2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[Teroy]

If we lose Lindholm & Backlund I wonder where we get the players to support Huberdeau in his return to form. This has nothing to do with jettisoning a player. This has to do with business. 10.5 million for a player who might return to form while we try to build a team around him is a recipe for a long term mediocre team. The suggested trade may never happen but the hope Huberdeau will return to form may never happen either.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Except it wasn't "according to you". You said "fans" felt this way like you were speaking on behalf of them all.

I am a Flames fan and with a couple of exceptions, I don't find them unlikeable at all, and that includes Huberdeau who seems like a very decent guy.

Never once said or implied I was talking on behalf of all of them that is you creating that on your own.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Spurs

Who said his status had anything to do with what the team will do?

You did

Originally Posted by Spurs

I think it is up for debate whether he is a superstar and it is not only because his contract is large but also the team that we have around him that will compete for nothing during the length of his deal.

Originally Posted by Spurs

I said it is debatable whether he is a superstar based on how people would define superstar.

You may have thought this, but did not say it. That is a very different discussion.

Originally Posted by Spurs

I don't think that they state "we have to be mediocre" but I think that they prioritize making round 1 of the play-offs so they can get home game revenue over taking short term pain for long term gain.

I think you’re wrong. They were division leaders year before last. Do you think that was by accident (ie:they shot for WildCard2 and over performed?)

That approach results in building mediocre teams. I think the Flames would take 5 years of first round losses over risking 4 years not making the play-offs and building a team that actually contends in that 5th year. The risk of missing out on play-off revenue would be too great and play-off revenue trumps winning with this ownership, or at least Edwards, in my view.

There is no guarantee that missing the playoffs for 4 years would actually bring a team to compete in years 5+. Plus the starting point actually matters. As has been started elsewhere by others, Blowing up the team may appeal to the most hardcore as they have patience, but will drive other fans away.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Spurs

Never once said or implied I was talking on behalf of all of them that is you creating that on your own.

Originally Posted by Spurs

I think it is up for debate whether he is a superstar and it is not only because his contract is large but also the team that we have around him that will compete for nothing during the length of his deal.

Fans are tired of the team trying so hard to build a mediocre team, especially when they pair that mediocrity with an unlikable group of players.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

There is much risk to his contract, and if Calgary is not a contender, it is better to get rid of the contract if they can and rebuild.

If you want to talk risk…

There is risk to every contract (injuries are a real thing) and there is even bigger risk that a rebuild will not be successful. IMO when comparing the risks, it is a greater risk that the rebuild will not be successful (as many have in mind) than the risk that Huberdeau has 50 point years. Will he live up to the insane standard that some seem to have in mind? No. However would he be a $8m player instead of a $10m player? Now weight that against the blow it up and fail risk. What is the bigger risk?

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by calculoso

You did

No that has nothing to do with his superstar status, never linked the two.

You may have thought this, but did not say it. That is a very different discussion.

Nope I stated it.

I think you’re wrong. They were division leaders year before last. Do you think that was by accident (ie:they shot for WildCard2 and over performed?)

Yes they overperformed in the regular season which was shown in the play-offs where they were poor.

There is no guarantee that missing the playoffs for 4 years would actually bring a team to compete in years 5+. Plus the starting point actually matters. As has been started elsewhere by others, Blowing up the team may appeal to the most hardcore as they have patience, but will drive other fans away.

I agree there is no guarantee which is why the team prefers the much less risk approach which still gets them revenue, because revenue more important than winning.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

So you agree I never said or implied all fans.

Thanks

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Spurs

So you agree I never said or implied all fans.

Thanks

So you agree you never said it was just you that you spoke for. Unless you are somehow plural. Thanks.

[ResAlien]

I love all of you. Thanks.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

So you agree you never said it was just you that you spoke for. Unless you are somehow plural. Thanks.

Yes the way I worded it could be taken as I was speaking for more than just me but certainly not all fans.

I guess I should have broken that down into two sentences to make it clear that fans were tired of building toward mediocrity and that the unlikable team was my view. I thought it was pretty clear but obviously some people struggled with that.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by calculoso

If you want to talk risk…

There is risk to every contract (injuries are a real thing) and there is even bigger risk that a rebuild will not be successful. IMO when comparing the risks, it is a greater risk that the rebuild will not be successful (as many have in mind) than the risk that Huberdeau has 50 point years. Will he live up to the insane standard that some seem to have in mind? No. However would he be a $8m player instead of a $10m player? Now weight that against the blow it up and fail risk. What is the bigger risk?

He doesn't have to have 50 point years, if he increases it to 65, even 70 point years, he's hugely overpaid.

So since not all rebuild are successful, you never undertake them? There really isn't any choice. Once a team is aging and not a contender, there really isn't any other choice. I don't see that as a risk as much as "no viable alternative".

Calgary, due to cap constraints and UFA's do be, undoubtedly will need to run out a team that will have less viable players than last year, without any premium prospects on the horizon. Their hope is that a new coach will get more out of lesser players than Sutter did. There is certainly some chance they can be a playoff contender, although very much less likely they can be a cup contender.

The problem is, if that plan is not successful, the Flames window to rebuild quickly with premium younger assets obtained by rebuilding today may have closed somewhat.

Many of us believe the Flames should bite the bullet today when they can than delay to the inevitable and make the rebuild much longer.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Spurs

No that has nothing to do with his superstar status, never linked the two.

You need to be more clear and separate your thoughts into at least different sentences, if not paragraphs. Your sentences appear to state very different things than you’re meaning
[/quote]

Yes they overperformed in the regular season which was shown in the play-offs where they were poor.

So… regular season performance on its own isn’t enough. Playoff performance (outside of making the finals) on its own isn’t enough. Is your bar that they have to be a top performer in both to have a successful season?

I agree there is no guarantee which is why the team prefers the much less risk approach which still gets them revenue, because revenue more important than winning.

It isn’t a “more important” situation. The end goal is of course to win the Stanley Cup and maximize on-ice success. They appear to value playoff success more than regular season success by their past team makeup (tougher players) and words (just get in). Revenue is an added bonus.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by calculoso

So… regular season performance on its own isn’t enough. Playoff performance (outside of making the finals) on its own isn’t enough. Is your bar that they have to be a top performer in both to have a successful season?

Pretty high bar eh? Last year Matthews, Kucherov, McDavid, Crosby, Mackinnon, Makar, all overpaid.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by calculoso

You need to be more clear and separate your thoughts into at least different sentences, if not paragraphs. Your sentences appear to state very different things than you’re meaning

They are plenty clear for people that can read, but yes it appears so may need more help in that regard.

So… regular season performance on its own isn’t enough. Playoff performance (outside of making the finals) on its own isn’t enough. Is your bar that they have to be a top performer in both to have a successful season?

I think when the regular season is a one it certainly isn't enough, but regular season success on its own is not enough. I would use the Leafs as an example, I doubt many of their fans would say they have been successful lately despite great regular seasons for the past 4-5 seasons.

I think when you have regular season success surrounded by missing the play-offs and play-off failures that regular season success means very little overall.

It isn’t a “more important” situation. The end goal is of course to win the Stanley Cup and maximize on-ice success. They appear to value playoff success more than regular season success by their past team makeup (tougher players) and words (just get in). Revenue is an added bonus.

I think their desire to win a Cup is much less than their desire to maximize revenue. I haven't seen anything from this team to indicate that they want to win a Cup and plenty of evidence that they are trying to "just get in" and get the first round revenue from home games.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

He doesn't have to have 50 point years, if he increases it to 65, even 70 point years, he's hugely overpaid.

So since not all rebuild are successful, you never undertake them? There really isn't any choice. Once a team is aging and not a contender, there really isn't any other choice. I don't see that as a risk as much as "no viable alternative".

Calgary, due to cap constraints and UFA's do be, undoubtedly will need to run out a team that will have less viable players than last year, without any premium prospects on the horizon. Their hope is that a new coach will get more out of lesser players than Sutter did. There is certainly some chance they can be a playoff contender, although very much less likely they can be a cup contender.

The problem is, if that plan is not successful, the Flames window to rebuild quickly with premium younger assets obtained by rebuilding today may have closed somewhat.

Many of us believe the Flames should bite the bullet today when they can than delay to the inevitable and make the rebuild much longer.

I agree the situation with so many pending UFAs is a supreme factor in what to do. If the top few want to abandon ship, then maximizing their return is critical. Still, there needs to be both a nucleus to build upon and an attraction factor to entice people to come. Huberdeau in my mind is one of those people that players want to play with (much like Gaudreau was). Getting rid of him means that attraction factor shifts to who - Kadri? Doesn’t work imo.

The main reason this debate about Huberdeau even started was the presumed return (moving up 3-4 slots in the draft). That isn’t anywhere close to enough, especially in a crap UFA year and without other “premium prospects” to trade for valuable players.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Spurs

They are plenty clear for people that can read, but yes it appears so may need more help in that regard.



I think when the regular season is a one it certainly isn't enough, but regular season success on its own is not enough.

[mile]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1670826976943427584

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by mile

https://twitter.com/user/status/1670826976943427584

Seems crazy. I would welcome Brodie back here if the team does move on from Hanifin, and one of Zadorov or Tanev

[stemit14]

Not for Calgary but I wonder how much the Sharks are willing to retain to get maximum value for Erik Karlsson? He has 4 years left with a cap hit $11.5 million AAV.

Great player but tough to find the right fit where a team can fit a cap hit like that and be a competitive team (where Karlsson will want to go). It might be a case where a third team is needed to retain some of the salary as well. For example, if the sharks retain $2 million per year and another team retains $1 million per year. If something like that happened, Karlsson could return a pretty big haul at a cap hit of $8.5 million AAV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I agree the situation with so many pending UFAs is a supreme factor in what to do. If the top few want to abandon ship, then maximizing their return is critical. Still, there needs to be both a nucleus to build upon and an attraction factor to entice people to come. Huberdeau in my mind is one of those people that players want to play with (much like Gaudreau was). Getting rid of him means that attraction factor shifts to who - Kadri? Doesn’t work imo.

The main reason this debate about Huberdeau even started was the presumed return (moving up 3-4 slots in the draft). That isn’t anywhere close to enough, especially in a crap UFA year and without other “premium prospects” to trade for valuable players.

You seem to forget that many of our view is that simply getting cap relief from Hubby would be substantial and unlikely to occur in any event.

And that cap space could be utilized to obtain assets if weaponized in a rebuild situation, like Chicago is rumoured to be doing (and has done).