This is actually a bit of a strange question to answer. People are split on trading, but do we resign him or let him walk? Will he accept the lower salary and Term he'll likely be getting?
It's going to be interesting seeing how that turns out.
If you don't trade him you have to resign him. You cannot lose that asset at this point.
The big question is what do you sign him at? 3 years is likely his shelf life. You might be able to squeeze one more, but that will likely see him as a spot player. So three years at $9M (4-3-2)? Remember, you're not paying Iginla for what he has done, you're paying him for what he should do in the future.
Another question to consider is how long do you negotiate and wait for Iginla to make a decision on whether he signs before you find the sack to shop him around? If he doesn't put his John Hancock on a contract extension by Christmas do you see the writing on the wall and not assume the risk of losing him for nothing?
If he wont waive his nt let him walk. We need to move past the Iggy era. Why sign him for another 3 when he hasnt done much in the last 3 makes no sense. Use that 3-4 million on an up and coming player not a guy playing out the string.Keeping guys past the best before date is why we are in this mess hey why not give him another nt while youre at it
If he wont waive his nt let him walk. We need to move past the Iggy era. Why sign him for another 3 when he hasnt done much in the last 3 makes no sense. Use that 3-4 million on an up and coming player not a guy playing out the string.Keeping guys past the best before date is why we are in this mess hey why not give him another nt while youre at it
LOL what?
In the last three years
Iggy has 107 goals 115 assists and ppg .9
I am not against reducing his role ONCE we have someone to replace him with but to say he hasn't done much is a moronic statement but considering who said it I am not surprised.
Actually, I don't see it as a 'if we don't trade him' issue...
We should re-sign ASAP (i.e. after July 1st) regardless of whether the plan is to keep him or trade him.
Then, if he is staying, the risk of him walking, and the year long media circus that would ensue, are eliminated.
And if he is to be traded, an extension makes him more attractive to other teams as they don't have to worry about the risk of him being a one year rental.
Three years at about $4m per sounds about right to me (5-4-3 maybe?). It might take a bit more than that.
Actually, I don't see it as a 'if we don't trade him' issue...
We should re-sign ASAP (i.e. after July 1st) regardless of whether the plan is to keep him or trade him.
Then, if he is staying, the risk of him walking, and the year long media circus that would ensue, are eliminated.
And if he is to be traded, an extension makes him more attractive to other teams as they don't have to worry about the risk of him being a one year rental.
Three years at about $4m per sounds about right to me (5-4-3 maybe?). It might take a bit more than that.
actually signing him to a 3 year deal would probably hinder his value since his next deal will be a 35+ contract. But Signing him to a 1 or 2 year deal would be fine.
The team obviously is going to do everything in their power to re-sign him, but I don't think it's a surety that Iginla re-signs here. He may love the Flames but he also wants to win the Cup. If Calgary misses the playoffs again next year, I think even he'll come to realize that it's simply not going to happen here.
actually signing him to a 3 year deal would probably hinder his value since his next deal will be a 35+ contract. But Signing him to a 1 or 2 year deal would be fine.
If the extension is signed before he turns 35 is it still a 35+ contract?
If so, my mistake and then, yes, keep it to 2 years.
