2019/2020 Trade Speculation and Rumors 2.0

[Icon]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I would have been fine with Kadri, but a 2C who was about to turn 29 with 3 more years on his contract isn't really what I had in mind in terms of maintaining quality in the C development pipeline.

If I were a GM, I'd have a goal to spend a 1st rd pick on a C at least every 3 years; two 2nds or better every 2 years, a 3rd rd pick or better every single year (at least until I had a legit 1-2 punch with term). As a bonus, this framework might have helped prevent the Hamonic trade.

It's the hardest piece to acquire...usually you need a top 2 pick, but it's certainly possible later with enough discipline and patience. It's far easier to luck into gems at other positions.

Easy to preach, harder to practice.

So you're drafting 10th, the top 5 C of the generally accepted draft rankings have been drafted ahead of you... do you skip over the next half dozen or dozen of the best on the board to grab a later ranked overall, next-best center? Get in the habit of always trading down? Always spend to trade up?

If the draft was easy, most of the teams in the same boat here wouldn't be.

I totally agree the Flames have missed the boat on drafting Cs with lots of potential instead of wingers or D. But at the same time, they've tried to be "smarter than the rest" before (Janko for example).

[Corral]

Inability to find a coach and bad free agent signing pretty much explains why this group has yet to blossom under BT. The tear down idea is not on the table with a new arena in the works.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Corral

Inability to find a coach and bad free agent signing pretty much explains why this group has yet to blossom under BT. The tear down idea is not on the table with a new arena in the works.

Disagree on this front. The arena is years away, and what are they selling at that stage? A mediocre team who can’t win a playoff series (or make the playoffs) or a young exciting team filled with hope?

Hope is easier to sell than mediocrity.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by New Era

No, the Lucic trade has hurt Calgary. That contract is absolute poison. Unless they find a way to encourage Lucic to retire the Flames are stuck with that albatross. We're stuck with that garbage for another three seasons. If you are looking or a major reason why the Flames can't improve the top six it is because they have Lucic's contract in the bottom six paying a player top six money who is providing bottom line performance. The fact the team has almost $8.5M tied up in two bottom six players is brutal.

So you would rather trade Lucic (25% retained) and a 3rd back to the Oilers for Neal? The Oilers took Neal and his bad attitude and bad contract off our hands, agreed to pay 25% of Lucic's contract, and also had to give up a 3rd. Complain about the Neal signing as much as you want, but it wasn't a bad trade.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I would have been fine with Kadri, but a 2C who was about to turn 29 with 3 more years on his contract isn't really what I had in mind in terms of maintaining quality in the C development pipeline.
.

Yeah, but when you're 4th overall pick, who was supposed to be your future #1C, flat lines, you have to try and make do.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Icon

Easy to preach, harder to practice.

So you're drafting 10th, the top 5 C of the generally accepted draft rankings have been drafted ahead of you... do you skip over the next half dozen or dozen of the best on the board to grab a later ranked overall, next-best center? Get in the habit of always trading down? Always spend to trade up?

If the draft was easy, most of the teams in the same boat here wouldn't be.

I totally agree the Flames have missed the boat on drafting Cs with lots of potential instead of wingers or D. But at the same time, they've tried to be "smarter than the rest" before (Janko for example).

Then you draft the BPA and take a C in the 2nd round or 3rd round. Hopefully you haven't spent those picks like candy.

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Yeah, but when you're 4th overall pick, who was supposed to be your future #1C, flat lines, you have to try and make do.

Sure. But we can walk and chew gum at the same time. 5 years and Dubé is our only real pull on the C slot machine. The drafting success rate has been excellent, but only 9 picks in the top 90 in that span (compared to default 15).

[dying4acup]

I think we all need to remember that gems like ROR and Brayden Point were found in the 2nd round. Scouting, drafting, and development are a big factor in all of this.

Think for a second... maybe Yakupov could have been Ovechkin in the right scenario... lol.

[Sandman]

Lets not forget the 2 first rounders in the Monahan draft that didn't even make the NHL. Those 3 picks were the result of trading Iggy and Bouwmeester, and were supposed to supposed to kick-start the rebuild. Just pretend for a minute that Poirier and Klimchuk fulfilled their potential, and currently occupied spots on the team....

[Corral]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Disagree on this front. The arena is years away, and what are they selling at that stage? A mediocre team who can’t win a playoff series (or make the playoffs) or a young exciting team filled with hope?

Hope is easier to sell than mediocrity.

Mediocrity apparently is an easy sale in this nhl market. Been doing it since the mid 1990s with a few exceptional seasons 2004 to 2009. Hope on the other hand is a real stretch for a franchise that has won so little in 30 years, and there’s a price ceiling for hope that will be unacceptable in the new barn

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

So you would rather trade Lucic (25% retained) and a 3rd back to the Oilers for Neal?

No I wouldn't. I would have done everything humanly possible to move Neal and taken nothing back. If Neal was that large a concern I would have shopped Neal and offered to retain 25% and given up our third round pick to make it happen. The smart play would have been to play him up the line up, let him have his hot start, garner a little bit of interest, then dump him at the first opportunity. Do NOT take back an even worse contract back just to get rid of Neal.

The Oilers took Neal and his bad attitude and bad contract off our hands, agreed to pay 25% of Lucic's contract, and also had to give up a 3rd. Complain about the Neal signing as much as you want, but it wasn't a bad trade.

It was a horrible trade. Lucic's deal is worse because it is buyout proof.
We're stuck with dead cap space. Treliving's incompetence at signing free agents has cost us the cash that could secure another top line player. We have $8M in dead space because of Lucic, Brouwer, and Stone, and Stone was a double #### up as he had to go out and sign him again after buying him out. Just brutal management. You can forgive a swing at a pitch in the dirt every now and then, but when the GM does it consistently it is a problem. This team will not be competitive so long as that much money is locked into players that don't contribute. Imagine what 10% of the cap could do to improve this team?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by New Era

No I wouldn't. I would have done everything humanly possible to move Neal and taken nothing back. If Neal was that large a concern I would have shopped Neal and offered to retain 25% and given up our third round pick to make it happen. The smart play would have been to play him up the line up, let him have his hot start, garner a little bit of interest, then dump him at the first opportunity. Do NOT take back an even worse contract back just to get rid of Neal.



It was a horrible trade. Lucic's deal is worse because it is buyout proof.
We're stuck with dead cap space. Treliving's incompetence at signing free agents has cost us the cash that could secure another top line player. We have $8M in dead space because of Lucic, Brouwer, and Stone, and Stone was a double #### up as he had to go out and sign him again after buying him out. Just brutal management. You can forgive a swing at a pitch in the dirt every now and then, but when the GM does it consistently it is a problem. This team will not be competitive so long as that much money is locked into players that don't contribute. Imagine what 10% of the cap could do to improve this team?

Firstly, Neal could not be moved even with retaining 25%.

Secondly, whether Neal was easier to buy out is not relevant when ownership would not approve the money required to do so.

Thirdly, the actual large amounts of money saved in this deal allowed extra flexibility for Treliving.

Fourthly, saying that they could play Neal up in the lineup to ensure a hot start and then easily trade him is simply a dream scenario and not something you plan a year around.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by New Era

No I wouldn't. I would have done everything humanly possible to move Neal and taken nothing back. If Neal was that large a concern I would have shopped Neal and offered to retain 25% and given up our third round pick to make it happen. The smart play would have been to play him up the line up, let him have his hot start, garner a little bit of interest, then dump him at the first opportunity. Do NOT take back an even worse contract back just to get rid of Neal.

If the was doable then the Oilers would have been able to trade him after his hot start. No one was taking that contract.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by New Era

No I wouldn't. I would have done everything humanly possible to move Neal and taken nothing back.

Yeah, I wish I could have my cake and eat it too.

[BigErnSalute_16]

Originally Posted by New Era

No, the Lucic trade has hurt Calgary. That contract is absolute poison. Unless they find a way to encourage Lucic to retire the Flames are stuck with that albatross. We're stuck with that garbage for another three seasons. If you are looking or a major reason why the Flames can't improve the top six it is because they have Lucic's contract in the bottom six paying a player top six money who is providing bottom line performance. The fact the team has almost $8.5M tied up in two bottom six players is brutal.

We were already stuck with a garbage contract. So moving one of the worst players in the league for a little cap savings, a slightly better player and a 3rd round pick did help the team

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Corral

Inability to find a coach and bad free agent signing pretty much explains why this group has yet to blossom under BT. The tear down idea is not on the table with a new arena in the works.

I would also add the inability to find a good goalie.
Lots of assets wasted on average short term goalies.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by BigErnSalute_16

We were already stuck with a garbage contract. So moving one of the worst players in the league for a little cap savings, a slightly better player and a 3rd round pick did help the team

And don’t forget millions of dollars. That was huge.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by New Era

No I wouldn't. I would have done everything humanly possible to move Neal and taken nothing back. If Neal was that large a concern I would have shopped Neal and offered to retain 25% and given up our third round pick to make it happen. The smart play would have been to play him up the line up, let him have his hot start, garner a little bit of interest, then dump him at the first opportunity. Do NOT take back an even worse contract back just to get rid of Neal.



It was a horrible trade. Lucic's deal is worse because it is buyout proof.
We're stuck with dead cap space. Treliving's incompetence at signing free agents has cost us the cash that could secure another top line player. We have $8M in dead space because of Lucic, Brouwer, and Stone, and Stone was a double #### up as he had to go out and sign him again after buying him out. Just brutal management. You can forgive a swing at a pitch in the dirt every now and then, but when the GM does it consistently it is a problem. This team will not be competitive so long as that much money is locked into players that don't contribute. Imagine what 10% of the cap could do to improve this team?

Cringe.

The ‘I’m smarter than they are’ take without actually knowing the full story. Dubious claim.

Neal was not coming back. He had to go. Playing him up the line up in the hope he could increase his value so that you could find a taker, is a little naive. After all this is a guy who is on his fourth team in four years, and seventh of his career. For a guy who has had 12 20 goal seasons, that should raise an eyebrow. I doubt he would have come back to camp smiling and happy to do whatever was best to help the team win.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Cringe.

The ‘I’m smarter than they are’ take without actually knowing the full story. Dubious claim.

Neal was not coming back. He had to go. Playing him up the line up in the hope he could increase his value so that you could find a taker, is a little naive. After all this is a guy who is on his fourth team in four years, and seventh of his career. For a guy who has had 12 20 goal seasons, that should raise an eyebrow. I doubt he would have come back to camp smiling and happy to do whatever was best to help the team win.

Yeah, Neal was pretty bad news, from what I have heard. The trade wasn’t the mistake, it was not doing quite enough research on him before signing him.

And playing him up the lineup to increase trade value is: (a) not helpful to the team on the ice; (b) probably not going to work anyway; and (c) interfering with coaching decisions. Neal was on the powerplay enough to see how he’d fit with Calgary’s better players.

[Robbob]

Neal was the 13th forward when his season ended in Calgary. You don't feed that player premium ice time. He is the 13th forward because he is hurting the team, not helping. Do you take Lindholm or Tkachuk off the first pp to try to rebuild any value. That probably isn't happening. Neal had a very fortunate October paired with McDavid, but that well went dry rather quickly and now he is a 4th liner on that team.

I do that trade every day, twice today.

[Scroopy Noopers]

I wonder how playing Neal up the lineup would have gone over with the core Flames group...