[News] Mike Richards on waivers - CLEARS - Page 25 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Trailer Fire · 01-27-2015, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I did give an explanation. Are you offended by 'good deal'?

I'm annoyed at the fact that a simple explanation can't be left at a simple explanation. You just had to try to belittle me and I can't quite tell why. It's not some great offence to my delicate nature, but it is an uncalled for annoyance. Maybe that's just me.

Vinny01 · 01-27-2015, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I would happily take Richards' contract if the compensation was worthwhile. Keep him through next season and then either buy him out or try to trade with some salary retained.

The Flames were asking for Toffoli for taking Richards' contract. In other words:

Richards + Toffoli for nothing (I know, the Kings don't want that deal, but that's where talks were at apparently)

You are adding Glencross and Smid and switching Toffoli for Zykov and a 2nd.

Toffoli is worth more than Zykov and a 2nd.

So you downgraded their offer AND through in Glencross and Smid.

Good deal!

How about something like

Richards + Toffoli for Smid

If the Kings wanted to make a garbage trade like that they could have done it months ago with several teams. No way they want an overpaid bottom pairing Dman for their bad contract and best young scorer.

CalgaryFan1988 · 01-27-2015, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Sorry I can't seem to find the source where Calgary asked for Toffoli . . . Can someone re-post it?

Post #415. Friedman is apparently the source.

GreenLantern2814 · 01-27-2015, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Post #415. Friedman is apparently the source.

All that means is that we're interested at an exorbitant price. Which means we're not interested at all.

CalgaryFan1988 · 01-27-2015, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

All that means is that we're interested at an exorbitant price. Which means we're not interested at all.

We're interested at an exorbitant price, which means we're interested.

Not sure why you quoted my post. ozy asked to see where all the Toffoli talk originated from, which is all I was giving him.

Like you, I think it's a pipedream though.

dustygoon · 01-27-2015, 01:36 PM

Maybe you get toffoli if you add a hanowski.

Red John · 01-27-2015, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Maybe you get toffoli if you add a hanowski.

dino7c · 01-27-2015, 02:00 PM

I don't think some of you realize how big of a problem this contract is, especially for the Kings...Kings will need to make a "bad deal" to move him

H2SO4(aq) · 01-27-2015, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dino7c

I don't think some of you realize how big of a problem this contract is, especially for the Kings...Kings will need to make a "bad deal" to move him

This. I honestly dont think its unfair to offer Raymond + Engelland for Toffoli + Richards. simply due to how awful Richards contract is.

SmoggyFlamesFan · 01-27-2015, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dino7c

I don't think some of you realize how big of a problem this contract is, especially for the Kings...Kings will need to make a "bad deal" to move him

Which is exactly why we could have that position of strength to give them that bad deal. Honestly, he is only 29 years old. His production may have dropped off as of late, but that is on a very deep kings team. There are questions raised about his contract status, and his off-ice attitude, but he has potential for HUGE upside. If we unload a bad contract in return for some decent compensation, we could potentially bring in a guy who's won EVERYTHING that you can possibly win in the game of hockey. For the right price, this guy may not be as risky as you think, and could be a huge MOTIVATOR in an increased role for our young guys.

Not only that, but when it comes time to extend the Gaudreaus, Bennetts, and Monahans, we will definitely have the cap space, as these are the cornerstones of our franchise. Think about it, CP. The prospect of Acquiring Richards isn't as bad as one might presume at first glance. It wouldn't be the first time someone resurrected their career in a change of scenery.

IF I'm being overly optimistic, feel free to say so.

killer_carlson · 01-27-2015, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

This. I honestly dont think its unfair to offer Raymond + Engelland for Toffoli + Richards. simply due to how awful Richards contract is.

That is because your offer is more accurately written as:

Cap Space + Raymond + Engelland for Toffoli + Richards

The cap space is a valuable asset and can be separately listed in these proposals

Fire · 01-27-2015, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Anyone else remember the Kiprusoff for Richards trade rumors when Richards was still with Philly?

How crazy would that have been.

D. Sutter was a huge fan of Richards. Said he would have drafted Mike Richards if Dion Phaneuf was off the board.

Vinny01 · 01-27-2015, 02:15 PM

The Richards deal is brutal but why would a team take 2 horrible contracts and include a 22 year old on a 25 goal, 55pt pace?

Kings would likely rather deal their first than TT.

djsFlames · 01-27-2015, 02:20 PM

Glencross + Raymond + Sven

For

Richards + Toffoli

Hey, I'm just spitballing, but is this the reason Sven is suddenly being played, after cooling off a bit in Adirondack?

SmoggyFlamesFan · 01-27-2015, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Glencross + Raymond + Sven

For

Richards + Toffoli

This seems like the most realistic offer/trade so far.

-TC- · 01-27-2015, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

That is because your offer is more accurately written as:

Cap Space + Raymond + Engelland for Toffoli + Richards

The cap space is a valuable asset and can be separately listed in these proposals

this is an excellent point. the Flames may not need that space this year, but our kids are going to need raises and it's nice to have the latitude to protect that...

Ozy_Flame · 01-27-2015, 02:23 PM

Including Sven? Seems too lopsided in LA's favour. Would rather move Reinhart as he seems to be stalling as of late.

FlamesAddiction · 01-27-2015, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dino7c

I don't think some of you realize how big of a problem this contract is, especially for the Kings...Kings will need to make a "bad deal" to move him

Is there a point though that the NHL just says no and doesn't approve a deal if it is so obviously one sided? I know that several years they banned trades directly for money because it is seen as detrimental to the league. If the Kings are obviously trading hockey assets for what is essentially money, would the league ever step in?

Hack&Lube · 01-27-2015, 02:27 PM

Instead of sending out Richards and another good player for nothing (or garbage) in return, it makes more sense for LA to just bury him in the minors unless there is some reason for the owners to be greedy and not want to pay him.

Oling_Roachinen · 01-27-2015, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Instead of sending out Richards and another good player for nothing (or garbage) in return, it makes more sense for LA to just bury him in the minors unless there is some reason for the owners to be greedy and not want to pay him.

They still would have most of his cap counted against them with the new(ish) rule changes.