2016 NHL Draft - Page 222 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Gaskal · 05-27-2016, 02:39 PM

Not really interested in overpaying for Puljujarvi, IMO. And that article is really just speculation.

Bunk · 05-27-2016, 02:39 PM

I could see, for instance,#6 overall, Backlund, and our 2nd rounder for #3 overall.

In another scenario I could see #6 overall, Jankowski, and two 2nds for #3.

I would be happy with that.

edslunch · 05-27-2016, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polak

I think it would take a huge payment.

Backlund + Our 1st + All of our 2nds?

I think that might get it done as CBJ clearly wants some depth at center and Backs is probably the quintessential depth center.

It would be tough to see him go but if we're confident with Jankowski I think I'd do it... but that guy seems to bleed Flames.

They might ask that but they're not going to get it. It would foolish to spend so many resources on an unproven prospect. That's way more than Hamilton cost and he was proven and trending well.

SuperMatt18 · 05-27-2016, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dammage79

Thats extreme. If they figure they can get Brown @6 and they're comfortable moving down. a 2nd and a 4th would be in the historical ball park, and if I am not mistaken, on the higher end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by polak

Yeah but has there been a trade when there was such a profound gap between 3 and the rest?

Here is the historical trades for top 5 picks from the last 20 years.

1999: #1 was dealt for #4, #75, #88
2002: #1 was dealt for #3 and Florida had the right to swap picks the following season
2003: #1 was dealt for #3, #55, and Mikael Samuelson
2004: #4 was dealt for #8, #59
2008: #5 was dealt for #7, #38, #67

I would say something like 1999 would be close to #3 and #6 - but that is a long time ago. 2008 is probably the closest from a recent year but it's not a top 3 pick - and that likely wasn't as big a divide as this year is.

Thing is that the Blue Jackets still need to be in a spot where they get the player they want still if that truly is Logan Brown, so it's not a completely open market.

So that likely means not trading back any lower than 8 - and if Brown is the guy they really want the Flames can screw with them by saying he is the guy they want at 6.

So if you are Columbus and you can trade back to 6 to guarantee that Brown is still the guy you get but you can also add something like 35, & the rights to Colborne to do that then maybe it makes sense.

albertGQ · 05-27-2016, 02:52 PM

#3 for #6 + Poirier/Klimchuk + #53

I would even do #3 for #6 + Poirier/Klimchuk + #35

Toonage · 05-27-2016, 02:54 PM

I get that Columbus might not want Puljujarvi, but he would likely play for them in October. Why trade down for Brown and accept other teams prospects as part of the deal? They still won't get a player that can step in now. If they move #3, the return will include a roster player, and one that fits an immediate need for them.

dissentowner · 05-27-2016, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toonage

I get that Columbus might not want Puljujarvi, but he would likely play for them in October. Why trade down for Brown and accept other teams prospects as part of the deal? They still won't get a player that can step in now. If they move #3, the return will include a roster player, and one that fits an immediate need for them.

Why trade down? Well, if you like a player more like Brown or Dubois just as much as JP than why would you not and pick up extra assets?

dissentowner · 05-27-2016, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albertGQ

#3 for #6 + Poirier/Klimchuk + #53

I would even do #3 for #6 + Poirier/Klimchuk + #35

That last offer is about the highest I would go. Preferably Klimchuk as I think he has serious injury issues.

Toonage · 05-27-2016, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Why trade down? Well, if you like a player more like Brown or Dubois just as much as JP than why would you not and pick up extra assets?

My beef isn't with trading down, but the player they're giving up is likely to play in October. Brown isn't. That should cost interested teams more. And Columbus is in a position to fill an immediate need and future need by moving that pick.

GranteedEV · 05-27-2016, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albertGQ

I would even do #3 for #6 + Poirier/Klimchuk + #35

That works for me. Can be both Poirier + Klimchuk, too, then you ensure Puljujarvi is part of the Nilsson trade sequence :P

Not interested in trading Backlund or Jankowski. You hoard your capable centers.

SuperMatt18 · 05-27-2016, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toonage

My beef isn't with trading down, but the player they're giving up is likely to play in October. Brown isn't. That should cost interested teams more. And Columbus is in a position to fill an immediate need and future need by moving that pick.

You don't draft a player or make trades for long term prospects based on if they can make your roster next season.

It will cost more because Puljujarvi is a great prospect but it doesn't mean you have to ask for a player that fits into your lineup right away in return.

Toonage · 05-27-2016, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

You don't draft a player or make trades for long term prospects based on if they can make your roster next season.

It will cost more because Puljujarvi is a great prospect but it doesn't mean you have to ask for a player that fits into your lineup right away in return.

Which is why if they trade down and move the #3 pick they will want someone who can play now as part of the return, as well as picks.

I'm clearly doing a horrible job trying to make a point so I'll stop now.

Table 5 · 05-27-2016, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Not interested in trading Backlund or Jankowski. You hoard your capable centers.

People always say to draft Centers and Dmen because they can easily be traded to fill other holes in your lineup. Well, as we stand we have an abundance of depth at Defense and Center, and have a giant hole on Wing. Time to take action!

I'd hate to give up either of those guys, but if it gets me Puljujärvi, I'd get over it pretty quickly. Both of those guys are, or project to be, guys who typically play on the 2nd/3rd line. Jesse to me looks like a legitimate Top 6 core piece, with a chance of being a franchise-level player.

SuperMatt18 · 05-27-2016, 03:12 PM

Personally I think if Columbus does trade #3 they will want a team to eat some salary as part of the cost of trading down.

Players they may be looking to move out:

Dubinsky: 5 years left at $5.8M
Clarkson: 4 years at $5.25
Hartnell: 3 years at $4.750
Tyutin: 2 years at $4.5M
Bobrovsky: 3 years at $7.425

If you are the Flames would you go full blockbuster and ease some of the cap constraints that Columbus has, while potentially solving a goalie problem.

If the Blue Jackets offer you up #3 and Bobrovsky what are you willing to move?

GranteedEV · 05-27-2016, 03:13 PM

Bobrovsky + Puljujarvi ...

Wouldn't that be a coup. Not sure how we'd make it work though. Maybe if they ate a million.

Cinephile · 05-27-2016, 03:48 PM

I would be willing to give up our 1st, 2 2nds, and Backlund for #3 and Bobrovsky.

Columbus could then draft a centre with #6 and receive a pretty good 2/3 C in Backlund. The only thing that would make me worried in this deal is that Bobrovsky is a tad bit injury prone but when he's healthy he's great.

868904 · 05-27-2016, 04:03 PM

If Brown is the guy BJ's want, I don't think there's a way to make it work with Calgary because there is the possibility that the Canucks take Brown. Canucks are probably looking for a centre too and if Dubois is gone, Brown could be their guy. BJ can't risk making a deal and NOT getting the guy they want at 6.

Unless the trade happens after the picks are made and Brown is guaranteed for the 6 spot. I know that happens in other sports, but I can't remember that ever happening at an NHL draft, where a player was selected, put on the jersey and then was subsequently traded on the floor.

polak · 05-27-2016, 04:06 PM

#### you Elliot Friedman for making me think that this is even a remote possibility!!!

dissentowner · 05-27-2016, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toonage

My beef isn't with trading down, but the player they're giving up is likely to play in October. Brown isn't. That should cost interested teams more. And Columbus is in a position to fill an immediate need and future need by moving that pick.

Columbus is not contending for a SC anytime soon so a player stepping in right away is not really going to be making a difference. That team needs to think long term right now.

dissentowner · 05-27-2016, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 868904

If Brown is the guy BJ's want, I don't think there's a way to make it work with Calgary because there is the possibility that the Canucks take Brown. Canucks are probably looking for a centre too and if Dubois is gone, Brown could be their guy. BJ can't risk making a deal and NOT getting the guy they want at 6.

Unless the trade happens after the picks are made and Brown is guaranteed for the 6 spot. I know that happens in other sports, but I can't remember that ever happening at an NHL draft, where a player was selected, put on the jersey and then was subsequently traded on the floor.

If they traded down with the Flames one of Brown or Dubois will be there unless the Habs trade up with Oilers and grab Dubous and the Canucks take Brown. I don't see that happening though.