If I told you in September we'd have Vancouver's unprotected 1st and four goodies for Lindholm, we'd all be throwing a party in here. So let's do it!
In fairness, in September Vancouvers unprotected first would have projected to be a lot higher of a pick than it does now. The only reason it's unprotected is they are making the playoffs.
The other thing I think is interesting is that with Kuz's contract this trade actually cost the Flames cap space. Cap friendly has them at just under $1.5MM of space remaining but only 11F right now (plus Dube, who is pretty unlikely to play). Even assuming we only run with 12F you're pretty close to the line once you call someone up, and wouldn't have been able to retain.
Location: I'm somewhere where I don't know where I am
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts
The guy was a ghost all season, his impact will be felt on faceoffs and penalty kill, outside of that he was terrible and pretty much quit on the team waiting for a trade after he didn't get paid.
Yep
He's been playing like he didnt want to get injured all year. walking towards free agency
I think it's more likely they can get some value out of him at next year's deadline if they put him in a position to succeed. Absolutely can benefit from playing with Huberdeau - and probably vice versa.
If they ultimately get a third out of him, that's good asset management IMO. Anything more is a coup.
5.5MM of cap space for a year and a half is worth a lot more than a third though. That's pretty close to Monahan type cap.
If he rebounds anywhere close to last year they'll be thrilled (and could probably get good value at next year's deadline) but if he stays the same and they pay him 5.5mm and then flip him for a 3rd/4th to be backup powerplay tip in guy on a contender then retaining big on Lindholm would probably have been better, when you consider they could have separately sold that cap space in a separate trade (and maybe twice, once at the deadline for this year and once in the summer).
That is a fair point... I just don't think there's enough time to rebuild his value between now and the end of the season. It's a lot like what Vancouver did with Beauvilier last year - play him with Pettersson and on the PP, watch him score near a point per game and a 20+ goal pace for a while, and still there was deserved skepticism such that they couldn't move him out in the offseason. I think for Kuzmenko he'll need a longer runway of play where he's scoring at a high rate to get a return, and that return will be affected by the fact that he's not a "playoff type player" that teams are lining up to pay for as a rental at the deadline.
He's really entertaining though so if the Flames are going through some restructuring pain over the next season he can at least be a fun distraction.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
5.5MM of cap space for a year and a half is worth a lot more than a third though. That's pretty close to Monahan type cap.
If he rebounds anywhere close to last year they'll be thrilled (and could probably get good value at next year's deadline) but if he stays the same and they pay him 5.5mm and then flip him for a 3rd/4th to be backup powerplay tip in guy on a contender then retaining big on Lindholm would probably have been better, when you consider they could have separately sold that cap space in a separate trade (and maybe twice, once at the deadline for this year and once in the summer).
The Flames will still have a tonne of cap space though assuming htey trade Hanifin and Tanev. They can take the gamble on Kuzmenko and still get paid to take cap dumps.
Whether the picks and prospects become anything is a different question that we don’t know for years.
I also like to have a look at Kuzmenko. Pretty low risk as it’s only 1 year. Worst case he is another Mangipane
Keep in mind that the Flames are also taking on Kuzmenko' contract at $5.5 million for an additional year, and Kuzmenko has been hot garbage this year. The cap consequences of the trade definitely came into play. Good on the Flame s for using that to their advantage though.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Great work by Conroy, considering Lindholm is on pace for less than 60 points. Still also a good move for Vancouver to bolster their C depth.
Kuzmenko - With more playtime and PP1 time I think he'll be able to score at a pretty good clip. I think with his age, it might be in the cards for the Flames to look at trading him for more future's at next year's deadline.
1st Round Pick (2024) - That's what we all wanted to see, lets trust the scouts and give them more ammo.
Conditional 3rd/4th (2024) - Really glad we picked up some extra draft capital, take some big swings please.
Brzustewicz - Hadn't heard about him before the trade, looking into his NHLe and the season he's putting together, how can anyone be unhappy with this guy? Also Calgary has done a great job in recent years at developing Defensemen in the AHL. I think this guy will be given every opportunity to earn a spot with the Flames in the next 2-3 years if he stays on track.
Jurmo - I'm more familiar with this guy, happy to have another D prospect especially with his size and reach. Between him and Kuznetsov I'd consider it a huge win if either of them turn into a long-term bottom pairing stabilizing D but even if Jurmo doesn't make it, this trade won't be judged on him becoming a player IMO.
The one thing I haven't seen people talking about much in this thread is the fact that Conroy didn't use a retention spot on Lindholm.. does anyone else not find that a little strange? We still have all three retention spots, and he could of conceivably gotten more value by retaining.. I'm hoping this is an indication that he plans to use retention on Tanev and Hanifin, or even a surprise move like Mangiapane or Markstrom.
Anyone else have thoughts on how Conroy will use retention on future trades?
The Following User Says Thank You to Ashes For This Useful Post:
The one thing I haven't seen people talking about much in this thread is the fact that Conroy didn't use a retention spot on Lindholm.. does anyone else not find that a little strange? We still have all three retention spots, and he could of conceivably gotten more value by retaining.. I'm hoping this is an indication that he plans to use retention on Tanev and Hanifin, or even a surprise move like Mangiapane or Markstrom.
Anyone else have thoughts on how Conroy will use retention on future trades?
I'm not certain how to read into it either. Conroy on the radio this morning mentioned that there are a lot of bidders tight to the cap - I'd assume retention was part of the ask + Lindholm. Is retention an option for Conroy? He didn't really address it, but said something that made me feel it was on the table of possibilities.
So why didn't we use it? Bidding clubs requiring retention still not close to the return Vancouver was prepared to offer without? Why didn't Vancouver include retention? Was it Conroy that nixed it in the deal with Vancouver? Vancouver not prepared to pay for it? Does Conroy figure he will need it else where?
I'm not certain how to read into it either. Conroy on the radio this morning mentioned that there are a lot of bidders tight to the cap - I'd assume retention was part of the ask + Lindholm. Is retention an option for Conroy? He didn't really address it, but said something that made me feel it was on the table of possibilities.
So why didn't we use it? Bidding clubs requiring retention still not close to the return Vancouver was prepared to offer without? Why didn't Vancouver include retention? Was it Conroy that nixed it in the deal with Vancouver? Vancouver not prepared to pay for it? Does Conroy figure he will need it else where?
So many questions in the aftermath.
Cap dump or retention. Conroy went wit ha cap dump. How much does Lindholm get if they retain and take a cap dump. Probably diminishing returns doing both.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bonded For This Useful Post:
I'm not certain how to read into it either. Conroy on the radio this morning mentioned that there are a lot of bidders tight to the cap - I'd assume retention was part of the ask + Lindholm. Is retention an option for Conroy? He didn't really address it, but said something that made me feel it was on the table of possibilities.
So why didn't we use it? Bidding clubs requiring retention still not close to the return Vancouver was prepared to offer without? Why didn't Vancouver include retention? Was it Conroy that nixed it in the deal with Vancouver? Vancouver not prepared to pay for it? Does Conroy figure he will need it else where?
So many questions in the aftermath.
Kuz has a higher cap hit than Lindholm. With needing to replace Dube once we took Kuz there isn't enough cap left to retain on Lindholm. I'm sure he would have with another team where there wasn't a bunch of cap hit coming back.
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Lindholm wearing Monahan's number is going to make my head spin.
__________________
"This has been TheScorpion's shtick for years. All these hot takes, clickbait nonsense just to feed his social media algorithms." –Tuco
Cap dump or retention. Conroy went wit ha cap dump. How much does Lindholm get if they retain and take a cap dump. Probably diminishing returns doing both.
Possible - or does the cap dump (which I can't say I agree with calling Kuzmenko) + retention = a conditional 3rd which could turn into a 2nd? Allows Vancouver more space to do more without "really" affecting their assets to deal in future moves to bolster their run?
Maybe I am just reading too much into it - just seems odd in so many ways.
Keep in mind that the Flames are also taking on Kuzmenko' contract at $5.5 million for an additional year, and Kuzmenko has been hot garbage this year. The cap consequences of the trade definitely came into play. Good on the Flame s for using that to their advantage though.
They have plenty of cap next year
I rather see Conroy gamble on some of that cap instead of keeping it in the owner pocket
1 yr gamble is not bad, better that spending it on UFAs like Neal and Brouwer long term
Possible - or does the cap dump (which I can't say I agree with calling Kuzmenko) + retention = a conditional 3rd which could turn into a 2nd? Allows Vancouver more space to do more without "really" affecting their assets to deal in future moves to bolster their run?
Maybe I am just reading too much into it - just seems odd in so many ways.
We don't have the cap space for that, so it doesn't matter what they offered us.
And no matter what you think of Kuzmenko, getting him off the books next year was big value for VAN. They'll need that cap space for Pettersson. I think the extra return on the trade is probably that value. Nobody would sign Kuz for 5.5 for next year, as a reclamation maybe 2-3.
13 of the last 17 teams who won the cup employed at least one center who shot right handed
During those 17 seasons, 560 teams did not win the Cup, if my expansion math is correct. How many of them had at least one center who shot right handed?
Possible - or does the cap dump (which I can't say I agree with calling Kuzmenko) + retention = a conditional 3rd which could turn into a 2nd? Allows Vancouver more space to do more without "really" affecting their assets to deal in future moves to bolster their run?
Maybe I am just reading too much into it - just seems odd in so many ways.
Here is how I look at it:
How much is the retention worth? If we use $5M for a year is worth a 1st, that is a good starting point to guesstimate that $2.4M for the remainder of the year is probably worth a 3rd or a 4th.
From VAN's perspective, I think moving Kuzmenko's $5.5M off the books next year is more valuable to them (for dealing with Pettersson) than saving $2M this year from retention on Lindholm.
From CGY's perspective, they are able to take on Kuzmenko's cap hit, so they save the retention slot (which might be worth more than a 3rd or a 4th on a different player), and they get a player that will be useful to them, AND they can probably flip Kuzmenko next year, for a similar 3rd or 4th (or possibly more, perhaps even by retaining)
So I would argue that VAN benefitted more by moving Kuzmenko than by CGY retaining, and CGY benefitted more by NOT retaining, than they would have gotten for the retention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
