted July 13 34 minutes ago, jefsmi said: puck pedia is the new cap friendly, im almost as used to it now Still not as good, seems capgeek is gone too? This is just one more reason to hate the capitals 😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted July 14 Report Share Posted July 14 Seems like someone is making a lookalike... https://capwages.com/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MP5029 Posted July 14 Report Share Posted July 14 1 hour ago, conundrumed said: Seems like someone is making a lookalike... https://capwages.com/ lol yup, it’s easy use and simple for sure but is very basic, lacks slot of the options and info of cap friendly…but I may use it being as it’s simple to use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted July 14 Report Share Posted July 14 2 hours ago, MP5029 said: lol yup, it’s easy use and simple for sure but is very basic, lacks slot of the options and info of cap friendly…but I may use it being as it’s simple to use Pretty sure that it's still being developed and this isn't the finished product. If you sign in he's great at taking feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otown72 Posted July 14 Report Share Posted July 14 19 hours ago, conundrumed said: I'll take, "Reeks of desperation to save face for $1,000, Alex". MTL wasn't playing dirty pool. They were playing pool. How you have 9 conditions tied to one trade, and appear to have lost all of them, is a bit beyond my Grade 4-level comprehension. That's as nice as I can be. Very Nice. The main lesson being, don’t take advantage of teams who are in difficult cap situations. The Monny trade is very comparable to the Datsyuk from DET to PHX back 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted July 14 Report Share Posted July 14 Just now, Otown72 said: Very Nice. The main lesson being, don’t take advantage of teams who are in difficult cap situations. The Monny trade is very comparable to the Datsyuk from DET to PHX back 2016. But Datsyuk wanted a couple of years to play at home prior to retiring, so there was zero chance Phoenix was getting an NHL player in that. MTL got one trying to bounce back. Datsyuk had made it concisely clear in his last year. Mony was still an NHL player. MTL took zero advantage. BT went panic-mode for Kadri. That wasn't MTL's fault. BT got milked because he allowed it to happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otown72 Posted July 14 Report Share Posted July 14 1 minute ago, conundrumed said: But Datsyuk wanted a couple of years to play at home prior to retiring, so there was zero chance Phoenix was getting an NHL player in that. MTL got one trying to bounce back. Datsyuk had made it concisely clear in his last year. Mony was still an NHL player. MTL took zero advantage. BT went panic-mode for Kadri. That wasn't MTL's fault. BT got milked because he allowed it to happen. Yeah, Tre screwed up on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted July 14 Report Share Posted July 14 6 minutes ago, Otown72 said: Yeah, Tre screwed up on that one. In fairness to him, he kinda got screwed by 2 players, so saving face for the Flames became a thing. Let's face it, the sky wasn't falling, it landed. That's a tough spot. The onus on him was likely more than anyone of us want to experience, I'm sure. It's so easy to be hyper-critical in hindsight, but it also could have worked out at the time. I liked the moves, but my Mony jersey is quite angry about endless conditions placed on it. They shouldn't have been so one-sided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted July 14 Author Report Share Posted July 14 1 hour ago, conundrumed said: In fairness to him, he kinda got screwed by 2 players, so saving face for the Flames became a thing. Let's face it, the sky wasn't falling, it landed. That's a tough spot. The onus on him was likely more than anyone of us want to experience, I'm sure. It's so easy to be hyper-critical in hindsight, but it also could have worked out at the time. I liked the moves, but my Mony jersey is quite angry about endless conditions placed on it. They shouldn't have been so one-sided. The knee jerk was obvious and why it wasn't safe to have BT try to recoup the losses. They were losses plain and simple. The Tkachuk deal was probably par value, but it was a loss of a young player. The knee jerk was him feeling the need to add a big name and ship out the former Boring SM. He was more worried about losing Huberdeau for nothing that he re-signed him in a turnover year. Hey, I was giving J.Hockey 10.5 anyway or Tkachuk gets that much to stay, so new winger gets that deal. BT was trading SM when he was not yet recouped. The prognosis was great but need to trade? Funny, we weren't in dire shape even with the Kadri signing, not great but not dire. We were all set prior to re-sign JH and Matty. Would have required some cap slight of hand, but that's why the big boys wear pants. Anyway, it's the trade tree that keeps growing. Should have been at most a shrub. 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