travel_dude Posted February 15 Author Report Share Posted February 15 Small update. It looks like Vladar is not able to come off IR yet. Wolf is the starter and Markstrom backing him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 36 minutes ago, travel_dude said: So, just to add fuel to the fire.... Markstrom not on the ice today (optional skate for him). Wolf in starter net and Vladar backing up. Wolf was on an emergency recall due to Vladar being on IR. So far Vladar still showing on IR. But if he's on the ice? Yep.. they have until before game time to take him off the IR... But it makes for good speculation fodder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak22 Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 Not a move I would do, but Conroy did love him. Just never think the guy who was constantly the odd man out on the 3rd worst offense in the league is going to provide anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 18 minutes ago, sak22 said: Not a move I would do, but Conroy did love him. Just never think the guy who was constantly the odd man out on the 3rd worst offense in the league is going to provide anything. Ya..do we claim him.to appease the holders of pitchforks when he didn't pan out here ...or just accept that Sutter was right and he's the next Austin Czarnik? My guy says we claim.him just to write the chapter ..to be fair we did offer him a 2 year contract..but one year was 2 way..he got a 2 yr one way deal in Washington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted February 15 Author Report Share Posted February 15 23 minutes ago, sak22 said: Not a move I would do, but Conroy did love him. Just never think the guy who was constantly the odd man out on the 3rd worst offense in the league is going to provide anything. 2 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: Ya..do we claim him.to appease the holders of pitchforks when he didn't pan out here ...or just accept that Sutter was right and he's the next Austin Czarnik? My guy says we claim.him just to write the chapter ..to be fair we did offer him a 2 year contract..but one year was 2 way..he got a 2 yr one way deal in Washington I don't think we claim him. He chose to sign in WAS. Sets a bad example when we are not willing to ply our newly signed RW. When Coronato is ready, he will easily pass what Phillips could do. I was more ticked at the treatment when he belonged to us. We moved on, as did he. He will get back to the big team when he is ready or needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 Wonder if this changes Conroys plan. He mentioned specifically that Greer getting hurt made him push forward on Lindholm harder Tanev is always an injury concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted February 16 Author Report Share Posted February 16 39 minutes ago, JTech780 said: Scouts are making their plans before they hear the starter. We play Saturday early, so any scout could stay for an extra day and get back Sat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted February 16 Author Report Share Posted February 16 We play like crap with scouts in the building. Hanifin and Tanev not exactly sharp. Markstrom not playing. Let the selling begin. Too many teams better than us now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 Kevin Weeks does walk the line between entertainer and insider but noteworthy nonetheless. also worth considering that Anderson only has 2 more year's left and then will be UFA at 29 so taking calls makes a ton of sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouCifer Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 Teams inquire about players all the time, whether they're on the block or not. You listen and ask about all players. If someone's asking about Andersson, the offer has to match or exceed the player's value to the team. I doubt Andersson's going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 21 minutes ago, cross16 said: Kevin Weeks does walk the line between entertainer and insider but noteworthy nonetheless. also worth considering that Anderson only has 2 more year's left and then will be UFA at 29 so taking calls makes a ton of sense to me. I would inquire about Andersson too if I was a GM. A RHS who can play on your top pair at best and top 4 at worst who makes under $5m. One of the more underrated defenders in the league, even on his own team. We do need to retain some defensive depth here, so a team would have to come with an over the top return before I would consider it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 I'm not suggesting they move Andersson quickly either. for sure the package has to be good. But what i would say is I don't agree with this idea of having this huge trade asks and then holding on to players for longer trying to get teams to meet it. If the plan is to re tool and the focus is being better in 2-3 years from now then why hang on to Andersson? Your shopping him now with 2 years of control and a bargain contract so the likelihood that you get a better return than you are going to get right now is small IMO. Doesn't make sense to me to hold on to a 34 year old goalie and it doesn't make sense to me to hold on to a dman who will be a 29 year old UFA if I can get pieces that make me better 2-3 years from now. Trading years of control and cap savings is a huge assets in today's game. if conroy and co truly do have the luxury of time on their side they'd be very wise to us it IMO. Price should be high yes, i'm just saying the Flames should be more intentional around moving him then simply waiting back and hoping someone sends you a hail mary. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 47 minutes ago, cross16 said: I'm not suggesting they move Andersson quickly either. for sure the package has to be good. But what i would say is I don't agree with this idea of having this huge trade asks and then holding on to players for longer trying to get teams to meet it. If the plan is to re tool and the focus is being better in 2-3 years from now then why hang on to Andersson? Your shopping him now with 2 years of control and a bargain contract so the likelihood that you get a better return than you are going to get right now is small IMO. Doesn't make sense to me to hold on to a 34 year old goalie and it doesn't make sense to me to hold on to a dman who will be a 29 year old UFA if I can get pieces that make me better 2-3 years from now. Trading years of control and cap savings is a huge assets in today's game. if conroy and co truly do have the luxury of time on their side they'd be very wise to us it IMO. Price should be high yes, i'm just saying the Flames should be more intentional around moving him then simply waiting back and hoping someone sends you a hail mary. I would just say that if you are moving out Markstrom, Andersson, Hanifin, and Tanev and have already moved out Lindholm and Zadorov, it would suggest more of a rebuild than a retool. Which is fine with me, it just goes counter to what Conroy and management have been saying all season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfire11 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 24 minutes ago, JTech780 said: I would just say that if you are moving out Markstrom, Andersson, Hanifin, and Tanev and have already moved out Lindholm and Zadorov, it would suggest more of a rebuild than a retool. Which is fine with me, it just goes counter to what Conroy and management have been saying all season. And then what is the incentive for Kadri and Huberdeau to stay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak22 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 16 minutes ago, JTech780 said: I would just say that if you are moving out Markstrom, Andersson, Hanifin, and Tanev and have already moved out Lindholm and Zadorov, it would suggest more of a rebuild than a retool. Which is fine with me, it just goes counter to what Conroy and management have been saying all season. If you are trying to sign some of the guys you don't say your rebuilding, and you don't really say that if guys don't sign then your rebuilding. I don't think rebuild was ever Plan A, but they were not going to go public with Plan B. Transparency in sporting organizations is never going to happen, I remember Sutter saying he was going to stay quiet at a deadline only to make the biggest move of the day with Jokinen, I remember Feaster during intermission before another deadline vowing to make several moves if the team didn't turn it around in that game, they didn't and he didn't. Don't know why people still hold on to every word spoken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 Just now, redfire11 said: And then what is the incentive for Kadri and Huberdeau to stay? The fact they're under contract for multiple years and don't really have a say in the matter 😎 1 hour ago, cross16 said: I'm not suggesting they move Andersson quickly either. for sure the package has to be good. But what i would say is I don't agree with this idea of having this huge trade asks and then holding on to players for longer trying to get teams to meet it. If the plan is to re tool and the focus is being better in 2-3 years from now then why hang on to Andersson? Your shopping him now with 2 years of control and a bargain contract so the likelihood that you get a better return than you are going to get right now is small IMO. Doesn't make sense to me to hold on to a 34 year old goalie and it doesn't make sense to me to hold on to a dman who will be a 29 year old UFA if I can get pieces that make me better 2-3 years from now. Trading years of control and cap savings is a huge assets in today's game. if conroy and co truly do have the luxury of time on their side they'd be very wise to us it IMO. Price should be high yes, i'm just saying the Flames should be more intentional around moving him then simply waiting back and hoping someone sends you a hail mary. I get you thinking ..I really do.. but age isn it always a factor .. Anderson strikes me as a guy who keeps getting better and should still be good well Into his 30s.. just because he's gonna be 28 in a few years doesn't automatically make him a move candidate .. I agree nobody is untouchable, but he's not even on my radar as a move candidate.. This pipe dream that's been floated on social media about cale makar coming home in 2027 won't go away.. but he'll be 28.. are we gonna say no if he actually does come knocking ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak22 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 17 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: The fact they're under contract for multiple years and don't really have a say in the matter 😎 I get you thinking ..I really do.. but age isn it always a factor .. Anderson strikes me as a guy who keeps getting better and should still be good well Into his 30s.. just because he's gonna be 28 in a few years doesn't automatically make him a move candidate .. I agree nobody is untouchable, but he's not even on my radar as a move candidate.. This pipe dream that's been floated on social media about cale makar coming home in 2027 won't go away.. but he'll be 28.. are we gonna say no if he actually does come knocking ? I don't necessarily get caught up in age as some do. I think there are certain players you know likely won't age well, Lucic for one, but naturally guys who can skate like Makar usually age better. My judgements are usually based on A) skating ability, b) physical conditioning, c) injury history. Ras IMO has had a clean bill of health but a and b aren't elite, so I'm weary of signing him long term at 28 for who knows what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 56 minutes ago, JTech780 said: I would just say that if you are moving out Markstrom, Andersson, Hanifin, and Tanev and have already moved out Lindholm and Zadorov, it would suggest more of a rebuild than a retool. Which is fine with me, it just goes counter to what Conroy and management have been saying all season. Depends on what you get back in return and i would not agree it runs counter. they've been saying get young, they are now openly talking about being better when the building opens so trading Andersson fits with all of that. sure if you move him for nothing but futures then it runs counter, but moving him for pieces that help now and in the future is consistent. as an example would Buffalo put Mittelsdat or Krebs on the table? That be the kind of deal you are after I think. not specifically those players but players that can help now but fit the age range. 30 minutes ago, redfire11 said: And then what is the incentive for Kadri and Huberdeau to stay? Their contracts 25 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: I get you thinking ..I really do.. but age isn it always a factor .. Anderson strikes me as a guy who keeps getting better and should still be good well Into his 30s.. just because he's gonna be 28 in a few years doesn't automatically make him a move candidate .. I agree nobody is untouchable, but he's not even on my radar as a move candidate.. This pipe dream that's been floated on social media about cale makar coming home in 2027 won't go away.. but he'll be 28.. are we gonna say no if he actually does come knocking ? I really hope we are not trying to put Cale makar and Rasmus Andersson in the same bucket are we? it's not as simple as age. Rasmus has 2 more years left and then will be a UFA and age 30. So your going to have to pay a 30 year old dman as a UFA. If the goal is re tooling and being as good as you can 2-3 years from now, what helps more a return of a young asset who could be peaking then or having to allocate, what is likely to be big money, to a 30 year old dman? it's not age, it's situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 Flames did not get Phillips. I think pens had the higher priority yesterday so unclear if the Flames put a claim in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MP5029 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 49 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: The fact they're under contract for multiple years and don't really have a say in the matter 😎 I get you thinking ..I really do.. but age isn it always a factor .. Anderson strikes me as a guy who keeps getting better and should still be good well Into his 30s.. just because he's gonna be 28 in a few years doesn't automatically make him a move candidate .. I agree nobody is untouchable, but he's not even on my radar as a move candidate.. This pipe dream that's been floated on social media about cale makar coming home in 2027 won't go away.. but he'll be 28.. are we gonna say no if he actually does come knocking ? Timing would be good, come home and new arena or soon to be…that would great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak22 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 Made sense for them with Guentzel out, neat year for the kid though to play with Ovi, Crosby and Malkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 3 minutes ago, sak22 said: Made sense for them with Guentzel out, neat year for the kid though to play with Ovi, Crosby and Malkin. So that would say Calgary never put a claim in.. we would have had a higher priority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak22 Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 8 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: So that would say Calgary never put a claim in.. we would have had a higher priority Not an expert on waiver priority, but at the time of waivers yesterday Pitt had 2 fewer points but had 3 fewer games played. I had always thought it was standings based, but is it a % based on games played? Either way I was hoping they wouldn't claim unless they tried waiving again to send to the Wranglers. 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