[PGT] Red Wings 3 Flams 6 - GFG!

[Beninho]

Marner with Tkachuk, that sounds like too much fun. Would do it

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Why do you all want to trade Dougie?

Lots of depth at RHD
An awesome player + would be coming back

It’s not that we want to trade him, just that the Flames always have to look at ways of making the team better and this might be one of them.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Torture

I'm amazed that people are still frustrated we have Stone. Without Stone you're in scary territory the second one of the top 4 goes down. Having Stone able to step up is a huge asset. Which lineup would you rather ice right now?

Gio / Hamilton
Brodie / Stone
Kulak / Anderson

or
Gio / Hamilton
Brodie / Bartkowski (scary)
Kulak / Anderson (scary)

Even when everyone is healthy it's a huge benefit for the rookies to have them paired with Stone rather than Bartkowski or another rookie. That way you have a solid defensemen that can set them up for success rather than repeated fire drills.

No question that 5 D that are capable of stepping into the top 4 is an amazing luxury, but we gave up a lot to get there.

We just gave up a 1st+ for Hamonic, which is a steep price to pay. We signed Stone for 3 years, reducing our flexibility. How much would our performance, both short and long term, have been affected if we only did one of those two, replaced them with Andersson/Kulak/Kylington (Bartkowski is shot into the sun in this parallel universe), and then used those assets differently?

I guess I see this current line-up being our best overall lineup and state of the team (where we would have kept the assets to get Hamonic), but you are absolutely correct that it goes south rapidly with any more injuries.

[alan21]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Trading Dougie?

When Hitler speaks, I listen!

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Why do you all want to trade Dougie?

Can't speak for everyone but why not? If it makes the team better don't see why we wouldn't pull the trigger.

There's a fascination with some fans that Flame players are untouchable. Hamilton was traded before and if we got the right offer to fill some of our holes I don't see the problem with it.

It doesn't mean we hate the player or think he sucks or any of that nonsense but players get traded all the time to fill holes and we have some holes in the forward group.

[jayswin]

Exactly, some recently successful teams have shown the ability make NHL star for NHL star trades. It's not crazy talk.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Kybb79

Hamilton for Marner makes sense but Toronto would add.

Dougie has three 40-point seasons (in a row) and he's one half of one of the most statistically dominant pairings in the league. He doesn't get #1PP minutes (he's never been on the #1 unit since he got here), and he's not the triggerman on the 2nd unit, so his offensive production still has room to grow.

By the time Brent Burns was Dougie's age, he had one 40 point season. His possession numbers aren't as good, and he relies more on the PP for his offensive totals than Hamilton.

So the question becomes, why would you trade the next Brent Burns, who you have under contract for another four years at less than $6M, for a small, skilled winger who's currently less than half a PPG that you're going to have to pay Gaudreau money to in 18 months?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Can't speak for everyone but why not? If it makes the team better don't see why we wouldn't pull the trigger.

There's a fascination with some fans that Flame players are untouchable. Hamilton was traded before and if we got the right offer to fill some of our holes I don't see the problem with it.

It doesn't mean we hate the player or think he sucks or any of that nonsense but players get traded all the time to fill holes and we have some holes in the forward group.

To add to this post, the players that are at the top of their game are the exact one you look to trade (if it fits into your plan) as they get you the most return.

[DazzlinDino]

Trading one of our defenseman for a top forward is an interesting idea. With us having guys able to step up on defense in the pipeline our forward group would also be that much better. Having another top forward player to lean on should someone start slow, or get injured. As someone mentioned having a surplus of defenseman you can trade to fill out holes on the team is a very interesting strategy!

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Why do you all want to trade Dougie?

To make room for Andersson, Kulak, kylington, and in a year's time perhaps even fox.

We have this core locked up for 3 years. That doesn't mean we can't use it to improve within that time.

Frankly this d core has been disappointing to date. Don't defend all that great, don't transition all that great, don't mitigate turnovers all that great, don't score of hit the net all that great.. If this was a Nashville level defence then I would defend keeping it in tact. this d's lack of production (offensively and defensively) makes it open to discuss. Especially, when the flames d prospects are progressing and hitting ripening time in the coming year or two.

[Fire]

Yikes. You trade Stone to make room for the prospects next season, not Hamilton.

[Kybb79]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Dougie has three 40-point seasons (in a row) and he's one half of one of the most statistically dominant pairings in the league. He doesn't get #1PP minutes (he's never been on the #1 unit since he got here), and he's not the triggerman on the 2nd unit, so his offensive production still has room to grow.

By the time Brent Burns was Dougie's age, he had one 40 point season. His possession numbers aren't as good, and he relies more on the PP for his offensive totals than Hamilton.

So the question becomes, why would you trade the next Brent Burns, who you have under contract for another four years at less than $6M, for a small, skilled winger who's currently less than half a PPG that you're going to have to pay Gaudreau money to in 18 months?

I wouldn't compare Dougie to Burns.Burns has a physical side to his game that Dougie refuses to use.Right now we lack a skilled Rw with Marner he would add speed and more scoring.Him and Johnny would drive teams crazy.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Fire

Yikes. You trade Stone to make room for the prospects next season, not Hamilton.

People weren't suggesting trading a D-man just to make room for a prospect, they were suggesting a prospect may make it possible to trade a D-man for a star forward that could help us become a contender.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Kybb79

I wouldn't compare Dougie to Burns.Burns has a physical side to his game that Dougie refuses to use.Right now we lack a skilled Rw with Marner he would add speed and more scoring.Him and Johnny would drive teams crazy.

Hamilton might not be as physical as Burns, but to say he "refuses to use" his size and physicality is false. He routinely rubs opposing players out along the boards and lays some vicious cross-checks to take guys down. I wouldn't classify him as a physical d-man but he definitely uses his size to his advantage as part of his game.

[Cappy]

Mitch Marner isn't a star.

Generally, teams lose when trading away the best player.

Hamilton is 24 years old, signed for another 4 years at a decent return. You want to make your team better right now, you trade those prospects who have frankly proved nothing yet.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Mitch Marner isn't a star.

Generally, teams lose when trading away the best player.

Hamilton is 24 years old, signed for another 4 years at a decent return. You want to make your team better right now, you trade those prospects who have frankly proved nothing yet.

Sure, and then you get the same in return.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Sure, and then you get the same in return.

I don't understand? You trade prospects for prospects?

I'm not saying Hamilton is untouchable. Everyone is for sale for the right price. But until something tangible comes along, it's a little crazy to speculate about trading our best defenceman because Andersson had a good season debut on the 3rd pairing.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I don't understand? You trade prospects for prospects?

Yes. Because that is essentially the going rate for unproven prospects, which is why your suggestion does not make a lot of sense. Alternatively, by trading an established top-four defensemen like Hamilton, or Hamonic, or Stone the team would stand to net a valuable asset in return, and not an unproven prospect.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Mitch Marner isn't a star.

Generally, teams lose when trading away the best player.

Hamilton is 24 years old, signed for another 4 years at a decent return. You want to make your team better right now, you trade those prospects who have frankly proved nothing yet.

What kind of a return are you expecting trading those prospects? Do you think those prospects are going to get an established star player, whats your strategy for trading them? Wouldn't trading prospects leave us more holes in cupboard?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

What kind of a return are you expecting trading those prospects? Do you think those prospects are going to get an established star player, whats your strategy for trading them? Wouldn't trading prospects leave us more holes in cupboard?

This is all speculation, but yes prospects get traded all the time for established players. Duchene just did! Both Hamonic and Dougie were acquired from picks/prospects.

The idea was to get better now. how does trading your best defenceman and replacing him with a prospect really make you that much better as opposed to trading players not on your roster?

Like i said, im not opposed to the idea of trading a star for star, but i think we are jumping the gun just a little bit.