2021/2022 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[Jimdon]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

For a bottom pairing/7th defender who may not even play on a 1 year contract, I can't imagine caring who fills the role for what price.

"This team is bad as built! We are not a contender!"

*signs Gudbranson with remaining cap space*

"WE ARE DOOMED!!!"



People here are funny.

Yeah, the team isn't good as it is so let's spend our last cap space on a player that best case scenario won't play. Nothing to see here....

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

For a bottom pairing/7th defender who may not even play on a 1 year contract, I can't imagine caring who fills the role for what price.

"This team is bad as built! We are not a contender!"

*signs Gudbranson with remaining cap space*

"WE ARE DOOMED!!!"

People here are funny.

You have a way of ignoring what you are reading and making drive by blanket statements that don't reflect the discussion.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jimdon

Yeah, the team isn't good as it is so let's spend our last cap space on a player that best case scenario won't play. Nothing to see here....

Well... yeah...

Is the difference between Gudbranson and someone like Vatanen filling the 7th/AHL role the difference between missing the playoffs and a cup?

Like, either you believe the team is far away, which some do, and in that case, there is literally no way how you spend the $2M makes a tangible difference.

or

You believe the team will be good as built, in which case what you do with the last $2M will also not make a tangible difference

Or, I suppose you could believe that the team is drawing such a thin line between terrible and great that how they spend their last $2M dollars on tweener players makes all the difference, but that seems delusional.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

For a bottom pairing/7th defender who may not even play on a 1 year contract, I can't imagine caring who fills the role for what price.

"This team is bad as built! We are not a contender!"

*signs Gudbranson with remaining cap space*

"WE ARE DOOMED!!!"

People here are funny.

So talk about the hockey part then.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Is the difference between Gudbranson and someone like Vatanen filling the 7th/AHL role the difference between missing the playoffs and a cup?

Does Lucic make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Richardson make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Ritchie make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Gudbranson make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Pitlick make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Lewis make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Zadorov make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Stone make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?

I guess individually, the answer to all of the above is no. Collectively, spending $16 million on zero upside filler probably is the difference, yes. Death by a thousand cuts, as is a hallmark for this team.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Does Lucic make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Richardson make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Ritchie make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Gudbranson make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Pitlick make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Lewis make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Zadorov make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Stone make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?

I guess individually, the answer to all of the above is no. Collectively, spending $16 million on zero upside filler probably is the difference, yes.

I think if you were the GM, if you had the "difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup" as a decision matrix factor you'd have a quieter off season than Treliving has.

[Toonage]

Well, time to go home and drink.

Sorry, in keeping with the thread I will trade sobriety for drunkenness and speculate that I may be hungover tomorrow.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think if you were the GM, if you had the "difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup" as a decision matrix factor you'd have a quieter off season than Treliving has.

I don't know what decision matrix was used to generate this roster, but whatever it is they need to fire their resident data scientist. This is like rolling up to the Monday meeting with a model that says maybe horse worm medicine really can cure COVID.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think if you were the GM, if you had the "difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup" as a decision matrix factor you'd have a quieter off season than Treliving has.

Only if he was the GM of the Avalanche, Knights etc.

Makes allot people wonder, what is the plan?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Does Lucic make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Richardson make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Ritchie make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Gudbranson make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Pitlick make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Lewis make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Zadorov make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?
Does Stone make a difference between missing the playoffs and winning a cup?

I guess individually, the answer to all of the above is no. Collectively, spending $16 million on zero upside filler probably is the difference, yes. Death by a thousand cuts, as is a hallmark for this team.

Does not signing Gudbranson erase the other 7 contracts? No?

If it's death by a thousand cuts, it's probably pretty irrelevant whether it was the last cut or second last cut that did it, so I just don't understand why some people are having a reaction unfit for a bottom-roster D signed for a year.

Multiple years, I could understand. But what difference is that $2M making this year with what's out there?

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Does not signing Gudbranson erase the other 7 contracts? No?

If it's death by a thousand cuts, it's probably pretty irrelevant whether it was the last cut or second last cut that did it, so I just don't understand why some people are having a reaction unfit for a bottom-roster D signed for a year.

Multiple years, I could understand. But what difference is that $2M making this year with what's out there?

You're completely sidestepping the point. This roster has a ton of holes. So many, in fact, that I'm sure plenty of people were hoping there was more to come, as we were told there was.

Turns out, no, they just plan on going to the season with a whole bunch of holes and sweeping it under the rug. Not even so much as a STH event. When you add up all the "this doesn't equate to the difference between making and not making the playoffs," well, yes it very much does. And I think you know that.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

For a bottom pairing/7th defender who may not even play on a 1 year contract, I can't imagine caring who fills the role for what price.

"This team is bad as built! We are not a contender!"

*signs Gudbranson with remaining cap space*

"WE ARE DOOMED!!!"

People here are funny.

I don't like it because cap flexibility is a huge asset. Far bigger that what Richardson or Gudbrandson bring.

Pissing that away on guys that either at BEST keep you the same or will make you worse on the ice is just dumb as nails.

That 3M wiggle room does help with making transactions at the deadline easier, and chances are we will need to make some.

It's just senseless and may hurt your ability to make bigger moves that affect the teams future later on.

Making these signings with 10M in cap space is one thing, at 2-3M it becomes very unnecessary.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

You're completely sidestepping the point. This roster has a ton of holes. So many, in fact, that I'm sure plenty of people were hoping there was more to come, as we were told there was.

Turns out, no, they just plan on going to the season with a whole bunch of holes and sweeping it under the rug. Not even so much as a STH event. When you add up all the "this doesn't equate to the difference between making and not making the playoffs," well, yes it very much does. And I think you know that.

I'm not sidestepping anything, I'm talking about Gudbranson on a 1 year deal, you're talking about 8 contracts. Again, how is Gudbranson alone a good or bad signing because of 7 other contracts?

If there are a ton of holes, you're not filling them with $2M. You may fill one of them, but which one? And does it make the difference?

I'm fine if you want to argue that collectively these were all bad decisions, that's fine, but I don't understand why any would get up the energy for the 8th bad decision out of 8, if you're suggesting they're all bad, when it really doesn't matter at that point.

I can see the cap space argument, but even then, are we then saying that there isn't actually a ton of holes and we're a very close team to going all the way, and $2M is going to be the difference at the trade deadline?

I just think the way some people view the team doesn't match the way they view this signing. If we're gonna be bad, this doesn't change that and it never would have. If we're going to be good, all the same.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'm not sidestepping anything, I'm talking about Gudbranson on a 1 year deal, you're talking about 8 contracts. Again, how is Gudbranson alone a good or bad signing because of 7 other contracts?

If there are a ton of holes, you're not filling them with $2M. You may fill one of them, but which one? And does it make the difference?

I'm fine if you want to argue that collectively these were all bad decisions, that's fine, but I don't understand why any would get up the energy for the 8th bad decision out of 8, if you're suggesting they're all bad, when it really doesn't matter at that point.

I can see the cap space argument, but even then, are we then saying that there isn't actually a ton of holes and we're a very close team to going all the way, and $2M is going to be the difference at the trade deadline?

I just think the way some people view the team doesn't match the way they view this signing. If we're gonna be bad, this doesn't change that and it never would have. If we're going to be good, all the same.

You truly don't get it, man.

Ever heard of the straw that broke the camel's back?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Wow, this is astounding. How can you possibly have that take? Bingo is very rational about the Flames - sees reasons for hope, criticizes what he doesn't like. There are a few posters who are positive about everything, but Bongo is not even close to being one of them.

One of the most bizarre takes on here - and we see it every single day - is the view that, if you say anything positive at all, or criticize any of the hopelessly, miserably, bitch-at-literally-everything crowd, that you are somehow blindly optimistic and are presumed to agree with everything that the Flames do.

It's just so binary, so black and white - it's like some people have absolutely no nuance or reasonability at all. "You're either with us, or against us!"

It's truly astounding.

Nah I don't really think it's black or white, I just haven't seen him criticize the Flames, and he strikes me as more defensive about (literally any) criticism than usual. I don't recall him being quite so defensive, but it really doesn't matter. I was just asking him.

There definitely is not a lot of room for criticism I don't think, you get jumped on by like 50 people all the time. I think dino7c spends his days just cruising these forums looking to shout down any criticisms, same with Textcritic. They really seem quite close minded actually and very "know-it-all", I guess. Also a function of the 'thanks' feature doing its work and shutting down discussion that otherwise would have posters possibly voicing "against the grain" opinions.

But Pepsi nailed it that honestly none of this matters really, I can tell you I'm not passionate or really care either way (honestly, it's not like I'm angry or anything, or that I don't think / believe / hope / whatever you want). I think if people were being honest though, the Flames have been disappointing this offseason. Of course I hope for the best for them, but I have many years of following the NHL pretty closely as evidence about what will happen. Tough to see Calgary winning a Cup with this current team- that's why they should take a swing at Eichel- he really could be the piece I think.

On the other hand, it's funny though, this offseason I think has been Treliving's worst to date but they probably are going to actually be just fine honestly. They probably barely make the playoffs and are first round fodder, get a middle road pick and miss out on the franchise changing asset they need. Can't really make up my mind I guess but I have faith it won't be what we all hope it will be.

Praying they take a swing for Eichel, because that'd get me excited again.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by flambers

Only if he was the GM of the Avalanche, Knights etc.

Makes allot people wonder, what is the plan?

To me it's pretty obvious they're trying to get bigger / tougher. Sutter "identity". Look at all the guys they've signed...

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

You truly don't get it, man.

Ever heard of the straw that broke the camel's back?

No, I get it just fine, I'm telling you it doesn't make sense.

Before this signing, you either:

- believed the Flames were going to be good, in which case this makes no difference

- believed the Flames were going to be bad, in which case this makes no difference

- believed the Flames were a single $2M player away from being a contender, in which case you disagree with this because you think they chose the wrong $2M player (and I would argue there's no available player that would make up that difference)

So my entire question is why this signing, alone, matters, and why anyone feels strongly one way or another. If you have to talk about 7 other players to answer the question, you're the one who doesn't get it.

For better or worse, there doesn't move the needle. And I have trouble finding another use of that $2M for 1 year that would.

[The Cobra]

The Flames desperately need a PP QB, and they should have gotten some defensively poor dman who at lease can play some offence.

Instead they got a defensively poor dman who plays even worse offense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jimdon]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, I get it just fine, I'm telling you it doesn't make sense.

Before this signing, you either:

- believed the Flames were going to be good, in which case this makes no difference

- believed the Flames were going to be bad, in which case this makes no difference

- believed the Flames were a single $2M player away from being a contender, in which case you disagree with this because you think they chose the wrong $2M player (and I would argue there's no available player that would make up that difference)

So my entire question is why this signing, alone, matters, and why anyone feels strongly one way or another. If you have to talk about 7 other players to answer the question, you're the one who doesn't get it.

For better or worse, there doesn't move the needle. And I have trouble finding another use of that $2M for 1 year that would.

So your viewpoint is absolute apathy

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

To me it's pretty obvious they're trying to get bigger / tougher. Sutter "identity". Look at all the guys they've signed...

True, but they are also slower...

Can the Flames skate with the top teams