Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOfan
I mentioned this about a month ago - Markstrom and Andersson for Marner then flip Marner to Utah for 6OA and Barrett Hayton.
Can update that to:
Kadri and Andersson for Marner
Marner to Utah for 6OA and Hayton.
I could see Hayton having interest. He’s a C and in that age group Conroy has indicated he’s after.
Except you would have to get Marner to waive, twice, for such a scenario to occur.
He (agent) has said they do not have interest in doing so even once.
Now, if a team is sitting there with a 100M dollar extension ready to roll AND Marner wants to go to said team, then it's a possibility. Otherwise its merely fantasy stuff.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
I mentioned this about a month ago - Markstrom and Andersson for Marner then flip Marner to Utah for 6OA and Barrett Hayton.
Can update that to:
Kadri and Andersson for Marner
Marner to Utah for 6OA and Hayton.
I could see Hayton having interest. He’s a C and in that age group Conroy has indicated he’s after.
I can be wrong on values, but a scoring winger just doesn't bring back as much.
Guentzel was just traded for Bunting + Ponomarev(B+ prospect) + Luciuc(B prospect) + Koivunen(B+ prospect) + 2nd. Carolina essentialy gave up their 6th, 7th, and 9th best prospects in the deal.
Giroux brought back a great package of Tippet + 1st + 3rd
Stone was traded for Lindberg + Brannstrom+ 2nd.
Defensemen like Andersson (Chychrun) brought back 1st + 2 x 2nds. I think we'd just have an easier time trading Andersson, or maybe a 3 way trade is the way to go.
With Andersson traded, could something like Mangiapane (50% retained) + Pelletier + Vancouver’s 2024 first round pick (27th overall) + Dallas’s 2nd round pick (61st overall) be enough to get 15th overall from Detroit? Too much? Too little?
I can't imagine why Detroit would trade pick # 15 for a collection of stuff. If they were to trade the pick #15, they would want one piece that would improve their team right now. Maybe for Andersson. But not for some stuff headlined by Mangiapane. If they really wanted him, they could likely offer Calgary a pick past the first round to get him.
Seems like the Flames could take on one of these players, maybe even two. Probably not interested in a G but one D and one of Kotkaniemi or Glass could be of interest. Good way to build some more draft capital.
If the Flames make a move like this, I think it further signify’s they’ve accepted they are in a rebuild.
Faksa fits the need of a reliable #3/4 C who can carry some of the defensive load. Would be easy to flip him at the deadline. He does have an NTC though.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 06-25-2024 at 07:28 AM.
I can be wrong on values, but a scoring winger just doesn't bring back as much.
Guentzel was just traded for Bunting + Ponomarev(B+ prospect) + Luciuc(B prospect) + Koivunen(B+ prospect) + 2nd. Carolina essentialy gave up their 6th, 7th, and 9th best prospects in the deal.
Giroux brought back a great package of Tippet + 1st + 3rd
Stone was traded for Lindberg + Brannstrom+ 2nd.
Defensemen like Andersson (Chychrun) brought back 1st + 2 x 2nds. I think we'd just have an easier time trading Andersson, or maybe a 3 way trade is the way to go.
Yeah, the 6th overall isn’t moving for a UFA. Toronto fans will be mad if he gets traded
The Following User Says Thank You to Bonded For This Useful Post:
Except you would have to get Marner to waive, twice, for such a scenario to occur.
He (agent) has said they do not have interest in doing so even once.
Now, if a team is sitting there with a 100M dollar extension ready to roll AND Marner wants to go to said team, then it's a possibility. Otherwise its merely fantasy stuff.
Well, if it’s a three way deal I suppose, yes, Marner would have to technically waive twice but if he knows the final destination is Utah, I doubt it’s much of a concern as long as he’s willing to go.
The Following User Says Thank You to TOfan For This Useful Post:
Kotkaniemi is the kind of move that make a lot of sense for where a team like the Flames is at. He's young and talented but has never quite figured it out. The Canes want to get out from under his contract, but it's not such a boat anchor that it screws you if it doesn't work out.
The contract is also not so bad that the Canes will have to add much to dump it. Maybe they bite on Mangiapane on an expring deal, straight up, though Flames might have to retain 30% or so.
Whether or not it's Kotkaniemi, these are the kind of deals I think (and hope) we see Conroy making over the next couple of years.
The Following User Says Thank You to liamenator For This Useful Post:
Wasn't sure where to post this or if it's even been posted from a couple days ago:
Love CC interviews. The guy gives a better peak behind the curtain than any GM I've ever seen.
Love the part where he talks about signing contracts with players and making sure that they aren't untradeable the second they are signed. Both the team and player need to recognize that if moving forward the fit isn't there anymore, you need to have a contract that isn't a poison pill. If you do then you're both stuck with each other, like it or not.
I imagine the Huberdeau contract is front and center as example #1. I wouldn't be surprised if Huberdeau at some point asked for a trade and it's basically "sorry dude, that bloated deal you signed??? That's your one way ticket to nowhere-ville, no GM on the planet will trade for that thing"
Kotkaniemi is the kind of move that make a lot of sense for where a team like the Flames is at. He's young and talented but has never quite figured it out. The Canes want to get out from under his contract, but it's not such a boat anchor that it screws you if it doesn't work out.
The contract is also not so bad that the Canes will have to add much to dump it. Maybe they bite on Mangiapane on an expring deal, straight up, though Flames might have to retain 30% or so.
Whether or not it's Kotkaniemi, these are the kind of deals I think (and hope) we see Conroy making over the next couple of years.
If they are looking at buying out Kotkaniemi I would gladly take him for future considerations.
His underlying's remain pretty strong, he played at a 40 point pace over his first two seasons in Carolina, his production decline last year was almost entirely shooting percentage driven.
Even if he's just a 40 point, middle 6 forward, $4.8M is not going to be an issue when the cap is above $90M. But if he could develop a bit more then it has the upside of being a potential bargain.
If he was like a 15th overall pick people would be fine with his progression, but since he was a top 3 pick, that was then given a foolish offer sheet, he gets more flack than maybe he should.
Last edited by SuperMatt18; 06-25-2024 at 09:31 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SuperMatt18 For This Useful Post:
I can't imagine why Detroit would trade pick # 15 for a collection of stuff. If they were to trade the pick #15, they would want one piece that would improve their team right now. Maybe for Andersson. But not for some stuff headlined by Mangiapane. If they really wanted him, they could likely offer Calgary a pick past the first round to get him.
You’re probably right. Would still love to use a combination of pieces to try and get a third pick on the top 15 (assuming, in this scenario, Andersson is traded to NJ for 10th overall). What about this:
To Detroit: Coleman (50% retained) + 27th overall + Posposil
To Calgary: 15th overall
That’s honestly probably an over-pay by Calgary. That’s a 30-goal scorer with grit and leadership who has won two cups, a first round pick + a young center/wing with speed, physicality and grit. This trade effectively makes the flames one of, if not the softest teams in the league and would be a tough pill to swallow unless a really good player was available at 15th overall.
You’re probably right. Would still love to use a combination of pieces to try and get a third pick on the top 15 (assuming, in this scenario, Andersson is traded to NJ for 10th overall). What about this:
To Detroit: Coleman (50% retained) + 27th overall + Posposil
To Calgary: 15th overall
That’s honestly probably an over-pay by Calgary. That’s a 30-goal scorer with grit and leadership who has won two cups, a first round pick + a young center/wing with speed, physicality and grit. This trade effectively makes the flames one of, if not the softest teams in the league and would be a tough pill to swallow unless a really good player was available at 15th overall.
That's a big overpay by Calgary.
50% retention on Coleman and Pospisil is worth a lot more than moving up 12 picks.
Coleman ($2.45M @ 50% retained) for 15th Overall is pretty close to fair value on it's own, no need to add the other pieces. Retaining the 50% is worth about 25th OV on it's own according to puckpedia cap value.
Last edited by SuperMatt18; 06-25-2024 at 09:42 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to SuperMatt18 For This Useful Post:
You’re probably right. Would still love to use a combination of pieces to try and get a third pick on the top 15 (assuming, in this scenario, Andersson is traded to NJ for 10th overall). What about this:
To Detroit: Coleman (50% retained) + 27th overall + Posposil
To Calgary: 15th overall
That’s honestly probably an over-pay by Calgary. That’s a 30-goal scorer with grit and leadership who has won two cups, a first round pick + a young center/wing with speed, physicality and grit. This trade effectively makes the flames one of, if not the softest teams in the league and would be a tough pill to swallow unless a really good player was available at 15th overall.
Yikes. That's absolutely atrocious for the Flames.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to HighLifeMan For This Useful Post:
50% retention on Coleman and Pospisil is worth a lot more than moving up 12 picks.
Coleman ($2.45M @ 50% retained) for 15th Overall is pretty close to fair value on it's own, no need to add the other pieces. Retaining the 50% is worth about 25th OV on its own according to puckpedia cap value.
True. I like Coleman a lot and it’s unlikely the flames would trade him as he’s a great veteran for the rebuild and I think he wants to be here. But if a high upside player is still available at 15, it might be worth it if it’s pretty much just him with retained salary) for 15th overall.
50% retention on Coleman and Pospisil is worth a lot more than moving up 12 picks.
Coleman ($2.45M @ 50% retained) for 15th Overall is pretty close to fair value on it's own, no need to add the other pieces. Retaining the 50% is worth about 25th OV on it's own according to puckpedia cap value.
I'd need to see who is available at 15 and even then it's Coleman plus 28th OR Pospisil at the very most.
PS - why is everyone saying Calgary's 27OA. They are 28.
True. I like Coleman a lot and it’s unlikely the flames would trade him as he’s a great veteran for the rebuild and I think he wants to be here. But if a high upside player is still available at 15, it might be worth it if it’s pretty much just him with retained salary) for 15th overall.
Ya that 15th might turn into Pospisil in a few years...
You’re probably right. Would still love to use a combination of pieces to try and get a third pick on the top 15 (assuming, in this scenario, Andersson is traded to NJ for 10th overall). What about this:
To Detroit: Coleman (50% retained) + 27th overall + Posposil
To Calgary: 15th overall
That’s honestly probably an over-pay by Calgary. That’s a 30-goal scorer with grit and leadership who has won two cups, a first round pick + a young center/wing with speed, physicality and grit. This trade effectively makes the flames one of, if not the softest teams in the league and would be a tough pill to swallow unless a really good player was available at 15th overall.
ew brother ew
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
