Calgary Flames sign Rene Bourque to multi-year deal.
Jeff Marek Tweets that the Flames have signed Bourque. Details as they come in...
almost 2 years ago
Kent Wilson
44 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Thank you Daz you made this day for me even better. I wonder what the final terms are?
Shit Happens.
Kind of a huge risk isn’t it? 6 years is way too long, argh!
I don’t mind the price but jeesus limit it to four years!
Those 33-to-34 years are the scary ones, history says a good amount of players fall off the cliff big time around this time.
True. We’ll see if he’s one of the early ones or not.
by Kent Wilson on Feb 25, 2010 10:03 AM PST up reply actions
Sutter may well be hoping that the cap starts going up in another couple of years to take the sting out of it, but yeah, that’s two years too long for my taste. When this rumour first started circulating last week, my thought was that the term was extended to limit the yearly hit, while allowing the Flames some flexibility while they were carrying a pile of big tickets. In the last couple of seasons of this deal, Iggy, Kipper, Langkow and Regehr will be out of contract, and may well be elsewhere or out of the game.
by Robert Cleave on Feb 25, 2010 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
Sutter may well be hoping that the cap starts going up in another couple of years to take the sting out of it
I hadn’t thought of that actually. I’m no economic expert – would inflation exert its effect over this kind of time frame? Meaning if there was actually no growth in the fanbase or income sources, would the cap still go up five years from now.
It might be moot anyway since there is probably still room for the NHL to increase revenue (more Canadian teams!)
The point about just inflationary increases is a good one to consider, and kind of what I was hinting at. Next year will likely be flat in terms of an increase because the cap number will be based on this season’s revenue, and the US economy was/is in the shitter. After that, I don’t think that we’ll see the sort of increases we did right after the lockout, but even if you take next year as flat and then just add 2% a year simply via inflation, you’d see a cap around 60-62 million for the last two years of his deal. Unless there’s another economic shock, that might well be on the low side for revenue increases, so if you get anything over simple inflation, a 3.3 million cap hit out of a total number in the 65-70 million range may not be as hard to accept, or move, or buy out. As well, who knows what the next CBA will bring in terms of contract flexibility? As I said, it’s a gamble, but I can at least see where the organization can make a case that he’s worth it now, and his contract will be a manageable burden relative to his percentage of the cap in four or five years.
by Robert Cleave on Feb 25, 2010 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
I should say I like the process behind this whole business though. It’s a low-risk version of the draft basically.
Bourque and Glencross were signed to kickass value contracts but instead of being raw rookies they are real NHL players. Now the odds of finding an impact player this way are small (just like the draft) but we hit the jackpot with Bourque. But even if Bourque just turned out to be a less awesome version of himself, the team still wins because they are real NHL players and not rookie liabilities in need of soft ice time.
Now this offseason we picked up Dawes and Sjostrom and both turned out to be non-impact guys but both are still real NHL players and at the end of the day cutting bait is easy and neither player hurt the team.
Yeah. Sutter seems to be figuring this stuff out the last 2 years or so. Previously he was gambling on guys who were past their prime.
by Kent Wilson on Feb 25, 2010 10:25 AM PST up reply actions
Chris Higgins will be an interesting test case, IMO. If he keeps doing everything but score, his value may well be suppressed, but unless he’s a complete outlier, he’ll never shoot 3-4% again. Will Sutter, or other GMs, see him as a guy who can drive possession against decent comp and just had a ridiculously unlucky year? If they do, he may well get a good offer, and not just from the Flames. If they just see boxcars, he might be one of those value UFAs that a team stumbles in to.
by Robert Cleave on Feb 25, 2010 10:38 AM PST up reply actions
Indeed. I’d be pretty surprised if Sutter doesn’t take a run at him myself.
by Kent Wilson on Feb 25, 2010 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
Honestly it is not a risk to Daz, he’s locking up a guy who will command some $$ on the open market and as for the length…its probably what it took to get the deal done now and its a problem that Daz doesn’t need to worry about. If the team fizzles out and doesn’t make the playoffs this season, though 6 years probably wont be Daz’ problem.
"Where do you go from here, Dion?" "I go to Toronto."
Spreading that Calgary Flames, Montreal Expos, The U, and Orlando Magic love.
If he stays healthy, great signing. If not, ohh boy. I think he will be fine if he puts on 10 lbs more.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Feb 25, 2010 11:03 AM PST reply actions
Hate it
Honestly, I dont think he is that great, and you have wingers up the ying yang on this team. I like it a lot more if Kotalik and Sarich go away. 3.3 is high. Hagman only got 3 coming off a better season. And Toronto didnt need to give Hagman 6 years to get him to sign.
Someone talk me off the bridge: Tell me they didnt give Bourque a no trade.
Sarich is almost guaranteed to go away, one way or another. Kotalik may not be, but we’ll have to see about that one.
As far as the players on the Flames right now, as people have mentioned many times over, Bourque has been somewhere between the best and a top three forward almost every game he’s played. Grabbing a guy who (presumably) continues to do that on a regular basis for a little over 3 mil is not bad. I’m just hoping he wasn’t getting a case playing for a contract this year, because a production drop-off would make me sad – especially when combined with some of the stupidass penalties he takes on occasion.
by SmellOfVictory on Feb 25, 2010 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
any word on the no trade? I dont think he has one.
He might be our best forward, I dont care. I think thats a dis on the teams forwards, myself. I mean, if Bourques our best guy, then we aignt winning a stanely cup anytime soon.
The term is absolutely insane. I dont care what you bring, Im not coming off that point. You cant shrug off the injuries, because injuries dont get better. And lets just suppose, in some crazy scenario, that Bourque gets injured a lot. I dont know, maybe his ankle. Or shoulder. Or Groin.
FURTHERMORE (clears throat) PETER LOUBARDIAS SHOULD BE FIRED!
by Domebeers.com on Feb 25, 2010 5:23 PM PST up reply actions
Domebeers must have been impressed by Peter's commentary during the olympics
by Rod Blogojevich on Feb 25, 2010 1:54 PM PST up reply actions
I felt like I was watching a Flames game when he was calling the Finland/Sweden quarterfinal.
by SmellOfVictory on Feb 25, 2010 3:23 PM PST up reply actions
I was a few gins into it and I still wanted to fill my ears with concrete
by Domebeers.com on Feb 25, 2010 5:17 PM PST up reply actions
You couldnt have Charlie Simmers hair without Charlie Simmer.
by Domebeers.com on Feb 25, 2010 5:15 PM PST up reply actions
Also, Domebeers has posted the official take at, where else, Domebeers.com
Furthermore, I think Peter Loubardias should be fired.
Dude i read the post and your bitching about his point production from last year. Give me a fucking break, all of his production was generated from either EV or SH situations (since big Bert and other gobbled up all the PP time). Thank god we have this guy for the next 6 years, from what we have seen these past 2 years, he is a very solid bet to outplay his contract.. Also, the 3.3million will be nothing due to cap inflation a few years down the road.
Blog Beef Round 2? MF vs Domebeers? Stay Tuned…..
by Rod Blogojevich on Feb 25, 2010 8:21 PM PST up reply actions
Blog Beef Round 2? MF vs Domebeers? Stay Tuned…..
Good lord Blogojevich, allows stirring the pot eh? It’s my BUSINESS and only my BUSINESS. You’re the one who always gets people jazzed about the BLOG BEEF when there isn’t any in the first place.
does FJM style apply to comments?
I think my above response answers this question
True words. Lofty words.
Give me a fucking break
Feisty words towards our friend Domebeers. At least he can come up with a name that he didn’t steal from R O and an avatar not ripped off from commenter Upstate Underdog from KSK and Deadspin fame.
by Rod Blogojevich on Feb 25, 2010 11:24 PM PST up reply actions
According to Cap Geek, Bourque did indeed get a NTC…although it’s a “modified” one, whatever that means.
He’ll likely have to submit a list of teams that he’ll go to, or there could be time limits, like Kiprusoff’s deal that ends his NTC after 11/12. The no movement clauses are the worst, because a wealthy team like Calgary can bury a guy with a simple NTC if they absolutely have to. NMCs like what Nylander has are a much larger issue, so at least he didn’t get one of those.
by Robert Cleave on Feb 25, 2010 7:11 PM PST up reply actions
Here’s my thoughts on the Bourque resigning: http://4thlineblog.com/2010/02/26/the-rene-bourque-signing/
In a nutshell though- I’m a fan. Though I’ve been a fan of Bourque ever since his Badger days.
Yikes, Yikes, YIKES! Either the term, or the dollars, are out of relationship with one another, by about 13-18% – pick your poison. AND a limited NTC…..uh, I think that’s all I’m going to say.
Concur on the term or $ being slightly out of whack (although it’s not horribly out of whack). I’m not sure how I feel about the Limited NTC… depends on what the limitation is. If it’s solely location based then I’m not a fan, if it’s term based (first 3-4 years have it the remainder do not) then I don’t so much mind it (beyond the fact that I think GM’s should stingy with giving them out at all) assuming that the deal is frontloaded.
Like the cash, don’t like the length (4, maybe 5 would have been good enough for me) and can’t make a judgement about the NTC till I know exactly what it contains, but NTC’s are in general negative, so I guess we will see.
And Bourque was in a White jersey yesterday at practice, so I’m assuming he’ll be good to go come March 1st.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Feb 26, 2010 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Matchsticks and Gasoline
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Flames Schedule
Next 5 Games
Vancouver
|
Sat 02/11 | 7:00 PM PST |
|
Toronto
|
Tue 02/14 | 6:00 PM PST |
|
@
Dallas
|
Thu 02/16 | 5:30 PM PST |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Sat 02/18 | 7:00 PM PST |
|
Edmonton
|
Tue 02/21 | 6:00 PM PST |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Phoenix
|
Thu 02/09 | OT - L 1 - 2 |
|
@
San Jose
|
Wed 02/08 | W 4 - 3 |
|
@
Anaheim
|
Mon 02/06 | SO - L 2 - 3 |
|
Chicago
|
Fri 02/03 | W 3 - 1 |
|
Detroit
|
Tue 01/31 | L 1 - 3 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Game Show Friday, Mats Sundin debates and did Gomez score (yes)?
- Boston Bruins’ Nathan Horton has a concussion rehab setback
- Trending Topics: Stay out of NHL fighting, Ralph Nader
- Can Jeremy Roenick save the Phoenix Coyotes?
- Should Dominic Moore be suspended for this hit on Rangers’ Fedotenko? (Video)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
