2022/2023 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[Monahammer]

Also, if you don't understand that you can have an argument without winning or losing, you don't belong in adult society. That is why I called you a toddler. You are thinking like a 3 year old.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Toddler talk is hard to read give me a second

Edit: Ok i read it, turns out it was mostly pointless drivel, as usual from Jayboy here pertending to be a paragon of logic.

Safe to ignore replying in line to that bogus crap, but let's just cut the meat here:

2 months of stone, a 2-way rhs rw to go into the playoffs beside Gaudreau-Monahan vs Valimaki, a 2nd, and the equivalent of lindgren... so say Kulak? I guess?

Easy ####ing trade. In hindsight. And again, I would defend making that trade today without knowing.

That wasn't the ask from Calgary though. For some reason Ottawa wanted more from us, and settled for a crap package from Las Vegas. Probably because Dorion is an idiot and cornered himself to the last minute.

They wanted I think 1 or 2 of the 3 dmen, 1st round pick and more. If the price was a prospect 2nd and a throw in I am sure Treliving would have jumped at it as a rental.

Here is the tweet from Steinberg.

https://twitter.com/Fan960Steinberg/...tar-players%2F

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

That wasn't the ask from Calgary though. For some reason Ottawa wanted more from us, and settled for a crap package from Las Vegas. Probably because Dorion is an idiot and cornered himself to the last minute.

They wanted I think 1 or 2 of the 3 dmen, 1st round pick and more. If the price was a prospect 2nd and a throw in I am sure Treliving would have jumped at it as a rental.

Here is the tweet from Steinberg.

https://twitter.com/Fan960Steinberg/...tar-players%2F

That tweet says 1st+Valimaki +

Given ottawa settled for way less, no doubt they accept 1st+Valimaki if that remains on the table for a rental.
and then my comment stands. Valimaki + that 1st is an easy trade for stone even as a rental. Outside chance you can sign him longer once he plays here (HINT: this is what none of us can possibly know about.)

[MrMike]

So Pelletier and Valimaki for a rental? Pretty steep.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

That tweet says 1st+Valimaki +

Given ottawa settled for way less, no doubt they accept 1st+Valimaki if that remains on the table for a rental.
and then my comment stands. Valimaki + that 1st is an easy trade for stone even as a rental. Outside chance you can sign him longer once he plays here (HINT: this is what none of us can possibly know about.)

No it doesn't this is what it says.

Sense is Sens starting point is multiple 1sts + one of Valimaki, Andersson, Kylington + more.

You removed another 1st, and the more part.

It isn't Valimaki. Yes its easy to look back now and say damn we should have traded him knowing what we know but at the time he was playing NHL games and looking like he was going to play in the top 4.

[ComixZone]

This Stone argument always cracks me up.

We know that the Flames went to bed believing they had a trade done and it was to be completed the morning of the deadline. We as fans have speculated that it was a Stone deal, as the Flames were rumoured to be involved. It's believed that Vegas put Brannstrom on the table, and the Flames wouldn't put Valimaki on the table, thus giving the deal to Vegas - but I can't even remember if this was ever substantiated anywhere.

After Stone was traded to Vegas, and had signed there, he said it was a place he wanted to sign all along...which is what you'd expect a player to say after signing that sort of extension. That does not exclude that he may have ended up saying the same thing had he been traded to and signed in Calgary.

The Flames (if the deal they went to bed thinking was done was in fact for Stone) got outbid because they wouldn't include a player they believed to have a very strong future. Call it a miscalculation, but the road of injuries that Valimaki took after that certainly couldn't be predicted.

I used to be on the side of "damn, Stone would have been perfect here I wish we had him" but that has softened recently for sure. Stone is very good...but we are where we are, and Vegas is where they are...and I think I prefer where we are.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

No it doesn't this is what it says.

Sense is Sens starting point is multiple 1sts + one of Valimaki, Andersson, Kylington + more.

You removed another 1st, and the more part.

Because that's not what they received.
They received:

Branstrom (roughly equivalent to Valimaki)

Lindgren (Equivalent to Kulak maybe?)

2nd.

1st is likely > than Lindgren + 2nd. Maybe not, but I think so.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Toddler talk is hard to read give me a second

Attempted insult noted. I don't talk like a toddler, but hey, if you haven't got anything better than that, blather away.

Edit: Ok i read it, turns out it was mostly pointless drivel, as usual from Jayboy here pertending to be a paragon of logic.

In other words, you have no argument except insults. And the insults are getting very annoying, as are you. Do you think being rude enough will magically make you right?

2 months of stone, a 2-way rhs rw to go into the playoffs beside Gaudreau-Monahan vs Valimaki, a 2nd, and the equivalent of lindgren... so say Kulak? I guess?

Try Andersson instead of Kulak. Still want to make that deal?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Because that's not what they received.
They received:

Branstrom (roughly equivalent to Valimaki)

Lindgren (Equivalent to Kulak maybe?)

2nd.

1st is likely > than Lindgren + 2nd. Maybe not, but I think so.

Who cares what they got? What matters is what they wanted from us far exceeds what they took from Vegas for some reason.

If Treliving started to outbid himself you end up having the Tkachuk trade.

Mark Stone and his 5 goals would not have been worth multiple 1st round picks, a defenceman and more.

[midniteowl]

Arguing base on hindsight is funny.



Nobody knows that Valimaki will get injured and torpedo his development, he "could" turned out to be a Makar (gasp) equivalent. So a 1st + a Makar equivalent + + for a rental? Even if we can sign Stone to a 7 years contract, it would be more than $10M. And at the time, the Flames wasn't a Mark Stone away from making the Stanley Cup final, let alone winning it.



And, fast forward to today, what has Stone done for Vegas? He has be injured quite a lot, hasn't he? With him on the team, can we still afford Hueberdeau? Kadri? Weegar? I'd rather have those 3 than one Mark Stone TBQH.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

Nobody knows that Valimaki will get injured and torpedo his development, he "could" turned out to be a Makar (gasp) equivalent.

This.

IIRC, the book on Valimaki when he was drafted is that he was an all-round good defenceman but not a standout in any one area. I think his upside at the time was more like a Hanifin equivalent – which is still nothing to sneeze at.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Also, if you don't understand that you can have an argument without winning or losing, you don't belong in adult society. That is why I called you a toddler. You are thinking like a 3 year old.

Adults can also admit when they were wrong

I think it's more than fair to say Stone was willing to sign an immediate extension with Vegas but not Calgary. We do know this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, I think it's a poor example for your original argument considering how Stone's career has gone of late. Vegas couldn't give him away at that salary.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Adults can also admit when they were wrong

I think it's more than fair to say Stone was willing to sign an immediate extension with Vegas but not Calgary. We do know this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, I think it's a poor example for your original argument considering how Stone's career has gone of late. Vegas couldn't give him away at that salary.

Ah but here's the other side, as none of the three of you Jay and Peanuts over here seem to be able to read. I wasn't trying to be "right" about anything, and thus had nothing to be wrong about. It wasn't even me who originally brought up the stone trade. I only said that I would make that trade looking back in hindsight. Then because of some ridiculous grandstanding, I decided to double down and say that I would make the trade without knowing... Because 2 months of stone is probably always going to be better than a mid 1st and a late 1st.

Can we get back to talking about Pastrnak now?

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

This Stone argument always cracks me up.
After Stone was traded to Vegas, and had signed there, he said it was a place he wanted to sign all along...which is what you'd expect a player to say after signing that sort of extension. That does not exclude that he may have ended up saying the same thing had he been traded to and signed in Calgary.

I've heard this is true all along.

He has a great relationship with McCrimmon and that the ask for Calgary was $10.5M+ to sign here, which would have been tough with Tkachuk as an RFA

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This.

IIRC, the book on Valimaki when he was drafted is that he was an all-round good defenceman but not a standout in any one area. I think his upside at the time was more like a Hanifin equivalent – which is still nothing to sneeze at.

Thanks. TBQH, I didn't know what Valimaki potential was, the only thing I know is that the Flames was very high on him. The reason I used Makar was for dramatic effect. And you are right, Hanifin is nothing to sneeze at.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Injuries have derailed him completely mentally for sure.

I still remember that play when he stepped up and knocked that Avs defender on his ass, and fake deal Neal scored to bring us back. He was projecting to be a top 4 dman.

I haven't watched him much, but is it his physical tools and mental or just the complete lack of confidence?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Ah but here's the other side, as none of the three of you Jay and Peanuts over here seem to be able to read. I wasn't trying to be "right" about anything, and thus had nothing to be wrong about. It wasn't even me who originally brought up the stone trade. I only said that I would make that trade looking back in hindsight. Then because of some ridiculous grandstanding, I decided to double down and say that I would make the trade without knowing... Because 2 months of stone is probably always going to be better than a mid 1st and a late 1st.

Can we get back to talking about Pastrnak now?

I can tell

[SeanCharles]

Why we still talking about Stone? Lol

Move on ppl

[dammage79]

Yeah, the Mark Stone whataboutism is really really odd.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

Why we still talking about Stone? Lol

Move on ppl

We could always go back to talking about Paul Byron.