2021/2022 Trade Speculation and Rumours - Page 204 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Fischy13 · 10-12-2021, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nelson

Jeff Marek show, interview with Gary Lawless, this morning on 960: Jeff Marek said he heard CGY got the closest to meeting BUF's ask for Eichel.

The tense of this information is crucial... "got the closest"? Meaning he's off the market, not being traded? Did he possibly say the "Flames are the closest"? Just looking for clarification or if that was verbatim. Thanks for posting.

sticktrick · 10-12-2021, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dino7c

Depending on the price

Tkachuck, Eichel, Gaudreau

and then still having a really good 2nd line of Mangi, Lindholm, Coleman

Meanwhile the Oilers can't play McDavid and Drai apart because nobody else is good enough

Of course, backing up the truck is a relative term. haw!

No doubt the Flames have to be careful, but if it's mostly first round picks and prospects, they should take the plunge and get it done. Incredible opportunity for them to land that fish, who is miles better than any of our top players. Keeping their top players with Eichel added to the fold would be incredible. Someone has to go though...and I don't think it's Monahan. Have to wonder if Buffalo are asking for Lindholm.

Sutter_in_law · 10-12-2021, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fischy13

The tense of this information is crucial... "got the closest"? Meaning he's off the market, not being traded? Did he possibly say the "Flames are the closest"? Just looking for clarification or if that was verbatim. Thanks for posting.

What I heard was Marek stating he had heard that VGK and CGY were the 2 teams that were the closest to acquiring Eichel over the summer, and asked how close VGK was - to which the response was "not close at all"

gvitaly · 10-12-2021, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monahammer

It may already have been firmly answered by someone who knows, but is there any potential in acquiring Eichel on LTIR and not having to make cap room for him? What are the conditions around that?

Could it be worked out that we trade someone to LTIR Eichel and then reacquire them?

I've been firmly on team Eichel since day 1, but if he's out for 5 months ish minimum, we need some bodies who have a chance at competing for most of the season still. Giving up one of Monahan or Tkachuk and then not having Eichel for most of the season would be nearly insurmountible imo.

The CBA is a little vague about LTIR. My interpretation is that you can acquire Eichel without making the cap room for him. However, I don't remember the precedent of a player on LTIR being traded mid-season.

The idea is that once the medical staff of a team determines a player is unfit to play due to injury they can be placed on IR. If the player is expected to miss at least 10 games/24 days he can be placed on LTIR instead. This part will happen as soon as the player is acquired.

Now LTIR doesn't actually give a team capspace. Which is why I think that trading for Eichel would work. LTIR gives a team cap relief which is equal to the injured players salary minus cap space the team had. For the Flames we have a current cap hit of $81.2M, with a salary cap of $81.5M. With Eichel $10M on LTIR we would be able to spend up to $91.2M on the whole roster including Eichel.

This would place you with 0 cap space in the time of acquisition. Now lets say Richardson gets healthy and you send Ritchie($900k) and Stone($750k) to the AHL. In that case your cap hit goes down to $89.55M out of the available $91.2M leaving you with $1.65M of 'cap space'(EDIT: while Eichel is on LTIR). Finally, the only thing you can't use LTIR for for is to cover performance bonuses, and prevent them from sliding onto the next year.

Yeah so that pretty much everything I know about LTIR, hope it helps even though I got a little side-tracked.

Enoch Root · 10-12-2021, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gvitaly

A regular season is 186 days. Eichel’s cap hit is $10M. Which means you need $53.76k per day of Eichel, so each month(30 days) of Eichel roughly requires $1.6M of cap space.

If you trade for him at the deadline, yes.

But if you trade for him now, his LTIR uses up your available cap space and you don't bank any. So when he is healthy, you have to remove other players to make space.

Roof-Daddy · 10-12-2021, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No team has acquired Eichel yet. Isn't this good news - the Flames are deep in the mix and have made the best offer.

WTF?

lol

Yes, and I say again, please don't let this END UP being yet another "close but no cigar" scenario for us.

gvitaly · 10-12-2021, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If you trade for him at the deadline, yes.

But if you trade for him now, his LTIR uses up your available cap space and you don't bank any. So when he is healthy, you have to remove other players to make space.

That's right, thank you. Yeah for some reason I got my wires crossed there. The Flames won't have the cap space, because of LTIR regardless.

SuperMatt18 · 10-12-2021, 01:15 PM

My guess going back to the Summer was that the Flames had the best offer on the table.

Problem is I think Buffalo was really trying to see if they can get Anaheim to cave and include one of Drysdale or Zegras, or get NYR to include one of Kakko or Lafreniere.

Flames don't have a piece like that.

Good news is I don't see those teams including any of those players, so it now comes down to if Buffalo is willing to give up on the pipe dream of getting one of those guys and just take the best offer on the table.

CliffFletcher · 10-12-2021, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mile

My random guess is the Flames offered Monahan, Zary, one of Pelletier or Valimaki, and a 1st. If the Ducks are unwilling to move McTavish, Zegras, Drysdale, this is probably the next best offer.

One of the blockers in the summer was Buffalo wasn’t accepting any conditional offers around Eichel’s health. Word is they’ve moved on that. The sticking point probably remains the pick, with teams making it contingent on games played by Eichel. When a deal is announced, I expect we’ll see something along the lines of a conditional 1st if Eichel plays x number of games, a 2nd if he doesn’t.

Enoch Root · 10-12-2021, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gvitaly

The CBA is a little vague about LTIR. My interpretation is that you can acquire Eichel without making the cap room for him. However, I don't remember the precedent of a player on LTIR being traded mid-season.

The idea is that once the medical staff of a team determines a player is unfit to play due to injury they can be placed on IR. If the player is expected to miss at least 10 games/24 days he can be placed on LTIR instead. This part will happen as soon as the player is acquired.

Now LTIR doesn't actually give a team capspace. Which is why I think that trading for Eichel would work. LTIR gives a team cap relief which is equal to the injured players salary minus cap space the team had. For the Flames we have a current cap hit of $81.2M, with a salary cap of $81.5M. With Eichel $10M on LTIR we would be able to spend up to $91.2M on the whole roster including Eichel.

This would place you with 0 cap space in the time of acquisition. Now lets say Richardson gets healthy and you send Ritchie($900k) and Stone($750k) to the AHL. In that case your cap hit goes down to $89.55M out of the available $91.2M leaving you with $1.65M of 'cap space'. Finally, the only thing you can't use LTIR for for is to cover performance bonuses, and prevent them from sliding onto the next year.

Yeah so that pretty much everything I know about LTIR, hope it helps even though I got a little side-tracked.

They would have no cap space

GioforPM · 10-12-2021, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

WTF?

lol

Yes, and I say again, please don't let this END UP being yet another "close but no cigar" scenario for us.

I just don't understand the furrowed brows about this news. They seem to have a good position now, and if they are close but don't get it, it means a team has leapfrogged their current "closest" offer, and I would need to see the actual pricetag before being bent out of shape.

gvitaly · 10-12-2021, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

They would have no cap space

Yes I got that part that's why it's in quotes. How about they would be able to use $1.65M to acquire a player at any point or bring him up while Eichel is still on LTIR. That cap space can't be banked to use on anything else, here we are in agreement.

bluejays · 10-12-2021, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dino7c

Depending on the price

Tkachuck, Eichel, Gaudreau

and then still having a really good 2nd line of Mangi, Lindholm, Coleman

Meanwhile the Oilers can't play McDavid and Drai apart because nobody else is good enough

do it, unprotected picks...take a risk for christ sake. Eichel goes #1 in 95% of drafts anyway and the odds of a first pick are so low.

This team is not a bottom five team in the league. To me they’re more middling I the 14-20 area. I wouldn’t have much of a problem and giving one unprotected first IF the rest of the package is reasonable. If the Flames were out of the playoffs at 12, there such a small chance they’d get a top three pick that it would be a digestible level of risk to take. Now if they wanted two years 1sts unprotected I’d be inclined to say no.

Roof-Daddy · 10-12-2021, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I just don't understand the furrowed brows about this news. They seem to have a good position now, and if they are close but don't get it, it means a team has leapfrogged their current "closest" offer, and I would need to see the actual pricetag before being bent out of shape.

What furrowed brows?

What the hell are you talking about?

rofl

GioforPM · 10-12-2021, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

What furrowed brows?

What the hell are you talking about?

rofl

The drive-by "Oh noes - we will be close but won't get a deal again" furrowed brows.

Would you rather hear "yeah, the Flames made an offer but it was only half-hearted and lame".

dino7c · 10-12-2021, 01:40 PM

The fact that the Flames are making realistic major pitches for any high end player is good news IMO

Roof-Daddy · 10-12-2021, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The drive-by "Oh noes - we will be close but won't get a deal again" furrowed brows.

Would you rather hear "yeah, the Flames made an offer but it was only half-hearted and lame".

It's no drive by. Get off me man. I think you positive petey's are getting too sensitive or something lol

I wasn't criticizing anybody. I'm excited, I want the Flames to get Eichel, and I just don't want to get my hopes up only to be disappointed again.

That ok with you, or what?

Haha

GioforPM · 10-12-2021, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

It's no drive by. Get off me man. I think you positive petey's are getting too sensitive or something lol

I wasn't criticizing anybody. I'm excited, I want the Flames to get Eichel, and I just don't want to get my hopes up only to be disappointed again.

That ok with you, or what?

Haha

"Positive peteys"

It was the very definition of a drive-by, and an inherent criticism of past close deals. And whether it's OK with me or not is immaterial. This was good news.

Nelson · 10-12-2021, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

What I heard was Marek stating he had heard that VGK and CGY were the 2 teams that were the closest to acquiring Eichel over the summer, and asked how close VGK was - to which the response was "not close at all"

I just re-listened to it. This is right.

GioforPM · 10-12-2021, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

What I heard was Marek stating he had heard that VGK and CGY were the 2 teams that were the closest to acquiring Eichel over the summer, and asked how close VGK was - to which the response was "not close at all"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nelson

I just re-listened to it. This is right.

I guess he didn't say Calgary was close or also "not close at all". But it certainly implies Calgary may have the inside track unless someone comes out of the blue.