[Trade] Tkachuk (8 yrs x $9.5 mil) + `25 4th to FLA for Huberdeau, Weegar, Schwindt & `25 1st

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Icon

I mean on one hand that's pretty crazy about not even looking into whether Walsh/Huberdeau would have interest in a long term contract in Calgary... on the other hand maybe it just shows there's no reason for Treliving to think he wouldn't be interested, and the whole "Calgary isn't a desired destination" thing is overblown by recency bias.

It would have been dumb to ask first. He most likely would have said he wasn’t interested because he didn’t want to be traded. And if they traded for him anyway, he would have likely been more upset because the Flames would have knowingly acquired him against his wishes.

This way, even though he didn’t want to be traded, the Flames can make the case for why it makes sense to sign a contract soon without starting off on the wrong foot.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It would have been dumb to ask first. He most likely would have said he wasn’t interested because he didn’t want to be traded. And if they traded for him anyway, he would have likely been more upset because the Flames would have knowingly acquired him against his wishes.

This way, even though he didn’t want to be traded, the Flames can make the case for why it makes sense to sign a contract soon without starting off on the wrong foot.

I suppose. Like I said maybe it just shows there's little to no concern from Treliving about the risk on it, and even if he doesn't want to sign long term he's still got lots of value in another trade.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I recall Huberdeau (and possibly also Treliving) saying that discussions between management and his agent had started right after the trade. I suspect any insinuation that there were conversations beforehand likely misconstrued the timing on this bit of information.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

The Agent Provocateur podcast kind of goes against that. Walsh stated that he allows his clients 48 hours to process and get the emotions out of the way before taking action on trades. He also stated that, "Calgary accepted the fact there were no conversations with he or Jonathan before making the trade and had no idea whether he would be open to staying in Calgary." It was Huberdeau who made the comments about being open to Calgary long-term and Walsh was very clear that he works for his client and does his bidding as instructed. He was also very clear in saying, "we'll see what happens from here." Doesn't sound like there have been any conversations and Walsh is waiting for his boss (Huberdeau) to give him direction. Huberdeau also said he has to wait to check out the city and didn't expect to do that until August some time.

If there has been communication it has probably been more about what the Flames can do to get Huberdeau into town, get him comfortable, get him to know the organization, and get his head wrapped around what Calgary has to offer. Once he sees the city and spends some time in and around the city they will have a much easier time approaching negotiations as the player will know whether it is a fit or not.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think peak Monahan was comparable scorer. He just wasn't as flashy about it - fewer big slappers. Lindholm has the ability to score and it's been steadily getting better and better.

Sillinger is completely unproven. 16 goals, 31 points as a rookie. OK, but no better than Lindholm or even Bennett and well below Monahan (without Gaudreau).

Sorry you lost me when you said Monahan and Laine were comparable scorers at any point....Maybe in Laine's rock bottom season I'd buy that, but how many goals have you seen Monahan rip from outside the low slot or pick a corner on in his career? Laine will do what Monahan did in his sleep while having the ability to create that Monahan simply never had.

Sillinger is a fantastic and improving young player who is coming off a great rookie year and merely a piece of the top 6 for the Blue Jackets. Outside of axe grinding,there's little reason to suggest Gaudreau isn't going to be highly productive with the cast around him. For him that is certainly in the 100 point conversation again.

[Roof-Daddy]

I also have no issue with Treliving adding these players not knowing if they'd stay, but if they won't commit long term this summer trade them before the season starts.

I don't want to watch Huberdeau put up 90+ points and then watch him walk away for no assets.

[Bingo]

Not knowing that they'll sign and doing the deal might even suggest an asset approach to this ... which many of us have been hoping for.

[Lanny_McDonald]

It's a great deal from the asset perspective. Flipping both Huberdeau and Weegar should recoup a ton of futures. Still want them signed though. Two really nice pieces to have long-term.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not knowing that they'll sign and doing the deal might even suggest an asset approach to this ... which many of us have been hoping for.

Bradagast with a classic Xanatos gambit.

[Lanny_McDonald]

WTF is "Bradagast?" That's so "fetch."

[Erick Estrada]

If they sign Weegar that means they got him and a 1st round pick and I imagine they could easily trade Huberdeau for another 1st round pick, more picks and/or a quality prospect which would make for a pretty large haul for Tkachuk.

[bdubbs]

Even if we just sign Weegar long term, dealing Huby for futures would still be great. If we can fetch a 2023 first for him, even better. But I'm totally hoping he signs too because I love how he plays the game.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

WTF is "Bradagast?" That's so "fetch."

At the end of the day, a wizard who spends most of his time half a step behind and covered in pigeon #### is still a wizard.

[Nelson]

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article...anthers-trade/

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not knowing that they'll sign and doing the deal might even suggest an asset approach to this ... which many of us have been hoping for.

Most certainly the case IMO.

Treliving even caught himself calling them "assets" in his post trade presser and stopped to correct himself and say he hates calling them that.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Sorry you lost me when you said Monahan and Laine were comparable scorers at any point....Maybe in Laine's rock bottom season I'd buy that, but how many goals have you seen Monahan rip from outside the low slot or pick a corner on in his career? Laine will do what Monahan did in his sleep while having the ability to create that Monahan simply never had.

Sillinger is a fantastic and improving young player who is coming off a great rookie year and merely a piece of the top 6 for the Blue Jackets. Outside of axe grinding,there's little reason to suggest Gaudreau isn't going to be highly productive with the cast around him. For him that is certainly in the 100 point conversation again.

Laine started his career with 80 goals over 2 years. Since then, he's got 96g in 252 gp.

Monahan had 85g in a comparable 237gp timeline.

If you wanna argue about how the goals were created that's fine, but Laine has always played with very good players, too.

[kermitology]

That Walsh interview is interesting, but he ends that segment going off on a tangent about the salary cap which is the reason why I'm blocked by him on Twitter.

He argues that the reason we can't retain stars is because of "Gary's Cap." But we all know what happened prior to the salary cap for teams like Calgary, and Florida.. the moment a player had the ability to leave and get paid a bonkers salary by a team like the NYR that could afford a $100M payroll while a team like Calgary could only afford $30M in salary.

The cap evened that playing field from a perspective of talent distribution. So if that's a message for fans we have to ask ourselves, what's more important - having talented players that change teams - or a more even chance to win the Stanley Cup. The best versions of the Flames that I've seen are all post-cap era. Yes, teams like 88 - 94 were better, but that was also a completely different era.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by bdubbs

Even if we just sign Weegar long term, dealing Huby for futures would still be great. If we can fetch a 2023 first for him, even better. But I'm totally hoping he signs too because I love how he plays the game.

Signing Weegar this summer would be great. He helps you now and in the future, and if would set the Flames up to be able to deal from their deep D group if they want to (Hanifin/Valimaki etc).

With Huberdeau you could see how the team gels and if they're going to remain competitive with the new forward group. If they struggle, you can cash in and pick up Bedard lottery tickets.

[djsFlames]

I'm glad Huberdeau will be looking around the city in the summer while they negotiate. Right now the city is at its peak for appeal.

Pleasant weather, blue skies, no smoke, mountains looking pristine. Not bad for selling a guy on a long term contract.

It's when we hit 0 in late September where the fun starts to taper off.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by kermitology

That Walsh interview is interesting, but he ends that segment going off on a tangent about the salary cap which is the reason why I'm blocked by him on Twitter.

He argues that the reason we can't retain stars is because of "Gary's Cap." But we all know what happened prior to the salary cap for teams like Calgary, and Florida.. the moment a player had the ability to leave and get paid a bonkers salary by a team like the NYR that could afford a $100M payroll while a team like Calgary could only afford $30M in salary.

The cap evened that playing field from a perspective of talent distribution. So if that's a message for fans we have to ask ourselves, what's more important - having talented players that change teams - or a more even chance to win the Stanley Cup. The best versions of the Flames that I've seen are all post-cap era. Yes, teams like 88 - 94 were better, but that was also a completely different era.

The NHL has the best salary cap in the major sports leagues in North America IMO.

Only thing I would change is allowing teams to have more flexibility around trading cap, and retaining salary.

If a player has 4 years left on a deal I should be able to say I'd retain for only the first year, or the 1st and 2nd year. I shouldn't have to retain for the entire deal.

And honestly teams should be able to trade up to a certain amount of cap ($5M for example).

If Arizona wants to send the NYR $5M of cap space in 2022-2023 for a 2nd round pick they should be able to do that.

[Jason14h]

NHL has the worst version of the cap IMO

Teams should be allowed to resign their own players and go over the cap (with potentially a tax ) but not allowed to sign new FAs

Forcing a team to dismantle because they were too good and built there team is bad for the sport - dynasties force teams to get better and the game is more interesting

TB had to effectively “cheat” to have a dynasty

A few small tweaks and I think it would be much better for players salaries , the overal product , and even the low revenue teams with a luxury tax