[Trade] Elias Lindholm to VAN for Kuzmenko, Brzustewicz, Jurmo, 2024 1st, cond 2024 4th

[Enoch Root]

The Hanifin, Lindholm trade was a 10 out of 10, IMO.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The Hanifin, Lindholm trade was a 10 out of 10, IMO.

I like the whole trade tree actually

Acquiring Hamilton
Dealing Hamilton
Dealing what we got for Hamilton

[bluejays]

Treliving definitely had pluses. But his legacy is always going to be the Gaudreau walk away, the subsequent Tkachuk deal, and the further long term signing Huberdeau. He was alright in building the team to that point but f, at the end he screwed the team over just to save face. Hated the Huberdeau signing the moment it happened as well as the Kadri fiasco. Hoping at some point the Kadri deal can right itself through a value deal once a year or two pass by and his contract becomes reasonable, but we're stuck with Huberdeau for eternity. And if you hear the "insiders" talk that's the contract that is holding up ownership from a full rebuild. I don't agree with ownerships logic if that's the situation but man, nothing was good from the start with what they were trying to do with signing vets to 8 year deals. Could've been much worse if they didn't get lucky from situations changing while those offers were out there.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by bluejays

Treliving definitely had pluses. But his legacy is always going to be the Gaudreau walk away, the subsequent Tkachuk deal, and the further long term signing Huberdeau. He was alright in building the team to that point but f, at the end he screwed the team over just to save face. Hated the Huberdeau signing the moment it happened as well as the Kadri fiasco. Hoping at some point the Kadri deal can right itself through a value deal once a year or two pass by and his contract becomes reasonable, but we're stuck with Huberdeau for eternity. And if you hear the "insiders" talk that's the contract that is holding up ownership from a full rebuild. I don't agree with ownerships logic if that's the situation but man, nothing was good from the start with what they were trying to do with signing vets to 8 year deals. Could've been much worse if they didn't get lucky from situations changing while those offers were out there.

There is just nothing to support that silliness.

I'm good with not liking moves he made (especially if you were not onside when it went down), but the screwing the team over stuff is just complete nonsense.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by bluejays

Treliving definitely had pluses. But his legacy is always going to be the Gaudreau walk away, the subsequent Tkachuk deal, and the further long term signing Huberdeau. He was alright in building the team to that point but f, at the end he screwed the team over just to save face. Hated the Huberdeau signing the moment it happened as well as the Kadri fiasco. Hoping at some point the Kadri deal can right itself through a value deal once a year or two pass by and his contract becomes reasonable, but we're stuck with Huberdeau for eternity. And if you hear the "insiders" talk that's the contract that is holding up ownership from a full rebuild. I don't agree with ownerships logic if that's the situation but man, nothing was good from the start with what they were trying to do with signing vets to 8 year deals. Could've been much worse if they didn't get lucky from situations changing while those offers were out there.

He signed Huberdeau long term because Huberdeau was coming off a huge season and had been very consistently a PPG guy. Like I said before, Treliving always had a rational basis, whether the decision turned out to be correct or not.

Just because you hated the Huberdeau signing doesn't mean it wasn't seen by a lot of people as a normal move. In fact, after the trade, a lot of people here were saying "it's ONLY a good trade if Huberdeau signs long term".

Also, Weegar.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The Hanifin, Lindholm trade was a 10 out of 10, IMO.

Clearly his best move as NHL GM. Too bad the returns diminished over his tenure carrying into an abysmal offseason as Leafs GM. He’s as ice cold a GM as there is right now.

[Flamesfan05]

No he didn’t wake up and say I am going to do as bad as I can to screw them over

But his incompetence pretty much screwed them over at the end

Same differences

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The Hanifin, Lindholm trade was a 10 out of 10, IMO.

IMO it's only a 10/10 when you take into accounnt several details like Fox not wanting to play in CGY or CAR, Hamilton not fitting the Flames room, Ferland not re-signing with CAR, and Ferland's injuries derailing his career.

At the time of the trade we traded the best player by far in that trade in D. Hamilton. We added an upcoming UFA in Ferland that produced at a similar clip to Lindholm. The hope was that Hanifin would take another step and become the same caliber player Hamilton was, which didn't happen.

At the end of the day we traded 2 x 1D, and a 2RW for a 1C(1B is probably more accurate), and a 2D. Personally, I would like the Flames to be a part of more trades where they get the best player, and get more skilled as a result.

Finally, Tre signed Hanifin and Lindholm to good value contracts, but just like the Huberdeau extension isn't a part of the FLA trade, their extensions shouldn't affect the trade itself. So I'd rate the trade closer to a 7/10. Getting Hamilton from BOS was a 10/10.

[iggyloob12]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

IMO it's only a 10/10 when you take into accounnt several details like Fox not wanting to play in CGY or CAR, Hamilton not fitting the Flames room, Ferland not re-signing with CAR, and Ferland's injuries derailing his career.

So it’s a 10/10 when you consider, you know, what actually happened? Ok.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Hockey-and_stuff

I do think extending Hanifin long term would be an error but I don't think acquiring him in the first place was a mistake.

I think there is no risk in extending Hanifin. The contract won't be prohibitive, and he is going to be a great player for a long time.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[Hockey-and_stuff]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think there is no risk in extending Hanifin. The contract won't be prohibitive, and he is going to be a great player for a long time.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

He'll be the same player extended that he is now except older and more expensive. This team already struggles to win with him on the roster, I don't see how an extension fixes that.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Hockey-and_stuff

This team already struggles to win with him on the roster, I don't see how an extension fixes that.

You can say that about every single player on the roster. Is the solution to get rid of them all?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think there is no risk in extending Hanifin. The contract won't be prohibitive, and he is going to be a great player for a long time.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

The risk is the opportunity cost of collecting better futures assets by not crystallizing a trade that likely position Calgary better for a future cup. IMO.

Sell high.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by Bingo

There is just nothing to support that silliness.

I'm good with not liking moves he made (especially if you were not onside when it went down), but the screwing the team over stuff is just complete nonsense.

Perhaps a better way to say it:

Treliving's decisions could be because of misalignment of incentives as a GM in the lame duck year of his contract.

[Hockey-and_stuff]

He isn't so indispensable that he should be patrolling our second pair on a bloated contract.

He's 27, he's never score 50 points and at this point in his career is not likely to. He isn't a stellar defender or offensive player and he can't run a power play.

He's been a decent player at his contract but I'm not interested in paying him. He's already turned down 60 million dollars. What is it going to cost to keep him signed?

[Shazam]

W/o Hanifin and Tanev this team is going to be terrible the rest of the year.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Shazam

W/o Hanifin and Tanev this team is going to be terrible the rest of the year.

So?

They’re not good now?

[Hockey-and_stuff]

Originally Posted by Shazam

W/o Hanifin and Tanev this team is going to be terrible the rest of the year.

They're terrible now! At least they can end the year with some extra draft capital and a top 5-10 pick and then, if you don't like being bad, they will have 25 million to spend to retool in the offseason.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Hockey-and_stuff

They're terrible now! At least they can end the year with some extra draft capital and a top 5-10 pick and then, if you don't like being bad, they will have 25 million to spend to retool in the offseason.

25 million to spend on what? Overpriced old vets who don't want to come here?

We've been down that road before.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Shazam

W/o Hanifin and Tanev this team is going to be terrible the rest of the year.

yeah, that's kind of the point.