[News] All-encompassing Bennett trade discussions thread

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by MrMike

'
@DhaliwalSports
on Sam Bennett:

"Trade situation is heating up & I’ve been told this morning that the #Canucks don’t have enough assets to make this deal for Sam Bennett."

Dont have enough assets?? Is Sam Bennett really a chip that brings in a lot of value?

I would love if we got a good return here but this has to be a selling low situation, no?

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by handgroen

If they trade him to Detroit who gets playoff Sam Bennett?

I figure a bad team would give him the chance on the top two lines as a vet. You wouldn’t trade for a disgruntled player only to throw him on the bottom six again.

[handgroen]

i can’t help but wonder if Bennett is being kept away from the room.

The sequence of events:
players only meeting
agent leaks trade request
healthy scratch

this could be a matter of protecting the culture in the room just as much as protecting the asset for trade. it’s easier to believe this stuff when it’s dougie hamilton but to me it sure looks like things came to a head in that players only meeting

[camm13]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Friedman apparently said on a radio station in Buffalo about an hour ago that Bennett trade talks are really heating up and that he thinks the scratching is related

Bennett for Reider & Lazar?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

It’s somewhat comical reading through this thread and seeing just how polarizing a player Bennett really is..

You got the crowd at one extreme that are likely bitter at how our highest draft selection has been so lacklustre and believe he is a 4th line/replacement level bum.

Then you got the crowd that says he has not been afforded enough opportunities and has been saddled with bums his whole career and would thrive if given an extended look with good players and in a stable role.

There is a middle group that likely have feelings similar to both sides but not to the same extremes.

I for one do not think Bennett is a 4th liner/replacement level player. I do think he could do better with given more opportunities and a stable role. But for me that role would have been 3rd line center behind Lindholm and Monahan.

The problem is we have Backlund here who has earned more goodwill with the organization with his strong play over the years.

I will be sad to see Sam go and the asset management side of me would rather us trade Backlund because he isn’t getting any younger and cap space is at a premium. But I am also realistic about all this and also love Backlund so would be perfectly fine to see him stay and Bennett go to another team and given a fresh start.

The main things for me are we have to make sure we get good value because there are aspects of his game that will be missed and what does this all mean in the expansion draft?

We aren’t trading Bennett for a Dman or goalie so it’s either a for a forward, for pieces we don’t need to worry about in expansion or it’s a larger deal. So if it’s for a forward is this forward just going to be exposed in a few months time?

I dunno what the answer is but I’m partly sad for our highest pick ever being dealt, partly worried about what does this do for expansion and partly excited for the trade return possibilities.

I just hope we get a player back that is worth protecting in expansion and ideally is a RHed shot who is young enough to contribute for a number of years.

I feel similarly.

To the bold though, you bring up an important point that needs to be considered. As it stands right now, the Flames will expose two of the following:

Lucic - certainly, assuming he waives (he will)
Bennett
Backlund

If they trade Bennett for another forward that isn't exempt (which is the most likely situation here), then that person will have to be exposed. Or Backlund will be exposed. In other words, the return will be a rental anyway.

If he is traded for someone exempt (like a prospect or pick), then Backlund has to be exposed. That makes this trade a certain loss.

So basically that means we trade Bennett for another player that we have to expose anyway (and if they are at all decent, they will be the one Seattle takes).

I would rather just keep Bennett for the palyoffs.

[868904]

It does look like a trade is close. I just don't think you would healthy scratch him at this point knowing where he and his agent stand.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by MrMike

'
@DhaliwalSports
on Sam Bennett:

"Trade situation is heating up & I’ve been told this morning that the #Canucks don’t have enough assets to make this deal for Sam Bennett."

I would think there would be a premium to make a deal inside the division, which is why the Canucks don't have the assets. Treliving is not going to make a deal that could blow up in his face in a very public way, not when he's likely on a short leash himself. Even though the likelihood of Bennett coming back to haunt the Flames in any meaningful way is slim, the smart move is to not move a player to a team you are competing with for a playoff position. The nice thing about a deal with Vancouver, they wouldn't have to worry about facing "Playoff Sam" again.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by New Era

I would think there would be a premium to make a deal inside the division, which is why the Canucks don't have the assets. Treliving is not going to make a deal that could blow up in his face in a very public way, not when he's likely on a short leash himself. Even though the likelihood of Bennett coming back to haunt the Flames in any meaningful way is slim, the smart move is to not move a player to a team you are competing with for a playoff position. The nice thing about a deal with Vancouver, they wouldn't have to worry about facing "Playoff Sam" again.

Bennett is a wrecking ball. I could see him hurting a few Flames players if he was traded in division.

Hopefully he isn't!

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I feel similarly.

To the bold though, you bring up an important point that needs to be considered. As it stands right now, the Flames will expose two of the following:

Lucic - certainly, assuming he waives (he will)
Bennett
Backlund

If they trade Bennett for another forward that isn't exempt (which is the most likely situation here), then that person will have to be exposed. Or Backlund will be exposed. In other words, the return will be a rental anyway.

If he is traded for someone exempt (like a prospect or pick), then Backlund has to be exposed. That makes this trade a certain loss.

So basically that means we trade Bennett for another player that we have to expose anyway (and if they are at all decent, they will be the one Seattle takes).

I would rather just keep Bennett for the palyoffs.

I’m absolutely positive Tre would just sign someone who met the requirements over exposing Backlund if that was the case.

Like re-sign Nordstrom or Leivo..

Because even right now Bennett isn’t signed for next year so he wouldn’t count or is it different for RFAs?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

I’m absolutely positive Tre would just sign someone who met the requirements over exposing Backlund if that was the case.

Like re-sign Nordstrom or Leivo..

Which essentially means that we are replacing Bennett in the lineup with Nordstrom or Leivo. (Because Seattle likely takes our defenseman in that scenario)

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Bennett is a wrecking ball. I could see him hurting a few Flames players if he was traded in division.

Hopefully he isn't!

Don't fear that at all. Never feared playing against any former member of the team. A player of Sam Bennett's skill level is actually a player you look forward to playing against. Sure, he may run around, but he's going to hurt his team more than help them because he's always going to be in contention for the team's green jacket.

[Canada 02]

Blues eventually need to clear RW roster spot for Tarasenko. Currently, they have Perron, Kyrou, Hoffman and Sundqvist playing the right side.

Bennett for Sundqvist would be good value for what Bennett is today. Would be good if they could expand that to include Dunn and maybe Kylington, balanced out with picks

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Dont have enough assets?? Is Sam Bennett really a chip that brings in a lot of value?

I would love if we got a good return here but this has to be a selling low situation, no?

They have the assets sure, but they're not offering Boeser or a first and maybe Treliving just isn't interested in Virtanen and junk. Plus potential premium to move him within the division

[Mass_nerder]

Still thinking Bennett for Jack Hughes, but Jersey might have to sweeten the pot a bit; maybe a 2nd.

[CroFlames]

My expectations are really low for the return.

Although Reto Berra returned a 2nd, so I guess anything can happen.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Which essentially means that we are replacing Bennett in the lineup with Nordstrom or Leivo. (Because Seattle likely takes our defenseman in that scenario)

Not necessarily. I'm assuming we go back to 23 man rosters next year and Nordstrom could be 13th forward. Or he could even be sent down to the AHL - he won't be getting much more in the way of salary than his current contract.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Igottago

There is no empirical data is going to show me Bennett has been a net positive contributor to this team over his time here. You can pull out any advanced stats you want, but in this case I trust what I've seen on the ice over a number of years.

How 'bout some gold old counting stats? Active franchise leader for the playoffs in:

Goals
ESG
ESP

[Stanley]

Might as well add another swede in Rackell...
Palmieri would be another interesting option a RH RW

...not likely the contract $ would work tho...

[Cali Panthers Fan]

I just realized that if Bennett is in fact traded, then the final player from the fab four ugly christmas sweater boys would be gone, and that makes me sad.

[Canada 02]

Bennett can't do a pull up, but he has a good standing vertical jump