2020/2021 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Psytic

Monahan and Bennett and a pick for Tavares with some retained.

Pretty sure that NMC means something.

[442scotty]

And why would we want Tavares.... Guys mailed it in for Toronto

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by New Era

Pretty sure that NMC means something.

How many teams does he have to submit? Or none at all?

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

And why would we want Tavares.... Guys mailed it in for Toronto

Possession metrics look good. Seems to be ppg the last 3 years and close to it this year. Great on faceoffs. But yes I wasnt sure if he had a limited list or what the story is with him. So we would probably get Kadri'ed then.

[rhino]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Dubas attending Sens/Flames game.

Scouting someone...?

Well Toronto does play Ottawa tomorrow

[The Cobra]

Monny looks done these days.

No one will give up much for him until he shows himself completely healthy and productive.

Will that day come?

I think he’s injured, and I’m not sure he can get completely healthy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Psytic

How many teams does he have to submit? Or none at all?

No Movement Clause. No movement.

[SeanCharles]

We don’t want to add an overpaid 30 year old do we?

We want the vicious cycle of pain and agony to end not endure even longer.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I am still of the opinion that Tkachuk should be the player that Calgary moves this off-season. I don't think he is anywhere close to being a 9 million a year player. Maybe he renews at a much lower figure than 9, then maybe you look at retaining him. However, if I were him, I am not sure I do anything else other than demand 10 million on a long-term deal and just accept my QO, and then be a free agent to join anywhere I want to play - like St. Louis or to join his brother in Ottawa.


Lots of question marks on the team right now in terms of contract renewals coming up, but for me, Tkachuk's is the most pressing, followed by Gaudreau's.

[genetic_phreek]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I am still of the opinion that Tkachuk should be the player that Calgary moves this off-season. I don't think he is anywhere close to being a 9 million a year player. Maybe he renews at a much lower figure than 9, then maybe you look at retaining him. However, if I were him, I am not sure I do anything else other than demand 10 million on a long-term deal and just accept my QO, and then be a free agent to join anywhere I want to play - like St. Louis or to join his brother in Ottawa.


Lots of question marks on the team right now in terms of contract renewals coming up, but for me, Tkachuk's is the most pressing, followed by Gaudreau's.

I'm pretty certain Gaudreau isn't going to re-sign with us. This style of hockey doesn't fit his play, square peg in round hole. So I would say both need to be moved.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I am still of the opinion that Tkachuk should be the player that Calgary moves this off-season. I don't think he is anywhere close to being a 9 million a year player. Maybe he renews at a much lower figure than 9, then maybe you look at retaining him. However, if I were him, I am not sure I do anything else other than demand 10 million on a long-term deal and just accept my QO, and then be a free agent to join anywhere I want to play - like St. Louis or to join his brother in Ottawa.


Lots of question marks on the team right now in terms of contract renewals coming up, but for me, Tkachuk's is the most pressing, followed by Gaudreau's.

Tkachuk is also the one who would likely return a blue-chip young core player. The Blues have some good young pieces in Kyrou and Thomas, and (unlike Ottawa) actually could use a LW in their top six.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I am still of the opinion that Tkachuk should be the player that Calgary moves this off-season. I don't think he is anywhere close to being a 9 million a year player. Maybe he renews at a much lower figure than 9, then maybe you look at retaining him. However, if I were him, I am not sure I do anything else other than demand 10 million on a long-term deal and just accept my QO, and then be a free agent to join anywhere I want to play - like St. Louis or to join his brother in Ottawa.


Lots of question marks on the team right now in terms of contract renewals coming up, but for me, Tkachuk's is the most pressing, followed by Gaudreau's.

Treliving held on to Gaudreau too long and he can't repeat with Tkachuk as he still holds a lot of value. It appears to me that Treliving is one of those GM's that falls in love with his guys. He held on to Bennett too long, wouldn't include Valimaki in a Stone deal, and he probably wants/thinks he can keep Tkachuk long term. I don't see it personally as the Tkachuk's played their cards indicating they want to hit free agency.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Treliving held on to Gaudreau too long and he can't repeat with Tkachuk as he still holds a lot of value. It appears to me that Treliving is one of those GM's that falls in love with his guys. He held on to Bennett too long, wouldn't include Valimaki in a Stone deal, and he probably wants/thinks he can keep Tkachuk long term. I don't see it personally as the Tkachuk's played their cards indicating they want to hit free agency.

I disagree that Treliving falls in love with his players. To me, he's actually quite the opposite buying Brouwer out and shipping Neal out in short order after acquiring him.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Treliving held on to Gaudreau too long and he can't repeat with Tkachuk as he still holds a lot of value. It appears to me that Treliving is one of those GM's that falls in love with his guys. He held on to Bennett too long, wouldn't include Valimaki in a Stone deal, and he probably wants/thinks he can keep Tkachuk long term. I don't see it personally as the Tkachuk's played their cards indicating they want to hit free agency.

I agree that Tkachuk can and probably should be traded because of the contract. But I can’t agree that Treliving holds onto his guys too long. The Stone deal fell apart because Val was too high a price for a pure rental, not because he was untouchable. And he’s cut loose Hamilton, Hamonic, Neal and Brouwer, for whom he paid pretty high prices either in trades, salary or both.

Trading a star player is hard - you’d better get it right or you get crucified. I don’t blame him for being cautious.

[dino7c]

Stone as a rental would have been bad at any price let alone Vali. Flames still would have lost to the AVS, then what. I wish people would stop talking about that like it was a big fail.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I don't buy that he falls in love with players either. I think he just saw this team better than what it was.


In Peters' first season, the Flames were the 2nd best regular season team in the NHL - nothing to sneeze at. They ran into an 8th seed that was playing really well. I can understand that you don't want to break-up a team like that with big moves. I mean, imagine if Tampa (the 1st overall team that year) decided to blow it up after they lost in a sweep?


Last year with Dallas, it was frustrating, but they did look good until the wheels fell off. The idea there was that it would have been a different series if the Flames were up 3-1 instead of allowing Dallas to tie it late and then lose it in OT. Dallas did end up going all the way to the finals after all.


This year? Well... there isn't any excuses. I honestly do get that Treliving really couldn't make major moves to a team that looked like it was about to become a legitimate contender. Hindsight is hindsight, but this team looked promising. This season has been awful, and unless they somehow catch fire for the rest of the season, make the playoffs, and do a really lengthy run, I can't imagine that Treliving is going to keep this core intact through the off-season.


That's the only play left now. There is no more 'believing' to be done as they have not given anyone a reason to believe in them all season long. There definitely has been in the past, but it was just a team that was unable to take that step forward, and instead it stumbled. That's what happens sometimes. What is important to do now is to maximize value on players and figure out what kind of a team you want to build here.

[RedHawk12]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Stone as a rental would have been bad at any price let alone Vali. Flames still would have lost to the AVS, then what. I wish people would stop talking about that like it was a big fail.

I think it's foolish to assume Stone would have left in free agency. Yes we probably needed to pay him slightly more but it would have been worth it.

If you want to look at the failed trade in a vacuum, we missed an opportunity to get a star player and improve as a team. It's that simple.

And then for those that want to look at it with context,. Yes we probably would have needed to trade Mony or Johnny or whoever to make space. But they probably could have brought back a significant return at the time. Recoup assets lost by trading Vali. Maybe get a D prospect with just as much potential. Would we really have been worse off than the gong show we have now? I highly doubt it.

[Jiri Hrdina]

^Lots of assumptions there.
Slightly more? Based on what.
Vegas is a better run franchise, better situated to win now, and in a better place to live.
Seems hard to beat

[Monahammer]

Sutter has said in the past you need a strong centre, strong D, and a goalie to compete. So to stay competitive and keep him happy enough while still doing a "rebuild", I think we could get away with keeping the following:

Lindholm

1 of Tkachuk or Johnny

Lucic

Tanev
Valimaki
Hanafin

Markstrom

Trade everyone else for younger players with room to grow into still, then let Sutter take the next two seasons to mold the new group in his image. No more giant egos, no more players needing to play with specific players.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

I think it's foolish to assume Stone would have left in free agency. Yes we probably needed to pay him slightly more but it would have been worth it.

Stone has confirmed his intention was to sign with Las Vegas even if he was not traded. That’s a fact Jack.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk