[Trade] Elias Lindholm + Noah Hanifin to Flames for D. Hamilton, Micheal Ferland, & Adam Fox

[FlamesAddiction]

There are so many dynamics at play with this trade, it is really difficult to judge it entirely until more time passes, especially from the Cane's perspective.

From a Flames perspective, at the very least it was a good deal and I don't think that changes no matter what happens with Fox. We traded some risk for certainty.

From a Can's perspective, it was a good deal with the potential of being a poor or excellent deal, depending on how things play out in the long run. More risk on their side in the long run, but probably a higher ceiling IMO.

[LWcrowfoot]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Ferland was overvalued by many in their evaluation of the trade. He's a good scorer when on his game, but he is also in the final year of his contract, after which he is a UFA. All the players who came to Calgary in the contract had more years of team control than all of the players who went the other way (including Fox, who can sign with any team he wants to after the end of the current season).

Ferland was mainly the guy I overrated. Hamilton I liked but wasn't sad to see him go. Lindholm and Hanifan are looking like stars though. Lindholm is a top line producer and Hanifan is back on track to be a Norris guy.

Fox is in his third year however, not fourth. Potential UFA August of 2020.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by LWcrowfoot

Ferland was mainly the guy I overrated. Hamilton I liked but wasn't sad to see him go. Lindholm and Hanifan are looking like stars though. Lindholm is a top line producer and Hanifan is back on track to be a Norris guy.

Fox is in his third year however, not fourth. Potential UFA August of 2020.

Well, in that case, the Flames should make every effort to sign him if he goes UFA at that time (if he has any interest at all, which is unlikely). The absolute absence of any quality D in the pipeline would instantly make him their top prospect.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Do you have the same skepticism for the comments by the GM who just traded the guy?

No, because Treliving isn't the sort to bull#### about something like that.

Also, it's very easy for a player to say "I didn't say that" simply because he literally didn't say exactly that, even though his agent had made it evident in discussions.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, because Treliving isn't the sort to bull#### about something like that.

Also, it's very easy for a player to say "I didn't say that" simply because he literally didn't say exactly that, even though his agent had made it evident in discussions.

Personally I believe most smart GM’s use gamesmanship and spin to their advantage. Trelivings comments post trade were meant to diminish the perceived value of the asset he had included in the trade and make the deal look better. No big deal. Pretty much the reverse of the Drew Shore comments at the deadline after he was acquired. But you can see why it doesn’t don’t sit well with the player.

I highly doubt the signing risk issue was pulled out of thin air but people place entirely too much weight on that IMO, as if trading Fox was like giving up nothing.

[Erick Estrada]

The Lindholm contract is looking better and better all the time.

[868904]

This has been discussed before, it doesn’t matter what “he said, she said”, Fox was not signed and therefore there was uncertainty to the asset. It was a devalued asset. If he signs with the Hurricanes, the value goes up but that’s the risk the Canes took. The Flames eliminated the risk and got the certain and sure asset.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The Lindholm contract is looking better and better all the time.

Agree, and assume you are alluding to the Nylander deal.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

- Fox's complicated situation with a high end prospect however some value degradation due to uncertainty of him signing

I have it on pretty good authority that Fox had no intention of signing in Canada.

No, this wasn't from the Orange Julius assistant to the regional manager.

[Vinny01]

I just went back and skimmed the first 10 or so goes of this thread and the reaction of many fans was pure disgust. So far this trwde has been great for this team. Lindholm has been much better than I expected and Hanifin is really starting to show signs of his offensive ability

I love that Tre had the courage to make this deal and he used his shrewd negotiaton skills to lock both up for under 5M per and getting 6 years.

[BigErnSalute_16]

Originally Posted by LWcrowfoot

Ferland was mainly the guy I overrated. Hamilton I liked but wasn't sad to see him go. Lindholm and Hanifan are looking like stars though. Lindholm is a top line producer and Hanifan is back on track to be a Norris guy.

Fox is in his third year however, not fourth. Potential UFA August of 2020.

Dude, figure it out that's like the 5th time in the last two pages. Hanifin

[Shazam]

This was a good trade for the Flames.

[1qqaaz]

I think Fox, at the time of the trade, was by far the Flames' best prospect.
Now he's a top 3 defense prospect in all of hockey.

However, unless he becomes a top 2 defenseman (which is quite possible), I think the Flames win the trade.

I don't put too much weight in Fox not wanting to sign in Calgary. I believe the Flames could and would have traded away Kulak, Kylington, and Andersson just to accommodate Fox. It Fox didn't want to sign in Calgary, it was probably mostly because there was too much competition. The Flames also have a poor record of developing defensemen after their done with the CHL or NCAA.

At the end of the day, Fox was a great pick for the third round, and I'm just glad the Flames got good value there. A lot better than the Kanzig pick, lol.

[LWcrowfoot]

Originally Posted by BigErnSalute_16

Dude, figure it out that's like the 5th time in the last two pages. Hanifin

Noel Hanifan?

[Shazam]

Nolan have a fan.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by 868904

This has been discussed before, it doesn’t matter what “he said, she said”, Fox was not signed and therefore there was uncertainty to the asset. It was a devalued asset. If he signs with the Hurricanes, the value goes up but that’s the risk the Canes took. The Flames eliminated the risk and got the certain and sure asset.

I'm not sure I understand. The question is what value the Flames received for him in the trade. They certainly received something but it's very difficult to ascertain what exactly without knowing what comparable asset would have completed the trade. Would a 3rd round pick in his place have gotten the deal done? Would it have taken a 2nd? Or was he the lynchpin to the whole deal?

Of course the rights to Fox are worth less than if he was signed. That is not up for debate, but how much less is. And I think the comments by some that he was never going to sign here (impossible to know) or that he can belong to anyone in a year (simply false) are attempts to paint the value the Flames gave up as less than what it actually was. And if you look at Fox's play this year and ignore potential sign-ability risks, then you are guilty of the opposite.

But certainly we have seen players traded for good value before where the team holding his rights was "backed into a corner" but still able to garner enough interest from other teams to yield nice returns.

The quality of the draft pick of the Flames organizations looks to be exceptional. They drafted a great prospect in the 3rd round, but even that ultimately is tempered by the factor he remained unsigned.

[Galakanokis]

I think one of the biggest thing this trade did was give us roster flexibility. Ferland and especially Hamilton were pretty one dementionable in where they had to play in the lineup and that they couldn't be relied upon defensively. Lindholm can play in all situations and is producing at a really nice clip. Same for Hanafin, any pairing and can play PK or PP. Same cannot be said for Ferland and Hamilton.

Happy with the trade regardless of what the others do.

[KipperFaNaTic]

Ferland is diagnosed with a concussion. Hopefully he is not out for too long. He was a warrior for the flames and I hope he comes back strong and scores 50.

[868904]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I'm not sure I understand. The question is what value the Flames received for him in the trade. They certainly received something but it's very difficult to ascertain what exactly without knowing what comparable asset would have completed the trade. Would a 3rd round pick in his place have gotten the deal done? Would it have taken a 2nd? Or was he the lynchpin to the whole deal?

Of course the rights to Fox are worth less than if he was signed. That is not up for debate, but how much less is. And I think the comments by some that he was never going to sign here (impossible to know) or that he can belong to anyone in a year (simply false) are attempts to paint the value the Flames gave up as less than what it actually was. And if you look at Fox's play this year and ignore potential sign-ability risks, then you are guilty of the opposite.

But certainly we have seen players traded for good value before where the team holding his rights was "backed into a corner" but still able to garner enough interest from other teams to yield nice returns.

The quality of the draft pick of the Flames organizations looks to be exceptional. They drafted a great prospect in the 3rd round, but even that ultimately is tempered by the factor he remained unsigned.

Not complicated really, if you want to quantify it treat it like this.

Fox signed last year equals mid first rounder, trade is therefore Hanifin and Lindholm for Hamilton, Ferland and a mid first round pick.

Fox unsigned last year equals mid second round pick, trade is therefore Hanifin and Lindholm for Hamilton, Ferland and a mid second round pick.

What Fox does now is irrelevant. His potential to succeed is the same in both situations, the only difference is the certainty that you get the asset (or whether he was signed).

There are two parts to the value: a) the actual player value; and b) the asset control value.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by 868904

Not complicated really, if you want to quantify it treat it like this.

Fox signed last year equals mid first rounder, trade is therefore Hanifin and Lindholm for Hamilton, Ferland and a mid first round pick.

Fox unsigned last year equals mid second round pick, trade is therefore Hanifin and Lindholm for Hamilton, Ferland and a mid second round pick.

What Fox does now is irrelevant. His potential to succeed is the same in both situations, the only difference is the certainty that you get the asset (or whether he was signed).

There are two parts to the value: a) the actual player value; and b) the asset control value.

So you’re saying Flames received mid second round pick value for Fox in that trade? That may be right but curious as to how you are so certain.

As I said, what I really object to is the notion that unsigned Fox was worth nothing to the Flames. Because for one thing, it’s not binary: signed or unsigned. Its a spectrum of likelihood to sign from 0 to 100 that affects the “control” piece of the value. And we don’t know what that was. And even if it was zero, his value isn’t zero unless it’s clear he would refuse to sign with anyone, or only one team.

The chatter after the deal was done was meant to make people think the likelihood was low, thereby changing their relative perception of value obtained.