Do you trade Rasmus Andersson this summer?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

The Wild have shown no signs that they would mortgage the future for now, I think that continues for 1 more year until the Parise/Suter buyout finally drops to a manageable number.

Tampa or Nashville could be a good option. Nashville might want to swoop in and replace McDonagh with someone who is cheaper and younger. They have tons of cap space and are a decent team that might be looking to get better now. They also have their 1st and 3 2nds in this draft.

Tampa? They have zero cap space and zero draft picks to trade.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

yes. Purge ourselves from that 2022 debacle.

What was the debacle in 2022? We had a good team that year.

[Poe969]

Trade him.

You'll likely get a huge return.
There are still vets to lead the team.
His next contact will be big.
The Flames are not competing for the ne t couple years.
Taking Ras away makes the team worse a s gives a better pick next year.
Gives young guys in the organization a chance to move up.

[butterfly]

I think you have to look at it like this:

1. Are we going anywhere in the next two years? (Probably not, so they're useless)
2. Is Andersson willing to sign a 3-4 year extension at this time next year?

If so, I wouldn't mind doing it. If he wants big term and bucks, trade.

I'm not sure how much extra we would get for doing it now compared to next summer, though. In theory it should be double, but in practice I'm not sure we'd get that.

[NewFan]

I think every player and management of this knows that this team will not compete for the cup for next 2-3 years and will not pay max dollar for older players. So players keep asking for trade if he wants to win or to be paid max.
So I think Andersson will or already told Conroy to trade him if he can't get max money here.
For the team we should trade him, Markstrom, Mangiapane and Kuzmenko this season.
I hope we trade them for 2025 or 2026 1sts and 2nds or even for 2027 1st if some one offers for them.
Our strategy should be to inject as many as younger players and try to find super stars from the drafts.

[gvitaly]

I would definitely trade Andersson as long as I could get a return similar to the Chychrun trade. It being a mid 1st + 2 x 2nds.

I don't see Andersson fitting the next window, and I think he would be worth considerably less as a rental next year. Kind of similar to both Lindholm, and Hanifin. I also don't see Andersson making his D partners better the way guys like Tanev and Weegar do, so that makes him more expandable in my eyes.

[Freddy]

No, don’t trade Andersson. The Flames will already be thin on capable NHL players and I don’t want to watch 10 years of basement dwelling hockey.

[The Fonz]

Andersson + Markstrom to NJ, for #10 + Mercer.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Tampa? They have zero cap space and zero draft picks to trade.

I suggested targeting Sergachev in a Rasmus trade rather than re-sign Rasmus. We have extra picks, they have none. Rasmus probably gets same money as Sergachev already makes now but is younger and the contract ends at a much younger age.

Rasmus to Tampa allows Tampa to keep Stamkos and not hurt their chances of winning now

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

I suggested targeting Sergachev in a Rasmus trade rather than re-sign Rasmus. We have extra picks, they have none. Rasmus probably gets same money as Sergachev already makes now but is younger and the contract ends at a much younger age.

Rasmus to Tampa allows Tampa to keep Stamkos and not hurt their chances of winning now

That is a deal that would make sense for both teams. Not sure when Sergachev’s NTC kicks in but I would totally do that trade. Flames have the cap space for the next 2-3 years anyway and by the time they hopefully have to pay some of their young players the cap will be much higher.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by slcrocket

No one on this team is untouchable, but I don't see how Rasmus Andersson for the next two years at less than $5M per is a bad thing. Even if he walked himself right to UFA and left, I wouldn't move him unless he requests it or the offer is borderline insane.

This conversation really shouldn't happen until the TDL in 2026. I don't have faith in this front office to hit a homerun with a trade (not saying they can't, just saying I don't feel overly confident after Tanev/Lindholm). He seems like a great teammate, an absolute Top 4 D, and one of those pieces you don't move unless he's unhappy here. Throw in his bargain contract and he's the least of my worries.

If you don't like the Lindholm trade I'd suggest it's pretty safe to say you'll never like a transaction.

[Bingo]

They need to set up a rule of thumb that you can't sign any player long term past the age of 34.

30 year old ... here's a 4 year deal
31 year old ... here's a 3 year deal

When a player gets to 33 I think you can start looking at two year deals.

Obviously it can't be that rigid, but if in place I think you'd see the positive impact after ten years of making those hard decisions.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

That is a deal that would make sense for both teams. Not sure when Sergachev’s NTC kicks in but I would totally do that trade. Flames have the cap space for the next 2-3 years anyway and by the time they hopefully have to pay some of their young players the cap will be much higher.

It starts in 2027 so they can move him now without getting him to waive.

Tampa has no picks. I'd prefer to give them and 2nd and a 3rd with Rasmus for a guy like Sergachev.

Tampa adds McDonagh and Rasmus for Sergachev and keeps Stamkos. This helps them big time on d as they couldn't keep pucks out of the net. They score a ton and Hedman is still their top PP dman.

Flames take away the risk of signing a 30-year-old for 8 years.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Bingo

They need to set up a rule of thumb that you can't sign any player long term past the age of 34.

30 year old ... here's a 4 year deal
31 year old ... here's a 3 year deal

When a player gets to 33 I think you can start looking at two year deals.

Obviously it can't be that rigid, but if in place I think you'd see the positive impact after ten years of making those hard decisions.

I would guess you would have 0 chance signing Rasmus for 4 years. I would bet it's 8 years or a higher cap for 6 years minimum.

8 years @ $8.5 or so

6/7 years @ $9+

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Freddy

No, don’t trade Andersson. The Flames will already be thin on capable NHL players and I don’t want to watch 10 years of basement dwelling hockey.

So keep the bad team they have together and stay in the bottom 10-15? We're talk8ng about a guy who is getting into his 30's so it's not like he's getting better over time. They'll have to get worse before they get better.

[TheScorpion]

Trading one guy who's 28 years old means the Flames will be bad for 10 years?

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Bingo

They need to set up a rule of thumb that you can't sign any player long term past the age of 34.

30 year old ... here's a 4 year deal
31 year old ... here's a 3 year deal

When a player gets to 33 I think you can start looking at two year deals.

Obviously it can't be that rigid, but if in place I think you'd see the positive impact after ten years of making those hard decisions.

Agreed. You'd probably need to set some parameters of when you'd go outside of this, i.e the team is in a championship window and can reduce a cap hit to entice a coveted veteran with term.

Until you're ready to compete, and not just compete for playoffs but truly have a championship window open, there's no need to go outside of this structure.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Trading one guy who's 28 years old means the Flames will be bad for 10 years?

My only stress is over exposing Wolf. If he is going to be a franchise goalie we need to give him a fighting chance, and a part of that is protecting him from getting shelled night in night out.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

My only stress is over exposing Wolf. If he is going to be a franchise goalie we need to give him a fighting chance, and a part of that is protecting him from getting shelled night in night out.

Veteran goalie to split time and bring in a veteran dman or 2 to play now on short term deals.

We need to the asset for Rasmus, and you can play the vet goalie against the top teams if Wolf is struggling.

[EVERLAST]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

My only stress is over exposing Wolf. If he is going to be a franchise goalie we need to give him a fighting chance, and a part of that is protecting him from getting shelled night in night out.

This was exactly my concern for the critics who already want to write Wolf off.

And not just wolf.

Do we really want to be like Edmonton? Who from the net out are a tire fire that can be seen everywhere.

Yes they just advanced but this is where the real exposure of the no goods comes into play .

Dallas has a goalie that will hopefully give them the same nightmares he gave us playing behind a considerably better d corps .

But hey....Edmonton.....you just keep doing you