2022/2023 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by VilleN

What should Tre have done instead?

Set deadlines for high risk assets to either extend or be traded.

It might not be fair, but the NHL isn't a fair league. The Flames, being a small market Western Canadian franchise, have to manage themselves differently than say New York or Florida. The bottom line is that you don't set yourself up to lose an asset for nothing. There were many red flags with Gaudreau being a flight risk and how it played out was pretty predictable. I totally get not trading Gaudreau mid-season with the team doing well, but the minute he said he didn't want to discuss contracts until after the season, he should have been treated as a tradable asset. Treliving displayed an inappropriate tolerance for risk IMO. I can accept that ownership may have enabled that though.

Again, not saying he should have been fired, but I don't see why he should be beyond criticism either. His job is literally to manage and protect the assets of the team, so losing a prime asset for nothing has to be considered a failure for the club.

[Bonded]

Gaudreau’s rights wouldn't have been worth much though unless the Flames took a pile of cap back and even then it seems like the market wasn't there as expected for him. Probably missed out on a third or fourth.

[saillias]

That Kadri to NYI rumor seems premature. There's some doubt about the reliability of the guys who have been "breaking" the signing.

[shutout]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

So if you think you should fire a poker player who loses on a strong hand occasionally, then soon there won’t be any poker players left.

This is what Duhastchek is always saying that the GM's now are so afraid of being fired that they avoid any risk in the transactions that they make. Their default position is status quo and familiarity.

As fans and media we should be applauding gun slinging, poker playing managers that want to make bold exciting moves instead of looking for the safe, comfortable moves when it comes to trades and signings.

[Sylvanfan]

The problem with the Gaudreau poker analogy is that in poker, the cards can't dynamically change their face value as the hand plays on. Seems like thus type of thing happened in the Gaudreau negotiations.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Set deadlines for high risk assets to either extend or be traded.

It might not be fair, but the NHL isn't a fair league. The Flames, being a small market Western Canadian franchise, have to manage themselves differently than say New York or Florida. The bottom line is that you don't set yourself up to lose an asset for nothing. There were many red flags with Gaudreau being a flight risk and how it played out was pretty predictable. I totally get not trading Gaudreau mid-season with the team doing well, but the minute he said he didn't want to discuss contracts until after the season, he should have been treated as a tradable asset. Treliving displayed an inappropriate tolerance for risk IMO. I can accept that ownership may have enabled that though.

Again, not saying he should have been fired, but I don't see why he should be beyond criticism either. His job is literally to manage and protect the assets of the team, so losing a prime asset for nothing has to be considered a failure for the club.

We don't know that he wasn't. It could be as simple as the trade return wasn't very good and Tre/owners felt he was more valuable to keep, despite the risk. We didn't lose him for nothing - he was a self-rental for a team at the culmination of its build.

I don't necessarily believe in this, but there could be some rationale that even if contending for a cup is incredibly unlikely (compared to the likes of COL/TBL/etc), there is still value in trying to 'level-up'. A sustained culture of winning has to start somewhere.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Lots of smoke about Kadri to the Islanders, but also lots of talk questioning it, including Friedman, so who knows.


I do think that Islanders are going to further regress this year. I think that team was exceeding expectations, but finally ran out of fumes. Firing Trotz is just going to further expose it, not fix it. Romanov is not a difference maker either.


I have no idea what it would take, but I would love for Treliving to make some deal with the Islanders getting their 2023 1st round pick. I look at some teams below them in the standings having made moves to improve. Columbus likely passes them, Devils will probably be more competitive. Philly sucks and will continue sucking though. However, other teams around the league are likely passing them in the standings this year too - Anaheim, Detroit (maybe) and even Buffalo. I value the Islanders pick somewhere between 5 and 10 (13th last year). Maybe getting Kadri helps them tread water for a bit, or improve though, so it makes it less appealing if that's the case.


It just strikes me that Lou is looking a bit desperate right now with the Romanov trade, and I do think his team is not looking very good. I would be happy with a trade involving swapping Calgary's 1st round pick and the Islander's first round pick for 2023 if Huberdeau and Weegar are re-signed.



If anyone is going to over-pay for Kadri this season, it is the Islanders I think.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by shutout

This is what Duhastchek is always saying that the GM's now are so afraid of being fired that they avoid any risk in the transactions that they make. Their default position is status quo and familiarity.

As fans and media we should be applauding gun slinging, poker playing managers that want to make bold exciting moves instead of looking for the safe, comfortable moves when it comes to trades and signings.

It sounds like the same kind of excuse that could be used for not trading a player a year out from unrestricted free agency. The fear of losing the trade and hurting their job security probably paralyzes them from making hard decisions that might be unpopular but need to be made. This is why I am not automatically on the "fire him" train.

Hindsight is a nice luxury to have, but I also think it is the only fair way you can judge past decisions. For what it is worth, the final season of Gaudreau was a hell of season and we got to watch what is arguably the best line in hockey for the past several years. It was a historically good line, and that is worth something.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Set deadlines for high risk assets to either extend or be traded.

It might not be fair, but the NHL isn't a fair league. The Flames, being a small market Western Canadian franchise, have to manage themselves differently than say New York or Florida. The bottom line is that you don't set yourself up to lose an asset for nothing. There were many red flags with Gaudreau being a flight risk and how it played out was pretty predictable. I totally get not trading Gaudreau mid-season with the team doing well, but the minute he said he didn't want to discuss contracts until after the season, he should have been treated as a tradable asset. Treliving displayed an inappropriate tolerance for risk IMO. I can accept that ownership may have enabled that though.

Again, not saying he should have been fired, but I don't see why he should be beyond criticism either. His job is literally to manage and protect the assets of the team, so losing a prime asset for nothing has to be considered a failure for the club.

And what would have happened differently if he had set those deadlines?

[USflamesfan]

A couple of days ago, It was Kadri to Calgary. I don't think anyone really knows. Kadri would rather go to Calgary to win instead of the Islanders right?

[Royle9]

Not even Kadri can save the Isles, they sadly are still in a terrible position.
I’d say they need a rebuild even though it feels like they have been for a while now.
Similar to the flames they refuse to scorch earth full rebuild and instead try to continually challenge.

Kadri would be a terrible large signing for them, so if Lou is that desperate let him do it.

Second to that is why would Kadri want to go there? Would have to simply be the money at this point, the Isles aren’t anywhere close to challenging and have a horribly built team with a mix of has beens and won’t be’s with a few gems sprinkled in.

Lou should be selling high and going the Chicago route for Bedard/Michkov.

[RedHawk12]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Not even Kadri can save the Isles, they sadly are still in a terrible position.
I’d say they need a rebuild even though it feels like they have been for a while now.
Similar to the flames they refuse to scorch earth full rebuild and instead try to continually challenge.

Kadri would be a terrible large signing for them, so if Lou is that desperate let him do it.

Second to that is why would Kadri want to go there? Would have to simply be the money at this point, the Isles aren’t anywhere close to challenging and have a horribly built team with a mix of has beens and won’t be’s with a few gems sprinkled in.

Lou should be selling high and going the Chicago route for Bedard/Michkov.

Isles were back to back eastern conference finalists prior to this year, losing both times to the eventual cup champs. They're one of those teams that don't look great on paper but actually play pretty well.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

Isles were back to back eastern conference finalists prior to this year, losing both times to the eventual cup champs. They're one of those teams that don't look great on paper but actually play pretty well.

And then they went and fired their coach

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

Isles were back to back eastern conference finalists prior to this year, losing both times to the eventual cup champs. They're one of those teams that don't look great on paper but actually play pretty well.

Yes, when they had Trotz coaching them. That has changed.

[Sandman]

Getting rid of Nick Leddy and Devon Toews really hurt their D as well.

[MrMike]

And combined with a pretty old forward core other than Barzal. I wouldn’t count on them ever getting back to where they were any time soon.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by VilleN

And what would have happened differently if he had set those deadlines?

We would have had something instead of nothing.

[mile]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1554285861486862339

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by mile

https://twitter.com/user/status/1554285861486862339

Good.

[Remember1989]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It sounds like the same kind of excuse that could be used for not trading a player a year out from unrestricted free agency. The fear of losing the trade and hurting their job security probably paralyzes them from making hard decisions that might be unpopular but need to be made. This is why I am not automatically on the "fire him" train.

Hindsight is a nice luxury to have, but I also think it is the only fair way you can judge past decisions. For what it is worth, the final season of Gaudreau was a hell of season and we got to watch what is arguably the best line in hockey for the past several years. It was a historically good line, and that is worth something.

Letting Johnny play this year also meant that Chucky netted 100 plus points inflating his value to enable a great return for him. So there is also that asset value mitigation angle if we are using hindsight.