[News] Flames unwilling to risk future for playoff push

[Igster]

But...

That doesn't mean they won't trade to make the team better. This is simply saying no "rental" players.

[Jay Random]

Treliving does appear to have his head on straight about this.

If the Flames make any moves, what I'd most like to see is a bit of positional rebalancing. Ship out (for instance) one of the young NHL-ready wingers + one of the goalies, and get back a young NHL-ready defenceman, someone who can push Engelland off the third pairing and maybe has 2nd-pairing upside in the future.

It's easier said than done, though. If there had been a way of doing such a trade before now, I'm sure Treliving would have pulled the trigger. He can read a depth chart as well as anyone else. Possibly a chance will come closer to the deadline, as teams begin to get antsy and worried GMs trap themselves into short-term thinking.

[Ryan Coke]

2nd round picks for UFA's that may or may not re sign here, and may still be available in free agency for no asset cost?

Absolutely not.

[GranteedEV]

I don't think anyone wants to trade a prospect or draft pick for a playoff push. We just want to trade Ramo/Bollig/Engelland/Smid/Raymond/Stajan/Jones/Glencross/Wideman/Hiller if the return is good.

None of those guys are the future, and whenever Treliving/Hartley feel Gillies/Wolf/Wotherspoon/Ramage/Bouma/Bennett/Jooris/Baertschi/Culkin/Ortio/Shore/Poirier/Klimchuk/Hickey/Reinhart/Arnold/Ferland/Smith are able to fill in, then guys should be available for whatever return benefits the present or future (cap space, picks, young players, positional boistering, etc)

[Geeoff]

Franson for. Glencross?

[Gizmo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I don't think anyone wants to trade a prospect or draft pick for a playoff push. We just want to trade Ramo/Bollig/Engelland/Smid/Raymond/Stajan/Jones/Glencross/Wideman/Hiller if the return is good.

None of those guys are the future.

So by your summary we can trade our starting goaltender and half of our blueline? Veterans are equally important for continuing this team's development.

Ask edmonton how having no veterans and a very shallow goal crease has worked out.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Gizmo

So by your summary we can trade our starting goaltender and half of our blueline? Veterans are equally important for continuing this team's development.

Ask edmonton how having no veterans and a very shallow goal crease has worked out.

If the return is good, you can trade Hiller and call up Ortio. I'm a Hiller supporter, but he's not the goalie of the future. Because Ramo is a UFA this is not the likely scenario however. It's probably Hiller and Ortio sharing the job next year and Ortio as #1 with someone else or a more modestly re-signed Hiller the year after.

[Mony]

Hmm I like the idea of Franson, that could really help our second pairing if we manage to drop Wideman down to the third. Franson checks off many of the things we're shopping for as a Dman. The only thing I don't like about it is giving up a second rounder in what is supposed to be a deep draft and Franson's age - just wish he was a few years younger and I would absolutely take that. But 27 is still quite decent.

Would also like to see Glencross gone by the trade deadline.

[debil]

Good.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Gizmo

So by your summary we can trade our starting goaltender and half of our blueline? Veterans are equally important for continuing this team's development.

Ask edmonton how having no veterans and a very shallow goal crease has worked out.

We "can" trade them; doesn't mean we "should". It depends on the quality of return and whether management feels their replacement is available. No one's talking about holding a fire sale. I'm just saying that while other vets i.e. Gio/Brodie/Russell/Hudler/Backlund should be kept off the table, these guys should have a price. If you get a top ten pick in this year's draft for Hiller from some stupid GM, you're telling Ortio to put his contacts in his carry-on and find the next flight up.

[Icon]

I hope we're selling at the deadline regardless of standing position. If we can bring in some more pics/prospects for the guys we're going to part with in the offseason anyway, I'm all for it. The kids from the farm have shown they can step up to play, so shipping out some expiring contracts may not have any effect on the standing position at all.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

Franson for. Glencross?

Without going into player values, the basic premise is solid.

Trading Glencross for picks and prospects would be a clear blow to team depth and hurt their playoff chances, and yeah, at this point I think that would be kind of a dick move by the management. (The same can't be said for example Raymond, and if somebody wants one of our goalies or a depth D-man, I think we can afford to move those.)

But trading a future UFA that might not be in the longterm plans for another future UFA that could be part of the future is not a bad idea generally speaking.

[The Hendog]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

Franson for. Glencross?

That would work

I would even be fine with Franson for a 2nd round pick and Glencross for a 2nd round pick (two separate trades)

Still have a second round pick so not really sacrificing the rebuild/future and you use an area of strength to try and address an area of weakness

If you sign Franson it pays off and I think is worth the gamble

[dammage79]

Toronto asking for a 2nd for Franson? I'd move the 2016 2nd for Franson. More time to recoup the pick and you get a good D-Man that really solidifies the 5-6 pairing.

A Franson-Wotherspoon bottom pairing is all kinds of awesome to me.

But, picks are not movable assets to Treliving this year so any deal they make will be expiring contracts and players they've deemed not a part of the process going forward.

Deadline will be interesting for Calgary. Could see a whole bunch o nothing happen.

[Poe969]

The only way I'd want Franson in a trade is if he agrees to a contract extension with the Flames. I don't think the Flames should give up any assets for rentals. I'd give a second for Franson on a condition if he signs an extension.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

Franson for. Glencross?

Makes sense for the Flames, but why would Toronto do it? They're probably going into (if not already) full tank mode this season for a high draft pick. What does a pending UFA forward offer them.

Plus, why would Glencross waive his NTC to go from a playoff bubble team to a bottom dwelling team?

We can hope as Flames fans, but that trade isn't realistic, and is probably never going to happen unless picks are also involved.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Itse

But trading a future UFA that might not be in the longterm plans for another future UFA that could be part of the future is not a bad idea generally speaking.

Agree with your reasoning, but I can't see Glencross waiving to go to the Leafs.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

Kinda torn on Franson. I liked him in Nashville, but I think he's been underwhelming in Toronto. Also is looking to get a big pay raise I think and has rejected the Leafs offers to retain him. BUT, he does have many of the attributes this defense group needs to be more complete: size, RH shot, offensive abilities. I worry about his defensive abilities, but if Hartley can get Wideman to be halfway decent then I think he can get something out of Franson.

Anyone else intrigued enough in Franson to part with a 2nd round pick?

If his strength is his offense ability, and his defensive ability is his question mark, he's definitely not what the Flames should be spending resources on, IMO.

As I've said before, the biggest thing missing from the Flames is a top 4 shut down defenseman with size. I'll take offensive question marks if he can play 20 minutes reliably checking the big forwards Calgary's often facing, killing penalties, and putting some fear into opponents going into corners.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Agree with your reasoning, but I can't see Glencross waiving to go to the Leafs.

Agreed. Which is why I was more into the idea than the trade itself. Also, if you get a 2nd for Glencross and trade another 2nd for Franson, the end result is pretty much the same.

A trade of that sort would obviously be a gamble. (But then again picks are also gambles, it just takes longer to know how things turn out.)

I think that sort of a trade could strike a balance between trying to improve the team in the long term and not hurting the team right now.

[Resolute 14]

Glencross is not going to a team that is not making the playoffs.