HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Calgary Flames
Notices

What's up with Irving?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-14-2012, 03:23 PM
  #26
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,828
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Despite the criticism towards Irving (however ridiculous that sounds), he'll be a starter in 3 years in the NHL. He showed the same game for those 7 games consistently, so if fostered properly, he can play a good 50 game season IMO. Give em a cheap 2-3 year back up contract, and then give em a starter contract afterwards. We shouldn't risk giving away assets like him.
I like the idea of a 1 year deal to prove himself then a 3-4 year deal worth 3-4 million.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 04:30 PM
  #27
flameaholic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,943
vCash: 500
He has to clear waivers to get sent down next year anyway, so I wouldn't be opposed to giving him a one-way contract similar to Backlund.


Last edited by flameaholic: 07-15-2012 at 12:10 PM.
flameaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 04:44 PM
  #28
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,788
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
I like the idea of a 1 year deal to prove himself then a 3-4 year deal worth 3-4 million.
What if proves himself too much, then he's worth so much that we won't have the coin to keep him. Let's say two years because that's when everyone else's contract expires too.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 05:00 PM
  #29
Calculon
unholy acting talent
 
Calculon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,603
vCash: 50
I have a hard time believing that the hold up is just over a one way or two way. Irving isn't waiver eligible next season and it isn't likely he'll pass through unclaimed. I think Feaster may just be using it as leverage to get a lower cap hit.

The bigger problem here is term. Irving needs to play at least 22 games next season in order to remain a RFA. Less then that and he becomes a group IV UFA. Knowing that the Flames haven't played Kipper less than 70 games over the last 7 years, Irving may be holding out for a one year deal so he can become a UFA faster while Feaster will be pushing for two or more.

Regardless, he needs to be signed. Losing him would be a big blow; Karlsson isn't NHL starter material and Ramo's still a wild card.

Calculon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 05:20 PM
  #30
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Formerly MVW
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,269
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingTelepath View Post
There's a good reason for him to not get a three year one-way contract however. I like Irving as much as the next guy but he has 7 career NHL games. One year one-way would be ideal, hopefully with enough starts to give him a chance to prove himself. I guess we'll know more about Kipper's future plans next offseason too, and Rämö.
Fair enough, but let me ask you this, what has Karlsson proved to deserve his 1-way contract? Irving has shown he is fundamentally better than Karlsson and a more consistent goaltender. He is also younger and someone the Flames have spent a lot of time to develop. There is really no question here, Irving has proved he deserves the deal and he should get it.

Johnny Hoxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 05:40 PM
  #31
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,828
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
What if proves himself too much, then he's worth so much that we won't have the coin to keep him. Let's say two years because that's when everyone else's contract expires too.
Will he prove himself more than Schneider or Rask? I doubt he puts up that good of numbers and even if he does we can give him a Schneider deal.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 05:57 PM
  #32
FlamingTelepath
Registered User
 
FlamingTelepath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 376
vCash: 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW View Post
Fair enough, but let me ask you this, what has Karlsson proved to deserve his 1-way contract? Irving has shown he is fundamentally better than Karlsson and a more consistent goaltender. He is also younger and someone the Flames have spent a lot of time to develop. There is really no question here, Irving has proved he deserves the deal and he should get it.
Karlsson got that one-way contract after one season as a decent backup and as we can now see that was not a particularly good decision on Feaster's part. That's pretty much the same situation Irving is in now except Irving has even less games under his belt than Karlsson last summer. So a one year one-way deal would be good IMO, kinda like what Backlund got as was pointed out.

I don't want Karlsson to backup Kipper if that's what you're thinking.
But merely being better than Karlsson should not earn Irving a long-term NHL contract.

FlamingTelepath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 01:30 AM
  #33
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Formerly MVW
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,269
vCash: 50
Personally I wouldn't have a problem seeing Irving locked up to a 3 year term deal. That would likely mean he is going to get a better cap hit and ensures he will be staying with us. Calculon also made a very interesting point, its highly unlikely he would get to start in 22 games or more with Kipper in net, so it may be in our best interests to lock him up to a longer term deal so we do not risk losing him.

We have spent lots of time to develop him, he has showed he is capable when called upon, he is much better fundamentally than Karlsson, he has earned the spot of backup, I would have no problem meeting his demands.

Johnny Hoxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 09:43 AM
  #34
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,709
vCash: 1200
If there isn't a Full 2012/13 NHL season, the flames very likely lose Irving as UFA, so put me into the category of supporting a long term deal. Probably needs to be around the $1 million AAV mark.

Stewie Griffin 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 04:58 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.