Friedman: Flames, Treliving have to show young guys they want to win at deadline - Page 7 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Flame4Ever · 02-25-2015, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Flames 1st should be untouchable.

While I agree with you for the most part, what if it got you a stud young D, say OEL from Arizona?
I am not implying that Arizona would do this, but I wouldn't mind seeing our 1st traded for a player under 25 who is a top 3 D with lots (4+ years) of term at a reasonable cap hit.

Hackey · 02-25-2015, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Agreed. I'd be a bit more open to moving the 1st in 2016, but the deal as a whole has to make sense. Kessel is awfully tempting though.

I don't want to trade either but I'd probably be more open to this year's pick. We already know it likely won't be very good. If this team takes a step back next year it could easily be a top 10 pick which would really hurt.

codynw · 02-25-2015, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackey

I don't want to trade either but I'd probably be more open to this year's pick. We already know it likely won't be very good. If this team takes a step back next year it could easily be a top 10 pick which would really hurt.

Yep. That's what Ottawa did in the Bobby Ryan deal, and Anaheim got a top 10 pick out of it.

Flash Walken · 02-25-2015, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flame4Ever

While I agree with you for the most part, what if it got you a stud young D, say OEL from Arizona?
I am not implying that Arizona would do this, but I wouldn't mind seeing our 1st traded for a player under 25 who is a top 3 D with lots (4+ years) of term at a reasonable cap hit.

Use the 1st to get our own OEL, enjoy 3 years of ELC cap hit, sign to long term deal when team is ready.

sureLoss · 02-25-2015, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flame4Ever

While I agree with you for the most part, what if it got you a stud young D, say OEL from Arizona?
I am not implying that Arizona would do this, but I wouldn't mind seeing our 1st traded for a player under 25 who is a top 3 D with lots (4+ years) of term at a reasonable cap hit.

Yeah I would consider doing it for OEL. But a 1st and likely Poirier plus a roster player is what it is going to cost.

codynw · 02-25-2015, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Use the 1st to get our own OEL, enjoy 3 years of ELC cap hit, sign to long term deal when team is ready.

Yea, just draft your own top defenceman! Like it's not something that's difficult to do or anything like that.

SuperMatt18 · 02-25-2015, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Use the 1st to get our own OEL, enjoy 3 years of ELC cap hit, sign to long term deal when team is ready.

But then you have more risk.

Keep your own pick and you might get an OEL but you might also get a Tim Erixon.

J epworth · 02-25-2015, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

To Leafs:
CGY 1st in 2015
Sven Baertchi
Mason Raymond

To Flames
Phil Kessel
TOR 3rd in 2015

I make that trade.

I'm against the grain on this one it seems, but I think Leafs would want more for Kessel than that actually. I think they would want say a conditional 2nd in 2016 if the Flames make the playoffs this year added on in case the 1st ends up not being a top 16 pick.

SuperMatt18 · 02-25-2015, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Agreed. I'd be a bit more open to moving the 1st in 2016, but the deal as a whole has to make sense. Kessel is awfully tempting though.

No way should we be moving future first rounder's.

If you move a first it is this years. You know it will be in the 10-20 range.

Next year's could easily be a top 5 pick again.

First should be untouchable...unless it is getting you a top pairing d-man under the age of 25.

I would look at moving it for OEL, but probably not in a deal for Kessel.

Caged Great · 02-25-2015, 01:25 PM

I am hoping that the Flames don't do something stupid for the short term.

If a trade is there that makes sense for the 2017-2018 season and the price is right, then you consider it. This season as much as we'd like to see the playoffs, still does not matter because they are rebuilding. Sacrificing assets just to make the playoffs this year, at the expense of the future is the wrong move.

If anything, the Flames should sell more heavily if the prices are high enough on our 2nd/3rd line guys like Jones and Glencross.

Buster · 02-25-2015, 01:26 PM

Isn't the idea on taking on an albatross contract that it doesn't impact us before the window where we expect to be competitive?

Kessel's term doesn't fit that.

Five-hole · 02-25-2015, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Yeah I would consider doing it for OEL. But a 1st and likely Poirier plus a roster player is what it is going to cost.

Depending on the roster player I do that for sure. Not sure why Arizona would make this trade, frankly.

Obsidian · 02-25-2015, 01:27 PM

If you can bring in a game breaker - you know, the kind that would take the game on his shoulders offensively and make things happen, so as we don't lose games like last night 1-0 - in a larger deal that involves Glen or picks/prospects, you have to consider it at this point.

We have to give our guys some kind of boost, otherwise it'll be a season of good fortune wasted if we can't turn it around in short order.

Cflames_12.5 · 02-25-2015, 01:35 PM

I think now that we are deeper then we ever have been prospect wise people are getting way to emotionally attached to them. If the deal is there to improve your team you have to take it. I think we are pretty close to seeing our core with the big team right now minus maybe Bennett and Poirier. You don't see big free agents anymore and most likely would have to be acquired through trade. I'd would be dangling the first out there to see if we could pull off a block buster trade. Teams that are ending their cycle might be more inclined to part with their superstars knowing that are 1st rounder could end up a top 10. But if you are getting the right package back that shouldn't matter.

Cleveland Steam Whistle · 02-25-2015, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

Isn't the idea on taking on an albatross contract that it doesn't impact us before the window where we expect to be competitive?

Kessel's term doesn't fit that.

I think the issue with your statement is the date in which the albatross contract becomes and issue is wrong. Doesn't matter as much if the contract still impacts us once we are competitive, what matters is if it impacts us once the main reasons we are competitive (aka the new core of kids) need contract re-extensions that start to get impacted by the albatross contract.

That's a little black and white, of course there could be scenarios where the kids contracts aren't up yet, we become competitive and we can't tweak the line up at the deadline the way we'd want because the albatross prevents it, but holistically its ok to have bad contract as long as it doesn't prevent the extension of our new core.

Kessel's deal likely shouldn't impact that.

Cleveland Steam Whistle · 02-25-2015, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

To begin, those situations are not comparable.

I never pissed and moaned that Sven hasn't received the same treatment as Colborne. Sven hasn't even been in the position to be waiver eligible yet.

In the case, I was referring to the odd sentiment from the usual suspects (again, it's the same posters every time) that Sven had proven less than Colborne, which as I have proven in other threads, is obviously incorrect.

In any case, my motivation is team success. That's why I am high on Baertschi.

And just as in this case of building for the future, I am motivated by team success. So as you will understand, I have never swayed in my opinion. One thought does not contradict the other.

How is this even possible considering Colborne is a much better player at this point in time?

Hackey · 02-25-2015, 01:46 PM

I'd consider moving our 2015 1st for OEL but would stay away from Kessel.

2015 1st + Granlund + Klimchuk.

That's kind of assuming the Coyotes want to deal him.

Flame4Ever · 02-25-2015, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Yeah I would consider doing it for OEL. But a 1st and likely Poirier plus a roster player is what it is going to cost.

Who knows what the cost is?
I would prefer not to part with Poirier and Bennett.
If it were something like 1 st + Baertschi/Klimchuk + 2nd and you can recoup the 2nd rounder in the Glencross trade, then I think that would be great.

I can't think of any other young players that may be moved that I would want to trade that 1st for though.

Ashasx · 02-25-2015, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

How is this even possible considering Colborne is a much better player at this point in time?

Uh, when Colborne first became waiver eligible (September 2013), he had 1 goal and 6 points in 16 NHL games.

Please understand before you get mad at me for things that were discussed in other threads.

Cleveland Steam Whistle · 02-25-2015, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Uh, when Colborne first became waiver eligible (September 2013), he had 1 goal and 6 points in 16 NHL games.

Please understand before you get mad at me for things that were discussed in other threads.

Oh I understood, just didn't realize you were only using point totals to evaluate players. This might be your entire issue when it comes to this topic.