2021/2022 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Gundo

Literally the most Flames thing the Flames could do… wouldn’t even surprise me.

Here's the complete list of players 30 or older who signed contracts of 4 years or more with the Flames since Brad Treliving was hired:

Mark Giordano, 2015
Troy Brouwer, 2016
James Neal, 2018
Jacob Markstrom, 2020
Chris Tanev, 2020

Yup, bunch of useless bums there. Not a useful player in the lot. Shows you how incredibly stupid Treliving is and how rotten the Flames' organization has always been.

[Gundo]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Here's the complete list of players 30 or older who signed contracts of 4 years or more with the Flames since Brad Treliving was hired:

Mark Giordano, 2015
Troy Brouwer, 2016
James Neal, 2018
Jacob Markstrom, 2020
Chris Tanev, 2020

Yup, bunch of useless bums there. Not a useful player in the lot. Shows you how incredibly stupid Treliving is and how rotten the Flames' organization has always been.

Not what I said at all, just paraphrased that the team has done it in the past with players which you were kind enough to list and that it would not catch me off guard if it happens again.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

You are still missing the point. He may not approve a trade even to a playoff team simply to pressure the Flames into giving him a huge contract.

Ah I see what you’re saying. I don’t believe that’s how the modified NTC works though. Could be wrong I guess. I would assume the language is such that if asked he must provide a list of teams that he will permit a trade to (that’s why it is a modified NTC not full NTC).

Again could be wrong but would be very surprised the clause reads like “player may also just not give a list of teams at all and block a trade completely”. Probably more like Johnnys camp has X days to submit a list of destinations if requested, otherwise failure to provide shall be deemed consent to trade and the Flames are free to trade to wherever.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Ah I see what you’re saying. I don’t believe that’s how the modified NTC works though. Could be wrong I guess. I would assume the language is such that if asked he must provide a list of teams that he will permit a trade to (that’s why it is a modified NTC not full NTC).

Again could be wrong but would be very surprised the clause reads like “player may also just not give a list of teams at all and block a trade completely”. Probably more like Johnnys camp has X days to submit a list of destinations if requested, otherwise failure to provide shall be deemed consent to trade and the Flames are free to trade to wherever.

He would put a list of teams together that are unlikely to be buyers - therefore essentially blocking a trade.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Ah I see what you’re saying. I don’t believe that’s how the modified NTC works though. Could be wrong I guess. I would assume the language is such that if asked he must provide a list of teams that he will permit a trade to (that’s why it is a modified NTC not full NTC).

Again could be wrong but would be very surprised the clause reads like “player may also just not give a list of teams at all and block a trade completely”. Probably more like Johnnys camp has X days to submit a list of destinations if requested, otherwise failure to provide shall be deemed consent to trade and the Flames are free to trade to wherever.

Originally Posted by VilleN

He would put a list of teams together that are unlikely to be buyers - therefore essentially blocking a trade.

The tension is this: If he wants to block all trades, yes, he can play games and list teams that Calgary would never trade to or couldn't possibly want him. That would prevent a trade and presumably force Calgary to offer him a bunch of money (or else he walks).

BUT if he is intent on leaving Calgary and going UFA, he would likely waive a his clause if the destination was a contender or maybe even somewhere fun to live for a couple months. Because it doesn't change his ultimate goal - UFA, and possibly he could get a ring or pad his PO stats for a bigger payday.

[Lonestar]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The tension is this: If he wants to block all trades, yes, he can play games and list teams that Calgary would never trade to or couldn't possibly want him. That would prevent a trade and presumably force Calgary to offer him a bunch of money (or else he walks).

BUT if he is intent on leaving Calgary and going UFA, he would likely waive a his clause if the destination was a contender or maybe even somewhere fun to live for a couple months. Because it doesn't change his ultimate goal - UFA, and possibly he could get a ring or pad his PO stats for a bigger payday.

Plus if he's traded before the deadline the possibility of an 8 year contract is available to him (if it's a spot that he wants to stay long-term). I believe the differences in AAV on 7 vs 8 year contracts have already been discussed and that difference is not insignificant to competitive teams presumably already up against the cap.

[Lonestar]

Originally Posted by VilleN

He would put a list of teams together that are unlikely to be buyers - therefore essentially blocking a trade.

Doesn't the list have to be submitted before the season? I didn't think he could look around the league and standings at this point to change the list. I could be mistaken though.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Lonestar

Doesn't the list have to be submitted before the season? I didn't think he could look around the league and standings at this point to change the list. I could be mistaken though.

This is what I found on the subject: "The lists of teams to which a player will or will not accept a trade do not exist ahead of time. The lists of teams themselves are not a part of a player's contract. A player creates the list when he is asked to by management.

In no-trade and modified no-trade clauses, if the player does not submit a list of teams in the specified time frame after being asked, he can be traded anywhere."

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lonestar

Doesn't the list have to be submitted before the season? I didn't think he could look around the league and standings at this point to change the list. I could be mistaken though.

Usually beginning of the season IIRC. But you could still predict pretty happily that if you put Edmonton, Vancouver, TB, Buffalo and Toronto, you aren't getting traded - the first two because of rivalries, Buffalo because it's just not their time, and TB and Toronto because there's no trade that works cap wise for a rental.

[sureLoss]

When the player has to submit their No Trade list is subject to how it was negotiated and written into the contract.

For example in 2018 Rick Nash had to provide his 12 team trade list when requested by the Rangers.

The most common No trade lists are the ones that have to be submitted on July 1st of every year. This might put the player at a disadvantage because they have to prognosticate how the season goes to maximize their control over trades.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Gundo

Not what I said at all, just paraphrased that the team has done it in the past with players which you were kind enough to list and that it would not catch me off guard if it happens again.

In context, it's quite clear that you meant ‘they always do this and it's an idiotic thing to do, so I can safely predict it and complain about it in advance’. Five times in eight years (once re-upping their own player) is not ‘always’, and the results show it isn't idiotic either. You're complaining about a figment of your imagination.

[PuckSlap]

Flames are gonna trade

Matt Coronato

Monahan

And next years 1st and second round picks

For Crosby or Malkin, at the deadline.

They are gonna rebuild soon, so why not Calgary?

[Tkachukwagon]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1483888275093966849

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by Tkachukwagon

https://twitter.com/user/status/1483888275093966849

Ha no way would I want my team to pay that.

[Vinny01]

Ya that is a ridiculous price. 3 1st rounder’s basically

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Ya that is a ridiculous price. 3 1st rounder’s basically

Not only that they're first rounders, Knight and Lundell are bluechip prospects. That's never happening.



But the ask is always ridiculous like we saw with Eichel and many others, it's not going to come close to that in the end. Florida could offer something like Tippett (10th OA), Denisenko (15th OA) and 2022 1st, which is closer IMO.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Ya that is a ridiculous price. 3 1st rounder’s basically

It's too crazy to even be Ludacris. That trade would be straight up Kanye West.

[Sandman]

So in other words, they don’t want to trade Chychrun at all.

That’s a better package than the Eichel deal.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Sandman

So in other words, they don’t want to trade Chychrun at all.

That’s a better package than the Eichel deal.

TBF, Chychrun is only 23, signed for 3 more years at under $4.6M, had 41 points in 56 games last year and is not coming off major surgery. The only question mark for me is whether last year was an aberration or a sign of the future.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by MrMike

Ha no way would I want my team to pay that.

Knight and the 1st are digestable, but no way the Panthers are moving Lundell. Swap that out with a Tippett or Verharghe and they might be willing to chat.