A high AAV is basically an NMC. Even if Hubey waived, there aren't many teams that can afford that cap hit. If they can, they probably shouldn't be spending assets to acquire him anyway.
Value of: Huber-DOH
- Thread starter Bert Mckrakken
- Start date
- Apr 27, 2005
- 35,277
- 33,839
His value is massively negative. He was not going to be a free agent until this summer, and after the season he's having he'd be lucky to get 6-7M on a long term deal even as a UFA.... He's on pace for 15 goals and 56 points, 8th on the Flames in ES points, and will be 30 in a few months.
He wouldn't be the first slower player to fall off a cliff at 30. I'd be shocked if he ever returned to anywhere near his previous form.
But it’s not, getting Huby back puts that many MORE years of 10 (plus actually) that we’re looking to move on from at some point. Using Bob as the “would rather have” isn’t correct.
Zito knew what Huby was looking for, thought about it, and moved on from it asap. Tkachuk couldn’t have come available at a better time.
While I agree with you I'd go a step further. Huberdeau's previous form was a 9M player, not a 10.5M player. He has only been over 80 points twice in his career. 115 was an extreme outlier and accomplished in a system with NO defensive accountability. Best case scenario for me is he bounces back and scores 70-85 points for 3 seasons before he drops off. That only happens though with a different coach and system.
It's challenging being a Flames fan. You make a good Tkachuk trade and then ruin it with poor asset management.
10.5 million for 8 years is quite the albatross. It's not the player that has the value it's the contract
- Apr 27, 2005
- 35,277
- 33,839
Who's going to give 9M+ for a 30 year old winger coming off a 15g 56p season? Especially with how little cap space there is out there?
- Apr 27, 2005
- 35,277
- 33,839
That's a huge if. He'll be on the wrong side of 30 before the contract even starts, and he's currently nowhere near a PPG player.
Bert Mckrakken
Registered User
Again, if he was still playing with the same players in Florida he wouldn't have had a 56 point season. Just because he has had a shit year in Calgary doesn't mean the guy forgot how to play and put up points.
I understand the "what have you done for me lately" arguement, but at the same token history of the player has to be taken into account. He has been one of the best LW's in the game over the last 5 years.
TotalHomer
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2022
- 3,158
- 4,034
Bob has three years left after this and Huberdeau is just about to start his eight year deal. No chance the Panthers take him back after suffering already five years of a shitty contract with Bob.
Why’d a GM give Bob a 10 mil contract or Lucic and Clarkson their terrible contracts. It is a free asset that can help them win. Most don’t care about 4 years later.
- Apr 27, 2005
- 35,277
- 33,839
Why would he be in Florida still? He was traded to Calgary.
It was incredibly stupid to sign him to that sort of contract before he ever played a game as a flame. It's kinda funny how they tried to penny pinch with Gaudreau for over a year (until the last minute), a guy with over 600 points as a flame, and then turned around and gave Huberdeau 10.5M the before he stepped foot on the ice.
Now because of that overreaction, they're stuck with an albatross of a contract that is the epitome of untradeable.
- Sep 1, 2010
- 9,982
- 7,925
Calgary gonna set records by retaining $5M per for 8 years?
Doubtful, but would be virtually necessary.
the hoped-for rising Cap is now threatened by this crisis/bankruptcy affecting a dozen US teams' expected local-tv rights revenue
He's probably not going anywhere,
And if moved, not gonna return the upside youth you hope for
Having a down year, before the 8x10.5$M extension even kicks in, is a giant red flag.
would getting back a couple 2nds, while retaining for 8 years, even be worth it?
better to hold on to him, and Do everything to get him back on track
Then hope to trade him in 2-4 years, when his productivity is back up and his remaining term shorter.
Doubtful, but would be virtually necessary.
the hoped-for rising Cap is now threatened by this crisis/bankruptcy affecting a dozen US teams' expected local-tv rights revenue
He's probably not going anywhere,
And if moved, not gonna return the upside youth you hope for
Having a down year, before the 8x10.5$M extension even kicks in, is a giant red flag.
would getting back a couple 2nds, while retaining for 8 years, even be worth it?
better to hold on to him, and Do everything to get him back on track
Then hope to trade him in 2-4 years, when his productivity is back up and his remaining term shorter.
BB88
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2015
- 41,460
- 21,846
Because they can get rid of Bob within the next 1-2 years.
& they just last summer traded him because they didn’t want to hand him his retirement contract.
Their actions showed you what to think of this
- Apr 27, 2005
- 35,277
- 33,839
Idk, it'd be pretty unprecedented to give that sort of contract to a player coming off a career worst season.
GIN ANTONIC
Registered User
Giving him the bad contract extension is one thing. That happens in UFA, as you mentioned... but no one is going to want to take on the contract now AND give up positive assets. At least in UFA it's just money.
Miller? That's a laugh. Miller is younger, signed for less and less term. Plus he actually shoots the puck.
Some Other Flame
Registered User
- Dec 4, 2010
- 8,026
- 10,312
With his extension not even starting yet combined with his poor offensive numbers, the value will be quite low. So trading him now would be pretty stupid; so definitely something the Flames will strongly consider doing. If Dutter wins the impending power struggle, he'll probably gleefully trade Huberdeau to the Canadiens for Anderson and Gallagher.
But the much more obvious thing to do is just fire Sutter and get coach that actually fits the Flames roster as constructed. A new GM wouldn't hurt either.
But the much more obvious thing to do is just fire Sutter and get coach that actually fits the Flames roster as constructed. A new GM wouldn't hurt either.
Perratrooper
Registered User
Calgary would have to pay to get rid of Huberdeau right now. If he was a UFA they would probably get good value on him given his current contract and how he played last year. However banking on a bounce back with an eight year contract at above market value cost is a huge risk for any team. Everyone knows he won’t live up to the contract even if he bounces back to point per game next season.
Simple answer, Huberdeau has negative value and no team would take him at his full cap hit without a massive overpay.
Simple answer, Huberdeau has negative value and no team would take him at his full cap hit without a massive overpay.
Same as millers, probably need to give up something to get rid of it, when cap is king these contracts are boat anchors
joestevens29
Registered User
- Apr 30, 2009
- 54,036
- 17,165
Or they get traded for each other. That's about the only way you aren't having to give up assets is for trading him for a guy with a similar contract that either wants out from a team or a team wants to move.
That or eat part of his contract which I don't think CGY would have an appetite to do.
Tkachuk Norris
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2012
- 15,996
- 7,391
He might have zero value now. That’s why you don’t trade players when they are having their worst season.
joestevens29
Registered User
- Apr 30, 2009
- 54,036
- 17,165
I think the problem I'd have if I was a Flames fan is knowing how big of a dick Walsh is, when are you ever going to get value for Huberdeau?
Once that NMC kicks in if there continues to be issues, Walsh and Huberdeau will end up handcuffing the Flames if they try trade him.
Not a good position to be in.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Friedman: Avalanche are looking at Blackwood and Gibson- Latest: Pierce Hawthorne
-
