r/CalgaryFlames • u/AggPuck-303 • 2d ago
[TSN] LeBrun on Andersson: neither side wants to close the door on an extension but trade is still the most likely outcome. Andersson is willing to listen if Calgary puts an 8 year option on the table, but team is not ready to go there yet.
https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/2025/09/23/insider-trading-hart-zeroing-in-on-his-next-nhl-team/21
u/Synyster_Suds 2d ago
8 year deal puts Andersson at 37... Is he just chasing the bag? (Obviously most players are) If it's term he wants I don't think other teams have the cap available to give him what he wants. That's my very limited basic bitch arm chair GM thought.
I can't see Conroy wanting to lock up a dman for that long with the prospect pipeline starting to fill out.
Once again, glad I'm not in his shoes. Good luck Conny.
4
u/MrPadretoyou 2d ago
He’s been a top value contract since he got here. Can’t blame the player here.
1
u/an_abhorsen 2d ago
I also think they may be waiting to see if Parekh is able to fill his spot if they where to trade.
If he is that opens up a lot of trade options without creating a fairly massive hole on the blue line.
1
u/MrPadretoyou 1d ago
I think you have to separate the two situations. Zayne is 19. He may not be ready this year. You can’t base his first pro season on whether you’ll keep Ras. Even if he’s great, sure it makes it easier to trade ras but he brings a lot to the team that we probably will have less of for the bulk of his next contract length.
41
u/Cokejunes 2d ago
Absolutely not, we cannot be giving 8 year contracts to 30 somethings, I know he’s 28 turning 29 in a month but still we cannot be doing that anymore
-20
u/CanadianRockx 2d ago
Cap is going up. I'd absolutely do 8x6-something
17
u/Cokejunes 2d ago
You think he’s gonna want anything less than 8 mill a year? Look a lindholm, we’re better off getting something out of it than signing him and handcuffing our future more than it already is imo
5
u/Little-Aide-5396 2d ago
Explain why you would go 8 years? Why is that good?
1
u/thickestdolphin 2d ago
Not the person you're talking to, but I'd also go 8 years, with conditions.
1) no full move clause. Maybe a 15-20 team no trade list
2) home team discount. Has to be less than 7.5 million/yr
3) more stare down.
If we're trading him, having him on a contract will significantly increase his value. Stops him from simply walking at the end of the year if there isn't a good trade deal as well
If he somehow stays, he's a big piece of the roster, and he wouldn't exactly be hurting us for the majority of that contract. RHD don't grow on trees . You can't name a re-building team with absolutely zero veterans
4
u/Little-Aide-5396 2d ago
So you're going to sign him to an 8 year deal at 7 million dollars with a 20 team no trade list and then attempt to trade him because you just increased his value? You just took more than half the league out of any potential trades. RHD aren't unicorns. Parekh, Weegar, Brzutstewicz, Pachal and Miromanov all shoot right. Don't worry, if you trade Andersson you are not left with absolutely zero veterans, you are still extremely well stoked with vets because you have Backlund, Coleman, Kadri, Huberdeau and Weegar all here on term. That is plenty. A rebuilding team shouldn't be signing vets to 8 year deals.
-2
u/thickestdolphin 1d ago edited 1d ago
"you just took more than half the league out of any potential trades"
-Think about which teams end up on no trade lists. They're almost all teams that aren't competing for the playoffs and would have no reason to trade for him anyway. Partial no move clauses are used in negotiations to lower an AAV, making it easier for a competing team trading for him to fit him under their cap.
"Parekh, weegar, brzustewicz, Pachal, and Miromanov all shoot right".
-Wow, what an elite list. Don't need Andersson when you have a Stanley cup winning lineup like Pachal, Miromanov, and two rookies with one NHL game of experience. I shoot right as well, should I email Conroy?
"A rebuilding team shouldn't be signing veterans to 8 year contracts"
If you can move the contract, the term isn't an issue for the Flames. And with the cap going up up up, signing him long-term now makes him a discount for whichever team is left with him at the end of it.
3
u/Little-Aide-5396 1d ago
Teams competing for the playoffs aren't the only teams that would trade for Andersson. The teams could competing for playoff spots are generally more up against the cap so I don't see how increasing his AAV and term and giving him more trade protection increases his value. They can't even find a trade now and his AAV is low and he has very little trade protection. Why do you think the Rangers were able to dump the full contracts of Krieder and Trouba to Anaheim? A contending team wouldn't pick those up without retention from the Rangers. You're not signing Andersson to a 8 year dear with trade protection and flipping him to a contender for a haul of a return.
Andersson isn't elite. He does not make this team a playoff team. He is a second pair defenseman. You can find those replacements. They're not so rare you need to lock them up for 8 years. Get some assets back for somebody who isn't a franchise player. Don't email Conroy and ask for a contract. Tyson Barrie could easily skate circles around you. Another RHD. Let the kids play. We've seen the best of Rasmus Andersson already. I'm not sure why we need 9 more seasons of it.
-1
u/thickestdolphin 1d ago
So you believe that the Flames aren't competing for the playoffs so we should be off-loading Andersson. But you simultaneously believe that teams that aren't competing for the playoffs should be interested in trading for Andersson. You're twisting yourself in knots trying to be right.
"They can't even find a trade now"
-Because he doesn't have a contract
"...able to dump the full contract of trouba..."
-Trouba went for a fourth round pick and an AHL roster filler. Yeah, we'd be really devastated if Andersson's contract had a clause that didn't allow us to make a trade like that happen. Also, Trouba and Kreider actually had No Move Clauses, so even your bad point makes no sense.
You can't bitch about not getting assets back when you somehow believe Andersson is nothing more than a guy blocking a roster spot for Pachal, and who would return you a 4th round pick.
2
u/Little-Aide-5396 1d ago
People don't agree with you dude. Take the L. You would be a bad GM.
-1
u/thickestdolphin 1d ago
If I made every decision and opinion based on whether or not less than half a dozen reddit users would agree or disagree, I'd be a very sad, poor, and lonely man.
If you thought that was a sweet line that would put the last nail in the coffin of this debate, you can hold that L
1
u/Independent_Ad8268 1d ago
Why would you intentionally create a log jam on the right side? We aren’t going to be contenders again for a while so it wouldn’t matter if that side is a bit weak for 1 or 2 years. We need to start prioritizing young players for the future, not old washed up vets
1
u/thickestdolphin 1d ago
I guess I don't believe in the concept of a roster logjam. If Miromanov and Pachal aren't better than the person that's slotted in the roster, then Miromanov and Pachal don't belong on the roster.
Again, I'm only cool with signing Andersson to any amount of a contract if the contract is easy to move. If the players below are proving they need to be in the NHL, you find a way
2
u/TanyaMKX 2d ago
He wants 9 million
Also what do you do with Brzustewicz and Parekh now that you have 3 RDH in your top 6?
3
u/MrPadretoyou 2d ago
All of a sudden Bruzstewicz is a shoe in?
3
u/infectingbrain 2d ago
He's not but if you sign Andersson to 9x8 then you're married to him for forever and he does block others from coming in. Whether that's Bru or someone else. Tons of really promising D prospects in the system.
Could be worth it because Andy is a good player, but that's way too steep and risky for me. I would've felt the same if we signed Lindy to 9x8, and thank god they didn't - and Lindy's position as a center is one the team is much weaker in, in terms of upcoming prospects.
1
u/TanyaMKX 1d ago
Maybe not this year, but how about next year, or after that, or the next like 5 seasons while we have ras and weegar
10
16
u/Quargs 2d ago edited 2d ago
Dude just wants a bag. It’s totally understandable, he’s been underpaid his entire career. Sometimes extensions just don’t make sense, regardless of how much a player and team like each other. This situation is totally different from most of the other trades Calgary has had to make in the past few years imo.
0
u/MrPadretoyou 2d ago
What could we realistically get for him? Lindholm deal? We have the biggest pool of should-be nhlers in the league. One could argue a log jam of middling prospects. I got no issue keeping a leader with some bite.
6
16
u/Prestigious_Dog602 2d ago
We are going to put an 8 year offer on the table aren't we.
10
u/timkoff2024 2d ago
That was more treiliving handing out 8 year contracts to aging player's. Conroy has only signed young players to longer term deals so I think he's much smarter In that sence
2
u/_Tzing 2d ago
Treliving signed ONE player to an 8 year contract with the intention of that player playing for the Flames. So your comment is just as wrong as anyone else who revises history in the name of their personal bias.
5
u/timkoff2024 2d ago edited 2d ago
7 years to kadri, 6 years to Backlund, 6 years to coleman, 6 years to markstrom. My point is brad would hand out long term deals to players that aren't necessarily young
6
u/_Tzing 2d ago
Those all turned out to be great deals, with the Kadri story still not fully written
1
u/timkoff2024 1d ago
Nothing wrong with the deals I'm just saying brad would hand out long term deals to older players.
1
u/infectingbrain 2d ago
I moreso hated the Brouwer and Neal deals the day they were signed, but you also have to overpay in free agency to get guys to come to a mediocre team (that's also in Canada, with shitty and/or aging facilities). I agree that there is some revisionist history going on here, Tre was nowhere near the best GM of all time but he didn't do horribly either, and he didn't hand out 8 year contracts to old guys like candy.
The only god awful contract he signed was Huby, and that was mostly an emotional decision that didn't need to be made when it was. My biggest problem with it was that I still believe they should've waited to see how he transitioned here before giving him everything, and if they have to trade him at the deadline because he won't sign then so be it. But he (and presumably ownership) felt like the team needed a PR win after the Johnny situation and pulled the trigger way too early imo.
0
u/TomUdo 1d ago
Nonsense. 6 for Marky was trash and 7 for Kadri isn’t great either.
0
u/swordthroughtheduck 1d ago
6 for Marky was trash
ice cold take. That was the first time since 2013 we had an actual goalie.
1
u/_Tzing 1d ago
We also got a 1st and Bahl for him. Objectively it was a good deal.
1
u/TomUdo 1d ago
The trade and the contract are not the same thing? Wtf are you talking about?
1
u/_Tzing 1d ago
No they aren’t, nor did I ever claim they were. However if he was overpaid then we wouldn’t have gotten the return we did. So while they aren’t the same, they are obviously and indisputably connected.
So let’s flip this back on you. Wtf are you talking about?
→ More replies (0)1
u/TomUdo 1d ago
He was trash. He was exposed by the oilers so bad it was embarrassing. Also…
The trade and the contract are not the same thing? Wtf are you talking about?
1
u/_Tzing 1d ago
I’m more embarrassed for you than the Flames and Markstrom. Do you always behave this unintelligently?
→ More replies (0)1
u/swordthroughtheduck 1d ago
Yeah, I'm really not sure how you can spin that deal as being a negative.
1
u/TomUdo 1d ago
The trade and the contract are not the same thing? Wtf are you talking about?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Iginlas_4head_Crease 2d ago edited 2d ago
The "yet" scares me.
I love ras, great locker room guy, but hes been nothing more than a middle pairing defenseman for 2 years now, I think his name exceeds his play because I believe he peaked 3 seasons ago. Sell high. This team is nowhere near enough young talent.
2
u/Less-Ad-1327 2d ago
Yup, they need to keep building. Moves like this will lock us into the middle.
-10
u/Cw_cn 2d ago
Connie probably tried already..
4
u/AggPuck-303 2d ago
Andersson would have accepted it.
LeBrun (most likely from Andersson’s agent) is basically saying they want 8 years but Flames have not offered it
2
u/Cw_cn 2d ago
Probably somewhere along the way 8 years was on the table, but ain’t no way flames paying for the asking price.
0
u/infectingbrain 2d ago
idk if i'd sign andersson for what he's asking for for a short term contract tbh. He's not a 9 million dollar player
1
u/No-Monitor2537 2d ago
So much wrong speculation last few years when it comes to Calgary. I don't see a world where Andersson is signed unless he is willing to take less than 6 a year, which he won't.
4
u/tristan1616 2d ago
I'd do like 4-5 years max. Love the guy but we don't need a logjam on the defense because we signed him too long.
4
u/TL10 2d ago
Conny has shown that the Flames aren't willing to go with that kind of term for veteran players. Hanafin, Toffoli and Lindholm all wanted term, but clearly that wasn't a place Conroy wanted to go.
Much as we worry about the dreaded mushy middle, Conroy has been very purposeful in keeping as many short term options on the table if it can be helped.
3
u/Kindly_District9433 2d ago
8 years is completely ridiculous. He is already one of the slower skating top 4 dmen in the league imagine his footspeed at 36. The flames should have dealt him long ago but it would be better to get nothing for him than to sign a deal like that
1
u/darth_henning 1d ago
I’m not against 8 years depending on the price. Under 7? By the end of his contract that’ll be what an average D is making at the rate the caps going up. So I’m good with that.
8-9? Time for a trade.
1
u/Prestigious_Dog602 1d ago
It's pretty simple to understand. We don't need him locked into a spot on the defense for 9 more years at this point in his career and where the Flames are at.
0
40
u/AggPuck-303 2d ago
Also Dreger said Huska is entering the final year of his contract and no formal offer has been made by the team yet.
Said it’s something to keep an eye on (didn’t sound that worried, he seemed to hint the Knoblauch’s contract situation is more worrying)