[Rumour] Bruins having contract problems with Pastrnak

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

waaaaaaaay too much.

Way too much? Why would the Bruins do this. This is too little.

[CaptainCrunch]

If he's waiting for a Draisaitl contract to set his own value, I don't have much interest in him.

The Bruins would want a home run package of young players and prospects for him.

The cost in terms of cap space and trade could actually become damaging to the Flames.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Hamilton wasn't traded because of his contract demands, he was traded because he didn't want to play for Boston.

My favourite part of that trade was Bruins fans holding tightly to their one last reasoning as to why the trade was good for them at the end, right before he signed his current deal

Boston fans: Yeah, enjoy the trade until he's signed, the reason he left is because his contract demands START at $7.5 million a year. So yeah, great job Flames fans.

Brad Treliving: We've signed Hamilton to a $5.75 AAV contract

Media: Turns out the ridiculous contract demands were literally only for Boston so that they'd trade him

Boston fans: Well.....hockey was fun while it lasted.

[Jacks]

We'd have to give up some really good assets but players like that don't come available very often. Top line RW is arguably our biggest hole in the lineup right now assuming that our goalie prospects pan out. I hope we are in on this.

And Pastrnak is worth way more than Bennett, can't believe people are even questioning that.

[FBI]

Can we stop trading Gaudreau please.
Prime years coming up. Ppg++

[dustygoon]

This is right up Doug Wilsons alley. Picking off gm's is his forte

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Jacks

And Pastrnak is worth way more than Bennett, can't believe people are even questioning that.

Depends what a team's scouts and GM think of Bennett's upside and likelihood of achieving it. If you think Bennett has #1 centre upside then no, Pasternak is not worth way more.

The Bruins might demand more than Bennett but I don't think the Flames would value Pastrnak significantly higher. Centre is more important than wing. Bennett has 1st line upside.

[ComixZone]

Pastrnak would be outstanding, but the cost would throw our salary-cap structure, and salary-cap projections out of whack. The cost would also be huge (and would have to include someone for "now" on the wing + a big future spend).

Overall, I think Tree still likely has one big future-spend trade in him in the next 6 months (high-end prospects out, established player in), but Pastrnak would require a good roster player + huge future-spend, plus restructuring things going forward, and that I'd bet just wouldn't be in Tree's plan.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Jacks

And Pastrnak is worth way more than Bennett, can't believe people are even questioning that.

A just-turned-21 year old Ehlers is likely worth way more than just-turned 21 year old Scheifele was, too. That doesn't mean it'd have been a hypothetical trade where you just ignore upside. As much as people are justified to favor the sure thing, you can't ignore the difference in role, linemates, physical maturity, and positional responsibilities.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Overall, I think Tree still likely has one big future-spend trade in him in the next 6 months (high-end prospects out, established player in), but Pastrnak would require a good roster player + huge future-spend, plus restructuring things going forward, and that I'd bet just wouldn't be in Tree's plan.

I'm not advocating for the swap one way or the other but I don't think this is true.

There's most likely future money planned / allocated in the event both Bennett and Tkachuk require big money. And in between now and then there's salary coming off the books.

I think it's unlikely, but salary doesn't necessarily preclude us from a potential move like this. The management is shrewd and crafty and have likely had various plans worked out for different scenarios over the next five years.

[savardandjokinen]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

waaaaaaaay too much.

How? It's on the lesser side if anything

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Gaudreau+Brouwer for Pastrnak+Krejci?

I'd rather the Flames hang on to Brouwer. With training camp just around the corner that rumoured Brouwer for Ovechkin deal must be in the final stages. Probably just working out visa issues or something like that.

Any trade for Pastrnak should be a 3 for 1 or even a 4 for 1 type deal where none of the 3 or 4 pieces the Flames give up hurt all that much, but the combined value is Pastrnak. You know, like every trade made in video game hockey. Oh yeah, and add a 3rd to really tempt Boston.

Bennett, Fox, Stajan and a 3rd should do the trick. Ahh what the heck, give em Hanowski too.

[Love]

We've already traded our '18 first so that is a huge trading chip gone and I would be uncomfortable not having our first in two consecutive years. Pastrnak is a ####ing stud though. He is exactly what we need.

[Love]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

waaaaaaaay too much.

Dude, Pastrnak just scored 70 points in 75 games as a 20 year old. He's going to be elite for the next decade+. Bruins laugh and hang-up at that offer

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Love

Dude, Pastrnak just scored 70 points in 75 games as a 20 year old. He's going to be elite for the next decade+. Bruins laugh and hang-up at that offer

Exactly. Pastrnak is the sure thing right now. 34 goals and 70 points is huge. Pastrnak also has all the physical and "tenacious" intangibles that Bennett has too.

Pastrnak fills our greatest need up front, and would give us a truly elite young forward core. The Flames definitely need to be in on this.

[Love]

I'd offer something around

Bennett
Fox
Brouwer/Stajan

And I still feel like another piece is needed. It pains me to put both Bennett and Fox on the table, but I think it's a worthwile risk to take considering we already have three other capable potential top six centers even after the departure of Bennett. Also Pastrnak couldn't be a better fit on our roster. And just like Bennett isn't done maturing as a player at 21, neither the hell is Pastrnak. Maybe this season was a blip on the radar, I wouldn't know, I don't watch the Bruins like that. But in all scoring essentially a PPG as a 20 year old is no small feat, and it does nothing but to indicate that his upside is tremendous.

It would suck if Bennett ends up exploding into a 65+ point Kesler like 2-way pest, and I've heard Duncan Keith stylistic upside comparisons for Adam Fox

On the flip side, maybe a Bennett trade free's up room for Jankowski who flourishes at the opportunity to play in the top9

It's such a risky deal.

[saXon]

Eberle had a huge year and he has settled down and hasn't matched it since. Evander Kane also had a huge year and is no where near as valued as where people had him off his rookie season.

Yes he fills a need, however I'd reel it in a little before making huge offers for the kid.

[Love]

Originally Posted by saXon

Eberle had a huge year and he has settled down and hasn't matched it since. Evander Kane also had a huge year and is no where near as valued as where people had him off his rookie season.

Yes he fills a need, however I'd reel it in a little before making huge offers for the kid.

Eberle's career year came in a season where he shot 6% above his career averages (18%). Patrnak is a sniper who essentially shot right in line with his career averages (13%).

Schiefele would be a better comparison for the Eberle-like explosive point totals.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Love

Dude, Pastrnak just scored 70 points in 75 games as a 20 year old. He's going to be elite for the next decade+. Bruins laugh and hang-up at that offer

Dude, the Bruins are having problems signing Pastrnak. Did you not read the OP?

I think the Flames have the pieces to get Pastrnak, but doing so would hurt them in many ways. Salary demands appear to be high, so that is something to consider. Also, what do you have to give up? How many pieces, and how bad does it hurt you long term. Treliving has already sold out a big chunk of the future, so losing more futures is likely not in the plans for this team. Not unless they want to have a rebuild in three years that makes this last one look like a walk in the park.

Personally, I don't trade Bennett for Pastrnak, mostly because of his upside and the cost of his contract. If I'm moving a player, I'm moving Backlund. Brining in a player with Pastrnak's salary demands means you have to move a player with big salary demands out. You require cost certainty at a lower level than what Backlund is going to provide. Frankly, it would be stupid to trade Bennett for Pastrnk, pay Pastrnak big bank, then all of a sudden have to pay Backlund to the point where you are forced to move him too. You're better off to move that larger salary for Pastrnk. If Backlund is likely going to cost you $6M, then you can't afford Pastrnak.

The hope would be that you move the expected big salary, along with a defensive prospect, for Pastrnak and then sign him for the same as Gaudreau/Monahan. If you can do that, then you're way better off long term from a salary perspective, as you're still staring down big salaries in Bennett and Tkachuk in another two or three years. You have to keep all of this in mind. You just can't keep trading young cost controlled players for big salaries. It just doesn't work if you want to be competitive long term.

[robaur]

Originally Posted by saXon

Eberle had a huge year and he has settled down and hasn't matched it since. Evander Kane also had a huge year and is no where near as valued as where people had him off his rookie season.

Yes he fills a need, however I'd reel it in a little before making huge offers for the kid.

I guess you don't watchba lot of Pastrnak so I'll excuse you comparing him to 2 flawed players. Eberle and Kane have the hockey IQ of gummy bears.

Pastrnak is the real deal. If the Bruins trade him away, they would be trading a player capable of putting up Seguin type numbers. He's that good. Think about that.