Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
It all depends on what he wants. I don't see Calgary giving him $5 million+. They're not going to win with or without him, so they don't need to overpay. Yeah they're clearly worse without him, but it's not like they're a contender with him.
Another team that's closer to winning now would likely offer him $5 million+.
If Olli wants the money he'll go elsewhere. If he wants to stay in Calgary I doubt he gets anything more than $4.5 million a year on a 2-3-year deal.
If he doesn't sign in Calgary at a similar cap hit to what he is now, screw him. The Flames aren't going to contend next season anyway, so I see no rush to unleash excessive dollars on old guys.
I don't think he's leaving Calgary so he'll probably get something like 3.5-4M max. If he wanted to leave I think he would get maybe even 5M somewhere. He has stated it multiple times he wants stay in Calgary and I don't see why he would leave.
Hopefully a NMC/NTC that loosens up on the last year.
IE: he has to give a list of teams he'll accept a trade to in the finaly year of the deal. Or something similiar. Maybe something like Babchuks NMC. At the trade deadline he'd have to give a list of teams he'd be willing to go to. Gives him good security.
Olli was the one who scheduled a meeting with Feaster earlier in the season to start talking an extension. I have no doubt he will take 4m in exchange for at least 3-4 years and a NTC. Him and his family love it here and he has gone on the record saying he wants to retire a Flame.
Last edited by iggyman12: 03-07-2012 at 01:40 PM.
Reason: spelling
I wouldn't say he is "Much Better" than Grabo. He does put up more points, but If it came down to it I would take Grabo over Jokinen because I think Grabo is about to reach his Prime + he's younger, works harder and shows a lot of heart out there.
he is much better than grabovski. i see them both play all the time being a calgarian living in toronto. he's a far better skater, bigger, stronger with much more skills at the moment.
grabovski just became one of the most overpaid players in hockey and probably ruined the market for centre's this offseason. burkes a moron.
People tend to forget that a player actually gets reemed out by the NHLPA for taking a huge paycut, and in this case a 2 million dollar cut to leave on the table just might not be feasible. The rest of the league wouldnt be too happy with Olli driving the price down on the rest of them.
I think Olli takes a cut and signs for 4 over 3 years, which will be a steal if he continues to play like he is
But this doesn't make sense...if he takes less...someone else can make more if Flames spend to the cap. If he makes more...someone else makes less.
After seeing how Feaster got Glencross on good $$$ by dangling the NTC/NMC in front of him, I imagine 4-4.5 is all Jokinen will get. That is being conservative, it could be even less. Especially since Olli has been so vocal about staying in CGY.
4 year deal, 3.75 million cap hit. Could be partially front loaded with a NMC, Feaster has shown that signing guys at good contracts has been his strength. Jokinen loves Calgary, I expect his extension to be something along this.
Cap hit won't be what Jokinen is after this summer, he'll be after a long term deal. At 33 years old, he is only 2 years from that "+35" rule, and at that point, probably living on one year contracts. He'd probably sign a 4 or 5 year deal at 3.5-4.0 million per instead of a two year deal at 4.5-5.0 million. So look for him to argue more for term than annual salary.
If Feaster gives out even one more no trade/movement clause, he needs to be kicked in the head. I can understand why Flames management gave them to Iggy and Kipper, but everyone else? They just keep screwing themselves.
If Feaster gives out even one more no trade/movement clause, he needs to be kicked in the head. I can understand why Flames management gave them to Iggy and Kipper, but everyone else? They just keep screwing themselves.
It's either that or we pay $1.25-1.5m more for a free agent to do the same thing.. and it doesn't look like they'll even be any of those available in the summer.
If Feaster gives out even one more no trade/movement clause, he needs to be kicked in the head. I can understand why Flames management gave them to Iggy and Kipper, but everyone else? They just keep screwing themselves.
This kind of stuff gets blown out of proportion. Usually it's just to give the player some leverage if they decide to trade him (ex: like a list of teams). I have no problem with Feaster giving out NTC's. Look at Glencross' contract, it's golden. If we get Jokinen for under 4mil then that's all that matters IMO.
This kind of stuff gets blown out of proportion. Usually it's just to give the player some leverage if they decide to trade him (ex: like a list of teams). I have no problem with Feaster giving out NTC's. Look at Glencross' contract, it's golden. If we get Jokinen for under 4mil then that's all that matters IMO.
This kind of stuff gets blown out of proportion. Usually it's just to give the player some leverage if they decide to trade him (ex: like a list of teams). I have no problem with Feaster giving out NTC's. Look at Glencross' contract, it's golden. If we get Jokinen for under 4mil then that's all that matters IMO.
Seems like when teams ask players usually are willing to move their NMC. It just allows them to pick where to go.
I have no problems with limited No movement clauses. In fact I would like to see more that are conditionaly based like the the player has a no movement clause only if team makes playoffs or some kind of performance clause.
No matter what he get paid whether its a 3.5m or 5m the term should be 1-2 years max. He has played well but how long until we man up and stop signing the older vets. I personally don't want him on the team in 2 years.
My guess is 4.75m for 3 years and a nmc from the Flames.
Seems like when teams ask players usually are willing to move their NMC. It just allows them to pick where to go.
I have no problems with limited No movement clauses. In fact I would like to see more that are conditionaly based like the the player has a no movement clause only if team makes playoffs or some kind of performance clause.
I like that idea even better. All I know is that as long as there are stipulations (like what Feaster has done with Glencross, Babchuk) then I don't mind it. It seems to get Feaster a better cap hit at the end of the day.
People see it has this huge road block if the player ever needs to be moved. But when players know that a GM wants to move them they're usually more then happy to oblige. It's just nice for said player to have some leverage as to where he goes. Hypothetically it can hurt a GM's best possible deal, but again this is blown out of proportion on HF. It sure as hell doesn't bother Feaster to give them out if he can get a better contract. Give and take, it goes both ways and ultimatly gets a deal done that works for both parties.
Also you're not going to attract a lot of UFA's to CGY because of the lovely climate. Showing that you respect players and giving them some negotation rights can go a long way for an organization's reputation.
