Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Eternal Unpredictability of the 2011-12 Boston Celtics

Another One Bites the Dust

NEW YORK - NOVEMBER 22:  Niklas Hagman #10 of the Calgary Flames attempting to score against Martin Biron #43 of the New York Rangers during the first period on November 22 2010 at Madison Square Garden in New York New York.  (Photo by Lou Capozzola/Getty Images)


Another chapter in the book of the infamous Dion Phaneuf trade has been written as the Calgary Flames have rid themselves of yet another disappointment.

Hagman was plucked by the Anaheim Ducks on re-entry waivers Monday morning, seemingly to the praises of the Flames faithful.

The move saves the Flames just under $1.5 million in cap space for the rest of this season and as noted by @RossCreekNation on twitter, it saves the ownership a little cash as the cap space is not exactly needed this year.

It also frees up another contract space for the Flames to use to sign Krys Kolanos or perhaps another unsigned prospect.

In my opinion, Hagman was misused in his entire time in Calgary.  Just take a look back at his track record with Dallas and then Toronto... when used efficiently, he produced.  He was never going to score 27 goals in Calgary, but if he was accepted as a 15-goal scorer that was acquired in a terrible, desperation trade, he would have been more widely accepted. 

All in all, he wasn't a good fit in Calgary.

But, again, getting nothing for an asset with value (and footing half the bill to boot) continues to add to my disappointment of Jay Feaster.  Many will think just getting rid of Hagman, the contract and cap space is enough, I disagree with that notion and when Niklas Hagman proves worthy of decent NHL minutes while in Anaheim, I believe we'll all look back at this day and wonder why Feaster wasn't able to muster up anything for the frustrated Flame.

Poll
How do you feel about the Flames getting rid of Niklas Hagman via re-entry waivers?
Great move. It's about freaking time!
51 votes
Indifferent.
57 votes
Bad Move. Still had some value.
66 votes

174 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 11 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

agree with everything you’ve said here, scott. only thing I’ll mention is that hagman is no longer on the team because the owners wanted to save money and that is the only reason. until pl3 is waived you won’t be able to convince me otherwise.

by Justin Azevedo on Nov 14, 2011 10:40 AM PST reply actions  

Yup, pretty much agree with everything here. Really two ways to think about it…

1: Hagman wasn’t going to really play here again so any cap space (for later) is a good thing and better to pay half for nothing then full price for nothing

2: Hagman is a better hockey player then PLLL or the Greek… why the eff wasn’t he being played?

I hold more with “2”. Horrible, horrible, horrible asset management. I blame Butter personally… healthy scratching Hagman couldn’t have done his trade value any favors. Maybe he plays him (even with the fourties) and he’s good enough to attract interest (or even make the full waiver pick-up more likely. He was sat for IMO obviously inferior hockey players, worst case scenario is that we iced a better line-up.

by Parallex on Nov 14, 2011 12:00 PM PST reply actions  

Ahh, this is one I give Feaster a pass on. Hagman was pretty overpaid and disappeared way too often. Just more frustration from me going back to the Phaneuf deal.

What the hell was Darryl thinking?

"You said you didn't give a f#%k about hockey. And I never saw someone say that before..."

by TheBurnward on Nov 14, 2011 5:15 PM PST reply actions  

I agree with everything here, except for the sudden bizarre fascniation with Krys Kolanos in the flogosphere.

by Subversive on Nov 14, 2011 6:45 PM PST reply actions  

Few fanbases are as desperate for some change/good news as the Flames fanbse these days. Anything remotely notable outside the status quo will be seized upon.

by Kent Wilson on Nov 14, 2011 7:59 PM PST up reply actions  

This is an ugly move, essentially paying another team to take a player off our hands. But at least it’s in the right spirit: we now have one less old overpaid player on the team.

Or to put it another way: at no point in the future are we going to look at this and say, “Why did we let Hagman get away from us?”

by ngthagg on Nov 14, 2011 8:24 PM PST reply actions  

old o.O

He’s turning 32 in three weeks.

Could be that he will fail to earn a spot in Anaheim, but I think it’s likely he’ll be a serviceable NHLer for a few years yet.

by Temujin on Nov 14, 2011 10:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Old in the sense of past his prime, on the downhill side of his career. For the price Anaheim is paying for him, they may get good value.

by ngthagg on Nov 15, 2011 3:55 PM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Calgary Flames.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Dsc03339_small
Sven, Sven, Sven Baertschi
Small
Roman Cervenka's Contract Structure and Why He's Worth Every Penny
Small
Erixon and Schultz.. The two bastards
Small
Go Flames

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

37 - 29 - 16

Won 2


Certified Executives of the Office of Management

Photo_71_small Hayley

Officiants of the Bureau of Editing

E571c235251f6540d35494b73d613163_small Justin Azevedo

Ryan_small SO_RyanP

Dsc03339_small Mitch Smith

Bureaucrats

Luongo_small DownGoesLuongo

Redfordnewmanbutchcassidy19_small Scott Lepp

Mcinnismonday_small BookoflooB

381858_721102932987_120603131_37270080_1092957201_n_small LaToya12