HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Calgary Flames
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Niklas Hagman, UPDATE: Clears

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-21-2011, 03:35 PM
  #26
BurnEmUp
Registered User
 
BurnEmUp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatik View Post
the narrowminded idiocy on this board makes me ****ing sick... farm players better than Hagman? if you think any famr playersa re going to jump into out lineup and out produce Hagman you need to put the crack pipe down... even our best prospect in backlund isn't out performing Hagman
No kidding.

BurnEmUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 03:35 PM
  #27
Flames 1st pick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rezim View Post
How is Hagman better than anybody on the farm? .
Because nobody on the farm is NHL ready....how is that so hard to figure out?

Flames 1st pick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 03:41 PM
  #28
Flames 1st pick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814 View Post

And don't be ridiculous; if the Flames don't make the playoffs, it won't be because they waived Nik ****ing Hagman. It'll be because they were a lottery team for the first half of the year.

.

Yes, Hagman himself is not a major factor....but you may create a problem when something is going well and you remove something from it while adding nothing. That is my point.

No you cant blame the first half of the year anymore. This is now a playoff team so you start from here.

Flames 1st pick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 03:49 PM
  #29
Lunatik*
 
Lunatik*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lethbridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814 View Post
And don't be ridiculous; if the Flames don't make the playoffs, it won't be because they waived Nik ****ing Hagman. It'll be because they were a lottery team for the first half of the year.
so hypothetical situation here... say St. Louis picks up Hagman and he produces well and lights us up in our 3 remaining games again them... they go on a run and beat us out by 1 point for the final playoff spot... wouldnt you say then that waiving hagman cost us the playoffs?

the reason ths is completely stupid is you dont risk giving up a guy like Hagman, struggling or not to the teams you are fighting for a playoff spot with for absolutely no cost... its stupid... and even if they wanted to give young players a chance just ****in sit Hagman in the pressbox until summer... if this is not part of a larger move and he gets picked up it eliminates anything resembling depth we once had

Lunatik* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 03:52 PM
  #30
slappipappi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,469
vCash: 500
Feaster may well believe that the best opportunity to rid himself of the Hagman cap for next season is dumping him now, when teams can fit the cap hit in (and they will worry about next season, next season).

slappipappi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 03:54 PM
  #31
saillias
Registered User
 
saillias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,945
vCash: 500
This doesn't look good to me no matter what might possibly be going on. I don't like the idea of Feaster adding a big money player or the thought that he's simply waiving Hagman because he's on the 4th line at the moment. Does he intend to keep Kotalik and Hagman in the minors? He's trying really hard to be Machiavellian and get rid of anything that he assumes to be dead weight on the team. Ok, getting Conroy to retire and giving him a job was alright. Kotalik was understandable. But does he intend to have 2 NHL players worth 6.5 million buried in the minors? Maybe Brent or the owners or Conroy needs to tell him to cool his jets before that title changes from acting GM to fired. IMO.

saillias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 03:58 PM
  #32
Calculon
unholy acting talent
 
Calculon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,242
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatik View Post
the narrowminded idiocy on this board makes me ****ing sick... farm players better than Hagman? if you think any famr playersa re going to jump into out lineup and out produce Hagman you need to put the crack pipe down... even our best prospect in backlund isn't out performing Hagman
A 500K player who projects to be a bottom-six player in the NHL makes a lot more sense to play on the 4th line then a 3M offensive player. Yes, neither Bouma or Nemisz would score more than Hagman, but then again, no ones expecting them too. They would simply be better fits on the 4th line.

I don't think this move necessarily projects to a bigger deal down the road in any case. Feaster could simply be seeing if any team was willing to take Hagman and his 3M cap hit for next year off our hands. I think we can assume he tried to trade him but either they were no takers or no viable deal(i.e. no salary back) presented itself. Plus, if Hagman clears, the Flames don't have to assign him to Abbotsford or recall anyone. He could always slot back into the top-9 should an injury or cold streak strikes. And in this, I do agree with Lunatik that Hagman is a better insurance against injury than anyone in the minors.

Calculon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 04:35 PM
  #33
Pacem
Registered User
 
Pacem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Langley
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
What an absolutely retarded ****ing move. There is absolutely no reason to get rid of Hagman for nothing. Even if teams weren't willing to trade for him there is no reason to give him away. What happens if Moss goes into a funk and can't score? What happens if Bourque and/or Moss get injured as they do tend to fight the injury bug. Hagman was nice to have as a depth option. Sure he was playing like crap, but he was playing on the 4th line and wasn't publically complaining about it.

What happens if a team we are competing with takes him? We just gave up a veteran roster player who has the ability to be a 20 goal scorer for absolutely nothing to a competing team. Isn't LA looking for a veteran LW?

I don't give a **** if no one wanted to trade for him. There is absolutely no harm in us keeping him on the roster. We shouldn't be trading away picks and prospects for a rental this year. So whats the point of clearing the cap space and or roster spot?

I'm in shock, I can't ****ing believe Feaser would do this. It'll look really bad if a Western Conference team picks him up.

Pacem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 04:35 PM
  #34
Flames 1st pick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,083
vCash: 500
Maybe Dallas will pick up Hagman to replace Neal

Flames 1st pick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 04:41 PM
  #35
slappipappi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacem View Post
There is absolutely no reason to get rid of Hagman for nothing.
$3M worth of available cap space for nest year is worth quite a bit actually.

And it's more likely someone might bite at this time of the year than in the summer. Desperation doesn't funny things.

slappipappi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 04:45 PM
  #36
Flames 1st pick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slappipappi View Post
$3M worth of available cap space for nest year is worth quite a bit actually.

And it's more likely someone might bite at this time of the year than in the summer. Desperation doesn't funny things.
True but you dont subtract while trying to make the playoff.

It's not like this team has a big future anyway. The time is now.

Flames 1st pick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 04:55 PM
  #37
Janks
Pope Janks
 
Janks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,311
vCash: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by slappipappi View Post
$3M worth of available cap space for nest year is worth quite a bit actually.

And it's more likely someone might bite at this time of the year than in the summer. Desperation doesn't funny things.
The only reason the 3 million would be good in cap space, is if this is a precursor to a big trade. I can't see any other reasoning behind this. We don't need the cap space (pending a trade), and the playoffs are a good time to have depth. Unless Feaster has gone batty, I see this as a positive move towards a better return.

Janks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 04:56 PM
  #38
tfong
Registered User
 
tfong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,413
vCash: 500
Whynot just waive him in the off-season?

If hes doing it now either he needs the space or hes feeling to see if anyone is interested in Hagman.

tfong is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 04:57 PM
  #39
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,271
vCash: 500
This only makes sense if Hagman asked to be waived, hence Feaster is giving Hagman an opportunity to play more minutes because Hagman was simply rottting away on the energy line. It offers nothing in return, but it's awfully nice to Hagman. But nobody wanted Kotalik or Souray, so I don't see anybody taking a chance with Hagman.

And for those reflecting on the Phaneuf trade last season, please reflect on the trade values at that time, otherwise we could argue that nobody in the league would take Phaneuf.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 04:58 PM
  #40
Lunatik*
 
Lunatik*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lethbridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calculon View Post
A 500K player who projects to be a bottom-six player in the NHL makes a lot more sense to play on the 4th line then a 3M offensive player. Yes, neither Bouma or Nemisz would score more than Hagman, but then again, no ones expecting them too. They would simply be better fits on the 4th line.

I don't think this move necessarily projects to a bigger deal down the road in any case. Feaster could simply be seeing if any team was willing to take Hagman and his 3M cap hit for next year off our hands. I think we can assume he tried to trade him but either they were no takers or no viable deal(i.e. no salary back) presented itself. Plus, if Hagman clears, the Flames don't have to assign him to Abbotsford or recall anyone. He could always slot back into the top-9 should an injury or cold streak strikes. And in this, I do agree with Lunatik that Hagman is a better insurance against injury than anyone in the minors.
Hagman was a checker in the NHL for quite a while before he broke out for the Stars for a few years... he skates well, works hard and can chip in a little offensively... neither Nemisz or Bouma can compare to that... stop kidding yourself...

and again I reiterate... if Feaster wants to play the kids he could simply sit Hagman in the pressbox... this is not a move to create a roster spot... if anything this could seriously backfire if a team we are fighting for the playoffs with picks up Hagman... this better be part of something bigger or feaster is showing that he is incapable of managing this franchise

and don't give me the 'it saves cap space for next year' argument because we could shed that salary during the summer

Lunatik* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 05:01 PM
  #41
slappipappi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfong View Post
Whynot just waive him in the off-season?

If hes doing it now either he needs the space or hes feeling to see if anyone is interested in Hagman.
Becuase it's more likel some one might bite today, with many, many teams in the layoff hunt.

Look, I'm not saying that's what is happening, just loking for a logicl reason to do it.

slappipappi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 05:05 PM
  #42
Pacem
Registered User
 
Pacem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Langley
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slappipappi View Post
$3M worth of available cap space for nest year is worth quite a bit actually.

And it's more likely someone might bite at this time of the year than in the summer. Desperation doesn't funny things.

What do we need the cap space for next year? We are getting a new GM to do a rebuild. We shouldn't neccessarily be a cap spending team next year. If Hagman ended the season well or perfromed well in the playoffs his value could be high during the off season. If not, a team may take a flyer on him next year at the trade deadline for a cheap depth option.

There is no justifiable reason to get rid of Hagman for nothing.

Pacem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 05:09 PM
  #43
Pacem
Registered User
 
Pacem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Langley
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slappipappi View Post
Becuase it's more likel some one might bite today, with many, many teams in the layoff hunt.

Look, I'm not saying that's what is happening, just loking for a logicl reason to do it.
Ya the same teams that we are fighting with for a playoff spot.

Pacem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 05:35 PM
  #44
flames123
Registered User
 
flames123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreakingRed View Post
Wasn't expecting Hagman to be put on waivers, have to wonder if there's more to this.




Good riddance to Phaneuf.

The return wasn't good, but trading him was the right thing to do.
Agreed. We are better without Phaneuf. He is not doing anything offensively in TO and isn't exactly a stay at home shut down defenseman. He is a very expensive top 4 defenseman but we do have Stajan eating up a lot of CAP playing the 3rd line C and Hagman now costing the organization 3M for nothing. Babchuk is the only decent piece left and we would be good to get a 2nd at the deadline. IMO Babs would make a very good #5 D for our club going forward. He may be slow but he will put up 10+ goals and block a lot of shots. At the right price he is a great player.

flames123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 05:45 PM
  #45
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Dust Buster
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,567
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacem View Post
What an absolutely retarded ****ing move. There is absolutely no reason to get rid of Hagman for nothing. Even if teams weren't willing to trade for him there is no reason to give him away. What happens if Moss goes into a funk and can't score? What happens if Bourque and/or Moss get injured as they do tend to fight the injury bug. Hagman was nice to have as a depth option. Sure he was playing like crap, but he was playing on the 4th line and wasn't publically complaining about it.

What happens if a team we are competing with takes him? We just gave up a veteran roster player who has the ability to be a 20 goal scorer for absolutely nothing to a competing team. Isn't LA looking for a veteran LW?

I don't give a **** if no one wanted to trade for him. There is absolutely no harm in us keeping him on the roster. We shouldn't be trading away picks and prospects for a rental this year. So whats the point of clearing the cap space and or roster spot?

I'm in shock, I can't ****ing believe Feaser would do this. It'll look really bad if a Western Conference team picks him up.
This was how I intially felt when I heard Hagman was waived. Again I am sure that Feaster was burning up for phones to see if he could get a 2nd or 3rd round pick or any pick for that matter. But if he couldn't, why not just have Hagman stay on the team for the playoff run. Hagman is a good enough player and is not a liability at all. I think most can agree that the most logical explanation is that this move is to clear up cap space because Hagman although is expendable is not really dead weight (ie. Kotalik, Staios).

So the next question is, what is the next move going to be? This is what I am really interested in. I would of thought that if any major move went down that Hagman would of been a part of it because everyone else has been playing very good or for the most part quite decent, and why do a major shakeup when the team is playing so well. I tend to think that this move signals the calm before the storm, which I have mixed feelings about. We have now cleared Kotalik and Hagmans salary off our books which is 6.5 million in cap space. And Feaster has said his main goal is to make the playoffs and not trade away any of our core guys. So you have to think a big move is coming. So what is that move going to be and who is going to be leaving? Feaster has said that he has been evaluating the team and been putting a plan together of who he wants to add. Something must be about to go down, this will be Feasters first big move and will likely be a major factor of whether or not he is here long term or not.

Johnny Hoxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 05:56 PM
  #46
Lunatik*
 
Lunatik*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lethbridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW View Post
This was how I intially felt when I heard Hagman was waived. Again I am sure that Feaster was burning up for phones to see if he could get a 2nd or 3rd round pick or any pick for that matter. But if he couldn't, why not just have Hagman stay on the team for the playoff run. Hagman is a good enough player and is not a liability at all. I think most can agree that the most logical explanation is that this move is to clear up cap space because Hagman although is expendable is not really dead weight (ie. Kotalik, Staios).

So the next question is, what is the next move going to be? This is what I am really interested in. I would of thought that if any major move went down that Hagman would of been a part of it because everyone else has been playing very good or for the most part quite decent, and why do a major shakeup when the team is playing so well. I tend to think that this move signals the calm before the storm, which I have mixed feelings about. We have now cleared Kotalik and Hagmans salary off our books which is 6.5 million in cap space. And Feaster has said his main goal is to make the playoffs and not trade away any of our core guys. So you have to think a big move is coming. So what is that move going to be and who is going to be leaving? Feaster has said that he has been evaluating the team and been putting a plan together of who he wants to add. Something must be about to go down, this will be Feasters first big move and will likely be a major factor of whether or not he is here long term or not.
it better be 1 of 2 options or Feaster is not fit for the GM job...

Option 1: pending trade where we are taking on salary
Option 2: Hagman requested out and there was no takers

Lunatik* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 06:01 PM
  #47
slappipappi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacem View Post
What do we need the cap space for next year? We are getting a new GM to do a rebuild. We shouldn't neccessarily be a cap spending team next year. If Hagman ended the season well or perfromed well in the playoffs his value could be high during the off season. If not, a team may take a flyer on him next year at the trade deadline for a cheap depth option.

There is no justifiable reason to get rid of Hagman for nothing.
You can always do with more cao space. Teams occasionally make decent players available for simply the cost of their cap hit. See Errhoff.

slappipappi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 06:24 PM
  #48
wavaxa2
Registered User
 
wavaxa2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flames123 View Post
Agreed. We are better without Phaneuf. He is not doing anything offensively in TO and isn't exactly a stay at home shut down defenseman. He is a very expensive top 4 defenseman but we do have Stajan eating up a lot of CAP playing the 3rd line C and Hagman now costing the organization 3M for nothing. Babchuk is the only decent piece left and we would be good to get a 2nd at the deadline. IMO Babs would make a very good #5 D for our club going forward. He may be slow but he will put up 10+ goals and block a lot of shots. At the right price he is a great player.
I dunno... Sutter gave up Aulie as well, who may very well turn into a decent defenseman. I think the Flames could have gotten a bit of a better return in the Pfaneuf deal.

wavaxa2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 06:25 PM
  #49
Grannys
Registered User
 
Grannys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London, UK
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,054
vCash: 500
If there ends up being no move that this led to, I will be pissed. Hagman was not producing to his best ability for the Flames thats true but you need all the pieces you can get once it comes to the stretch and the playoffs. A player like Hagman has the experience and character to be a key member of the team if we get into the post season.

There better be a move coming or maybe Feaster planned to waive him, knowing most likely no one will pick him up. Then bring him back but with a little extra cap space to bring in some other pieces also?

If its just to get rid of Hagman and thats it. This is quite a dumb move. No one in the minors has the experience that Hagman has.

Grannys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 06:41 PM
  #50
JorgeRocks!
Registered User
 
JorgeRocks!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,445
vCash: 500
Ya couldn't believe this. Thought he surely must have some value. Can't argue he wasn't doing much, but i was liking that when put on the fourth line he was still finishing hits. Cap space will come in handy, and we can find someone cheaper and younger to fill his role. Phanuef trades looks even worse now sadly now though... Still tough to see a guy of that skill go for nothing. Had 4 goals and 6 points in the Olympics last year, 3 time 20 goal scorer.... But like Chris Kelly can return a 2nd? Fisher a first+? Surely could have got something for him

JorgeRocks! is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.