2017/2018 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Flames_F.T.W

Summary of the Athletic article?

Sure,
Basically Wilson breaks it down to 3 categories:

Untouchables
Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk, Backlund, Giordano

Almost untouchable
Hamilton, Ferland, Jankowski, Frolik, Hamonic, Andersson, Kulak, Smith

Probably staying put
Hathaway, Gillies, Shore, Lazar

Probably on the move
Brodie, Bennett, Stone, Brouwer

[Steveyoto]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

1. Any trade suggestions in which the Flames are moving their most offensively talented players are total non-starters. Period. The team needs—more than anything—scoring upgrades and scoring depth. That is NOT achieved by relinquishing their top scoring forwards for mystery returns.

2. The idea that the clearest path to improvement is for teams too "maximize" the trade value of all their assets is nonsense.

3. What is this "style of hockey that is necessary to win in the playoffs"? And moreover, does every player who has won the Stanley Cup play this same style?

It is a mistake for the Flames to trade Johnny Gaudreau.

I like your post and agree with lots of it. I also think we all know what the "style" needed to win a cup is. The playoffs are hard, look at the last Playoff appearance by the Flames. Johnny was almost invisible against the Ducks. He is not build to play tough grinding hockey where the refs put the whistle away.

Regular season success does not necessarily equal playoff success. I think it is worth the time to explore the options.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Steveyoto

I feel like Gaudreau is much more frail than Marchessault...

Gaudreau is "more frail"? In the past four seasons he has played in 327 games. Marchessault has played in 292.

[Steveyoto]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Gaudreau is "more frail"? In the past four seasons he has played in 327 games. Marchessault has played in 292.

Frail may have been the incorrect word to use. He is weaker on the puck and unwilling to go to tough places.

I LIKE THE GUY, I just think the Flames chances of winning a cup will be greatly improved by capitalizing on his high water mark and trying to build in a different direction.

Personally I would love to see the management look at how Vegas is build and try to get away from 1 through 4 lines and try to roll with 4 #2 lines. This avoids most matchups, players get more or less even ice time and instills team work and equality which helps the team have more trust and chemistry. TO have 4 #2 lines you need to ditch some "high end" talent and get more #2 line type players of all types.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Steveyoto

Frail may have been the incorrect word to use. He is weaker on the puck and unwilling to go to tough places.

I LIKE THE GUY, I just think the Flames chances of winning a cup will be greatly improved by capitalizing on his high water mark and trying to build in a different direction.

Personally I would love to see the management look at how Vegas is build and try to get away from 1 through 4 lines and try to roll with 4 #2 lines. This avoids most matchups, players get more or less even ice time and instills team work and equality which helps the team have more trust and chemistry. TO have 4 #2 lines you need to ditch some "high end" talent and get more #2 line type players of all types.

And what do you want for Gaudreau? Any deal for a current player would be a downgrade or lateral move. If you trade for picks/prospects you aren't getting any closer to a cup.

Trading Gaudreau doesn't get you closer to a cup.

[Steveyoto]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

And what do you want for Gaudreau? Any deal for a current player would be a downgrade or lateral move. If you trade for picks/prospects you aren't getting any closer to a cup.

Trading Gaudreau doesn't get you closer to a cup.

I mentioned on the last page possibly something like Galchenyuk & Gallagher.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Steveyoto

I mentioned on the last page possibly something like Galchenyuk & Gallagher.

Trade away quality for quantity? 'Cos that always works out well.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Steveyoto

I like your post and agree with lots of it. I also think we all know what the "style" needed to win a cup is. The playoffs are hard, look at the last Playoff appearance by the Flames. Johnny was almost invisible against the Ducks. He is not build to play tough grinding hockey where the refs put the whistle away.

Regular season success does not necessarily equal playoff success. I think it is worth the time to explore the options.

This is a dated, antiquated way of thinking that's inherently false.

You can't take one playoff series and use it to slight a player. At the exact same time you're talking about Patrick Kane was held to the same stat line as Nashville swept the Hawks.

Extremely short sighted on your part.

The previous playoffs Johnny scored big goals and had put up good numbers.

It honestly sounds like you're Darryl Sutter's PR guy from 2007.

Speed and skill are the name of the game today, and what you're suggesting in moving our best player is outright asinine.

He does go to the boards all the time. I've seen him hurl himself into Dustin Byfuglien and he also plays with a ton of heart. What you're trying to suggest to build this false narrative is beyond reaching.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Steveyoto

I mentioned on the last page possibly something like Galchenyuk & Gallagher.

I'm not sure on what planet they get you closer to a cup than Gaudreau, that isn't even a lateral move.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Steveyoto

I like your post and agree with lots of it. I also think we all know what the "style" needed to win a cup is.

I don't. Please enlighten me.

The playoffs are hard, look at the last Playoff appearance by the Flames. Johnny was almost invisible against the Ducks. He is not build to play tough grinding hockey where the refs put the whistle away...

In his first playoff appearance Gaudreau was the Flames's leading scorer. I think your selective sample size of four games is basically negligible, and nullifies your argument.

[bigrangy]

I love Gaudreau and Monahan, but they make the Sedins look like Deryk Engelland.

I know the era of having tough guys is over, but it's not hard to argue that the Flames have the least grit in their elite forward talent.

If you could trade either of them for a slightly more complete player I think it could be something to pursue.

They are pretty much the team's entire offense though, which makes it very risky.

I wouldn't want to trade Monahan yet though. All of his comparables have blossomed into top C's and I think it will be his turn to take that step next year, at least I hope so.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Steveyoto

...Lets just say you could get amazing return for him. To me if you could get Gallagher and Galchenyuk or something like this it might be worth the consideration...

This is not an amazing return for Gaudreau. It would be a terrible trade that would make the Flames worse.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Steveyoto

I mentioned on the last page possibly something like Galchenyuk & Gallagher.

I would boycott the Flames for that trade.

In the new NHL, speed and skill works. Johnny is part of the solution.

[Steveyoto]

I will respectfully bow out of the conversation as it seems that I might be the only fan who thinks this way.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Steveyoto

I mentioned on the last page possibly something like Galchenyuk & Gallagher.

A superstar for a couple 2nd liners. Brutal trade.

If the Flames move Gaudreau for some reason it should be for picks and prospects because no matter what they take a step back. Gaudreau is the driver of our offense which is already among the worst in the league.

[Muta]

I don't understand from that Athletic article summary why Backlund would be untouchable. I absolutely would move him and his salary in the right trade.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Muta

I don't understand from that Athletic article summary why Backlund would be untouchable. I absolutely would move him and his salary in the right trade.

Essentially because Bennett hasn't progressed as expected and the Flames have nobody in the organization to take those minutes. Backlund plays the hardest minutes of any forward on the team.

For better or for worse there isn't anybody that can replace what he does right now.

[Love]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

If we go for Kessel Brouwer needs to be going the other way and the Pens would have to take ‘a loss’ on the trade to get out from the remainder of that contract. His 92 points this year is the peak no doubt and Phil is going to start his decline but should still be productive though 8 mill par for the next 4 is rich.


To Pitt
Brouwer
Brodie
Klimchuk

To Flames
Kessel

Then I’d like to see Atkinson targeted as well - Bennett + D prospect +

Gaudreau - Monahan - Atkinson
Tkachuk - Backlund - Kessel
Ferland - Jankowski - Frolik

That is a solid top 9, still weary about Kessel but he does have 5 straight 82 game seasons and should be good for 60 to 75 points for the duration.

would never happen but i’m drooling at that top 9

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Muta

I don't understand from that Athletic article summary why Backlund would be untouchable. I absolutely would move him and his salary in the right trade.

I would trade most of his Alomst Untouchable list in the blink of an eye. If one or more of Ferland, Kulak or Frolik is all that stands between the team making a move to improve the team you drive those players to the airport.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Muta

I don't understand from that Athletic article summary why Backlund would be untouchable. I absolutely would move him and his salary in the right trade.

I felt the same way about Frolik.