2019/2020 Trade Speculation and Rumors 2.0

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Personally, I would be disappointed if any trade involving Gaudreau didn't have at least one established player coming back.

If the two mystery boxes (Cozens and a draft pick) don't pan out, I would at least want something to show for it, even if it was 2nd pairing defenseman or middle 6 forward.

A blue-chip prospect, high first round picks (top 7, 8ish) are way more interest to me actually. I do NOT want to have the return value have some avg, middle 6 forward, or 4-6 dman in return. It's highly unlikely that the flames get an NHL level player of equivalent value back for Monahan or Gaudreau.

The value of those guys being traded isn't going to be graded based on how well next year's team does, but rather how the trade does to reshape the core of this team 2-3+ years from now in my opinion.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Tampa Bay traded St. Louis while competing - which may be more closely relatable to the Flames and Giordano, but you can't view windows as small enclosed periods of time. It's about consistently smart asset management and team development - trading Monahan for futures isn't a declaration that this team's short term is all about rebuilding.

St.Louis isn't even a good example of asset management (aside from the fact that he was 39, so closer to Gio than to Monahan or Gaudreau, as you mentioned).

He requested a trade.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Cozens won't be playing 2nd line on any NHL team next season.

If/when the WHL season gets started, odds are pretty good that is where he ends up. It's either NHL or bust for him, and with all the missed time now he'd be much better off getting back into the swing of game action by dominating juniors in a shortened season.

They're not expecting him back, but believe there is a chance he could return because of covid changing how NHL teams plan for their next season. The 'Canes mgmt are not holding their breath, but they're tightly crossing their fingers.

A Hurricanes mgmt staff who lives by me and I happened to be in the corner store as he was talking to the store owner about hockey.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Buff

They're not expecting him back, but believe there is a chance he could return because of covid changing how NHL teams plan for their next season. The 'Canes mgmt are not holding their breath, but they're tightly crossing their fingers.

A Hurricanes mgmt staff who lives by me and I happened to be in the corner store as he was talking to the store owner about hockey.

Yep, pretty much. My dad speaks with Anholt once in a while and they are not counting on him being back, but very hopeful that current circumstances result in him returning for his 19 year old season.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Tampa Bay traded St. Louis while competing - which may be more closely relatable to the Flames and Giordano, but you can't view windows as small enclosed periods of time. It's about consistently smart asset management and team development - trading Monahan for futures isn't a declaration that this team's short term is all about rebuilding.

ok, but again, why are the flames doing this?

Tampa did it because St. Louis had asked to be traded and stamkos was the heir apparent. St. Louis was also one of the top players in the league and Tampa for back a 'right now' piece in the form of Callahan.

As far as I know Monahan hasn't asked for a trade, the flames don't have an heir apparent and as flames fans we perceive his value as somewhat lacklustre because among other things Monahan isn't a 'play driving centre'.

In the proposals that are sending Monahan out, there's no right now piece coming back, so you're taking of playing Backlund and Bennett about 40 minutes night up from the ~28 they are playing now.

I just don't understand what the point is if doing this trade even if a buffalo is a willing participant (and I really doubt they would be).

If Monahan is being traded I think chances are better than not you see a player coming back able to play the same rough amount of minutes Monahan plays, whether that's a 20 minute per night defender or a 20 minute per night forward.

Picks and prospects has this team in the basement next year.

[JTech780]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

ok, but again, why are the flames doing this?

Tampa did it because St. Louis had asked to be traded and stamkos was the heir apparent. St. Louis was also one of the top players in the league and Tampa for back a 'right now' piece in the form of Callahan.

As far as I know Monahan hasn't asked for a trade, the flames don't have an heir apparent and as flames fans we perceive his value as somewhat lacklustre because among other things Monahan isn't a 'play driving centre'.

In the proposals that are sending Monahan out, there's no right now piece coming back, so you're taking of playing Backlund and Bennett about 40 minutes night up from the ~28 they are playing now.

I just don't understand what the point is if doing this trade even if a buffalo is a willing participant (and I really doubt they would be).

If Monahan is being traded I think chances are better than not you see a player coming back able to play the same rough amount of minutes Monahan plays, whether that's a 20 minute per night defender or a 20 minute per night forward.

Picks and prospects has this team in the basement next year.

I would rather be in the basement with a chance of getting better, than be stuck in the middle of the pack and not improving.

[Gaskal]

Wonder if we can take Fleury off of Vegas hands, now that the word is they're discussion an extension with Lehner... sure would be useful to have a Lake Erie sized fire under his ass for minimum four games a year lol.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by JTech780

I would rather be in the basement with a chance of getting better, than be stuck in the middle of the pack and not improving.

I disagree with this. I have said before that I am against a full rebuild. The reason I am against it is that I think our younger core pieces (Chucky, Anderson, Hanafin, Mangi, and Dube) are good enough to win with. Or at the very least I hope they can get to that next level.

Rework or retool the roster around those guys rather than taking the Edmonton approach of intentional failure.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Wonder if we can take Fleury off of Vegas hands, now that the word is they're discussion an extension with Lehner... sure would be useful to have a Lake Erie sized fire under his ass for minimum four games a year lol.

Fleury scares the hell out of me ... has the feeling of the Don Edwards acquisition from the 80s

Goalie with a name in a good system that isn't as good as his reputation.

Last year in GSAA Fleury was ranked 46th, one spot behind David Rittich.

At $7M per year for the next two years you'd hope you'd be getting an upgrade!

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I disagree with this. I have said before that I am against a full rebuild. The reason I am against it is that I think our younger core pieces (Chucky, Anderson, Hanafin, Mangi, and Dube) are good enough to win with. Or at the very least I hope they can get to that next level.

Rework or retool the roster around those guys rather than taking the Edmonton approach of intentional failure.

Context is king. In the post you replied to, the continuing argument largely surrounds whether trading Monahan and Gaudreau would constitute a full rebuild, not necessarily whether a full rebuild is the right path forward.

By your identification of the core players, I would surmise that you believe we could trade one or both of Monahan and Gaudreau while remaining competitive. I agree with you. I disagree strongly with Flash that we should use these players to target middling pieces that can play now. That is how we wind up with Phaneuf trades and look like idiots.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by JTech780

I would rather be in the basement with a chance of getting better, than be stuck in the middle of the pack and not improving.

So would I but I'd bet 85% of this board doesn't expect the flames will do that.

So why trade 19th and Monahan and roll with backlund as your top line C?

[JTech780]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I disagree with this. I have said before that I am against a full rebuild. The reason I am against it is that I think our younger core pieces (Chucky, Anderson, Hanafin, Mangi, and Dube) are good enough to win with. Or at the very least I hope they can get to that next level.

Rework or retool the roster around those guys rather than taking the Edmonton approach of intentional failure.

I am fine with a rework/retool, I just think we should be looking for picks and prospects for Gaudreau and Monahan and not look to make sideways moves.

This team needs at the bare minimum a number 1 center and a number 1 defenseman before they are contenders.

I also don't think you cam go forward with Gaudreau or Monahan as part of your top line.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So would I but I'd bet 85% of this board doesn't expect the flames will do that.

So why trade 19th and Monahan and roll with backlund as your top line C?

Trade Monahan and Gaudreau for picks/prospects.

Sign Barzal to an offer sheet using the cap space opened up.

Profit.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So would I but I'd bet 85% of this board doesn't expect the flames will do that.

So why trade 19th and Monahan and roll with backlund as your top line C?

Some want Bennett to be the top line C (lol.)

But in seriousness, you could potentially get away with using Lindholm in that spot until one of the comeback pieces develops more. Lindholm for a year or two then Cozens + Rossi/Perfetti/Lundell doesn't seem like it will be a losing path forward.

[Harry Lime]

Flames fans have a strange stance where their own players are incapable of becoming a better player. There is no general progression in their mind.

Backlund played the best hockey of his career in the last half of this season. If he was ever going to carry a team for a full season as the number one centre, it's next season. He was better than Monahan. He played against the best players from the opposing team.

Tkachuk is the number one left winger.

Lindholm was the best player on the right wing.

By trading Gaudreau and Monahan, in terms of what we actually saw on the ice, the Flames are trading two thirds of their second line. You can trade them all for futures, and I still think that Calgary would be competitive, because I expect improvement from Mangiapane, Bennett and Dube.

If you trade J and M for magic beans, yeah you hope that one of Frost, Cozens and Lundell push Backlund out of the #1 line in a year or two. But the Flames would probably be just as competitive as they were this year, with the top two lines as stated above.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Context is king. In the post you replied to, the continuing argument largely surrounds whether trading Monahan and Gaudreau would constitute a full rebuild, not necessarily whether a full rebuild is the right path forward.

By your identification of the core players, I would surmise that you believe we could trade one or both of Monahan and Gaudreau while remaining competitive. I agree with you. I disagree strongly with Flash that we should use these players to target middling pieces that can play now. That is how we wind up with Phaneuf trades and look like idiots.

For now and forever you can safely assume that i don't think the flames SHOULD target middling pieces that can play now.

I think that they WILL target play now pieces, but that's pretty much the opposite of what I think is the right course or action.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

A blue-chip prospect, high first round picks (top 7, 8ish) are way more interest to me actually. I do NOT want to have the return value have some avg, middle 6 forward, or 4-6 dman in return. It's highly unlikely that the flames get an NHL level player of equivalent value back for Monahan or Gaudreau.

The value of those guys being traded isn't going to be graded based on how well next year's team does, but rather how the trade does to reshape the core of this team 2-3+ years from now in my opinion.

A high end prospect and 1st round would still be the core of the trade, I just mean I would want a roster player back in addition to, not in lieu of. Cozens and a #7 overall are anything but a sure thing even 2 or 3 years down the road. Maybe I am just jaded, but such a return could easily end up being a disappointment.

It seems like most 1st liners that get traded, that aren't just playoff rentals, get back the trifecta.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Why would Barzal sign an offersheet with the Flames if they just dumped 2/3 of the top line? Guy is a few games from a possible Stanley Cup final and is on a good team. Why would he chuck that to come to a rebuilding team? And yes, a team that dumps its first line for futures is rebuilding.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Trade Monahan and Gaudreau for picks/prospects.

Sign Barzal to an offer sheet using the cap space opened up.

Profit.

Imagine if the flames had just drafted barzal(16th overall) with the 15th overall pick, had the return from Ferland the return from Fox with 10+ million in cap space ...

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Trade Monahan and Gaudreau for picks/prospects.

Sign Barzal to an offer sheet using the cap space opened up.

Profit.

This is my dream scenario, along with signing Hall.

It would suck to have a 1C being paid $11 million + per who really isn't worth that much (but at least he's a play driving 1C), and it would also suck not to have a 1st round pick in 2021, 2022, 2023 or 2024, but hopefully the prospect cupboard is already loaded up pretty strongly by dealing Monahan and Gaudreau.

It would also suck if you've dealt two thirds of your top line to offer sheet Barzal only to have the Isles match it and now you're hooped because Hall won't sign. But I guess at that point they'd just scorch the earth and start over completely.