[Trade] Eichel + 3rd to Vegas for Tuch, Krebs, 1st, 3rd

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think the package is better from Calgary but a lot depends on Monahan versus Tuch as well. And Tuch has a few points Monahan doesn't - age, contract, progression curve, etc. Tuch does have surgery comeback questions, but I guess so does Monny still. That Tuch contract is hard to ignore, and he's still in their time window.

Honestly I think that's a mistake from Buffalo too.

You traded Reinhart, you traded Eichel.

Don't worry about the contract term or if the player will play for you for the next 3 years after this one.

Worry about what you can flip a player for because you're not going to be that good in the next three years anyways.

Buffalo should have been willing to take back bad cap, and focused on just getting as many top prospects and high picks as they possibly could. Still think they handled this whole thing wrong from the start and they should have held an auction that took place before the draft in the offseason when more teams would have been involved.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by bax

Stone wasn’t traded here because he wasn’t coming with an extension, like he was for Vegas.

Sucks we’re not a state tax free destination but that’s life. Just more evidence that Flames need to build through the draft

Or make damn sure you get long term locked up players in trades. Who don’t have trade protection.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

So Friedman reportedly said the Flames offer was: 3 top prospects, 1st, Monahan.

If that was the offered package then Treliving really did offer better in my opinion unless the definition of top prospect is really loose.

[jg13]

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Maybe but you are saying Eichel is in that class with the all time elite lol

Actually, I am not saying anything about Eichel. But the people who wanted to acquire him at any cost were strongly implying that he was in the same class with the all-time elite. That's why they are bitching and moaning about giving up a once-in-a-generation chance to acquire such a player without burning the team to the ground. I happen to believe they are wrong on all counts.

[yourbestfriend]

Originally Posted by Matty81

The thing I admire about Vegas is they are willing to take these chances, as much as I hate them I agree with the philosophy. It's an entertainment business, so mix it up, give us storylines and take chances. This calibre and age of player will never be on the market again for this price in the next half decade.

I see where your coming from, but to be fair, Vegas is really the only team in the league using this strategy.

The last 10 cup winners pretty much had almost all of their core players drafted or developed organically as opposed to trading or signing core pieces. It's a less sexy and way slower way of doing things, but it's a more viable long term solution as you don't deplete your team of picks, prospects and cap.
Vegas will be in cap hell very quickly (if not already), and if they don't win a cup in the next, lets say five years, will all of it have been worth it, especially when they have no prospects coming up?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bonded

If that was the offered package then Treliving really did offer better in my opinion unless the definition of top prospect is really loose.

If two of the three top prospects were Zary/Pelletier/Coronato, yup.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, but someone suggested HOF = elite, period

To which I say: Kevin Lowe (also Gillies, Cheevers, Anderson, Watson, Carbonneau, Duff, Boivin).

You just rattled off some more elite players. Everyone has a few players they believe shouldn’t make it but the HHOF is the closest to a measuring stick that is widely recognized that I can think of. 25 and 39 weren’t exactly close calls either.

[Niemo]

I'd think that it'd be Pelletier / Wolf / Valimaki (does he still count)?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, but someone suggested HOF = elite, period

To which I say: Kevin Lowe (also Gillies, Cheevers, Anderson, Watson, Carbonneau, Duff, Boivin).

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Gilmour was very good. He was not in the same conversation as the big four of Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, and Messier.



As opposed to all those other years when that elite C handled them? Good to hear.

That was Gretzky's first year with the Kings. He scored a bushel of points, of course, and so did Bernie Nicholls, but the team was seriously lacking in depth and had no defence to speak of. They gave up more than 4 goals per game, which is the principal reason they finished 26 points behind the Flames in the regular season.

The Flames that year didn't win because they had superior top-end talent. They provably did not, with only one player in the top 10 in scoring (and he was a RW, by the way). They won because they had unbelievable depth. Theo Fleury scored 0.94 points per game playing on the fourth line. Rob Ramage, who had been a top-pairing defenceman in St. Louis, spent most of the season on the third pairing.



It's an argument soundly based in facts from someone who followed the team religiously and knew the league at the time. What kind of argument would you consider not weird?

Flames didn’t win because of their 4th line. They had a ton of elite talent on that team.

Again those 4 players you are talking about are a ridiculous measuring stick. By your definition there have been how many elite C’s in the history of the game?

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by yourbestfriend

I see where your coming from, but to be fair, Vegas is really the only team in the league using this strategy.

The last 10 cup winners pretty much had almost all of their core players drafted or developed organically as opposed to trading or signing core pieces. It's a less sexy and way slower way of doing things, but it's a more viable long term solution as you don't deplete your team of picks, prospects and cap.
Vegas will be in cap hell very quickly (if not already), and if they don't win a cup in the next, lets say five years, will all of it have been worth it, especially when they have no prospects coming up?

Then within 4 or 5 years they will probably have drafted two or three of the top talents in the game after they bottom out. Have seen lots of teams do that and continually suck like the Sabres, but the NHL does not reward middle of the pack teams that tread water - if you've concluded you don't have a contending team, time to tear it down or change things up. Anyway I hope it is all a moot point and the flames tear it up this season. Maybe the coaching change and depth changes will be enough to push them forward, optimistic based on what sutter did with the kings, but not feeling great about being in a division with Eichel/Stone and McDavid/Draisaitl for years to come, just don't think the flames stack up at the top end.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Matty81

The thing I admire about Vegas is they are willing to take these chances, as much as I hate them I agree with the philosophy. It's an entertainment business, so mix it up, give us storylines and take chances. This calibre and age of player will never be on the market again for this price in the next half decade.

If Treliving's offer is any of the rumoured ones surrounding Monahan, or Tkachuk, then it's not Treliving's fault if the GM holding the player wants a worse deal.

This is like playing Settlers of Catan and you need that one brick to complete your Longest Road and have victory. But the only assbite with a brick trades it to a player who can't really do anything with it for a worse deal than you're offering. It's infuriating.

[GhostCookie]

Originally Posted by yourbestfriend

I see where your coming from, but to be fair, Vegas is really the only team in the league using this strategy.

The last 10 cup winners pretty much had almost all of their core players drafted or developed organically as opposed to trading or signing core pieces. It's a less sexy and way slower way of doing things, but it's a more viable long term solution as you don't deplete your team of picks, prospects and cap.
Vegas will be in cap hell very quickly (if not already), and if they don't win a cup in the next, lets say five years, will all of it have been worth it, especially when they have no prospects coming up?

Vegas is definitely in cap hell once players start to come back. They still have basic moves to make just to be able to fit everyone returning, not to mention how they even get up to minimum roster size next season.

People here have (for the most part rightfully) criticized Tre for emptying the cupboards and not leaving us the assets to be able to make these deals, but Vegas has been buying pieces using their assets since their first TDL. Vegas has pushed their chips in on Eichel, with very little certainty, and as we don't even know the full cost of acquiring him, it could still very much backfire on them.

Also, any deals saying a Mony deal is better is ignoring that after how Buffalo carried themselves through this process, who would every waive to go there?

[Manhattanboy]

I don't think Matthew Tkachuk wants to be here much longer. How about a trade to OTT for one of their young guys?

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by AustinL_NHL

So the Flames have lost out on...

1) Taylor Hall (thinking they had a better offer)
2) Mark Stone (went to bed thinking they had a deal done)
3) Jason Zucker (last minute complications)
4) Nazem Kadri (rejected trade)
5) Jack Eichel (thinking they had a better offer)

Fun :')

Who do you wish they would have landed?

Taylor Hall - trade a boatload for him and then sign him to a long term contract in the neighborhood of $9 million?
He goes on to score 27 points in 35 games after the trade, and the next season he gets 33 points in 53 games.
Dodged a bullet.

Mark Stone - could have traded a boatload for him to finish the year with 11 points in 18 games, then he leaves and signs in Vegas.
Dodged a bullet.

Jason Zucker could have been had for some significant assets as well. He went on to score 12 points in 15 games to finish off the season. He followed that up with 18 pts in 38 games for a cap hit of $5.5 million. That contract continues this year and next and he's unlikely to improve his output at 29 years old.
Good miss.

Nazem Kadri could have been had for TJ Brodie, if the reports are true.
This one hurts, but Kadri nixed it because he wanted to stay in Toronto. Can you blame the Flames for that?

Jack Eichel - we will see what the future says on this one, but I am skeptical that the deal is going to do wonders for Vegas.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Jack Eichel not doing wonders for Vegas’ success doesn’t mean anything. He probably won’t. Because that team is less than half as deep as the Flames in all areas.

Doesn’t change my opinion that the Flames would be a stronger team with him.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Bader's model doesn't matter. Only Buffalo's opinion does.
Most experts, for whatever they are worth, rank Krebs much higher.

Experts schmexperts.

Most of them are influenced by a teams reputation and have the same information as everyone. How many of them actually watch all these prospects play? These are the same guys that always rank the Oilers as among the best prospect pools, year in, and year out despite never producing anything of great value if it doesn't go directly from the 1st round to the NHL.

I prefer data driven models over talking heads.

[Roof-Daddy]

lol

Some of you are getting pretty cocky with the Flames hot start and Vegas slow start with boatloads of injuries.

Pretty small sample size compared to the previous 4 seasons track record where they have probably been the 2nd or 3rd best team in the league overall.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

You just rattled off some more elite players. Everyone has a few players they believe shouldn’t make it but the HHOF is the closest to a measuring stick that is widely recognized that I can think of. 25 and 39 weren’t exactly close calls either.

I suppose. I guess it depends on your definition of elite. I don't consider Gillies an elite player, nor Glenn Anderson.

I just consider "elite" a description of skill at a particular moment.

HOF is more accomplishment based than skill based. I think Newy made it based on rings with different teams. I think Gilmour made it based on Toronto.

In Newy's time in Calgary, he was nowhere near being in the handful of the best centres in the game, which is kind of how I view elite. His best year he was 22nd in scoring. Now TBF, he played when Gretzky/Lemieux/Yzerman/Hawerchuk/Messier/Sakic/Lindros/Oates/Lafontaine did.

ETA: My argument isn't that Gilmour and Newy weren't elite, BTW. It's that being in the HOF doesn't automatically make the player elite. It's not a debate ender.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Experts schmexperts.

Most of them are influenced by a teams reputation and have the same information as everyone. How many of them actually watch all these prospects play? These are the same guys that always rank the Oilers as among the best prospect pools, year in, and year out despite never producing anything of great value if it doesn't go directly from the 1st round to the NHL.

I prefer data driven models over talking heads.

No one is arguing who is better. They are arguing who Buffalo wanted more. We all prefer Zary over Krebs.