What would you give up for Eichel?

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

...

I’ll say again, there’s no cost too high to get a player like this. What sets the franchise back a decade is not giving up the extra pieces for MacKinnon or Barkov or Thornton or Eichel when you have the chance.

I totally agree with this. Whenever you can get a franchise/generational player to build around, you do it. It looks the Sabre's management found ways to screw up building around Eichel. On the right team with the right players, Eichel would be considered the likes of McDavid. If the Flames can get him without crippling the team now - that would be phenomenal. But I think if there is a possibility to get him, I'd expect the Flames to do a bit of rebuilding and it may be sped up to try and win ASAP since 5 years is a short period of time. If there's absolutely no chance to get Eichel, move on.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

can you imagine RNH and Gaudreau on the same line? you'd see some sad numbers out of those two.
and why would you pay RNH 6-7M per year, which is probably what it would take for him to leave Edmonton for Calgary.

I like the guy, and only want him on the Oilers if it's for less than 6M per.

I can see RNH and Gaudreau being about as productive as Monahan and Gaudreau.

[442scotty]

I wouldn’t touch him without a long term assessment of his neck issues... Remember Nathan Horton?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I can see RNH and Gaudreau being about as productive as Monahan and Gaudreau.

Sure - But you also have the assets for Monahan from trading him, and all your existing prospects.

This team isn't 1 Eichel away from being competitive. We are many pieces away.

So you would have RNH and JG and then Monahan assets plus your own assets to acquire a winger OR

JG and Eichel and bigger holes left and no assets to close them.

This is actually why Calgary and Buffalo dont line up good as trade partners. Calgary doesnt have high end prospects to trade OR enough depth to trade roster players and stay competitive .

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by CSharp

I totally agree with this. Whenever you can get a franchise/generational player to build around, you do it. It looks the Sabre's management found ways to screw up building around Eichel. On the right team with the right players, Eichel would be considered the likes of McDavid. If the Flames can get him without crippling the team now - that would be phenomenal. But I think if there is a possibility to get him, I'd expect the Flames to do a bit of rebuilding and it may be sped up to try and win ASAP since 5 years is a short period of time. If there's absolutely no chance to get Eichel, move on.

Eichel is generational? Maybe that's where a lot of people differ. Eichel isnt even close to generational in my mind.

And he comes with a 10 million cap hit. So you arent getting any cheap years

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Eichel is generational? Maybe that's where a lot of people differ. Eichel isnt even close to generational in my mind.

And he comes with a 10 million cap hit. So you arent getting any cheap years

Maybe on a team that's not in Buffalo. I might of stretched it a bit but he would be generational for the Flames (and as close as we'll ever come to getting one) for sure. Again, no one player can carry a team in the modern day NHL. There has to be at least a couple more players as a supporting cast.

Eichel's cap hit is actually a bargain if you look at the players that have the same or higher cap hits other than McDavid. $10M cap hit for Eichel is a bargain. It's too bad that Sabres didn't build the team around Eichel the way they wanted to. Bringing in Hall is a joke, IMO. When Edmonton got McDavid, after the first season with Hall, they pretty much disposed of him.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Maybe on a team that's not in Buffalo. I might of stretched it a bit but he would be generational for the Flames (and as close as we'll ever come to getting one) for sure. Again, no one player can carry a team in the modern day NHL. There has to be at least a couple more players as a supporting cast.

Eichel's cap hit is actually a bargain if you look at the players that have the same or higher cap hits other than McDavid. $10M cap hit for Eichel is a bargain. It's too bad that Sabres didn't build the team around Eichel the way they wanted to. Bringing in Hall is a joke, IMO. When Edmonton got McDavid, after the first season with Hall, they pretty much disposed of him.

Bargain is again a stretch. For players making more this season:

I would take McDavid, Panarin, Matthews, Marner, Kane all over Eichel (I could see an argument against Marner, but it's at least a discussion)
I would take Eichel over Karlsson, Doughty, Tavares, and Price

So hes paid relatively what he is worth.

But that's part of the point. You are giving up assets to get a guy who's contract pays him what he is worth. There is no extra value there.

You could trade Monny and Hanifin for picks and prospects instead of for Eichel, and then use the 10 million on FA's and have FA's AND Assets.

I just don't get the desire to pay a premium in assets for a player who is paid relatively equal to his value, when we aren't 1 piece from a cup.

We would just be Buffalo 2.0

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Bargain is again a stretch. For players making more this season:

I would take McDavid, Panarin, Matthews, Marner, Kane all over Eichel (I could see an argument against Marner, but it's at least a discussion)
I would take Eichel over Karlsson, Doughty, Tavares, and Price

So hes paid relatively what he is worth.

But that's part of the point. You are giving up assets to get a guy who's contract pays him what he is worth. There is no extra value there.

You could trade Monny and Hanifin for picks and prospects instead of for Eichel, and then use the 10 million on FA's and have FA's AND Assets.

I just don't get the desire to pay a premium in assets for a player who is paid relatively equal to his value, when we aren't 1 piece from a cup.

We would just be Buffalo 2.0

The extra value is having an elite #1 centre for the first time in 30 years and maybe actually getting closer to winning something.

We are not trying to build the best spreadsheet here.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Sure - But you also have the assets for Monahan from trading him, and all your existing prospects.

This team isn't 1 Eichel away from being competitive. We are many pieces away.

So you would have RNH and JG and then Monahan assets plus your own assets to acquire a winger OR

JG and Eichel and bigger holes left and no assets to close them.

This is actually why Calgary and Buffalo dont line up good as trade partners. Calgary doesnt have high end prospects to trade OR enough depth to trade roster players and stay competitive .

If you trade:

Monahan
Tkachuk
Valimaki
Zary
1st

For

Eichel
Hall
Olofsson

You still have:

Gaudreau-Eichel-Olofsson
Hall-Lindholm-Dube
Lucic-Backlund-Mangiapane
Bennett-Ryan-Ritchie

Your defense is still:

Gio-Andersson
Hanifin-Tanev
Kylington-Nestorov/Stone/Mackey.

The third pairing sucks.

Would you rather try and find 3rd pairing defensemen like Derek Forbert or try and find a #1C?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

If you trade:

Monahan
Tkachuk
Valimaki
Zary
1st

For

Eichel
Hall
Olofsson

You still have:

Gaudreau-Eichel-Olofsson
Hall-Lindholm-Dube
Lucic-Backlund-Mangiapane
Bennett-Ryan-Ritchie

Your defense is still:

Gio-Andersson
Hanifin-Tanev
Kylington-Nestorov/Stone/Mackey.

The third pairing sucks.

Would you rather try and find 3rd pairing defensemen like Derek Forbert or try and find a #1C?

You also have no 1st this year, and no 1st from last year, and traded a 1st in Valimaki who is expect to step into the top 4 , as early as next year especially if Seattle selects a D

And if you're assuming Hall signs here after the deal, we can just sign him for free without the deal and add to roster as a FA (Not sure we can afford - Pretty sure we can't)

So we have seriously weakened our player pipeline to dress a top 6 lineup that looks like this next year assuming Hall signs

Gaudreau-Eichel-Olofsson
Hall-Lindholm-Dube

Vs

Gaudreau-Monny- MT (Or if you trade him somewhere else for a low salary player to sign Hall + other asset)
Hall-Lindholm-Dube

This moves the needle and makes us a Stanley Cup threat? Cause we are mortgaging our future to put this top 6 out there for next year.

(I am writing this year off as OVER - So only caring about next year. Which is why Hall is irrelevant)

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

You also have no 1st this year, and no 1st from last year, and traded a 1st in Valimaki who is expect to step into the top 4 , as early as next year especially if Seattle selects a D

And if you're assuming Hall signs here after the deal, we can just sign him for free without the deal and add to roster as a FA

So we have seriously weakened our player pipeline to dress a top 6 lineup that looks like this next year

Gaudreau-Eichel-Olofsson
Hall-Lindholm-Dube

Vs

Gaudreau-Monny- ??
Hall-Lindholm-Dube

This moves the needle and makes us a Stanley Cup threat? Cause we are mortgaging our future to put this top 6 out there for next year.

It doesn’t matter. We have a #1C locked in for five years after this one.

We have a #1G signed for 5 years after this.

We have Darryl Sutter behind the bench.

We don’t need 1st and 2nd round picks. We need NHL players.

Trade all the futures, because otherwise what’s the point?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

It doesn’t matter. We have a #1C locked in for five years after this one.

We have a #1G signed for 5 years after this.

We have Darryl Sutter behind the bench.

We don’t need 1st and 2nd round picks. We need NHL players.

Trade all the futures, because otherwise what’s the point?

Ok I guess that's one way to go. A 2 player team. But it wouldn't be my strategy to build a contender. And you were trading 3 roster players in your deal - 2 of who are in our top 4 best players and our best D NHL prospect.

Sounds more like a strategy to be terrible for a decade - AKA Buffalo 2.0!

[browntrout]

If you are trading for Eichel you need to keep our draft picks. no guarantee that we are in the playoffs right away...

[browntrout]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

If you trade:

Monahan
Tkachuk
Valimaki
Zary
1st

For

Eichel
Hall
Olofsson

You still have:

Gaudreau-Eichel-Olofsson
Hall-Lindholm-Dube
Lucic-Backlund-Mangiapane
Bennett-Ryan-Ritchie

Your defense is still:

Gio-Andersson
Hanifin-Tanev
Kylington-Nestorov/Stone/Mackey.

The third pairing sucks.

Would you rather try and find 3rd pairing defensemen like Derek Forbert or try and find a #1C?

That's too much...keep it simple Monahan, Tkachuk and maybe a 2nd round pick...I think even Buffalo would agree to that trade...if Eichel wants out of Buffalo...Buffalo ain't trading him if they don't have to, he is not the problem there, IMO

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Ok I guess that's one way to go. A 2 player team. But it wouldn't be my strategy to build a contender. And you were trading 3 roster players in your deal - 2 of who are in our top 4 best players and our best D NHL prospect.

Sounds more like a strategy to be terrible for a decade - AKA Buffalo 2.0!

Go look at who is still on the roster after trading Monahan, Tkachuk and Valimaki.

When you watch this team, do you have a problem with the effort and performance from the bottom 9 forwards?

This team’s problem is a Lack of star power.

Buffalo’s problem is being a top-to-bottom wretched operation.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by browntrout

That's too much...keep it simple Monahan, Tkachuk and maybe a 2nd round pick...I think even Buffalo would agree to that trade...if Eichel wants out of Buffalo...Buffalo ain't trading him if they don't have to, he is not the problem there, IMO

I agree that not much more than Tkachuk and Monahan would be needed. Also, there have been insider references to Buffalo wanting the equivalent of for 1st round assets for Eichel. So, a set price. Those assets have to be in the NHL, or as close to 'sure things' as possible.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Gaudreau-Eichel-Olofsson
Hall-Lindholm-Dube

Vs

Gaudreau-Monny- MT (Or if you trade him somewhere else for a low salary player to sign Hall + other asset)
Hall-Lindholm-Dube

This moves the needle and makes us a Stanley Cup threat? Cause we are mortgaging our future to put this top 6 out there for next year.

Depends on if you think Eichel is a game breaking #1C. I think the add of Valimaki, Zary, and the 1st is a bit much personally. Tkachuk, Monahan, and a 1st

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Depends on if you think Eichel is a game breaking #1C. I think the add of Valimaki, Zary, and the 1st is a bit much personally. Tkachuk, Monahan, and a 1st

I can’t properly embed on my phone, but Here are Eichel’s top 10 plays from 2019-20:

https://youtu.be/itt_BnQXqYI

We don’t have a player like this. Full stop. If we did, we would know.

Anyone we’ll face to win it all is going to have at least one Eichel, if not more than one.

We can’t have none. The kid has 10 years of prime performance left, or more.

Again, no cost too high.

Would you like to go back in time and trade the Monahan, Poirier, and Klimchuk picks, along with Sven and Backlund to get Nathan MacKinnon?

I would. And I’d still have a job.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Go look at who is still on the roster after trading Monahan, Tkachuk and Valimaki.

When you watch this team, do you have a problem with the effort and performance from the bottom 9 forwards?

This team’s problem is a Lack of star power.

Buffalo’s problem is being a top-to-bottom wretched operation.

I have a serious issue with our bottom 9 forwards.

Probably worst in the NHL - Or close.

Why do you think Calgary is a lot better top to bottom then Buffalo. The success we've shown over the past 30 years?

[Bonded]

Yeah, I think Tkachuk carries a lot of value. Tkachuk is worth the equivalent of 2 1sts, Monahan is worth a 1st, and then we toss in an additional 1st.