2020/2021 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

100% being protected, or 100% being left unprotected?

I would guess, he meant 100% sure Giordano will be left un-protected.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

100% being protected, or 100% being left unprotected?

I took it as unprotected. If BT spends assets to protect a rapidly declining D man that takes up almost $7M in cap with one year left it will just be another F up on his part. Not only can we really use that cap space but this team desperately needs a leadership change.

[Nelson]

I think Gio will 100% be left unprotected, and I would really like to see the Flames look into trading Gio before the expansion draft rather than letting Seattle trade Gio as Friedman suggests. Why let Seattle gain extra picks and prospects when the Flames can trade Giordano out of division and strengthen their own organization? I'm not saying the Flames must trade Gio because I'm sure there are like 2 teams that could actually protect Gio, have the cap space and want to spend the money. But I'm just saying I think the Flames should give it a try, and the Flames may have already done so.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Nelson

I think Gio will 100% be left unprotected, and I would really like to see the Flames look into trading Gio before the expansion draft rather than letting Seattle trade Gio as Friedman suggests. Why let Seattle gain extra picks and prospects when the Flames can trade Giordano out of division and strengthen their own organization? I'm not saying the Flames must trade Gio because I'm sure there are like 2 teams that could actually protect Gio, have the cap space and want to spend the money. But I'm just saying I think the Flames should give it a try, and the Flames may have already done so.

There is the whole problem of having trading Gio to a team with an open expansion spot which you reference above. Not sure what team will trade good assets for a 38 year old Dman to protect him. Purely wishful thinking. If Gio goes it is to Seattle or to another team via Seattle. If the Flames trade Gio they still lose someone in expansion.

I feel like the only way they can protect Gio is to expose a forward who Seattle may covet more. There is also a chance Seattle could make a side deal with the Flames to say trade one of their selected players to the Flames for a piece like Monahan and then as part of that trade they agree to take Kylington instead of Gio.

For instance if Seattle selects Dumba in the expansion draft they agree to trade Dumba to the Flames for Monahan+ and also agree to select Kylington in the expansion draft?

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Nelson

I think Gio will 100% be left unprotected, and I would really like to see the Flames look into trading Gio before the expansion draft rather than letting Seattle trade Gio as Friedman suggests. Why let Seattle gain extra picks and prospects when the Flames can trade Giordano out of division and strengthen their own organization? I'm not saying the Flames must trade Gio because I'm sure there are like 2 teams that could actually protect Gio, have the cap space and want to spend the money. But I'm just saying I think the Flames should give it a try, and the Flames may have already done so.

Seattle has an advantage when it comes to trading Gio though, since the expansion draft will already be over and teams don't have to choose who to protect. Most teams already have 3 guys they want to hold onto

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I would see if they can be enticed to take Lucic. Send a 3rd for that.

Solves many problems.

Edmonton’s 3rd, with 750k retention

[BrownDrake]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I took it as unprotected. If BT spends assets to protect a rapidly declining D man that takes up almost $7M in cap with one year left it will just be another F up on his part. Not only can we really use that cap space but this team desperately needs a leadership change.

I think this team needs some new skill and speed more than it needs to get rid of a guy like Gio for the next year. Why would we want the extra $3.5 million in cap space - so BT can go out and get another Neal or Brouwer??? This team needs to realize who they are and why they are falling short, pretty sure Gio is not the problem and getting him out of the locker room likely doesn't make us better. Hopefully management puts a lot of youngsters in the line up this year, Pelletier, Phillips, Zary etc., I'm sure Gio would be good for those guys as well as being a proven top 4 d-man more than the 3rd or 4th rounder needed to protect Gio.

[Tkachukwagon]

Would the Flames consider Danault as a possible 3C / Ryan replacement?

From Lebrun’s notebook this morning on the Athletic (Flames we’re not specifically mentioned, just my speculation):

He’s 28. There’s still lots of good hockey ahead. But what’s a top shutdown center with limited offensive ability worth in today’s market?

It’s a question I put to a few rival front-office executives this week.

One said that, while he has great respect for Danault’s shutdown ability, he can’t see Danault making more than $4.5 million AAV on the market given the flat cap and his offensive numbers.

Another saw Danault at around $4 million a year on a four- or five-year deal.

[CliffFletcher]

You gotta know Sutter would love to have Danault on the roster.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You gotta know Sutter would love to have Danault on the roster.

I wouldn't. I would rather bring Ryan back for half what he would cost. He might not be as good defensively but he can add some offence. We already have Backlund for that. We need more goals, not less.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I wouldn't. I would rather bring Ryan back for half what he would cost. He might not be as good defensively but he can add some offence. We already have Backlund for that. We need more goals, not less.

I would be surprised if Ryan gets even a third of what Danault gets.
And I agree, the team needs more goals. Stop wasting cap on players who don’t produce.

I seem to recall someone, I think Renaud Lavoie, saying that Danault wasn’t happy with the fact that Suzuki was taking his minutes.
If that’s the case I doubt he would want to play behind the Flame centres.

[Vinny01]

No to Danault

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Edmonton’s 3rd, with 750k retention

It would cost quite a bit more than that. The fact that Gio is likely actually worth a lot at the trade deadline, no reason to take Lucic's contract for two years for a paltry return.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

100% being protected, or 100% being left unprotected?

Unprotected...i just dont see any world where keeping him over Tanev makes any sense.

Like i said though, i can see BT making a side deal to make sure Francis doesnt take him and i can also see a scenario where Gio decides he would rather retire than move the whole family to Seattle for what would likely amount to 7 months. Letting Francis know that through his agent and being therefore allowed to stay "home" for one last year.

[SeanCharles]

Isn’t Backlund already our current 3rd line C?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You gotta know Sutter would love to have Danault on the roster.

Undoubtedly but he's going to get offers of money and term that don't match his offensive talent. To me he looks like he's going to be a classic free agent overpay that turns into a bad contract quickly. As said above he's not going to help aid the Flames goal scoring woes.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

There is the whole problem of having trading Gio to a team with an open expansion spot which you reference above. Not sure what team will trade good assets for a 38 year old Dman to protect him. Purely wishful thinking. If Gio goes it is to Seattle or to another team via Seattle. If the Flames trade Gio they still lose someone in expansion.

I feel like the only way they can protect Gio is to expose a forward who Seattle may covet more. There is also a chance Seattle could make a side deal with the Flames to say trade one of their selected players to the Flames for a piece like Monahan and then as part of that trade they agree to take Kylington instead of Gio.

For instance if Seattle selects Dumba in the expansion draft they agree to trade Dumba to the Flames for Monahan+ and also agree to select Kylington in the expansion draft?

For sure. It probably is wishful thinking. As I said, when I did the mock expansion draft, there were only like 2 teams I thought could possibly bring in Gio. But I think one advantage the Flames might have over Seattle is that teams might think they could just justifiably get Gio for cheaper from the Flames because of the circumstances (inability to protect Gio, inability to retain salary, etc.). Anyways, I’m not saying the Flames will succeed. I’m saying they should look into it.

[Demetric]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

No to Danault

Yes to Danault

[Monahammer]

I think Danault at 5x5 is a solid contract today. Prefer that to Backlund.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by blender

Well, that's you, and that's totally fair.
The post I was responding to was suggesting losing Gio to Seattle then trading them a third to get a lesser d-man with a lower cap hit. I suggested just trading the third to keep Gio, and Banana Slug suggested that the value would be in the cap savings. Also a fair opinion which I think is a bad one as I believe Gio is still a very good top 4 D. Top pairing with the right partner (Tanev).
I'd prefer not to pay the 3rd to keep him, but it will cost more to replace him, so it might just be worth it.

Fair. My argument is simply to not spend any assets for 1 yr or less of value.

The division is so weak, we could downgrade Gaudreau and Gio and still make the playoffs. If firmly in a PO spot by TDL, go ahead and bolster the D if you need to.

Hanifin-Andersson
Valimaki-Tanev
Mackey-Stone
Kylington

Assuming we re-sign Stone he can still play more minutes than Valimaki. Tanev can still play the most minutes.

Maybe you sign a Del Zotto or something similar, too.