[Rumour] TSN: Flames likely to be quiet at the trade deadline

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

This team for a couple of seasons was a treat to watch. Other fanbases liked the Flames too. We were a 'model of a rebuild' for a while, IMO.


I don't look at any team around the NHL and say that they are going to be a good team. Ottawa is looking like they are going to be, but until they get there, they might be another Edmonton or Buffalo. Heck, just look at Buffalo - tanked hard, got one of the top NHL centres in Eichel, practically generational defencemen in Dahlin (maybe not generational, but franchise-level for sure), some other good pieces... and they keep face-planting.


Flames have some really good pieces right now. I don't think they are far off from a 'successful rebuild'. They, unfortunately, aren't far off from needing a rebuild 2.0 either. This off-season's success will really dictate what direction they go. If they make big changes, I can't imagine trying yet another retool, as I assume they will loose value simply in trading players who have under-performed and who will return less value.


People really forget how electrifying the Flames were for a while, and how good Bennett looked like in his rookie season, and how this team had skill and some grit, and had that 'never say die' attitude that resulted in comeback wins... that team had a lot of people saying: "Rebuilding is easy." Name me one person that kept saying the Flames were not going to be successful back then.


Ottawa is definitely doing things right, but until they get there and become a team that can go on long playoff runs every year, at least getting close to winning a cup, they will be labelled as either 'still rebuilding' or 'failed rebuild', just like the Flames.

This is a much more succinct version of what I've been saying-this team doesn't need a complete overhaul necessarily, but mgmt needs to look at a few big changes to the core. Many teams on their way up through a rebuild often need to stop and do a major re-tool. Kings did it, Chicago did it, Tampa did it. We have some nice pieces, and now we have the goalie(maybe), and a real coach-and with that coach will come a different culture, and hopefully some players that suit that culture.

I've chosen to wait and see what is done to the roster over the summer, and like I said, if not enough is done-let loose the dogs.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I kinda get what he was trying to do. At the time the Flames had a string of trades that seemed poor returns. So he was trying to raise that bar.
But for a team so poor from an asset POV if he could have got any pick from Cammy he should have.

We are back to that point. Our system is void of the type of talent that Sutter needs for his team to be successful. We need the maximum number of picks possible to restock the minors with as many coke machines as we can find, and probably older players that can funnel into the lineup quicker. Ugly times ahead.

[Nelson]

Yesterday, on Frank Seravalli's 40 asset trade bait list, there were
16. David Rittich,
29. Sam Bennett, and
33. Derek Ryan.

Previously, only 1/3 was on the list. I'm taking this as an indication that Treliving is getting into seller's mode, and we will see a selling off by the trade deadline.

[CroFlames]

Sam Bennett is not part of the solution here. Cut bait and trade him.

It sucks as he is the highest ever draft pick of the club, but it sucks more simply hanging on to him when he clearly doesn't fit.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Sam Bennett is not part of the solution here. Cut bait and trade him.

It sucks as he is the highest ever draft pick of the club, but it sucks more simply hanging on to him when he clearly doesn't fit.

If the Oilers offered a 4th, would you take it?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

If the Oilers offered a 4th, would you take it?

No. But I would take that to the Leafs and Jets and take that from either of them. There's only one team I don't trade with, and that's those losers up in Shelbyville.

[NewFan]

Originally Posted by Sandman

This is a much more succinct version of what I've been saying-this team doesn't need a complete overhaul necessarily, but mgmt needs to look at a few big changes to the core. Many teams on their way up through a rebuild often need to stop and do a major re-tool. Kings did it, Chicago did it, Tampa did it. We have some nice pieces, and now we have the goalie(maybe), and a real coach-and with that coach will come a different culture, and hopefully some players that suit that culture.

I've chosen to wait and see what is done to the roster over the summer, and like I said, if not enough is done-let loose the dogs.

It's just my opinion - to be a contender we need better than average G, a very good 1st pairing D with a couple D who can depend well and also can chip some points and true 1st line C and 4-5 top 2 line Fs.

Hardest one to find is true 1st line C and best way to get that C is the draft unless you give up all your future for trade for someone.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

If the Oilers offered a 4th, would you take it?

Originally Posted by New Era

No. But I would take that to the Leafs and Jets and take that from either of them. There's only one team I don't trade with, and that's those losers up in Shelbyville.

Yeah, what he said. You don't do the Oilers favors.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Sam Bennett is not part of the solution here. Cut bait and trade him.

It sucks as he is the highest ever draft pick of the club, but it sucks more simply hanging on to him when he clearly doesn't fit.

In recent news, Darryl Sutter is the coach now. If anything, he is one of the guys who actually may fit.

Unless you’re still dreaming of the #1C slot

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

In recent news, Darryl Sutter is the coach now. If anything, he is one of the guys who actually may fit.

Right? How weird would it be seeing Johnny moved and Sam extended.

[Teroy]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Right? How weird would it be seeing Johnny moved and Sam extended.

Trading JG wouldn't feel weird at all. JG can skate, stick handle and give up the puck. Doesn't dig in the corners. When he goes into the corners he does a stick sweep and leaves. When he breaks in on goal he shoots and then immediately turns away. This love affair with JG is foolish. He's supposed to be our superstar yet everyone he plays with is supposed to support and carry him. Move him while you can. I doubt he'll ever be the player you think he is again. At least SM has become a 200' center.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

In recent news, Darryl Sutter is the coach now. If anything, he is one of the guys who actually may fit.

Unless you’re still dreaming of the #1C slot

Not at $2.55M a season. You can't afford top end talent when you're paying crappy role players that much money. Seriously, Lucic, Ryan, and Bennett are bottom line talent and the three of them make almost $11M. Imagine how much better the Flames would be paying those guys the league minimum salaries they deserve and then having $8.8M to spend on talent who make a difference?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by New Era

Not at $2.55M a season. You can't afford top end talent when you're paying crappy role players that much money. Seriously, Lucic, Ryan, and Bennett are bottom line talent and the three of them make almost $11M. Imagine how much better the Flames would be paying those guys the league minimum salaries they deserve and then having $8.8M to spend on talent who make a difference?

...yeah but what top-end talent? It's not like we've had to sacrifice internally developed players due to cap constraints. Overpaying mid-tier free agent talent is always a surefire way to end up exactly where we are (look back to the Iggy days), and we already struggle to attract free agents anyways.

It really does boil down to our core players not being good enough, and free agency isn't an avenue to address that...so what the hell do we do?

Strategically rebuild this sucker. Rip down certain pieces, bottom out, and build back up.

[CliffFletcher]

Yeah, signing a couple 29-30 year old UFAs for $4 mil to $6 mil each isn’t going to turn this thing around. UFAs are how you round out a contending core, not build one.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yeah, signing a couple 29-30 year old UFAs for $4 mil to $6 mil each isn’t going to turn this thing around. UFAs are how you round out a contending core, not build one.

Yeah but it's like our thing, man.

[dammage79]

I'm kind of hoping the Flames clear the decks a little bit so we can see the like of Phillips and Ruz8cka get a batch of games for a try out. After the deadline everything reverts back to the 4 call up rule and that includes the taxi squad.

And I'd prefer if we left those call ups for a goalie for if they move Rittich as Id like to see what they have in Domingue and Zags.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yeah, signing a couple 29-30 year old UFAs for $4 mil to $6 mil each isn’t going to turn this thing around. UFAs are how you round out a contending core, not build one.

It could be a real smorgasbord of those guys this year:

Stepan
Saad
RNH
Zajac
Foligno
Schwartz
Tatar
Palmieri
Anisimov
Johansson
Gusev
Sutter
Perreault
Bonino
Bjugstad
Hoffman
Pearson
Granlund
Dzingel
Cizikas
Danault
Armia
Wennberg
Laughton
Hyman
Coleman
Duclair

Goligoski
Hjalmarsson
R Murray
Savard
Larsson
Cole
Martinez
Gudbranson
Montour
Barrie
Gustafsson

Probably several more I missed. Many will extend right after the ED, but there could be some ugly deals on the horizon.

That said, it might be easy to find bargain bin replacements for our big guys...but it also hinders their value.

[1qqaaz]

Lots of 2010 picks on that list.
I think they would be fine, but GMs should avoid deals that are longer than 4 years in term.

Anyone over 28 should never get more than 4 years IMO. Unless it's a bona fide star player.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Right? How weird would it be seeing Johnny moved and Sam extended.

Not weird at all. You'd do either of those things for completely different reasons, and how good each player compared to each other isn't really relevant.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Lots of 2010 picks on that list.
I think they would be fine, but GMs should avoid deals that are longer than 4 years in term.

Anyone over 28 should never get more than 4 years IMO. Unless it's a bona fide star player.

GM’s actually know this.

They break this rule when they want to win and there are many teams in the same boat with competing offers.

You either play this game or watch your contention window go by. I call this plugging your nose and signing the deal. You know it will stink at the end.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk