Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
I'd like to see Kylington have a full season of excellence in the AHL and then have the Flames revisit this issue in the offseason if Kylington is still kyling it. 
Even then, the Flames could send him down to the AHL at the beginning of next season like they did with Andersson this season.
The one thing I wonder about is if the Flames could possibly trade one of their LHD and a RW for a goalie. I'm not sure what James Neal would be worth right now, but Nick Bonino's contract is gruesome and the Predators have approximately $6.9M in cap space. Could the Flames pull off something like this?
Neal ($5.75M) + Kylington ($0.73M) + Smith (25% retained so $3.19M) <-> Bonino ($4.10M) + Saros ($1.50M)
In this deal, the Predators take on $4.07M in salary so they would only have $2.81M in cap space left. But they have a history with Neal and perhaps that history combined with getting Kylington and ridding themselves of Bonino would be enough for them to agree to trade Saros?
It's probably a stupid suggestion |
How about we
don't trade Kylington before figuring out what we have in him? I'm personally sick of having the cost-controlled contract rights for developing players only for other teams to reap the benefits of their prime while our return is underwhelming AF (Savard, Byron, Brossoit, Granlund, St. Louis, Stralman) while we annually overpay UFAs to underperform in the same roles. I get it if the player pulls a Baertschi and requests a trade. I get it if the player you're getting back is the same calibre of prospect that fits a need better. But just packaging picks and prospects for "proven" players is how you hit the cap ceiling and still finish in 20th place.
Also we have no proof Saros is any better than Rittich. Both have been outstanding backups who are unproven in starter roles. Why not see what we have before we salivate over the Jones' version of what we have.