2021/2022 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[NewFan]

If they trade all the bigger names I hope we collect draft picks for next year. This years competition is so bad that we can't get lower than bottom 10.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If Gaudreau doesn't plan to re-sign here, my guess is that he doesn't turn down a trade to a contender, whether they are on his list or not.

But I doubt that's the scenario we find ourselves in.

Perhaps the scenario is that Johnny is willing to sign here but the Flames aren't offering his inflated price. He might play hard ball with the Flames on waiving his NTC as a way of getting them to pay his price.

Not saying the above will happen, but there are a number scenarios which could occur, and Johnny has control over virtually all of them.

We generally know that Johnny would sign here is the price is right, and that so far that price hasn't been right.

I'd be shocked if the Flames aren't at least in very serious playoff contention at the deadline.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So is most every trade and every signing market value? That adjective is fairly bland when evaluating whether it was a good signing for the team or not.

No, because some are obviously made without any competing bids.

As for Coleman, if you look at the UFA signings of 2021, it's right in line with the others. So it's not an overpayment. Maybe it was a signing that was unnecessary or didn't address a bigger need. Was a strong 2 way player who is more defensive needed more than, say, a Saad or Hoffman type?

For me, signing Coleman improved the team and didn't prevent a different signing that the Flames missed out on.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

If the Flames were in first place and kept him at the deadline would you still feel this way?

Yup. Should not have gotten to this point.

[Tkachukwagon]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1483515243774889985

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So is most every trade and every signing market value? That adjective is fairly bland when evaluating whether it was a good signing for the team or not.

Signing a player to a market value contract doesn't necessarily have relation whether that signing will be good for the team or not. I don't know why people use it as some kind of standard whether a GM did a good job.

Personally I thought Coleman's contract was a bad one since day one. Too much and especially too long. Six years for a complementary, career 40 point winger is just bad management all around.

[Mr.Coffee]

I think what you should do as GM is go to Gaudreau (now) and offer a very fair contract- the most you are willing to pay. Tell him it's take it or leave it time, you can't do any better than this, and that if he does not want to sign within X time (give a reasonable timeframe, 2 weeks or something), to provide the Flames with his list of teams he is prepared to be traded to.

Then if he signs, great, make a push and if he doesn't, blow it up and focus on rebuild. You should also take the time to explain the rationale, why you're doing what you're doing, that nothing is personal and that it is simply a matter of putting the organization first and that he is the key strategic piece of the puzzle to which ongoing / continued uncertainty will only hurt the team. Decision time. He'll understand and do whatever he wants to do.

To continue waiting and prolonging this though, is just stupid.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I think what you should do as GM is go to Gaudreau (now) and offer a very fair contract- the most you are willing to pay. Tell him it's take it or leave it time, you can't do any better than this, and that if he does not want to sign within X time (give a reasonable timeframe, 2 weeks or something), to provide the Flames with his list of teams he is prepared to be traded to.

Then if he signs, great, make a push and if he doesn't, blow it up and focus on rebuild. You should also take the time to explain the rationale, why you're doing what you're doing, that nothing is personal and that it is simply a matter of putting the organization first and that he is the key strategic piece of the puzzle to which ongoing / continued uncertainty will only hurt the team. Decision time. He'll understand and do whatever he wants to do.

To continue waiting and prolonging this though, is just stupid.

That’s a very good point. The Flames rely heavily on the offense of Gaudreau. You either need to grab some assets from him for a retool while Sutter is here or you need to sign him long-term so the Flames can make long-term plans with him included.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I think what you should do as GM is go to Gaudreau (now) and offer a very fair contract- the most you are willing to pay. Tell him it's take it or leave it time, you can't do any better than this, and that if he does not want to sign within X time (give a reasonable timeframe, 2 weeks or something), to provide the Flames with his list of teams he is prepared to be traded to.

Then if he signs, great, make a push and if he doesn't, blow it up and focus on rebuild. You should also take the time to explain the rationale, why you're doing what you're doing, that nothing is personal and that it is simply a matter of putting the organization first and that he is the key strategic piece of the puzzle to which ongoing / continued uncertainty will only hurt the team. Decision time. He'll understand and do whatever he wants to do.

To continue waiting and prolonging this though, is just stupid.

If you do that, he'll likely give you a list of 5 teams that have no interest in a rental player. Why would he do that? So that he controls all the cards.

Then what?

I assume they've offered him a "fair" contract. I assume Johnny wants as much as he can get. What's fair today may not be fair tomorrow. Johnny's leverage will only get better as he get's closer to UFA, and he likely holds all the cards right now.

You assume Calgary has the choice of paying him or trading him. It's likely paying him or losing him. Which likely means that Calgary will pay more than they would if they could trade him. The "most they are willing to pay" likely increases in a "walk away scenario.

And I seriously doubt that Calgary wants to play chicken when the odds are so stacked against them. And I seriously doubt they are prepared to punt the season.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Signing a player to a market value contract doesn't necessarily have relation whether that signing will be good for the team or not. I don't know why people use it as some kind of standard whether a GM did a good job.

Personally I thought Coleman's contract was a bad one since day one. Too much and especially too long. Six years for a complementary, career 40 point winger is just bad management all around.

The term is indeed the issue with that deal.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

If you do that, he'll likely give you a list of 5 teams that have no interest in a rental player. Why would he do that? So that he controls all the cards.

Then what?

I assume they've offered him a "fair" contract. I assume Johnny wants as much as he can get. What's fair today may not be fair tomorrow. Johnny's leverage will only get better as he get's closer to UFA, and he likely holds all the cards right now.

You assume Calgary has the choice of paying him or trading him. It's likely paying him or losing him. Which likely means that Calgary will pay more than they would if they could trade him. The "most they are willing to pay" likely increases in a "walk away scenario.

And I seriously doubt that Calgary wants to play chicken when the odds are so stacked against them. And I seriously doubt they are prepared to punt the season.

Yeah well that’s kind of the point, you need to take some power back to you can control some of your destiny not continue this Jesus take the wheel strategy Treliving is employing.

If you do not force the issue you kill valuable time in advance of putting together a good deal for Gaudreau, that’s how you end up with Agostino for Iginla. I (very highly) doubt the Flames have given Gaudreau the best offer they can. If they have, and he’s rejected it, you need to focus on rebuild.

You know what’s worse than not going rebuild when your most valuable asset can be monetized? Trying to stumble into playoffs, lose, watch that asset evaporate and then start the rebuild in the summer. So I’m basically saying decisions need to be made now, not in the summer as to what strategy you will do. You need to know what Johnny is willing to do, to know what to do.

And it doesn’t matter what teams you go negotiate with if Johnny won’t go there so you need an idea of his preferences first. They will be playoff teams anyway. What you think he’s gonna say trade me to Phoenix or Seattle?

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The term is indeed the issue with that deal.

Yeah if it was four years I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The term is indeed the issue with that deal.

The term is almost always the issue with UFAs. But if you don’t commit term, you don’t get the player.

In an ideal world, a smart team would have a policy never to commit more than 4 years to a UFA over the age of 28. But in reality, any team that adopted the policy had better hit it out of the park with their drafting, because they are never going to sign any of the top 15 or so UFAs available every summer.

[Harry Lime]

With a new GM in Montreal, I wonder if they would be willing to move on from Christian Dvorak. The poor guy has played his entire career only with tire fire organizations.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The term is almost always the issue with UFAs. But if you don’t commit term, you don’t get the player.

In an ideal world, a smart team would have a policy never to commit more than 4 years to a UFA over the age of 28. But in reality, any team that adopted the policy had better hit it out of the park with their drafting, because they are never going to sign any of the top 15 or so UFAs available every summer.

It's one of the longer terms handed out last UFA season for contracts between 3-6 million

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

With a new GM in Montreal, I wonder if they would be willing to move on from Christian Dvorak. The poor guy has played his entire career only with tire fire organizations.

Love the player. A dream scenario is we could get him and Toffoli both in a deal, Monahan would have to go back the other way which makes it tough. I wonder if attaching Pelletier and our 1st makes it palatable?
Monahan+Pelletier+1st for Dvorak+Toffoli?

Gaudreau/Lindholm/Toffoli
Tkachuk/Dvorak/Mangiapane
Looch/Backlund/Coleman
Lewis/Dube/Ritchie

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

With a new GM in Montreal, I wonder if they would be willing to move on from Christian Dvorak. The poor guy has played his entire career only with tire fire organizations.

Unless they get a 1st+2nd like they paid I do not see why they would sell low. That looks like a tough price to pay today.

I look at the Habs, Flyers, and maybe Kraken as one stop shops. If the Flames are going to spend futures I would want at least 1 long term piece coming back.

What would Dvorak+Charoit cost if they take Monahan back? Flames add 1st+2nd+Pelletier

What about Gourde+Giordano?

What about Giroux+Sanheim?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Not even close. The point was about the point that we’re not allowed to say anything negative.

Who on earth has made such a point? There is no such point and no one has made it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Yeah if it was four years I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The term is almost always the issue with UFAs. But if you don’t commit term, you don’t get the player.

In an ideal world, a smart team would have a policy never to commit more than 4 years to a UFA over the age of 28. But in reality, any team that adopted the policy had better hit it out of the park with their drafting, because they are never going to sign any of the top 15 or so UFAs available every summer.

Term probably isn't an issue for a GM like Treliving anyway. He's got one year on his contract, and his next one (if he gets one) is probably 3 years at most.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I think what you should do as GM is go to Gaudreau (now) and offer a very fair contract- the most you are willing to pay. Tell him it's take it or leave it time, you can't do any better than this, and that if he does not want to sign within X time (give a reasonable timeframe, 2 weeks or something), to provide the Flames with his list of teams he is prepared to be traded to.

Then if he signs, great, make a push and if he doesn't, blow it up and focus on rebuild. You should also take the time to explain the rationale, why you're doing what you're doing, that nothing is personal and that it is simply a matter of putting the organization first and that he is the key strategic piece of the puzzle to which ongoing / continued uncertainty will only hurt the team. Decision time. He'll understand and do whatever he wants to do.

To continue waiting and prolonging this though, is just stupid.

Don't kid yourself. If/when Johnny walks the Flames will turn their attention to guys like Hertl and Forsberg to plug the hole. They will overpay for one of them in their desperate quest to win now. The only way this organization will head into a rebuild is the kicking and screaming way the Habs did where their attempts to hang on just keep making the team worse and worse until the roof caves in. To be honest I'm a little envious they are in position to come out of this COVID mess of a season with Shane Wright.