[Trade] Toffoli to Flames for 2022 1st *, 2023 5th, Heineman, and Pitlick

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

This is not the first time the Flames have sold a ton of picks to "go for it", and not a single time did it look good in hindsight except Maybe the Hamilton acquisition (only because Hamilton was super young at the time).

Look back at all the other times the Flames gave up firsts, and you will see they missed out on some incredible players, including Toffoli himself. I highly doubt their scouts are happy about what's been done this year.

I would like to think fans who plan on being here the next 10 years shouldn't be happy either.

This team has a pattern of trying to compete on a constant basis that I think comes from the ownership and I don't agree with it. But I'm also not going to bang my head against the wall. I think they tried to open the contention window too early, with deals like the Hamonic deal.

But you also can't use that as a silver bullet to assess every deal. Because under the direction of trying to compete you need to evaluate the deals made under that mindset. And within that the Toffoli deal isn't a bad one. It filled a need, and the price given up was reasonable.

I don't view the deal in the same light as a lot of those past ones. I'm not sure all the ones you are referring to though.

They also didn't give up a 1st to miss on Toffoli. He was drafted 47th overall. I suppose you could argue it was the lack of a 1st or 2nd that prevented them from getting him, however, that's cherry picking. You have to look at groupings of players around that. And the trade they made to give up that 2nd was for Rene Bourque who they got a lot of productive years out of. The guys drafted around that spot (43) were Christian Thomas, Patrick Nemeth, Devante Smith Pelley, Brad Ross, Sebastian Wannstrom and Ryan Spooner.

So that highlights that's a good asset exchange.

Not all deals where you trade picks are bad long-term. You are taking a VERY narrow view with this and acting like you have some brilliant insight than none of us do. We are all VERY familiar with the trade history and lack of success of this franchise. Your take isn't fresh.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

This is not the first time the Flames have sold a ton of picks to "go for it", and not a single time did it look good in hindsight except Maybe the Hamilton acquisition (only because Hamilton was super young at the time).



Look back at all the other times the Flames gave up firsts, and you will see they missed out on some incredible players, including Toffoli himself. I highly doubt their scouts are happy about what's been done this year.



I would like to think fans who plan on being here the next 10 years shouldn't be happy either.

This brings us right back to a question I asked earlier that you have yet to answer. You seem very put-out by the fact the Flames moved a first round pick in THIS DRAFT on the premise that this was a sacrifice of "the future." The Flames first round pick is #26 in a marginal draft: so, which player are they missing out on as a result of this trade?

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

The Toffoli and Jarnkrok deals turned out to be bad

The jury is still out on the Toffoli deal since he has two more years left. It didn't work out this season but could the next two.

[tkflames]

This thread is annoying. Every time I log into CP and only see this on the opening screen I think something significant has happened.

Trade: T.... = Trade Tkachuk in my brain.

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think it's premature to say it's a bad trade as they are going to get several more years of production out of the player acquired and/or an opportunity to re-coup that value.

I would say the 1st in that spot in this draft is the equivalent to a 2nd round pick. I would further add that the fact that the Flames shed so many 2022 picks, and haven't made much of an effort to get any back, probably underscores how this team feels about this draft.

At that spot in this draft you are looking at a bottom 6 forward and/or 4-6 dman. Or you might find someone with upside, but with some very high risk factors. That's the reality of this draft.

Agree. I think it’s fair to say the player didn’t live up to the offence expectations, but if he wasn’t an improvement over what we had before his arrival, Sutter wouldn’t have played him as much. Maybe the previous season’s injury was still affecting his play. I’d wait and see how he does next season before calling it a bad trade.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I disagree. That Capitals team had a lot of consistent success, both regular season and obviously to a lesser degree, the playoffs. IMO the comparison to the Flames is a poor one. I see a difference between knocking on the door and being up and down.

If you want to argue the Flames are in a different trajectory now sure. I hope so, but I’m also nervous about how this club tunes out coaches. Sutter has had better teams than this sour on him before.

I'm not really arguing anything. I think every team is pretty unique and carries unique circumstances that determines what should be done. I think the only value of the Washington example is that patience pays off. You can list a million different reasons why they're that much better than the Flames, but we're also in a thread where a couple posters are suggesting that, at the first sign your guys can't get it done in the playoffs, you bail, or if they're not favorites, you bail.

Washington went through a stretch with Ovechkin where they went 1RD, 2RD, 1RD, 2RD, 2RD, 1RD, DNQ. That's 7 years where their best result was making the second round despite having a President's trophy to show for it. They went from "couldn't get it done in the playoffs" to not even making the playoffs. It might have been kind of consistent, but it was consistently underwhelming.

They won the cup with the same top player, same first line center, same top defenseman, same goaltending tandem and a few other of the same pieces they missed the playoffs entirely with. They didn't rebuild, they changed out the supporting cast over a few years.

The Flames have two division wins, two 1RD, 1 2RD, and a DNQ over the last four years. That's with coaching turnover and core turnover. I'm think it's more than fair to be patient and see what else this core can do. Make some changes around the supporting cast, bring in some young guys, see what happens.

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

This team has a pattern of trying to compete on a constant basis that I think comes from the ownership and I don't agree with it. But I'm also not going to bang my head against the wall. I think they tried to open the contention window too early, with deals like the Hamonic deal.

But you also can't use that as a silver bullet to assess every deal. Because under the direction of trying to compete you need to evaluate the deals made under that mindset. And within that the Toffoli deal isn't a bad one. It filled a need, and the price given up was reasonable.

I don't view the deal in the same light as a lot of those past ones. I'm not sure all the ones you are referring to though.

They also didn't give up a 1st to miss on Toffoli. He was drafted 47th overall. I suppose you could argue it was the lack of a 1st or 2nd that prevented them from getting him, however, that's cherry picking. You have to look at groupings of players around that. And the trade they made to give up that 2nd was for Rene Bourque who they got a lot of productive years out of. The guys drafted around that spot (43) were Christian Thomas, Patrick Nemeth, Devante Smith Pelley, Brad Ross, Sebastian Wannstrom and Ryan Spooner.

So that highlights that's a good asset exchange.

Not all deals where you trade picks are bad long-term. You are taking a VERY narrow view with this and acting like you have some brilliant insight than none of us do. We are all VERY familiar with the trade history and lack of success of this franchise. Your take isn't fresh.

If you are so familiar with all the bad trades and lack of success of this franchise, why do you support each successive one as they continue to occur? real question.

If I go back in your history I know I will find you supporting and defending all sorts of absolutely brutal trades, and fighting with anyone who calls them out for what they are.

Are you aware that you do this and do you know why you do this? Does it make you feel like a better fan, perhaps?

FYI, congratulations to you for knowing the Flames past. But nobody here, certainly not me, claimed this to be a fresh issue. Quite the contrary, all you need to do is read, I've called it out as a recurring problem about a billion times.

I also didn't claim to be brilliant, because quite honestly this is blatant and obvious.

Now, you've seen this trade and many like them in the past, and you know that 90% of them look bad in hindsight, and you'd defend each one all the same. You do you, but, it's possible to still want good things for the club without lying to yourself.

Sacrificing future is sacrificing future, Occam's Razor can predictably evaluate this team's decisions with considerable accuracy.

[handgroen]

Booooooo

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

If you are so familiar with all the bad trades and lack of success of this franchise, why do you support each successive one as they continue to occur? real question.

Well I don't. I assess each individually without bringing that baggage of the last decade to the table for each.

Originally Posted by jjgallow

If I go back in your history I know I will find you supporting and defending all sorts of absolutely brutal trades, and fighting with anyone who calls them out for what they are..

If you want to do that go ahead. I don't think it's accurate.

Originally Posted by jjgallow

Are you aware that you do this and do you know why you do this? Does it make you feel like a better fan, perhaps?

I don't.

[PepsiFree]

End of the day, only one team wins the cup. Only two teams get close.

Measuring against that, the vast majority of trades, signings, and draft picks league-wide (probably in the high 90s % wise) are bad ones.

So why keep cheering for them and hoping for the best?

I dunno, it's fun. The thing most people watch hockey for.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

End of the day, only one team wins the cup. Only two teams get close.

Measuring against that, the vast majority of trades, signings, and draft picks league-wide (probably in the high 90s % wise) are bad ones.

So why keep cheering for them and hoping for the best?

I dunno, it's fun. The thing most people watch hockey for.

There's an odd subset of fans who care more about being right and want to drag others into their negative head space.
Yup odd way to be a fan for sure.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Would be nice if "Mr Hindsight" (aka jjgallow) would say who he would draft at #26. Can even list 2 players and I'm willing to bet that Toffoli plays more games for the Flames than this player will play for the Habs.

He probably has to wait 8 years though, so he can come back and say who he would have drafted. "Mr Hindsight" wouldn't have it any other way.

[GioforPM]

The Toffoli trade didn't look bad then. Nor does it now. Dude makes $4.2, scored 23 points in 37 games playing middle six, and was a hair under .5 PPG in the POs. Tied for 5th on the team among forwards, and that was being snakebit at 6.1% shooting. He's a career plus .5 PPG guy and he shows no sign of that changing.

A 26th pick might get you a Toffoli, if you are lucky. More likely a Ritchie.

Jarnkrok (retained) was acquired for a second that wasn't even Calgary's, and a 3rd and 7th not even in this draft. A ho hum depth trade.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Inferno

The jury is still out on the Toffoli deal since he has two more years left. It didn't work out this season but could the next two.

Yeah. Possible. Hard to say after he looked like #### after the first few games though

Dude can’t skate so for sure they need a center that can carry the puck and feed him

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The Toffoli trade didn't look bad then. Nor does it now. Dude makes $4.2, scored 23 points in 37 games playing middle six, and was a hair under .5 PPG in the POs. Tied for 5th on the team among forwards, and that was being snakebit at 6.1% shooting. He's a career plus .5 PPG guy and he shows no sign of that changing.

A 26th pick might get you a Toffoli, if you are lucky. More likely a Ritchie.

Jarnkrok (retained) was acquired for a second that wasn't even Calgary's, and a 3rd and 7th not even in this draft. A ho hum depth trade.

Johnny, Mangi, Andersson, Dube, Kylington were all lower picks.

You can’t win a lottery without a ticket

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This brings us right back to a question I asked earlier that you have yet to answer. You seem very put-out by the fact the Flames moved a first round pick in THIS DRAFT on the premise that this was a sacrifice of "the future." The Flames first round pick is #26 in a marginal draft: so, which player are they missing out on as a result of this trade?

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

And then what? lol

The thread will be more on topic if I answer that? The debate will end?

Fine. I do have a player in mind, Mattias Hävelid.

I think he's one of the most talented players in the draft, highly under-rated because he's only as big as...well, Cale Makar for instance. In terms of ceiling, way...way way above Toffoli. And he only plays better in tournament play. His playoff drive, his position, his skillsets are all what the Flames should have been after years ago.

But obviously that's not at all how it goes down, the scouts would work against an ordered list, not just pick a player to draft ahead of time (we would hope).


So I have no idea what the point of that was, maybe you're trying to prove that we can't predict the future? Maybe Toffoli will get better and better into his 30's and these first rounders will all just switch to soccer? Maybe you're trying to prove that even though we missed out on loads of talent with all our previous pick giveaways, this will be different?

There is loads of talent in this draft, whoever is calling it weak is way off.


The whole mindsight of it being trivial to part with picks, in any round or place or in any year, is a big big problem that has really hurt this club.


Every time we do it, the fans defend it. And every time, the arguement is "yeah generally you don't want to lose picks but this was different". But it's never..ever different.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The Toffoli trade didn't look bad then. Nor does it now. Dude makes $4.2, scored 23 points in 37 games playing middle six, and was a hair under .5 PPG in the POs. Tied for 5th on the team among forwards, and that was being snakebit at 6.1% shooting. He's a career plus .5 PPG guy and he shows no sign of that changing.

A 26th pick might get you a Toffoli, if you are lucky. More likely a Ritchie.

Jarnkrok (retained) was acquired for a second that wasn't even Calgary's, and a 3rd and 7th not even in this draft. A ho hum depth trade.

Still really like the Jarnkrok trade. Didn't find it offensively but I thought he was great defensively. Exactly the type of 4th line guy you need.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

If you are so familiar with all the bad trades and lack of success of this franchise, why do you support each successive one as they continue to occur? real question.

If I go back in your history I know I will find you supporting and defending all sorts of absolutely brutal trades, and fighting with anyone who calls them out for what they are.

Are you aware that you do this and do you know why you do this? Does it make you feel like a better fan, perhaps?

FYI, congratulations to you for knowing the Flames past. But nobody here, certainly not me, claimed this to be a fresh issue. Quite the contrary, all you need to do is read, I've called it out as a recurring problem about a billion times.

I also didn't claim to be brilliant, because quite honestly this is blatant and obvious.

Now, you've seen this trade and many like them in the past, and you know that 90% of them look bad in hindsight, and you'd defend each one all the same. You do you, but, it's possible to still want good things for the club without lying to yourself.

Sacrificing future is sacrificing future, Occam's Razor can predictably evaluate this team's decisions with considerable accuracy.

By what I interpret to be your logic, every single trade is bad if it does not result in a cup win that year, or within X years, with X not defined.

That means 97% of this year's trade deadline trades were "bad". That is ridiculous. (My cursory review showed 33 trades on trade deadline day, Avs made 1, therefor 32/33 were bad.)

Every trade is an attempt to make each team better, either now, or later, but as we all know, only one team wins the Cup every year. Every trade is an attempt to increases the chances at a Cup. Again either that year or in future year or years.

Also, what is the definition of "favourite" to win the Cup? Should a team only make a trade if they are 5-1 or better odds? 4-1? 1.9-1? What is the magic number? When are those odds to be assessed? At the trade deadline? One week before? Two weeks before?

The day leading into the playoffs, DraftKings' odds had:
Avs at +350;
Panthers +550
Flames +800
Leafs +900

The Avs were the favourites, then the Panthers, then us. The Flames were 3rd. That makes us A favourite. Not THE favourite, as that is the Avs, but A favourite. Were only the Avs allowed to make trades?

Much of what you are saying or suggesting is so black and white as to be nonsensical.

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

By what I interpret to be your logic, every single trade is bad if it does not result in a cup win that year, or within X years, with X not defined.

That means 97% of this year's trade deadline trades were "bad". That is ridiculous. (My cursory review showed 33 trades on trade deadline day, Avs made 1, therefor 32/33 were bad.)

Every trade is an attempt to make each team better, either now, or later, but as we all know, only one team wins the Cup every year. Every trade is an attempt to increases the chances at a Cup. Again either that year or in future year or years.

Also, what is the definition of "favourite" to win the Cup? Should a team only make a trade if they are 5-1 or better odds? 4-1? 1.9-1? What is the magic number? When are those odds to be assessed? At the trade deadline? One week before? Two weeks before?

The day leading into the playoffs, DraftKings' odds had:
Avs at +350;
Panthers +550
Flames +800
Leafs +900

The Avs were the favourites, then the Panthers, then us. The Flames were 3rd. That makes us A favourite. Not THE favourite, as that is the Avs, but A favourite. Were only the Avs allowed to make trades?

Much of what you are saying or suggesting is so black and white as to be nonsensical.

No offense but you just fired like 12 questions at me and if I were to respond fully to each one this thread would be another 3 pages. Also, almost all of your questions I've already answered via other people asking effectively the same thing.

Trades either build your future, sacrifice your future, or are neutral in that regard.

Most of the trades the Flames make, sacrifice their future, which is ultimately the same reason that they will never be cup favorites. They can't get ahead of themselves. Decisions made 5 years ago put us behind Colorado. Decisions being made now hurt us 5 years out.

I don't think of it in terms of odds. I think of it in terms of:

Best player: Gaudreau. Inneffective in playoffs, especially against contending teams
Best Dman: Tanev. Nobody's winning a cup with that.
Best Goalie: Markstrom. More debatable than the first two, but I've never seen playoff promise here.

That's all I need to know really. Sure you could go into far greater detail but if you know your scoring is going to drop right off and you have no way of defending against the NHL's top scorers, well, you're not a cup favourite. We got there by literally trading away all our best D, ignoring top D in the draft as well, for short term gratifications. The only player we really have committed to (Gaudreau) is a regular season wonder.

Anyway I've answered that a lot, we all know it's true.

97% of trades? most trades have a winner and a loser. In most cases the team sacrificing its future is the loser. They are simply gambling, and we know the long term outcome of that. It's like saying 99% of lotto buyers won't come out ahead. What...99%? that's ridiculous. Surely if it were that bad people wouldn't do it..

Yes, giving away draft picks is pretty black and white, you're right about that.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

No offense but you just fired like 12 questions at me and if I were to respond fully to each one this thread would be another 3 pages. Also, almost all of your questions I've already answered via other people asking effectively the same thing.

Trades either build your future, sacrifice your future, or are neutral in that regard.

Most of the trades the Flames make, sacrifice their future, which is ultimately the same reason that they will never be cup favorites. They can't get ahead of themselves. Decisions made 5 years ago put us behind Colorado. Decisions being made now hurt us 5 years out.

I don't think of it in terms of odds. I think of it in terms of:

Best player: Gaudreau. Inneffective in playoffs, especially against contending teams
Best Dman: Tanev. Nobody's winning a cup with that.
Best Goalie: Markstrom. More debatable than the first two, but I've never seen playoff promise here.

That's all I need to know really. Sure you could go into far greater detail but if you know your scoring is going to drop right off and you have no way of defending against the NHL's top scorers, well, you're not a cup favourite. We got there by literally trading away all our best D, ignoring top D in the draft as well, for short term gratifications. The only player we really have committed to (Gaudreau) is a regular season wonder.

Anyway I've answered that a lot, we all know it's true.

97% of trades? most trades have a winner and a loser. In most cases the team sacrificing its future is the loser. They are simply gambling, and we know the long term outcome of that. It's like saying 99% of lotto buyers won't come out ahead. What...99%? that's ridiculous. Surely if it were that bad people wouldn't do it..

Yes, giving away draft picks is pretty black and white, you're right about that.

What’s your take on Hamilton trade 2 and Treliving’s work at the 2020 draft?