[Rumour] Flames aggressively trying to move up. UPD: Treliving and Kekelainen meeting on floor

[Fire]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

To CBJ - 2016 6th overall+ 2017 CGY 1st round pick + 2016 55th overall
To CAL - Hartnell + 2016 3rd overall

Sounds about right in terms of value.

Then you use a roster player (Colborne), plus 35th + 53rd to try and acquire Fleury.

Flames would need to trade Wideman's salary away to make it work though.

Flames add Hartnell, Puljujarvi and Fleury for next season.

Might be fair value, but I would never trade a 1st round draft pick when it has a very good chance of being a lottery pick.

[shotinthebacklund]

I think the flames will be using one of wotherspoon or kulak as a trade piece. 2 prospects in a close stage of development. I imagine one of them is dealt this offseason

[Heavy Jack]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Not sure I'm reading this right.
You are saying Treliving disappointed at the draft last year, or saying didn't disappoint?

Saying he didn't disappoint and for the 2nd straight year he won't disappoint.

[Atodaso]

All this hope to move up to 3 has me expecting it will not happen.

Many have dreaded the notion of them trading down once it gets to 6 and their initial target is gone. If done right they could still come out looking quite well. Let's say Dubois fell to 6. If they pick him, fantastic. I would be over the moon of it happened. But I'm in the boat of believing you could still snag a very good NHLer at 7-10. Here's a Treliving like scenario...

To Montreal
6 OA (Dubois)

To Calgary
9 OA (Sergachev/Nylander/Keller/Jost/Juolevi/Chychrun/Brown)
39 OA

To Pittsburgh
Wideman
35 OA
*56 OA if needed

To Calgary
MAF

To team in late teens/early 20's
39 OA
54 OA

To Calgary
Pick 17-22 (Gauthier)

[FlamesNation23]

Originally Posted by Atodaso

All this hope to move up to 3 has me expecting it will not happen.

Many have dreaded the notion of them trading down once it gets to 6 and their initial target is gone. If done right they could still come out looking quite well. Let's say Dubois fell to 6. If they pick him, fantastic. I would be over the moon of it happened. But I'm in the boat of believing you could still snag a very good NHLer at 7-10. Here's a Treliving like scenario...

To Montreal
6 OA (Dubois)

To Calgary
9 OA (Sergachev/Nylander/Keller/Jost/Juolevi/Chychrun/Brown)
39 OA

To Pittsburgh
Wideman
35 OA
*56 OA if needed

To Calgary
MAF

To team in late teens/early 20's
39 OA
54 OA

To Calgary
Pick 17-22 (Gauthier)

If you were a team in late teens/early 20's, would you do this trade? The first trade might happen, but I would think BT would ask for a prospect instead of another 2nd rounder. Just my opinion

[StanTheMan]

Originally Posted by Atodaso

All this hope to move up to 3 has me expecting it will not happen.

Many have dreaded the notion of them trading down once it gets to 6 and their initial target is gone. If done right they could still come out looking quite well. Let's say Dubois fell to 6. If they pick him, fantastic. I would be over the moon of it happened. But I'm in the boat of believing you could still snag a very good NHLer at 7-10. Here's a Treliving like scenario...

To Montreal
6 OA (Dubois)

To Calgary
9 OA (Sergachev/Nylander/Keller/Jost/Juolevi/Chychrun/Brown)
39 OA

To Pittsburgh
Wideman
35 OA
*56 OA if needed

To Calgary
MAF

To team in late teens/early 20's
39 OA
54 OA

To Calgary
Pick 17-22 (Gauthier)

If Dubois is still available at 6 you take him and laugh all the way to the bank. He would be a perfect fit with Bennett. You could then use the 3 seconds we still have to move up into the first or trade for a goalie.

[Atodaso]

Originally Posted by FlamesNation23

If you were a team in late teens/early 20's, would you do this trade? The first trade might happen, but I would think BT would ask for a prospect instead of another 2nd rounder. Just my opinion

Trades like that happen all the time. I suppose it would depend on a variety of factors. How highly both teams value said picks, which players are still available, and the range of quality, etc. I'm merely spitballing a scenario here where I think trading down actually could end up being a positive thing.

Originally Posted by StanTheMan

If Dubois is still available at 6 you take him and laugh all the way to the bank. He would be a perfect fit with Bennett. You could then use the 3 seconds we still have to move up into the first or trade for a goalie.

Yeah. I figured you could still make the MAF trade and still try to acquire a mid-late 1st if they wanted that RW in Gauthier. I'm just expecting something like this to go down based on past drafts. A player I or the consensus would think is a good pick, only to watch them trade down.

Also, depending on how much Montreal liked him, and I'm pretty sure they do, perhaps they offer a decent prospect along with their 2nd? I can see it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I don't think Columbus views Hartnell's contract as a salary dump. From what i have read they are expecting a return for trading Hartnell. By no means do i think they are going to hit a home run, but i could see a team giving a 3rd round pick and a $ 1million/ 1 year term pressbox player back.They actually might not even have to take a contract back. Hartnell is still a top 6 player. The only concern is the 3rd year left in the deal.

Colborne is a RFA that might get a good settlement if he goes to arbitration. I don't see more than a 3rd round pick for trade value. So basically the way i see your trade proposal is Hartnell and Colborne are a wash and it would be like Columbus accepting #6 and a 2nd for #3. Not going to happen.

I get the impression that they are looking to dump his salary. They have huge issues with respect to the expansion draft.

And obviously, this proposal is premised on the fact that they would value Colborne more than Hartnell (due to contract and age). I think they would. But if they don't then we would need to find another player to sub in for Colborne, or fall back to more picks.

IMO, Colborne is a player that would interest Columbus, due to age, lower cap hit, can play C, etc.

And Hartnell, despite the age, is a player that would interest Calgary, due to grit and leadership.

That's why I think it makes sense for both teams.

[Mattman]

No matter what I honestly can't picture Marc-Andre Fluery in a Flames uniform, that's why once we trade for him we will flip him, the 6th Overall and Porier to Columbus in a deal for the 3rd Overall, Bobrovsky and Hartnell (Both being retained a small amount)

[Vinny01]

The value is hard to pin down. I have witnessed some ridiculous proposals on HF like Bennett + 6OA which is insane and even too much for Matthews let alone Puljujarvi. I can see Bouma+ 6+ 2nd for 4th with the Oilers. As for the jackets it would be something significantly more with a contract definitely coming back with the pick

[Frequitude]

I think many are overestimating Columbus's desire to shed bad contracts. Or underestimating their options to do so. Would they like to, sure, but they're not going to pay Puljujarvi to do it. They'd find another way (ie trade away a 2nd or something).

To put it another way, some seem to be mulling over whether we pay three 2nds to move up to #3. So let's just say that's rough market value for the purposes of this conversation (I still think it might not be enough but I digress). Three seconds is massive overpayment to shed Hartnell and Bobrovsky.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I get the impression that they are looking to dump his salary. They have huge issues with respect to the expansion draft.

And obviously, this proposal is premised on the fact that they would value Colborne more than Hartnell (due to contract and age). I think they would. But if they don't then we would need to find another player to sub in for Colborne, or fall back to more picks.

IMO, Colborne is a player that would interest Columbus, due to age, lower cap hit, can play C, etc.

And Hartnell, despite the age, is a player that would interest Calgary, due to grit and leadership.

That's why I think it makes sense for both teams.

They could be in real trouble too if Jones gets offer sheeted but they don't have cap room due to some bad contracts.

Out of Tyutin(full NMC, I believe), Hartnell, and Bobrovsky,.. Hartnell is the one that teams will only be willing to take on.

So I think teams willing to take Hartnell are in the position of strength.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

The value is hard to pin down. I have witnessed some ridiculous proposals on HF like Bennett + 6OA which is insane and even too much for Matthews let alone Puljujarvi. I can see Bouma+ 6+ 2nd for 4th with the Oilers. As for the jackets it would be something significantly more with a contract definitely coming back with the pick

Lol, I wouldn't even give up Bennett for the 3rd overall, let alone needing to add the 6th overall as well. Must be a proposal from an Oilers / Nucks /Jackets fan.

[Enoch Root]

And 6th + Bouma + 2nd is massive overpayment to move to 4th.

[StanTheMan]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And 6th + Bouma + 2nd is massive overpayment to move to 4th.

Completely disagree. Players like Bouma are a dime a dozen and can easily be found through trade or free agency. Additionally, moving his cap hit would give the Flames some much needed relief for this season.

I don't think Edmonton would do that trade, but if they did move #4 for #6 + Bouma + a second you could then potentially flip #4 + a second (or two) for #3.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And 6th + Bouma + 2nd is massive overpayment to move to 4th.

I disagree as I value Tkachuk and Dubois substantially over Nylander, Brown etc.

Bouma fits a need for the Oilers but I think he is expendable here. Ferland, Porier, Hathaway, Arnold, Shore could potentially fill that role at less than half the cost.

I agree with the sentiment that 6-10 are pretty interchangeable but I do feel 4-5 are in their own tier.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And 6th + Bouma + 2nd is massive overpayment to move to 4th.

If 6th plus 2nd can get you to 4th, and you get rid of Bouma at the same time, it's a huge bonus. Having to take Bouma (at his contract) is a negative

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I think many are overestimating Columbus's desire to shed bad contracts. Or underestimating their options to do so. Would they like to, sure, but they're not going to pay Puljujarvi to do it. They'd find another way (ie trade away a 2nd or something).

To put it another way, some seem to be mulling over whether we pay three 2nds to move up to #3. So let's just say that's rough market value for the purposes of this conversation (I still think it might not be enough but I digress). Three seconds is massive overpayment to shed Hartnell and Bobrovsky.

I think you are grossly underestimating how badly the Hackets need to shed cap. They are committed over $70M next year and Seth Jones doesn't have a contract. Prime target for an offer sheet. Columbus also is screwed for the expansion draft with the amount of NMC they have and potential young forward they might lose.

The end result is not the Jackets giving up Puljujarvi to shed a bad contract. They shed the money and move back a couple spots and still draft a top end prospect. For instance they trade Puljujarvi and Hartnell for Brown and 2 2nd rounders which frees up nearly $6M in cap space as Brown likely goes back to junior and Puljujarvi plays in the NHL next year

[Enoch Root]

Bouma is so under-appreciated here.

Yes, he didn't have a great year. But I fully expect him to be much better this year - Canadian fans are incredibly impatient and just want to get rid of players the moment they have an off year. Guess what? Players' performance ebbs and flows.

The change in value from 6 to 4 is marginal. Giving up a 2nd and an NHL player is ridiculous (which is why you don't - and won't - see it)

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And 6th + Bouma + 2nd is massive overpayment to move to 4th.

Bouma is a replacement level player and the 2nd is a 30% chance at 200 games. If you really like the guy at 4, how could those two assets not be considered disposable? It all comes down to how sure the scouts are that the guy at 4 will be significantly better than the guy at 6 for me. If they aren't sure, then there is no trade to be made at all, for anything. If they are sure, I can't think of an offer that would be for much less and still get it done. FWIW I peg Bouma's value at around a 3rd or a 4th AND they would save $1.3m against the cap. Doesn't seem too bad to me but I'm not really all that concerned at BT's chances of finding another Bouma.