[Rumour] go to the new thread

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Seravelli is a perfect example of why there are so many nonsense "rumours" these day. These guys know that they are putting opinions out there and wording them in a way that people will fill in narratives. Then they can go back and claim that they didn't say anything definite if you taken them verbatim.

They all do this of course, ever since clicks and followers became a thing.

I've been hearing a lot of chatter that talks are heating up. A trade could be completed as early as tomorrow. Now if I say this, just being some internet rando, it carries no weight of course. If someone from the media says this, it instantly become a rumour even if the substance is exactly the same. Then when it doesn't materialize, I can point out that I never said anything was imminent, just that it could happen. I get all the clicks, with none of the risk.

Not to jump on Seravelli, he has launched a new media outlet for this season so clicks and traffic to the site does help with whatever funding model they are using at Daily Faceoff. He's been a good insider in the past and has connections, so I understand why people would consider his messages to be credible (and they probably are). What is the temptation to draw a little more traffic?

Almost immediately you had people close to Vegas posting tweets questioning how the money works with their existing cap situation. If Vegas does make the trade for futures only with Buffalo, we do need to add the cost of becoming cap compliant to the trade.

If I was Arizona's GM then I would be on the phone with Buffalo offering to help with our $7 million in cap space for any alleged buyer. For the low, low cost of a few first round picks, we can take on any number of dead weight contracts.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by NegativeSpace

If I was Arizona's GM then I would be on the phone with Buffalo offering to help with our $7 million in cap space for any alleged buyer. For the low, low cost of a few first round picks, we can take on any number of dead weight contracts.

Unfortunately for Arizona, Buffalo already wants all those first-round picks for Eichel. You can't trade them away twice.

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Unfortunately for Arizona, Buffalo already wants all those first-round picks for Eichel. You can't trade them away twice.

Fair. I just don't see the get out of cap-jail free card for Vegas unless they trade away several pieces on their roster or multiple picks.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Unfortunately for Arizona, Buffalo already wants all those first-round picks for Eichel. You can't trade them away twice.

People are some how missing this. They think that by involving a third team in this debacle that it makes it easier and possibly less costly. No, it does just the opposite. You now have TWO teams that want 1st and 2nd round picks to make deals happen. The cost just went up, and up hard. The only deal to make is one directly with Buffalo and let them worry about the loss of picks to eat contract.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

People are some how missing this. They think that by involving a third team in this debacle that it makes it easier and possibly less costly. No, it does just the opposite. You now have TWO teams that want 1st and 2nd round picks to make deals happen. The cost just went up, and up hard. The only deal to make is one directly with Buffalo and let them worry about the loss of picks to eat contract.

The third team was originally thought of because of Monahan’s MNTC, which likely includes Buffalo.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The third team was originally thought of because of Monahan’s MNTC, which likely includes Buffalo.

Sure, I get that. What established player wants to go to Buffalo? But it still comes down to cost to make a deal. If you're talking to a third team to take on the salary, that's a dump, and there is a cost to do business. That means you have to pay for someone to take the contract, and then pay Buffalo what they want. The deal just got more expensive. The only way it works out is if you find a team that wants the player you want to move and they are willing to give something of value in return. That's isn't the language of late. The comments have been to find a third team to absorb salary to get a deal done That means the cost of the transaction is going up and you lose more assets to get the deals done. Not a good move if you're in dump mode. Buffalo needs to absorb the hit, not expect you to engage another team that is going to drive the cost up. I can see why Treliving blew his wad on salaries before camp and let the cap space dry up. The acquisition cost is likely to be too high when all is said and done.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Sure, I get that. What established player wants to go to Buffalo? But it still comes down to cost to make a deal. If you're talking to a third team to take on the salary, that's a dump, and there is a cost to do business. That means you have to pay for someone to take the contract, and then pay Buffalo what they want. The deal just got more expensive. The only way it works out is if you find a team that wants the player you want to move and they are willing to give something of value in return. That's isn't the language of late. The comments have been to find a third team to absorb salary to get a deal done That means the cost of the transaction is going up and you lose more assets to get the deals done. Not a good move if you're in dump mode. Buffalo needs to absorb the hit, not expect you to engage another team that is going to drive the cost up. I can see why Treliving blew his wad on salaries before camp and let the cap space dry up. The acquisition cost is likely to be too high when all is said and done.

At the same time though if Buffalo can't find a partner to give up all futures within a season (very likely), then their value is going down at the same time as the cost of business is going off.

There is an offset there (not necessarily one to one)

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

At the same time though if Buffalo can't find a partner to give up all futures within a season (very likely), then their value is going down at the same time as the cost of business is going off.

There is an offset there (not necessarily one to one)

Possibly an offset. I think that any cost to Buffalo has gone down because of their mishandling of the situation, but the possible cost to find a home for a player the team needs to move may have gone up now that we are in the season. The number of teams that can take on a contract right now is probably pretty small, so the cost is likely to be increased because of the lack of suitors. Also, Buffalo and the third team may indeed be asking for similar assets to get deals done. Eating a $6-7M player is likely to cost a 1st round pick or more. Buffalo would still be wanting to dip into that same talent pool. While the cost may have gone down from wanting four 1st round pick assets, the challenge is we only have so many of those assets available. If Buffalo wants two first rounders, and the team taking on the dump wants a first rounder, aren't we fubar? Adding the third team makes the deal that much more difficult and costly IMO. Both teams are going to want to be paid and likely asking for similar assets.

[sureLoss]

Dreger saying the Flames are more of a tire kicker

https://twitter.com/user/status/1455291921467727872

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Dreger saying the Flames are more of a tire kicker

https://twitter.com/user/status/1455291921467727872

What Dreger doesn’t know would fill a warehouse.

[mile]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Dreger saying the Flames are more of a tire kicker

https://twitter.com/user/status/1455291921467727872

When I heard that interview this morning, I thought he said the Flames were “more than a tire kicker”

At 10:20
https://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-105...more-1.1714553

[AC]

How does a team "kick tires" on a player consistently for like 4 months now?

We're always mentioned amongst 1 or 2 other teams as being involved. Odd way to categorize things IMO.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Because if they let him do the surgery before he is traded, and there are complications, then they essentially eliminate any chance of moving Eichel at all. The Sabres rightly are not willing to take that risk.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

If they aren't, why should anyone else take that risk?

Presumably Buffalo knows more than anyone else at this point (or they have a trade agreement with a team done, and the new team is now doing medical Due Diligence under a permanent NDA).

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by mile

When I heard that interview this morning, I thought he said the Flames were “more than a tire kicker”

At 10:20
https://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-105...more-1.1714553

Yep - that's what he appears to say to my ears.

[AC]

Yeah, he clearly groups Vegas and Calgary together and then mentions other possibilities that are less than those 2 (Vegas and Calgary).

He also put the emphasis in the phrase on "more than a tire kicker".

[ComixZone]

Yeah he very clearly says “more than a tire kicker”.

I really hope we grab this deal from under Vegas’ nose. Eichel in a Flames jersey? It’d be beautiful.

The panel in that interview also goes on and speaks pretty highly of the Flames in general.

[genetic_phreek]

Originally Posted by mile

When I heard that interview this morning, I thought he said the Flames were “more than a tire kicker”

At 10:20
https://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-105...more-1.1714553

Dammit Mile, just when I thought I was out.....

[Moneyhands23]

Nobody knows anything lol. I am starting to think this drags on until the deadline or next summer.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by mile

When I heard that interview this morning, I thought he said the Flames were “more than a tire kicker”

At 10:20
https://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-105...more-1.1714553

This was a very important correction as it's completely opposite from what was first noted!

[FlamesAddiction]

Good thing that was NHL Watcher that tweeted that, and not NHL Listener.