Calgary Flames - Off-Season Preview
After checking in with the Canucks and Wild over the last two days, today we'll be looking at the Calgary Flames, a team that already has a tonne of salary committed over the next two seasons. The Flames have already spent over $53M on this season's roster and only have about $6.5M coming off the books once the season ends. That wouldn't be a problem if the Flames were a great team. But they're not. In fact, they're a team with many key players on the wrong side of thirty that missed the playoffs a year ago and while a trade might normally provide fans with hope, to some degree, it's poor trades that got them into this mess in the first place. From an outsider's perspective, it looks like a discouraging time to be a Flames' fan. After the jump, we'll look at what the Flames have done since the deadline - it's not close to the level of activity in Minnesota and Vancouver - as well as their cap situation for 2010-11 and some suggestions on how the team might be able to improve.
What Have the Flames Done Since the Trade Deadline?
Signed F Bryan Cameron to a three-year entry-level contract with an NHL cap hit of $883,333 per year - Cameron finished up his junior career in 2009-10 with 78 points in 62 games. He was originally drafted by the L.A. Kings in 2007 but when he went unsigned passed through the 2009 draft unselected. The Flames decided to give the 5'11'' forward an entry-level deal and this is a solid low-risk move for a player who may be able to help with the big club if things break just right.
Signed D Christopher Breen to a three-year entry-level contract with an NHL cap hit of $536,667 per year - Breen is an undrafted free agent who also just finished his last season in junior hockey. In 53 games with Peterborough, Breen was -21 - the fourth worst +/- on the team - and scored 12 points. He's also listed at 6'7'' and 224 lbs. So far he looks like all size and no results. His 36 penalty minutes also seem to suggest that he lacks the nastiness required for a man of his talent level to play in the NHL. 6'7'' players don't come along too often so I can see why the Flames are giving him a shot but I'd be surprised if he has an NHL career.
Signed F Cam Cunning to a two-way contract for one year at $500,000 per year - Cunning was an eighth round selection by the Flames in 2003 and has been playing for their AHL team for the last four seasons. Last season Cunning scored 38 points in 69 regular season games, his best offensive season as a professional. Cunning has never played a game in the NHL and that's not likely to change in 2010-11.
Looking Foward to 2010-11
Those who've read here before know that I like to use the chart below as a cap space guideline. Because it's based on percentages, we need to set a cap figure for 2010-11 and I'll use 57M, which is a slight increase from last season. Here's the chart:
Top 3 Forwards - 27.5% or 15.675M
Middle 6 Forwards - 20.0% or 11.4M
Top 4 Defenders - 27.5% or 15.675M
Goaltending - 10.0% or 5.7M
Bottom 8 Players - 15.0% or 8.55M
And here it is again with the players the Flames have signed:
Top 3 Forwards - Iginla, Langkow, Bourque - $14,833,333 or 26.0%
Middle 6 Forwards - Stajan, Hagman, Kotalik, Dawes, Moss, Glencross - $12,850,000 or 22.5%
Top 4 Defenders - Bouwmeester, Regehr, Sarich, Giordano - $15,191,667 or 26.7%
Goaltending - Kiprusoff, ??? - $5,833,333 or 10.2%
Bottom 8 Players - Backlund, Pardy, Staios, ???, ???, ???, ???, ??? - $4,670,833 - 8.2%
The Flames have six positions to fill and only about $3.6M to spend which will make a new contract for restricted free agent Ian White a bit challenging. The Flames added Ales Kotalik and Steve Staios at the deadline and those two contracts really hurt now, as does the older but equally disastrous Cory Sarich pact. Both Glen Sather and Steve Tambellini found a sucker in Darryl Sutter; it would be helpful for the Flames if Sutter could find a sucker of his own for those three deals. If Sutter can't move those less than stellar deals and the Flames remain as is, they will likely have poor depth at all positions to go along with a good but not great top nine forwards, top four defense and starting goalie. Yikes.
Should those three toxic contracts prove untradeable, there seem to be three possible ways forward. The first involves burying the three most egregious contracts in the minors and signing some better players. If the Flames have $12.9M for nine players instead of $3.6M for six, they'll be in much better shape and could add one or two good good players as well as have a bit more money to spend on depth. The downside is that it will cost the Flames $8.9M in real money and I'm not sure they can afford to eat that much cash.
The second option would see the Flames blow the whole thing to smithereens, likely to go with a slightly younger core group of players between 25 and 29 years old. This would be Rene Bourque, David Moss, Curtis Glencross, Matt Stajan, Jay Bouwmeester, Mark Giordano and Ian White. The goal would then be to move the veterans with big contracts for more players between the age of 20 and 29 who are ready to help at the NHL level. The major difficulties with this are two-fold. First, most teams aren't willing to part with good players in the prime of their career unless what's going the other way is futures. Since the Flames are looking to move veterans with salary, the Flames wouldn't have all that many options. Second, the Flames most attractive veteran assets (Jarome Iginla, Robyn Regehr and Daymond Langkow) all have no-movement clauses in their contracts (as does Miikka Kiprusoff). The kinds of deals they'd need to make would be something like Jarome Iginla heading to Philadelphia for Jeff Carter and Braydon Coburn or to Ottawa for Jason Spezza. It would be a huge risk, would require the consent of the players on the move and would result in a completely different team on the other side.
The third option is the boring one where the Flames simply stay the course and try to sign reasonably good depth players toward the end of free agency for something in the range of $0.5M to $0.7M and perhaps run with a twenty-two man roster. I won't speculate on exactly who they should target because with this option the Flames are really just looking for leftovers but the Flyers did something similar last season by going with Danny Syvret, Oskars Bartulis, Riley Cote, Aaron Asham, Blair Betts and Darroll Powe at the end of the roster, with each one of those guys falling into the salary range mentioned above. In other words, the Flames would end up being more active in August than July. This option would put the Flames in about the same position they were in this season: the playoff bubble.
Personally, I'm partial to the first option if it's possible from a budgetary perspective and would be exploring the second option from now until August to see if something worthwhile comes along but in the end I expect the Flames to end up going with the third option. As such, I actually figure the Flames to be slightly worse than they were last season. The team is getting older, losing depth and relying on Miikka Kiprusoff's rebound season to continue for all of next season. If I were predicting the Western Conference standings for 2010-11 today, I'd have the Flames on the outside of the playoffs looking in.
My next detailed look at the Flames will likely be around July 12th or, alternatively, once their plans for Option Two have been put into action. I'd also like to acknowledge capgeek.com for providing all of the contract information.
0 recs |
16 comments
|
Comments
The names Cameron, Breen and Cunning don’t really strike fear into the hearts of Falmes opponents. They’ll need a solid first round pick to make the most of this off-season. Wait a minute, the Falmes don’t have a first round pick. Bwahahahaha! The Jokinen trade is the gift that keeps on giving.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
The best part is that, “Which one?” is a perfectly reasonable question.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 20, 2010 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions
The Flames don’t have a second rounder either. That was dealt so Sutter could rid himself of the Primeau contract, which was also a mistake the second it was signed.
What’s more, the Flames gained Stralman from the Primeau trade. He was moved for a third rounder after a good showing at training camp. Shortly thereafter, Sutter traded for Aaron Johnson (a player with marginally more experience, but significantly less upside), whom he eventually dealt to EDM for Steve Staios (plus that extra third rounder!).
Does any of this make sense to anyone?
by Kent Wilson on Jun 20, 2010 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions
The eventual consequence of getting out from under Primeau’s contract was an even larger cap number in Steve Staios? Good grief. Even if trade is theoretically a decent option, maybe Sutter should just stay on the sidelines.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 21, 2010 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions
If hockey doesn’t work out, maybe Cunning can become a linguist.
(I’ll show myself out.)
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Flyers fan here. The Jarome Iginla caveat to Philadelphia sounds mighty interesting. It would make my name a moot point, but Iggy and the Goons sounds like a potential new name
TAKE THE FALL, ACT HURT, GET INDIGNANT
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jun 21, 2010 8:05 AM PDT reply actions
Sounds like a band name for Rock Band 3.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
The best part of this whole situation is that Jay Bouwmeester bolted Florida to supposedly play for a contender….
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jun 21, 2010 8:33 AM PDT reply actions
fantastic article - but now I'm depressed
Perfect summation of the Flames disgusting cap situation. I still can’t get over the Jokinen trade. If Sutter wasn’t happy – JUST LET HIM WALK. Now we’re stuck with Kotalik’s contract and then Staios to boot. Did Isaiah Thomas take over the Flames?
Just a quick question, where did you come up with the preferred percentages for your cap breakdown?
Ryan
Front Office Fans &
Sports Opinionated & Pink Shirt Wise Guys: Italian Soccer Podcast
I made the guideline up, based mostly on what I see NHL teams do with the money available to them. It’s certainly more “rule of thumb” than “serious recommendation” and I should probably do the math using real rosters to come up with more specific numbers but this seems like a pretty good approximation. At least so far, I’ve found that when teams differ substantially from the guideline it’s often by design (like the Flames last year with their defense, which they then abandoned).
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 21, 2010 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks – I appreciate the reply.
I can understand teams deviating in a variety of positions, but the one that would worry me would be at Goaltender. Given the nature of the position (only 1 can play any given game), it seems like the are most likely to waste cap space if the starter is healthy. The same is true for Quarterbacks in football.
Ryan
Front Office Fans &
Sports Opinionated & Pink Shirt Wise Guys: Italian Soccer Podcast
Eh, you dress 2 goalies among your 20, 10% of the roster, and by Scott’s formula they get 10% of the salary cap. Seems fair. By my formula, they get more than 1/6 of the ice time, but I’m an ex-goalie so am both biased and batshit crazy.
But $5.7 MM seems a reasonable budget. If you do have a legit elite guy, give the $5 MM to the starter and the $700 K to the backup and you should be fine. That certainly seems to be the formula in the Northwest, plus or minus a million here or there.
But even if you pay the backup a million bucks, that’s only $500K over the minimum so not that much of a waste of cap space. If the guy plays every fifth game but puts in the full 60 minutes, he’s still getting more ice than your bottom 8 skaters. It would help if the guy was actually, you know, good.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Jun 22, 2010 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with you in general. If I were building a team I’d be partial to allocating more money to my Top 3 F, Middle 6 F and Top 4 D while spending a bit less in the other two slots. I think you can get adequate goaltending for a bit more than half of what’s in the model and can have an adequate bottom 8 with, again, a bit more than half of the model, especially if you go with a 22-man roster. That said, most GM’s want to spend on the goalies figuring it gets them a better shot at solid play and have a mistake or two taking up space in their bottom 8 guys.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 22, 2010 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Flyers fan here, so I am familiar with this situation. Maybe some from column A and some from column C would be good. Try to shed a few of those larger contracts and suck up the rest for now. If the team makes the right choices in August (or earlier lower end pick ups) you can still have a solid team with more than a bubble chance.
"In fact, it is probably safe to say, the statement "I am a hockey fan" is the same as "I hate gary bettman."- bfrank27
Unless they can move guys via waivers or trade I doubt they’ll be able to substantially improve the club for next season and they were already a bubble team this year. If they make the right choices in August, I figure that helps them to maintain their standing rather than improve it. You’d need to get awfully lucky to sign a difference maker at close to the league minimum.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 23, 2010 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I was thinking a trade or two to dump some salary. There are a few guys that I’m sure might draw some interest (I hear Atlanta is buying. ;) And I know a few teams that should.) I haven’t dug into the cap situation too deeply here (sorry no time).
"In fact, it is probably safe to say, the statement "I am a hockey fan" is the same as "I hate gary bettman."- bfrank27

by 
























