[Rumour] Buffalo's and Florida's 1st round picks are in play

[djsFlames]

Would deal Max Reinhart before Granlund every day of the week (in deal for 1st OA).

Markus' ceiling is definitely higher and we already have a good number of 3rd liner NHLers coming up the pipeline.

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by codynw

That's ridiculous, Reinhart is probably the most likely to be there are 4th.

Im not sure why you would think that. I hope you are right though. Id prefer to have Reinhart out of the top 3 centers so bring it on.

[ForeverFlameFan]

I think it'd be best to trade Buffalo and just pick Ekblad if Florida does not.

[Cflames_12.5]

Forgive me if someone already posted this. But Vancouver should be the most aggressive to trade up. They fell from the top hard. This would be the perfect time . New GM team and a team in desperate need of a shake up. Benning could remake his team and could start with a 1st OA

[Psytic]

Not worth it for us unless it's like Hudler and a second plus a throw in like Hanowski. Only way I trade is if we are keeping our first rounder and not including any high end prospects. I might do Backlund and Hudler for another top 5 first and a second rounder.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Cflames_12

Forgive me if someone already posted this. But Vancouver should be the most aggressive to trade up. They fell from the top hard. This would be the perfect time . New GM team and a team in desperate need of a shake up. Benning could remake his team and could start with a 1st OA

There you go, now you are posting well.

I like what sureLoss posted, and that's a three way trade with Florida.

Florida would get the 2nd round pick from the Flames, and maybe Vancouver can provide the NHL ready player.

The Flames get the 1st OA, Vancouver gets the 4th OA, and Florida gets the 6th OA pick.

Everybody does win in this scenario.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Cflames_12

Forgive me if someone already posted this. But Vancouver should be the most aggressive to trade up. They fell from the top hard. This would be the perfect time . New GM team and a team in desperate need of a shake up. Benning could remake his team and could start with a 1st OA

They absolutely should look at trading up, but I don't think they will. I think they still believe they're contenders, which is hilarious.

[Cflames_12.5]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

There you go, now you are posting well.

I like what sureLoss posted, and that's a three way trade with Florida.

Florida would get the 2nd round pick from the Flames, and maybe Vancouver can provide the NHL ready player.

The Flames get the 1st OA, Vancouver gets the 4th OA, and Florida gets the 6th OA pick.

Everybody does win in this scenario.

I would have a tough time being part of a trade that made Vancouver better. They are my most hated team.

[thethumwood]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

There you go, now you are posting well.

I like what sureLoss posted, and that's a three way trade with Florida.

Florida would get the 2nd round pick from the Flames, and maybe Vancouver can provide the NHL ready player.

The Flames get the 1st OA, Vancouver gets the 4th OA, and Florida gets the 6th OA pick.

Everybody does win in this scenario.

I don't think this would happen, no way Vancouver gives up the NHL ready player to FLA just to move up to 4th OA especially when all the Flames would be giving up is the 2nd rounder..? I don't think so...

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I liked the idea of the 3 way deal a user proposed earlier with Vancouver and move up to 1st via brokering the deal.

We could give a late round pick + a low/mid grade prospect (nothing significant) to Fla
Vancouver (or whoever is 5th+) gives a key piece to Fla (but not enough value for 1st)
Fla moves down to where Vancouver (or whoever) is
Vanc moves to 4th
We move to 1st

I wonder what ideas some of you may have for 3 way trades because these 2 way trades are... yeah, let's just move on.

This doesn't really make sense at all to me. Not a 3 way deal. Flames give up 4th overall, another pick and prospect for 1st ov. Florida can trade with the stank Canucks then, if they want a swap of picks to move down again.
On Flames side, depends on which pick and which prospect... but mostly depends on whether on not the Flames think there is truly a #1 guy, who they otherwise won't get a shot at.

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by thethumwood

I don't think this would happen, no way Vancouver gives up the NHL ready player to FLA just to move up to 4th OA especially when all the Flames would be giving up is the 2nd rounder..? I don't think so...

Flames give up 4th OA and 2nd rounder
- get 1st OA
Van gives up 6th OA and player
- get 4th OA
FLA gives up 1st OA
- get 6th OA, 2nd rounder, and player

Flames add a 2nd rounder to move up 3 spots... reasonable
Van gives up a player to move into the "percieved top 4" echelon of this draft.

It isn't horrible, but if I were Vancouver, and I was doing that already, why wouldn't I just add the 2nd rounder and get 1st OA?

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

This doesn't really make sense at all to me. Not a 3 way deal. Flames give up 4th overall, another pick and prospect for 1st ov. Florida can trade with the stank Canucks then, if they want a swap of picks to move down again.
On Flames side, depends on which pick and which prospect... but mostly depends on whether on not the Flames think there is truly a #1 guy, who they otherwise won't get a shot at.

No point in letting personal opinions of teams affect the business of hockey. Besides, if we can apparently trade with Edmonton, we can trade with anyone I guess...

[ForeverFlameFan]

What if Florida was just trading picks with us, and then they traded Vancouver one of the 2nds we gave and the 4th OA for their 6th OA and Edler?

CGY: 1st OA + 61st OA

FLA: 6th OA + 54th OA + Edler

VAN: 4th OA + 34th OA

[thethumwood]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

Flames give up 4th OA and 2nd rounder
- get 1st OA
Van gives up 6th OA and player
- get 4th OA
FLA gives up 1st OA
- get 6th OA, 2nd rounder, and player

Flames add a 2nd rounder to move up 3 spots... reasonable
Van gives up a player to move into the "percieved top 4" echelon of this draft.

It isn't horrible, but if I were Vancouver, and I was doing that already, why wouldn't I just add the 2nd rounder and get 1st OA?

Exactly my thoughts, it would be an INCREDIBLE deal for the Flames, but makes absolutely no sense for Vancouver.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

No point in letting personal opinions of teams affect the business of hockey. Besides, if we can apparently trade with Edmonton, we can trade with anyone I guess...

That's not the point.
Flames are trading with Florida for first ov. Period.

Florida keeps 4th ov or trades down again - to Vancouver or otherwise, doesn't matter. Not in anyway related to Flames deal and not a 'three-way'.

[mile]

Originally Posted by Scorponok

Consider the 2015 draft next year as well. If the center depth there is great, even after McDavid and Eichel, and the Flames think they'll be picking high next year, then it makes sense to grab a defenseman this year. If the defensive prospect is really good next year, then there's a good chance the Flames will be able to grab one when the first two or three picks are gonna be forwards. Then it would make sense to get a forward this year.

I think if the Flames trade up, it'll be to get Reinhart.

It's hard to draft on assumptions about where you will finish next year though - I would prefer the Flames standing pat at #4 and pick the best player available in this draft, and then worry about the 2015 draft afterwards.

Usually there are always top players at each position available in every draft - so I'm not worried about getting Reinhart/Bennett/Draisaitl as a few others might be because they feel those three aren't true #1 centers and that this might be our best chance to nab a #1 defenseman in Ekblad - I'm sure there will be some great defensemen next year. Similarly, I'd be happy with Ekblad this year cause I'm positive there will be great centers in next year's draft as well.

[Jacks]

Don't know why that doesn't make sense.

We move from 4th to 1st, the picks are very close in value so a 2nd rounder is fair compensation. That is also the value previous trades have brought.

Van moves from 6th to 4th. There seems to be a fairly big margin between the top 4 and pick #6 so a roster player is reasonable compensation.

Florida moves from 1st to 6th and gets a 2nd rounder and a roster player.

That is fair for all 3 parties. If we want Ekblad then we should do it, if we want a centre then we shouldn't IMO.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Don't know why that doesn't make sense.

We move from 4th to 1st, the picks are very close in value so a 2nd rounder is fair compensation. That is also the value previous trades have brought.

Van moves from 6th to 4th. There seems to be a fairly big margin between the top 4 and pick #6 so a roster player is reasonable compensation.

Florida moves from 1st to 6th and gets a 2nd rounder and a roster player.

That is fair for all 3 parties.

That's fine. Florida makes a couple trades. Moves down twice.
Simply not a three way deal. That's all I meant not making sense - calling it that. It's not

[Jacks]

^^ Ok, I see what you're saying, sorry.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Psytic

Not worth it for us unless it's like Hudler and a second plus a throw in like Hanowski. Only way I trade is if we are keeping our first rounder and not including any high end prospects. I might do Backlund and Hudler for another top 5 first and a second rounder.

You think Backlund+Hudler is worth a top 5 pick and a 2nd?

I am sorry if I am reading that wrong but in no world are those 2 players close to get that package. Backlund might be worth a mid first and Hudler a late first and so-so prospect.