2015/2016 Trade Speculation and Rumors v2

[John Doe]

I think it's way too early for teams to start panicking about having a quality goalie that they won't be able to protect next year. As many have pointed out, there isn't a lot of buyers this year, so you aren't taking a big risk by keeping them this year. A lot can happen in a season, especially when nobody really knows what the effects of the new equipment rule changes will be. There very well could be many more buyers and/or fewer sellers next year at this time.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Bahh. Been hearing about cap situation and large contracts being hard to move for years. It never really seems to have an effect. If Dion and Kessel can be moved, then there will be a market for Fleury and not a bad return either in my opinion.

Moving a high priced forward or defenseman is one thing, but moving a high priced goaltender is another. You can't hide a bad goaltending contract. It sticks out like a sore thumb and drags the team down. Chicago is going to rue signing Crawford to the deal they did. Detroit is already kicking themselves on the Howard deal. Those contracts are going to be anvils.

Also, what is "not a bad return" in your opinion? I love it when people don't quantify things, then come back after a deal is done and claim it was exactly what they thought. What is the return that is not going to be bad? Put that out there if you don't mind.

As for his age he is just turning 32 and i believe will be 34 when his contract ends. For goaltenders that's nothing. Fleury's NMC won't be much of an issue. The guy is going to want to be a starter. It's not like he is going to hold out for a trade to the Rangers to be a back-up.

Sigh. A very nice analysis on goaltender age that proves your claim of "34 for a goaltender is nothing" is highly inaccurate.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Drouin isn't going anywhere anymore. I think he's proven to the Lightning he's a guy they can build with, especially since the likely hood of Stamkos re-signing is low.

And Vasilevsky is like Matt Murray. They're both ready right now and TB will not be moving him any time soon.

Well, to clarify, TB always believed that Druoin was going to be a big part of the Lighting.... the reason Druoin came up is that he requested the trade and he was the one unhappy in TB.

Now things certainly could have changed for Drouin now that he has seemingly "bought in"... maybe he retracts his trade request...

Agreed with Vasilevsky though... i don't see TB wanting to ship him out at all... the expansion draft might force their hand, but it will take a lot more from the Flames to get that package.

even before Druoin started playing well, people thought Bennett would have been part of the ask... but a 6th pick + might have been able to pry him out IF he was adamant about getting out of TB (which may no longer be true)

[JJ1532]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Drouin isn't going anywhere anymore. I think he's proven to the Lightning he's a guy they can build with, especially since the likely hood of Stamkos re-signing is low.

Disagree on both counts. What indication has Drouin given Tampa that he has changed his mind and wants to stay? Why isn't he playing to improve his trade stock?

As for Stamkos, his is in the prime of his career. If he wants to be a contender in the next 2-3 years, where is he going to go that can give him what Tampa can? Toronto aren't contenders next season, even with Matthews. Maybe Montreal, maybe the Rangers. But both of those teams would have to get very creative with their rosters and salaries to fit him in. There are very few teams that can sign him and of those that can, they are all in worse positions both in the short term and long term than Tampa. If he has any sense, he'll take a little monetary hit and stay in Florida, its his best option. I think his chances of staying put are higher than you think.

[Krynn]

I talk to a lot of lighting fans early in the year and there was a lot of rumors going around that cooper had it in for druoin from the moment he was announced as the new coach and even whent up management and said I want him gone and refused to listen to what stamkos had to say and is one of the reasons why he won't resign in Tampa. It all could be a bunch of BS but who knows .

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by New Era

Moving a high priced forward or defenseman is one thing, but moving a high priced goaltender is another. You can't hide a bad goaltending contract. It sticks out like a sore thumb and drags the team down. Chicago is going to rue signing Crawford to the deal they did. Detroit is already kicking themselves on the Howard deal. Those contracts are going to be anvils.

Also, what is "not a bad return" in your opinion? I love it when people don't quantify things, then come back after a deal is done and claim it was exactly what they thought. What is the return that is not going to be bad? Put that out there if you don't mind.



Sigh. A very nice analysis on goaltender age that proves your claim of "34 for a goaltender is nothing" is highly inaccurate.

Fleury is not a bad contract. He is 15th on the goalie list of annual salary. His term is not bad either with 3 years left. 2 would be better, but 3 is manageable considering it will proabably 3 years until Gillies is pushing for starter role.

For his return i would think Calgary's first 2nd round pick and a propsect like Culkin or Klimchuck would be the price. Maybe a late 1st and less prospect.

Not sure how you think that article is a "very nice analysis"? It has no concrete information and just seems to be somebodies perception on goalie trends. Actually it was more of an article showing why the leafs should not give up on Bernier. Even the end said that the range of 27-34 years old was the norm and that 35+ was the concern.

[Da_Chief]

3 term is actually perfect. Gillies needs to play 2 seasons in the AHL imo. Third year if he shows well, he can earn a spot behind Fleury. 4th year, Fleury walks, Gillies takes over. Just under 6 mill is a manageable cap hit is the backup is making under a mill, which likely will happen.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Fleury is not a bad contract. He is 15th on the goalie list of annual salary. His term is not bad either with 3 years left. 2 would be better, but 3 is manageable considering it will proabably 3 years until Gillies is pushing for starter role.

Fleury's contract is not a good contract. He's paid about the same as Jonathan Quick but is no where near that level. Fleury would quickly become a whipping boy for this team on that contract. He makes some really great saves, then gases some really easy ones. Sound familiar? I think there are much better options out there for that kind of money.

For his return i would think Calgary's first 2nd round pick and a propsect like Culkin or Klimchuck would be the price. Maybe a late 1st and less prospect.

Not sure how you think that article is a "very nice analysis"? It has no concrete information and just seems to be somebodies perception on goalie trends. Actually it was more of an article showing why the leafs should not give up on Bernier. Even the end said that the range of 27-34 years old was the norm and that 35+ was the concern.

They showed not many goaltenders play past 35, which you said wasn't old. Fleury is not an answer for this team. Not at his age and his salary. Better off going to Reimer, who will come cheaper and has more left in the tank. Plus, it wouldn't cost us anything in trade.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

3 term is actually perfect. Gillies needs to play 2 seasons in the AHL imo. Third year if he shows well, he can earn a spot behind Fleury. 4th year, Fleury walks, Gillies takes over. Just under 6 mill is a manageable cap hit is the backup is making under a mill, which likely will happen.

I really can't see Gillies taking that long to develop. He's also had a long NCAA career. He's already 22 years old and has killed it at every level, even though his AHL career has been limited. He needs maybe one more year at the AHL

[Strange Brew]

I think New Wra has gone all-in on his suggestion that Murray could be had for McDonald. If I really believed that, I would not want to give up anything for MAF either.

I am not too thrilled on Reimer. I don't think a team that is serious about playoffs can go into a season with him as the clear starter.

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I am not too thrilled on Reimer. I don't think a team that is serious about playoffs can go into a season with him as the clear starter.

+1. He has been in the league for years and has never started more than 40 games.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I think New Wra has gone all-in on his suggestion that Murray could be had for McDonald. If I really believed that, I would not want to give up anything for MAF either.

I am not too thrilled on Reimer. I don't think a team that is serious about playoffs can go into a season with him as the clear starter.

Nope, sorry to disappoint you. I'm not a fan of trading for any goaltender at this point. I don't see an option any better than what is available in free agency. If we trade for someone I want a guy that is going to step in, be a guaranteed starter, and could hold that position for the next seven years or more. The closest to that description is Andersson, and even he scares me. I don't see anyone better than Reimer out there at the moment, and I'm not a Reimer fan by any stretch of the imagination, but the important thing is the acquisition cost is only the money it costs on the contract.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by New Era

Nope, sorry to disappoint you. I'm not a fan of trading for any goaltender at this point. I don't see an option any better than what is available in free agency. If we trade for someone I want a guy that is going to step in, be a guaranteed starter, and could hold that position for the next seven years or more. The closest to that description is Andersson, and even he scares me. I don't see anyone better than Reimer out there at the moment, and I'm not a Reimer fan by any stretch of the imagination, but the important thing is the acquisition cost is only the money it costs on the contract.

The only thing I'd like to trade is a spare part and/or a mid/late pick like a 4th.

Take one of our spare young forwards that's ready for a bottom 6 role like Jooris/Agostino/Shore, add a late pick, and that's all I would be willing to spend.

Between Gillies and McDonald, the Flames likely have their next starter already in house. Just have to wait a year or two. Not too many guys that are available outside of UFA that are only signed for 2 years.

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by JJ1532

Disagree on both counts. What indication has Drouin given Tampa that he has changed his mind and wants to stay? Why isn't he playing to improve his trade stock?

He has 7 points in 7 playoff games and the Lightning seem pretty happy with him. I wouldnt doubt that they dont trade him this offseason unless someone gives them a package they cant refuse and see if he can make full amends into next season.

[Par]

Would you want the Calgary Flames to go after Loui Eriksson? He would be one of the older players though.

I was thinking about Sven Baertschi, I just wish Burke was not stupid enough to trade him.

[ah123]

Originally Posted by Par

I was thinking about Sven Baertschi, I just wish Burke was not stupid enough to trade him.

Good grief...Burke did not trade him, Treliving did. And the trade happened because Baertschi made it known that he was not going to sign with the Flames.

And before you start about Burke calling him out about his lacklustre play in the defensive zone, please read what Baertschi said at the end of this season:

http://canucksarmy.com/2016/4/11/why...or-the-canucks

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by New Era

Nope, sorry to disappoint you. I'm not a fan of trading for any goaltender at this point. I don't see an option any better than what is available in free agency. If we trade for someone I want a guy that is going to step in, be a guaranteed starter, and could hold that position for the next seven years or more. The closest to that description is Andersson, and even he scares me. I don't see anyone better than Reimer out there at the moment, and I'm not a Reimer fan by any stretch of the imagination, but the important thing is the acquisition cost is only the money it costs on the contract.

I'm not too disappointed.
I hear you but I would much rather trade for a goalie on a reasonable contract than make a mistake in free agency. Bad UFA signings can be more crippling in a cap league than bad trades. People are talking about $5 million for Reimer at 4 years. He is a backup IMO.

[Par]

Originally Posted by ah123

Good grief...Burke did not trade him, Treliving did. And the trade happened because Baertschi made it known that he was not going to sign with the Flames.

And before you start about Burke calling him out about his lacklustre play in the defensive zone, please read what Baertschi said at the end of this season:

http://canucksarmy.com/2016/4/11/why...or-the-canucks

Sorry, I should have made sure, what the whole story was, why did they trade him to Van, there are other teams.

[Money Baer]

Originally Posted by Par

Sorry, I should have made sure, what the whole story was, why did they trade him to Van, there are other teams.

Because Vancouver offered more than any other team.

[Chingas]

Originally Posted by Par

Would you want the Calgary Flames to go after Loui Eriksson? He would be one of the older players though.

I was thinking about Sven Baertschi, I just wish Burke was not stupid enough to trade him.

This has got to be a farce account? You seem to go from thread to thread with opinions/ideas that you must know are going to grate the board.

Your first question is reasonable and Eriksson would be interesting for us on a shorter term deal, but I doubt he could be had for that.

Your second point is completly random. What were you thinking about him? I can't believe that anyone would be serious about their concern over losing him at this stage.