Quote:
Originally Posted by Monahammer
The fundamental thing I think we disagree on is the purpose of moving Gaudreau. In my mind, we should only move him if the offer blows my hair back (for the record, Lindholm-Hanifin qualified as that in my eyes.)
|
You sure about that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monahammer
I think we lost this trade. Hanifin has not looked as good as Hamilton at any level. Lindholm is a nice addition but I still think it doesn't make up the loss of dougie. Fox should have gotten us a bit more.
|
Seems you didn't have a really good initial feeling about this trade. Almost like your hair wasn't blown back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monahammer
The reason we are moving him shouldn't be to gain extra cap flexibility, that is stupid as he's on a bargain contract. I see plenty of opportunities out there that don't involve us handicapping the team into the future just to offload the team's (arguably) current best player- and frankly I think we should just keep him if the only options available are big salary contracts coming back to us.
|
The reason we move any player is to make the team better. You do that by finding players that can contribute to your team and earn wins. We know that our areas of weakness are a top RW, a second line center, and a RD. You make a deal on your needs, and if you believe your window of opportunity is only the next three years, you aren't trading for draft picks or junior age kids. You trade for the best resources that can help you win during that window of opportunity. I believe our window of opportunity is until 2023-24 season, when a number of contracts come off the books. That is the focus. I want the most players that can contribute for the next three seasons and make the Flames a winner during that period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monahammer
The last line of your post rings true: we need to find cost controlled players that can step in and contribute. Voracek is not at all one of these, neither are Nelson and Murray. I guess you should listen to your own advice when formulating trades for our best player.
|
And how does that jive with "
And yes, there will be some salary coming back that is likely going to make the locals upset. This is part and parcel of trades in the NHL. Salary has to fit into both budgets, not just one based on their available cap space. Cap space is only valuable if you can use it, and then if you use it on players that can provide value. Having almost $8M in dead cap space really hurts the Flames. This is something Treliving is going to have to work on"?
The cost controlled players are the ones that come as the other components of the trade and those we promote from within to cover the slots made by departing players. So while you may get three players in return for what Calgary gives up, you're going to eat a salary but have it balanced out by the cost controlled players. So in the Philly deal that you struggle to get your head around, you are sending $10.081 out and getting $9.792 back. You are saving a hair on the trade. Now where it gets interesting is that you get a young defenseman and a young forward that will keep the cost of Voracek's contract in check over a period of time. That makes that contract easier to take on and provides a greater lift. That is where the foresight of weighing your needs and finding players to address those larger needs is required. Those cost controlled players can make eating a more expensive contract work out.