2016/2017 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

Posted this in another thread, but I think it could also go here for some discussion:

I hope the Flames pull a Pats/Seahawks and trade back a few times to get more kicks at the can.

For instance, the Seahawks this year came into the draft with #26 overall.
Traded #26 for #31 and a 3rd (95th) and 7th.
Then traded #31 for #34 and a 4th.

They turned #26 into:
a 2nd (#34), a 3rd (#95), a 4th (#111), and a 7th. This would be best case scenario for the Flames, IMO. Turn #16 into #30, a 2nd and a 3rd, or something like that.

I do not agree with this approach in the slightest. Firstly the NFL draft is far different than the NHL. Teams are getting starters in the late rounds of the NFL draft where hockey you draft 3-5 year projects outside of the first 2 rounds.

I rather Calgary take the BPA at 16 or trade back 5-8 spots if they can get a 2nd (they added a 2nd moving from 14-21 in 2012)

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

right - in the finals back to back (pretty darn good).

In the Finals three straight years: 2008 - lost to Detroit while with Pittsburgh; 2009 - lost to Pittsburgh while with Detroit; 2010 - finally won with Chicago.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I rather Calgary take the BPA at 16 or trade back 5-8 spots if they can get a 2nd (they added a 2nd moving from 14-21 in 2012)

Yeah, echo this. Depending on what's available at 16 I could handle moving back to 20-21 to get an extra pick but not much further back.

I mean take last year... if the Flames were drafting at 16 and saw Jakob Chychrun sitting there I'd be pissed if they traded back (so basically if Timothy Liljegren, who looks like the most likely to take a tumble from his preseason ranking, is there at 16 I would want them to make the pick).

[Erick Estrada]

Don't want the Flames picking anywhere near 20-31 if they earned an earlier pick. That area of the first round hasn't worked out at all for this franchise outside of Backlund.

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I can see this type of thing happening, and then using some of those picks to get a goalie or two.

16th overall is too much for a Grubauer, Raanta, Pickard, Mrazek or what have you, but if you drop down and grab extra picks you have more ammo.

16 for 18 & 53 (Boston)
18 for 25 & 58 & 85 (Montreal)
25 for 27 & 51 (Blues)

New picks:

1st - 25
2nd - 51, 53, 58
3rd - 85
4th - 109
5th - 140
6th - 171
7th - 202

25 + Rittich for Mrazek or Lehner (Similar to Frederick Andersen trade)
58 + 85 for Raanta or Grubauer (Similar to Cam Talbot trade)

Then you still get two mid 2nd round picks and 6 picks total.

That is some of the best asset management I have seen from an armchair GM in a long time.

I like it!

[bax]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Don't want the Flames picking anywhere near 20-31 if they earned an earlier pick. That area of the first round hasn't worked out at all for this franchise outside of Backlund.

That's a silly thing to base your decision on

[Vinny01]

Saw this on HF and it is not bad

To Rangers: 16
To Flames: 21 and Rannta

I am not big on Rannta but if he is a goalie the Flames want moving back 5 spots is not a steep price to pay

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by bax

That's a silly thing to base your decision on

It's actually not as even if you remove their record of incredibly inept drafting in that range trading back in the NHL rarely ever makes sense as the NHL draft is more of a crapshoot than other sports and the lower you pick the lower your odds are of getting a difference maker.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Saw this on HF and it is not bad

To Rangers: 16
To Flames: 21 and Rannta

I am not big on Rannta but if he is a goalie the Flames want moving back 5 spots is not a steep price to pay

If that's all the Rangers were asking for, I'd be okay with that.

I'd also be in favour of making a bigger deal if the Flames could somehow get Hayes from the Rangers too. Right now, it looks like he might be exposed in the expansion draft, so they might be willing to move him.

[FurnaceFace]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Saw this on HF and it is not bad

To Rangers: 16
To Flames: 21 and Rannta

I am not big on Rannta but if he is a goalie the Flames want moving back 5 spots is not a steep price to pay

If that were ever offered for Raanta, Treliving would instantly say yes.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's actually not as even if you remove their record of incredibly inept drafting in that range trading back in the NHL rarely ever makes sense as the NHL draft is more of a crapshoot than other sports and the lower you pick the lower your odds are of getting a difference maker.

Well yeah, but that's not what you said. It's silly to say "we don't want to pick in this range because past managers of the team have made bad picks in that range". There is zero logic.

If the Brad wants a certain guy and thinks he can get him at 20 it makes sense to do that and acquire another pick. It's a crapshoot, but more bullets in the chamber. It's not like they are throwing darts at the board. They know who they want.

I'd even go as far to argue that the odds of getting an impact player at 16 aren't all that different than getting an impact player at 20 or 21. I'm sure the data is out there somewhere.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by bax

Well yeah, but that's not what you said. It's silly to say "we don't want to pick in this range because past managers of the team have made bad picks in that range". There is zero logic.

If the Brad wants a certain guy and thinks he can get him at 20 it makes sense to do that and acquire another pick. It's a crapshoot, but more bullets in the chamber. It's not like they are throwing darts at the board. They know who they want.

Exactly.

If Liljegren drops to 16 and you think he's going to be the next Erik Karlsson then you don't drop down obviously. But if there are 5 or 6 players on the board that your scouting staff all rate to be on the same level, then go ahead and drop down to pick up an extra asset. Especially when you are currently pick deficient in this draft. If we already had multiple 2nd and/or 3rd rounders and 8+ picks total, then there would be no point to doing that but that's not the case.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by getbak

If that's all the Rangers were asking for, I'd be okay with that.

I'd also be in favour of making a bigger deal if the Flames could somehow get Hayes from the Rangers too. Right now, it looks like he might be exposed in the expansion draft, so they might be willing to move him.

I've been wanting the Flames to acquire Hayes for a while. That would be tremendous.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I've been wanting the Flames to acquire Hayes for a while. That would be tremendous.

They did look deadly together in the recent IIHF tournament.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Saw this on HF and it is not bad

To Rangers: 16
To Flames: 21 and Rannta

I am not big on Rannta but if he is a goalie the Flames want moving back 5 spots is not a steep price to pay

Done.

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Exactly.

If Liljegren drops to 16 and you think he's going to be the next Erik Karlsson then you don't drop down obviously.

I see Liljegren more as the next PK Subban. And yes I agree that it would be a draft day trade where you see who is still there and only pull the trigger once your hopeful faller like Liljegren is out of the picture.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by bax

Well yeah, but that's not what you said. It's silly to say "we don't want to pick in this range because past managers of the team have made bad picks in that range". There is zero logic.

If the Brad wants a certain guy and thinks he can get him at 20 it makes sense to do that and acquire another pick. It's a crapshoot, but more bullets in the chamber. It's not like they are throwing darts at the board. They know who they want.

I'd even go as far to argue that the odds of getting an impact player at 16 aren't all that different than getting an impact player at 20 or 21. I'm sure the data is out there somewhere.

Trading down in the first round rarely happens in the NHL for a reason. It's more fan speculation and fantasy from watching too many NFL drafts where trading down is a legit strategy. It's rarely a good idea to decrease your odds of getting a good player. If Brad really like a player that he thinks may be available at 20 he would be better served taking him at 16 and not running the risk of another team taking him.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

I hope the Flames pull a Pats/Seahawks and trade back a few times to get more kicks at the can.

For instance, the Seahawks this year came into the draft with #26 overall.
Traded #26 for #31 and a 3rd (95th) and 7th.
Then traded #31 for #34 and a 4th.

They turned #26 into:
a 2nd (#34), a 3rd (#95), a 4th (#111), and a 7th. This would be best case scenario for the Flames, IMO. Turn #16 into #30, a 2nd and a 3rd, or something like that.

Depends who is left at 16. Flames may have a guy in their top 10 fall to them at 16, stuff like that happens all the time. Flames will do their homework. They will create a list of guys they are zoned in on. I think a trade back makes sense in 2 scenarios. I'll paint a couple hypotheticals

1. They've got 5 guys they are targeting. They all get taken before 16. Then you deal down cause the value isn't there.

2. They've got 6 guys they are targeting that they view as fairly equal. 5 of them are still left at #16. This would allow them to deal down a few spots and still get a guy they like equally as much

Dealing down scenarios IMO have to revolve around your list of targeted players

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Saw this on HF and it is not bad

To Rangers: 16
To Flames: 21 and Rannta

I am not big on Rannta but if he is a goalie the Flames want moving back 5 spots is not a steep price to pay

Sign me up.

I think Raanta could be a #1 goalie, but at the very least, it would be a small price to pay for a 1B or good back-up capable of at least 30 games.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Trading down in the first round rarely happens in the NHL for a reason. It's more fan speculation and fantasy from watching too many NFL drafts where trading down is a legit strategy. It's rarely a good idea to decrease your odds of getting a good player. If Brad really like a player that he thinks may be available at 20 he would be better served taking him at 16 and not running the risk of another team taking him.

It really only works when a team is fixated on a player they feel they can get if they move back because likely other teams do not have interest. Jankowski is a perfect example as the Flames clearly had blinders for him on draft day. He was a 2nd rounder in most rankings so Calgary felt comfortable trading back and taking him 21 but didn't feel confident he would be there with their newly acquired 2nd so instead of taking Matta and hoping Jankowski would be there in the 2nd they took him in the first and took Sieloff in the 2nd

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by getbak

If that's all the Rangers were asking for, I'd be okay with that.

I'd also be in favour of making a bigger deal if the Flames could somehow get Hayes from the Rangers too. Right now, it looks like he might be exposed in the expansion draft, so they might be willing to move him.

I would definitely be fine with acquiring Hayes, but then the Flames will end up leaving Lazar exposed. They would then either have to deal Lazar, or send an asset to Vegas so that Vegas wouldn't select Lazar. This would make the Lazar acquisition more expensive. How big of an asset would it take for Vegas to pass over Lazar? I actually have no idea. Lazar was 'worth' a 2nd I guess (you can argue a bit lower, since the Flames 'won' the Lazar sweepstakes by providing the highest pick, or at least the highest projected pick at the time). How much does Vegas demand in this scenario? A 3rd?

I really have no idea what that would cost.

Originally Posted by Wild GM

We are also ignoring the fact that the Flames don't have a 2nd and 3rd for this year. So if they did that - they would then be absent 2nd and 3rds for 2 straight years.
You can't do that.

Well, you can depending on what you are trading for.

This isn't a team that has been sending draft picks to plug holes with vets. Hamilton and Lazar are both young and only a few years removed from the draft, and Stone looks like a likely re-sign costing the Flames a bargain in the way of a 3rd round pick and a conditional 5th round pick. These are all players that haven't hit their prime yet.

A 2nd round pick (and a conditional 3rd) was largely viewed as a HUGE bargain at the time to acquire Elliott. Put it this way - Flames have spent a heck of a lot more assets by trying to draft goalies and develop them than they used to acquire legitimate starters in the last 20 years. It did get the Flames into the playoffs, even though it didn't have the effect of completely stabilizing goaltending. It was still a bargain in retrospect if you want to directly compare the acquisition cost of a goalie versus drafting and developing one.

I will argue that you can keep on doing it, provided that the players you trade for are mostly young.

People point at Darryl Sutter for doing the same thing and destroying the prospect base. I argue that given the propensity for those picks to bust outright at the time, it was a shrewd move. A lot of those picks ended up becoming important pieces - i.e. Kipprusoff, Bourque (who was really good for a number of years before he became terrible), etc.

I do agree that the absolute worst asset managing function is to trade away picks as sweeteners in trying to unload negative cap hits. That's just ugly and is sure to undermine any future.

I like the overall draft philosophy that the Flames developed over the years since circa 2008, but they still need to 'hit' more on those picks. That is when those picks become even more valuable to the organization. If a team doesn't hit that often, it is better that they trade picks away and acquire NHL talent in return. That is when those picks are less valuable to an organization.

Ideally you want to see the Flames churn out good players out of every draft and get them to fill holes in the lineup at a bargain of a cap hit. Chicago is famous for this. Pittsburgh is definitely doing this now. You see it in Anaheim (especially on defence). That is definitely the way to go, and I completely agree. The difference is that those teams are 'hitting' more often (sometimes with less picks - I would suspect that Pittsburgh probably had a lot less picks to work with than the Flames did, for instance).

The Flames are seemingly improving in their drafting (I would like to see more improvement - I think the Flames are probably just hovering around average, possibly below average), but I will be happy if they make trades every year for guys like Dougie Hamilton and Curtis Lazar at least until they improve upon their drafting and development program.