2021/2022 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[Toonage]

The majority of rumors are from agents. Occasionally family, and for a time Dave Nonis.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

No I don't. Some of them have connections to teams and agents.

Well then we disagree. Feel free to start a “no speculation, tv pundit rumours only” thread.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Well then we disagree. Feel free to start a “no speculation, tv pundit rumours only” thread.

Why would I do that? We can just agreed to disagree and move on.

[Monahammer]

The other part of the thread title is "speculation" so if you don't like it, don't read it. It does suck there haven't been rumors but some of us genuinely enjoy throwing different #### at the wall to see what could stick.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I don’t know if I can agree with this.

But riding Rittich when Talbot was undeniably the guy was one of the worst player management decisions I can recall.

You must have put the decision to play Brodie on the left side where he is weak, instead of the right side where he is excellent, out of your mind. A wise choice if you want to remain a sane Flames fan.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by dammage79

There hasn't been any legit rumors for a while. It's kind 9f freaky how quiet it is overall league wide.

But yeah, this threads dead with no new content to chew on. Just and endless circle.

Fans love trades and trade rumours. But maybe it’s time to recognize that 90 per cent of player movement in the NHL today happens at the draft and the first two weeks of UFA availability. Even the trade deadline has become a damp squib.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

You can of course disagree with my opinion on Talbot vs Markstrom all you want
But I hope you do agree that over a large sample size, .915 is better than .910

The team has made plenty of poor player management decisions

I can see your point. The cap saved on Markstrom could have went towards help up front or on defense which was needed.

But I do get why they were worried about giving Talbot term at the time.

When you look at the three seasons prior to that offseason Talbot was coming off two very bad seasons, and it was really only a strong 20 game stretch with the Flames that had helped his stats.

Talbot
17-18: .908 SV%, -9.41 GSAA
18-19: .892 SV%, -18.14 GSAA
19-20 : .919, 7.56 GSAA

Markstrom
17-18: .912 SV%, -0.69 GSAA
18-19: .912, 4.88 GSAA
19-20 : .918, 11.45 GSAA

Markstrom had been much more consistent in the three season run up to that 2020 offseason, and was 3 years younger. I get why Treliving went with what he thought was the more stable and projectable signing long term. I think he was worried that Talbot could end up in a Smith or Elliott situation again.

[ComixZone]

When I look back at the Stars/Flames series, I think Treliving ultimately learned the wrong lesson from that series.

Signing Markstrom over Talbot was and still is a good decision - but the goalie upgrade was not the only piece that he should have keyed in on. Both Talbot and Ward were effectively “free agents”, Ward didn’t have a contract for the HC job, and it remains baffling to me that he watched that Stars series and moved away from Talbot but kept Ward. The right choice in my eyes was to move on from both - but if for whatever reason one had to be kept and one had to move on, the wrong choice was made.

[GioforPM]

The initial criticism was that Treliving hadn't made big moves in the past 4 offseasons outside of the Hamilton trade. I simply argue that Markstrom and Tanev were big moves. Whether they were successful is another story, and especially with Markstrom, one that is hardly finished.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The initial criticism was that Treliving hadn't made big moves in the past 4 offseasons outside of the Hamilton trade. I simply argue that Markstrom and Tanev were big moves. Whether they were successful is another story, and especially with Markstrom, one that is hardly finished.

21/22 Roster: Markstrom, Tanev, Coleman = $15.4M

19/20 Roster: Gio, Brodie, Hamonic = $15.3M

That's the change to the "Core" that people say didn't happen. Three core pieces out, three core pieces in and the only players remaining from the 17/18 roster are Gaudreau, Backlund, Monahan, Tkachuk.

The real issue with this equation isn't that we didn't make "big changes", it's that we didn't recoup any assets for Gio, Brodie, or Hamonic. That's the mistake that Treliving made. He changed the core, but didn't recoup any assets for the pieces that were going out.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

When I look back at the Stars/Flames series, I think Treliving ultimately learned the wrong lesson from that series.

Signing Markstrom over Talbot was and still is a good decision - but the goalie upgrade was not the only piece that he should have keyed in on. Both Talbot and Ward were effectively “free agents”, Ward didn’t have a contract for the HC job, and it remains baffling to me that he watched that Stars series and moved away from Talbot but kept Ward. The right choice in my eyes was to move on from both - but if for whatever reason one had to be kept and one had to move on, the wrong choice was made.

I still don't think bringing Ward back was plan "A"

Treliving said on the radio that they'd have a decision "in a week" but then it went on three weeks, Laviolette signs in Washington, and Ward is named the next day.

Some have said they approached Sutter too.

I think they had a heck of a time getting a coach or two to come here and Ward was the fall back plan.

(lots of conjecture in there clearly)

Talbot they had to move on from ... he was a shooter tutor in that series. In the way often enough, but missed pretty much any shot towards a corner.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

21/22 Roster: Markstrom, Tanev, Coleman = $15.4M

19/20 Roster: Gio, Brodie, Hamonic = $15.3M

That's the change to the "Core" that people say didn't happen. Three core pieces out, three core pieces in and the only players remaining from the 17/18 roster are Gaudreau, Backlund, Monahan, Tkachuk.

The real issue with this equation isn't that we didn't make "big changes", it's that we didn't recoup any assets for Gio, Brodie, or Hamonic. That's the mistake that Treliving made. He changed the core, but didn't recoup any assets for the pieces that were going out.

Very true, could be another added with Gaudreau next offseason. I worry this will be a team in the mix, we keep Gaudreau and then lose him for nothing. I guess thats where we're at though and who knows, maybe he will stay.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

21/22 Roster: Markstrom, Tanev, Coleman = $15.4M

19/20 Roster: Gio, Brodie, Hamonic = $15.3M

That's the change to the "Core" that people say didn't happen. Three core pieces out, three core pieces in and the only players remaining from the 17/18 roster are Gaudreau, Backlund, Monahan, Tkachuk.

The real issue with this equation isn't that we didn't make "big changes", it's that we didn't recoup any assets for Gio, Brodie, or Hamonic. That's the mistake that Treliving made. He changed the core, but didn't recoup any assets for the pieces that were going out.

Fair enough, but it wasn't really what I was talking about. Mind you, halfway through last year people were begging for Gio to be exposed without any deal. His turnaround was pretty late for a decent deal, and I suspect the deals weren't great (for Hamonic too). Brodie was bit of fiasco between the Kadri deal, the Markstrom delay and IMO a desire problem on Brodie's side - he wanted to go. I maintain to this day that Treliving should have traded Gio to Toronto right after the season (everyone would have been happy) and used Gio money to re-sign Brodie.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Talbot they had to move on from ... he was a shooter tutor in that series. In the way often enough, but missed pretty much any shot towards a corner.

I'm not sure this is fair to Talbot..he had a really bad game 6 against Dallas but the rest of that playoffs he was pretty good.

Overall in that post season he was .924 SV Percentage, and a 2.57 GSAA.

Against Dallas he was .913 SV% and 0.31 GSAA...and most of those struggles came in the decisive game 6 (and Ward just butchered that game from a coaching perspective too).

In Game 1-5 of that series he was great with a .927 SV percentage, and 1.64 GSAA.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Fair enough, but it wasn't really what I was talking about. Mind you, halfway through last year people were begging for Gio to be exposed without any deal. His turnaround was pretty late for a decent deal, and I suspect the deals weren't great (for Hamonic too). Brodie was bit of fiasco between the Kadri deal, the Markstrom delay and IMO a desire problem on Brodie's side - he wanted to go. I maintain to this day that Treliving should have traded Gio to Toronto right after the season (everyone would have been happy) and used Gio money to re-sign Brodie.

The problem with trading Gio to Toronto and signing Brodie was the expansion draft. The leafs gave Brodie a NMC for the first year of the deal. Calgary could have done that and signed Tanev but Tanev goes out and plays like he is our best dman. With Brodie having a NMC and Tanev a keeper do we leave Hanifin or Anderson unprotected?

Treliving messed up not getting an asset for Gio but it's a bit overblown how bad it makes him look and with the expansion draft defence protect spots are very tight league wide. IMO he made the right call leaving Gio unprotected and I'm sure it wasn't easy to do it. I'm ok if he missed on getting a pick because he didn't give up one to keep Gio

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

That's the mistake that Treliving made. He changed the core, but didn't recoup any assets for the pieces that were going out.

Nobody was going to give up assets for Giordano ahead of the expansion draft. Every team in the league had at least three defencemen they would protect ahead of a 38-year-old.

Brodie was traded for a sizeable return, but the player who represented that return vetoed the deal. If Treliving made a mistake, it was letting the clock run out by keeping Brodie as an ‘own rental’ after that.

Hamonic looked to be on his way out of the league when the Flames let him go. He was pretty bad that last season. Hard to get trade value for a guy who projects to be a replacement player at best. The real issue there is that Treliving grossly overpaid to acquire him in the first place.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Nobody was going to give up assets for Giordano ahead of the expansion draft. Every team in the league had at least three defencemen they would protect ahead of a 38-year-old.

Toronto was the team IMO.

If you are Toronto do you give up a 1st for Foligno or a 1st for Giordano?

In the end it means you either protect Gio and expose Holl. Or you expose Gio and it means you don't lose Kerfoot or McCann.

I agree with the Brodie/Hamonic points though, but really the issue was as you said in that he treated both of them as their own rentals, and then both had injury/health concerns going into the season that really limited their value at the deadline.

Ideally though he would have moved one of them going into that offseason.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

The problem with trading Gio to Toronto and signing Brodie was the expansion draft. The leafs gave Brodie a NMC for the first year of the deal. Calgary could have done that and signed Tanev but Tanev goes out and plays like he is our best dman. With Brodie having a NMC and Tanev a keeper do we leave Hanifin or Anderson unprotected?

Treliving messed up not getting an asset for Gio but it's a bit overblown how bad it makes him look and with the expansion draft defence protect spots are very tight league wide. IMO he made the right call leaving Gio unprotected and I'm sure it wasn't easy to do it. I'm ok if he missed on getting a pick because he didn't give up one to keep Gio

Yeah, expansion would have messed it up and I assume they'd have also had to make a substantial deal to save Andersson (and lose Kylington). Though Seattle made some odd moves, so who knows.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Toronto was the team IMO.

If you are Toronto do you give up a 1st for Foligno or a 1st for Giordano?

With trading for Gio it wasn't likely protecting him being the problem, it was the fact he wasn't on an expiring contract. They couldn't keep his continuing cap hit.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

With trading for Gio it wasn't likely protecting him being the problem, it was the fact he wasn't on an expiring contract. They couldn't keep his continuing cap hit.

Sure they could. They signed Brodie for about the same money.