- Jan 9, 2009
- 15,674
- 10,233
I think if Vali gets to that point (41 games isn't it?) he's here to stay.Tje more serious discussion will be before he hits the GP for an accrued season that eats an RFA year
I think if Vali gets to that point (41 games isn't it?) he's here to stay.Tje more serious discussion will be before he hits the GP for an accrued season that eats an RFA year
Its hard to say, sometimes people start well and then as teams adjust, they start to struggle.I think if Vali gets to that point (41 games isn't it?) he's here to stay.
Although I expect there certainly will be discussion after Valimaki plays his 9th game. Send him down then, to the AHL, and the Flames get him on a 4 year ECL. After the 9th game his ECL is reduced to 3 years. Obviously its a no-brainer decision if his play continues to be excellent, but if it declines I expect there will be a serious discussion.
Although I expect there certainly will be discussion after Valimaki plays his 9th game. Send him down then, to the AHL, and the Flames get him on a 4 year ECL. After the 9th game his ECL is reduced to 3 years. Obviously its a no-brainer decision if his play continues to be excellent, but if it declines I expect there will be a serious discussion.
ELS (Entry Level Slide) – If a player who is signed to an entry-level contract and is 18 or 19 years of age (as of September 15 of the signing year), does not play in a minimum of 10 NHL games (including both regular season and playoffs; AHL games do not count), their contract is considered to ‘slide’, or extend, by one year. For example, if a player signed an ELC for three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-2018, and their contract slides, their contract is now effective from 2016-17 to 2018-19. An exception to this rule is that if the player is 19 on September 15 of the first year of their contract, and turns 20 between September 16 and December 31, their contract does not slide.
I think if Vali gets to that point (41 games isn't it?) he's here to stay.
Of course! It's all up to Val. I don't believe the ELC clause really matters if his play holds up. That's saying "I'm cheap." People might think, "no, it's shrewd cap management," but it will look cheap to send a player down if the player plays at an NHL level and it may jeopardize future assets signing here. If he's a tweener than it's a conversation to send him down.
If he is heads and shoulders above the next available player, and he's not a liability on the ice I say we play him. If his play holds up, it's obviously earned not given.
The issue with assuming he will play the entire season though is that it feels like a given not earned scenario. Saving the ELC year is not about being cheap. It's literally putting yourself in the best position to win a Stanley cup by having high talent/salary ratio for your roster. Furthermore, I don't see how it jeopardizes future assets signing here unless it's a FA NCAA situation, or a foreign player. These situations are rare and Tim Erixon situations are even rarer.
Hammer deserves a day or two off, he was busted open pretty good in that tilt.
Everybody is basically saying this. No need to rehash it, unless you're going on the record...
There is something that many people do when they try to predict things... and that's thinking from one side only. It's why most people get frustrated when others disagree with them. They simply have difficulty looking at issues from the other side. I'm not saying you lack this magical ability to think about more than one POV but in your post you absolutely have. Signing with a team is an absolute players choice. Of course, with RFA or drafted players if they choose that route they don't play unless the team trades them. A team will ALWAYS make a choice that's best for the team (So I agree with you there). However, if a team chooses to send a player down just to save an ELC year even though he has ABSOLUTELY (I'm just emphasizing when using capitals and not yelling ) earned that spot it will have a negative social and emotional impact. It tells EVERYONE who's paying attention that a team does't care about merit... If the Flames mistreat a player it will impact others in signing with that team not just new players coming into the league. We also call this "being classy". Just look to Edmonton for a "classy" example in attracting players... Their mistreatment of players made them a pariah. Before McDavid appeared, of course. ... But that gave them Lucic and Draisaitl and we all love those signings. Remember the McDavid verbal ******io Katz gave McDavid so he'd sign with the Oilers?
When it comes down to it, like on most chat boards, we're just splitting hairs.
Andersson should be called up if hamonic is hurt tbh. Would rather have him in the top 4 than stone.
Was this part even necessary? Because I read your post last night and just rolled my eyes. I wasn't frustrated, just stating a POV. If you re-read my post and some of the earlier ones, it essentially agrees with the latter half of this post you made. Additionally, the Sam Bennett situation is a perfect example of this situation.
My sole quibble, is anyone who says he's here to stay. I feel it's more prudent to say he gets at least the 9 game cup of coffee. IMO we can start guessing with much more certainty around game 7-8, rather than have an attitude that he is guaranteed to be on the Flames roster the entire season. I even believe the same may occur with Dube, swapping with Mangiapane after a few games ish if he seems replaceable. All I'm saying is that I don't have a crystal ball and neither do other posters and likely management. So I think my opinion is what management is likely doing.
But as you mentioned, it's splitting hairs.
Prout's there to drop the gloves with GudbransonAndersson should be called up if hamonic is hurt tbh. Would rather have him in the top 4 than stone.
Valimaki will adjust and will only get better with each passing game. Honestly I doubt he’s going anywhere. Who’s better than him to take his position?
It was not meant as an insult towards you. I'm relatively new to the board (reading/posting wise) and I don't know many posters yet (some are infamous already). However, I have noticed that there is a pattern where people just can't see more than one point of view... Anyway, if my words offended I certainly apologize as that was not my intention.
Might I suggest adding a to;Dr version at the end of your posts?I think that goes with many people on all topics. Not just a few individuals chatting about hockey online.
I'm feeling like Peter Quill explaining Starlord on this... but I am kinda known as the guy who ends up posting walls of text explaining and over explaining commonly held opinions, devil's advocate opinions, and just straight up left field opinions. So perhaps I was especially a bit more annoyed at your post than necessary when you were talking about not looking at both sides of the issue, because it's always something I try to do.
But whatever, water under the bridge. We cool?
Might I suggest adding a to;Dr version at the end of your posts?
Didn't have a clue what that stood for. Had to Google it. < sigh >TL;DR?
Big props to Hammer for standing up for Dube, hopefully he doesn't miss too much time, hopefully Ras can make the most of his opportunity if he is indeed called up.