[Rumour] Flames have shown interest in Tyson Barrie. Discussed Brodie for Barrie 1 for 1

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Yes, your takes when it comes to hockey generally are too funny. They were not my comments, you twisted my comments as usual to make some ridiculous comment as per usual.

Oooh burn.

I notice you didn't answer the question.

The idea that BT trading Brodie would do anything like you suggested is beyond absurd. I mean....he already did trade him once...was Tkachuk asking for a way out then? Did it tank the season for the team?

Who can BT trade without upsetting them and have them asking for trades or pulling the rug out from them on the season?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Joborule

But what if they don't make it? You lose Brodie for nothing. And even if they do make it, you lose Brodie for nothing still. That hurts the Flames more in the long term, than the immediate turn.

This is about the next several years, rather than the next couple of months.

What if Arizona doesn't make it after getting Hall? What if all the teams making deadline deals for rentals don't win the Cup or fail to make it? Oh wait, that happens all the time. Brodie is like getting a rental D without paying to acquire one. You want to handicap the team greatly for what? At best two 2nds? How many 2nd rnd picks every draft become regular NHL players? What kind of message are you sending to the team? Oh sorry guys, we know it is a tight race and all of our division rivals have been buyers but too bad for you, we are selling because we are not going to give you that chance. Congrats, start the rebuild.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Oooh burn.

I notice you didn't answer the question.

The idea that BT trading Brodie would do anything like you suggested is beyond absurd. I mean....he already did trade him once...was Tkachuk asking for a way out then? Did it tank the season for the team?

Who can BT trade without upsetting them and have them asking for trades or pulling the rug out from them on the season?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Lmao, so you think trading a D man in the offseason for what would have been a key forward coming back, not futures, with lots of time left to work on the roster, with Valimaki yet injured is the same as one day before the trade deadline, with key injuries to your D, and right on the bubble of the playoffs. Brilliant!!

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Oooh burn.

I notice you didn't answer the question.

The idea that BT trading Brodie would do anything like you suggested is beyond absurd. I mean....he already did trade him once...was Tkachuk asking for a way out then? Did it tank the season for the team?

Who can BT trade without upsetting them and have them asking for trades or pulling the rug out from them on the season?

Enquiring minds want to know.

If flames were in a playoff spot and they decided to trade Brodie for futures , yes i could see Tkachuk and others being very pissed off.

Also when he traded Brodie before, it was to help the team for this year upfront.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If you’re convinced wholesale changes are needed in the offseason, it sure would be easier with a few extra draft picks.

Exactly.

Picks are currency like anything else. Particularly as the draft nears and that is clearly where BT prefers to make his changes.

Im not advocating trading Brodie just for giggles, but as part of a longer term approach when by all appearances Brodie isnt returning to Calgary next season

Then again BT has the habit of surprising when it comes to signings and maybe he does get something done and can announce it after the deadline.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

If flames were in a playoff spot and they decided to trade Brodie for futures , yes i could see Tkachuk and others being very pissed off.

Also when he traded Brodie before, it was to help the team for this year upfront.

And that can still happen.

As for the first paragraph...thats not the scenario and if changes come, the players have no one but themselves to blame for it.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

What key pieces? Shattenkirk? Nope, they had lots of depth D and were healthy on the blue line. His play was trending down and he had an ugly contract Not remotely the same situation.

Shattenkirk was a pending UFA when they dealt him. Injuries or not it still took a guy playing 20 minutes a night out of their lineup who was on their top PP unit.

The next year they traded Paul Statsny who was a #2 center and they missed the playoffs by 1 point.

So its not the same than again injuries are unpredictable and can happen anytime. So just because the Flames have some now should not impair the thought process. This is an inconssistent team that has 1 playoff win in the previous 3 seasons. To me thats enough data to prove the core is lacking and the roster needs to be improved.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Shattenkirk was a pending UFA when they dealt him. Injuries or not it still took a guy playing 20 minutes a night out of their lineup who was on their top PP unit.

The next year they traded Paul Statsny who was a #2 center and they missed the playoffs by 1 point.

So its not the same than again injuries are unpredictable and can happen anytime. So just because the Flames have some now should not impair the thought process. This is an inconssistent team that has 1 playoff win in the previous 3 seasons. To me thats enough data to prove the core is lacking and the roster needs to be improved.

The goal should be to win, to make the playoffs, to try and build a winning culture and gain playoff experience. Not to be the Edmonton Oilers.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The goal should be to win, to make the playoffs, to try and build a winning culture and gain playoff experience. Not to be the Edmonton Oilers.

The goal shouldn't be to be the Calgary Flames either. Just because the Oilers haven't been able to either draft well or build around a franchise player, doesn't mean it's a poor way to build a team. It's not a sure thing, but it's better than whatever we've been doing.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Rando

The goal shouldn't be to be the Calgary Flames either. Just because the Oilers haven't been able to either draft well or build around a franchise player, doesn't mean it's a poor way to build a team. It's not a sure thing, but it's better than whatever we've been doing.

You think the Oilers have been doing a better job at team management than the Flames over the past while? Are you sure you are on the right board?

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

You think the Oilers have been doing a better job at team management than the Flames over the past while? Are you sure you are on the right board?

Ask anyone outside of Calgary which team is better poised for a cup run. You might not like the answer.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

You think the Oilers have been doing a better job at team management than the Flames over the past while?

Is that what I said?

Are you sure you are on the right board?

There you go.

[Flash Walken]

When you look at how Las Vegas played things, it's a great example of how you can improve your club in the immediate term by focusing on the long term.

Vegas has done this the last two years while the flames have done the opposite.

Last season rather than give James Neal a massive contract they let Calgary outbid them and then just left the cap space open. At the deadline, Calgary had to move out significant cap to do a deal whereas Vegas could add Mark stone without skipping a beat. They positioned themselves for the future by a avoiding the temptations of the now and walked away with Mark Stone.

Last summer, facing a cap crunch, Vegas moved out Miller and Gusev, a player they couldn't sign. They moved both players purely for draft picks, draft picks being the transitional currency of the league. This allowed them to keep the players they wanted and allowed them to accumulate the Cap necessary to make deadline acquisitions for need. The currency they acquired in July was what they've spent in February and they have addressed the vacancy they created in moving Miller by adding Martinez, which is an upgrade at the position.

The Flames by contrast made no such deals, and were forced to bridge Tkachuk. That is a bad move dictated by a lack of cap space. So by making a short term decision they lost out on two long term assets: signing tkachuk to term as well as transitional currency of picks. Obviously keeping frolik for half a year was a meaningless endeavour, but the time value of not having that space was lost.

Now, the flames don't have the transitional currency available to address their weaknesses, arguably their best player is set up to leave to free agency at his first opportunity, and the value of a trade for their quickly depreciating assets appears to be deteriorating.

These are foreseen consequences between good management and bad.

[Rando]

Vegas shouldn't be an example for anyone. They were given an extraordinary opportunity to acquire players and assets. They used that opportunity, full marks for that, but the idea that any team can follow their example is inherently flawed.

[Jiggy]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

When you look at how Las Vegas played things, it's a great example of how you can improve your club in the immediate term by focusing on the long term.

Vegas has done this the last two years while the flames have done the opposite.

Last season rather than give James Neal a massive contract they let Calgary outbid them and then just left the cap space open. At the deadline, Calgary had to move out significant cap to do a deal whereas Vegas could add Mark stone without skipping a beat. They positioned themselves for the future by a avoiding the temptations of the now and walked away with Mark Stone.

Last summer, facing a cap crunch, Vegas moved out Miller and Gusev, a player they couldn't sign. They moved both players purely for draft picks, draft picks being the transitional currency of the league. This allowed them to keep the players they wanted and allowed them to accumulate the Cap necessary to make deadline acquisitions for need. The currency they acquired in July was what they've spent in February and they have addressed the vacancy they created in moving Miller by adding Martinez, which is an upgrade at the position.

The Flames by contrast made no such deals, and were forced to bridge Tkachuk. That is a bad move dictated by a lack of cap space. So by making a short term decision they lost out on two long term assets: signing tkachuk to term as well as transitional currency of picks. Obviously keeping frolik for half a year was a meaningless endeavour, but the time value of not having that space was lost.

Now, the flames don't have the transitional currency available to address their weaknesses, arguably their best player is set up to leave to free agency at his first opportunity, and the value of a trade for their quickly depreciating assets appears to be deteriorating.

These are foreseen consequences between good management and bad.

You can't compare Vegas's position to anyone else in the league. They're lucky to have loads of draft picks. They gave up 3 picks for someone like Tatar. Is that good management? If the Flames did that you would call them out for it.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The goal should be to win, to make the playoffs, to try and build a winning culture and gain playoff experience. Not to be the Edmonton Oilers.

So you have a team that is 2-12 in their last 14 playoff games and not able to make it every year.

I would argue that trying to get that group into the playoffs again as an 8 seed would be more of a Kevin Lowe move.

To cite the St.Louis example....the deadline picks helped them deal for Brayden Schenn and Ryan O'Reilly. So although those moves hurt the team at that time over a longer term it's helped them build a better team.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Jiggy

You can't compare Vegas's position to anyone else in the league. They're lucky to have loads of draft picks. They gave up 3 picks for someone like Tatar. Is that good management? If the Flames did that you would call them out for it.

Superficial whataboutism isn't disproving my point.

It's not even addressing it.

Comparing the the worsr decisions of each franchise is not going to go well for Calgary. Trading for 3 picks for Tatar was probably a misstep, but I'd rather do that trade 10 times out of 10 than give up 3 picks for stone and Lazar, and I will let you decide what was a worse move.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by Jiggy

You can't compare Vegas's position to anyone else in the league. They're lucky to have loads of draft picks. They gave up 3 picks for someone like Tatar. Is that good management? If the Flames did that you would call them out for it.

Then traded him along with 13th overall pick Nick Suziki from to the Habs for Pacioretty.

Pacioretty Aged 31 - 59 points

Tatar aged 29- 55 points
Suzuki aged 20 - 40 points

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Ask anyone outside of Calgary which team is better poised for a cup run. You might not like the answer.

Lol, because of great team management? Because they sucked and won 4 fracking lotteries...and they are still a bubble team

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Ask anyone outside of Calgary which team is better poised for a cup run. You might not like the answer.

Ask anyone outside of Edmonton which team is the laughing stock of pro sports over the past decade. I am pretty sure I will like the answer.