I keep waiting for Weegar to be the player I had thought he would become. I went with less. Unless he just has not had the right coach tap into him, I think he is a useful bust.Calgary looks to potentially need a retool especially with key players being UFAs this summer.
What would it cost to attain Weegar.
He is undoubtedly a very good top 4 dman with a reasonable 6.25 mil cap hit. The downside is he is 30 in a couple months and in yr one of an 8 yrs deal. The back side of which will likely look pretty bad.
So the risk is rather large. But his value to the Flames isn't as much as it might be to a team ready to compete over the next 4 yrs.
What do we think his value is?
You said long term contracts always turn out badly. I cited one example otherwise.
What'd you expect from him? He is a legit top pairing guy.I keep waiting for Weegar to be the player I had thought he would become. I went with less. Unless he just has not had the right coach tap into him, I think he is a useful bust.
It took around a split second to come up with a counter example to your claim. Need I go on? Josi? MacKinnon? Come on dude.I’ve learned how literal people tend to be on the internet. I know that if I say “xyz is always….” Someone will turn around with ‘well, actually….”
Some people don’t understand hyperbole on the internet.
So I’ve learned to write “… almost always” or “… more often than not”. Or “most of the time….”
I’d have to go back to read if I wrote that or something like it. Regardless, when someone makes a sweeping generalization online, they almost never are being absolutely literal.
You can find examples that prove the rule. The point still remains, for every one great 8 year deal you find, anyone else can find 10 that were disasters.
Anyways, remember this when you read hyperbole online
It took around a split second to come up with a counter example to your claim. Need I go on? Josi? MacKinnon? Come on dude.
I expected him to hit the back of the net with a puck more. He looks like he has the moves, I just had higher expectations for him. However he has halfed his total goals last year already.What'd you expect from him? He is a legit top pairing guy.
No no, don't change the subject. You said long term deals never work out. You've been proven wrong. One bad deal doesn't equal all bad deals.Weegar?
If your aim is to say 8 year deals are good for the team, you’re going to lose
You and @Strangle are talking about different things. From what I could gather, @Strangle is talking exclusively about 8 year deals signed late in a player's career, i.e. Weegar, Huberdeau, etc. It sounds like you're talking about 8 year deals in general. You're attacking a point that @Strangle didn't actually make, but he could have been clearer I suppose.No no, don't change the subject. You said long term deals never work out. You've been proven wrong. One bad deal doesn't equal all bad deals.
lol. This guy is negative value. 8 year deal on a 30 year old. No team is trading for that long term obligation.Calgary looks to potentially need a retool especially with key players being UFAs this summer.
What would it cost to attain Weegar.
He is undoubtedly a very good top 4 dman with a reasonable 6.25 mil cap hit. The downside is he is 30 in a couple months and in yr one of an 8 yrs deal. The back side of which will likely look pretty bad.
So the risk is rather large. But his value to the Flames isn't as much as it might be to a team ready to compete over the next 4 yrs.
What do we think his value is?
I mean he is one of the best defensive dmen in hockey. Whatever he gives you offensively is a bonus really. What he did his last yr in Florida is not what I would expect as that team had the the highest GF in about 30 yrs.I expected him to hit the back of the net with a puck more. He looks like he has the moves, I just had higher expectations for him. However he has halfed his total goals last year already.
I'd be willing to trade for Weegar as a Canucks fan. I think he opens the window for the team to win over the next 4-5 yrs. Beyond that it's unlikely any Pettersson, Hughes window would still be open. Especially with Miller's contract.lol. This guy is negative value. 8 year deal on a 30 year old. No team is trading for that long term obligation.
I mean he's been one of the best shutdown defenseman in the league over the last 3 years and is absolutely capable of producing at a consistent 40+ point paceI expected him to hit the back of the net with a puck more. He looks like he has the moves, I just had higher expectations for him. However he has halfed his total goals last year already.
The irony of your comment is none of that was even said, so we have exasperated outrage (by you) because of your own misunderstanding.Some proper HF idiocy on display in this thread.
BUT HE'S GOING TO BE 30!
THIRTY YEARS OLD!!!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Karlsson just won a Norris last year and is 33. Giordano won it at 35. Pietrangelo looked pretty damn good playing #1D on the VGK and he's 33. Doughty, Letang, Josi, Hedman? These guys are all just chewed up meat or what?
Yeah some players drop off a cliff in their mid 30s. Does not mean they all do. Weegar is not as good as those guys but he is a damn solid top pairing player. 'Attach a 1st to get rid of that contract' lmao get a clue
Yup. I would say if the Flames do decide to rebuild/retool and wanted to move the long term liability that is his contract, a way to extract more value from it might be to take back shorter term bad contracts along with futures.With that amount of term and cap hit, you’re not going to get pure futures for him, which will drastically change the price. He’s also got a full NTC, so he’s very much in control of where he would go, which also affects his price.
The irony of your comment is none of that was even said, so we have exasperated outrage (by you) because of your own misunderstanding.
He turns 30 mid season
on yr 1 of an 8 yr contract
im expected to get a 1st to take that contract
id be interested if he just 4 yrs but the last 3+ yrs scares the crud out of me.
Weegar is 30 and in yr 1 of an 8 yr contract. I don't think anyone expects him to fall off a cliff in the next couple yrs but certainly when you consider that only 11 NHL defensemen over the age of 34 have played games this yr, acquiring a contract of that length represents a huge liability and greatly diminishes his trade value.
In a vacuum true and we all see these gambles and even stupider rentals.....
Well that's just fine, because the Flames should not be trading him.
GMs acquiring a player like Weegar aren't thinking 6-7 years into the future. They're thinking how they can best ice a competitive roster right now.
I mean he would instantly be by far the best defender on the Oilers lol. He is a solid defenseman.I keep waiting for Weegar to be the player I had thought he would become. I went with less. Unless he just has not had the right coach tap into him, I think he is a useful bust.
There is no guarantee of the cap going up though. 6.25 for a top 4 D-man could look great, but if there is only a small increase, its fine for now, and could look bad by the end of the contract. I personally don't view Weegar at a 6.25 cap hit as a negative, its welcoming in fact, but it's his 7 years of guaranteed cap hit that worries me.Some of the comments in thread is the definition of HF insanity and obsession with youth. He’s a good player, why would anyone trade a first+ to get out of a good player? 6 million will be a bargain when the cap goes up to 100 million in 3 years.
Will the last few years of his contract not look great? Probably. But that’s when you stash players on the third pair and hopefully by then your younger players are able to be top line guys.