2024 Off-season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Niemo]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I don't think there's any chance for trading Huberdeau, even if he does bounce back to being a PPG guy.

Jeff Skinner is the comparison I'd use. He got his payday for a one-off 40-goal season, collapsed, and then bounced back and even surpassed the point productuion of that 40-goal season and there was still no biters on him.

Huberdeau is a $10.5M anchor attached to heel of this organization. The best they can hope for is that into the later parts of the career, he's still able to produce his 50'ish points.

Agreed on this. Which is also why I was surprised there were even rumored talks.

They way I see it, he currently has 7 years left in his deal. The next 3 years of it, we won't need the cap space for sure. Therefore, this only starts becoming an eyesore when there is 4 years left in his deal, his 34 yr old season. The cap should be over 95MM by then. When the cap is over 100MM when Huberdeau is going into his 36 year old season (2 years left in his deal), we should be able to find a taker for him. Eating some of that contract for the final 2 years (say 3MM), there will be a taker as we will be in buying mode and will need to match salaries we take on.

All speculation - but I think we are ok with his deal and how it may play out with the rising cap and our rebuild timeline.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Revisiting the trade doesn't help. Especially calling it a bad trade. Because from what we've been led to believe is that the FLA deal was the best deal for CGY. And revisionist history aside, it was. What effed it up was the immediate contract offer to Huberdeau. THAT is what messed it up

Huberdeau at 8 or 7 million ? Palpable and movable.

Let him ride out his FA year and see where it went? Tree didn't leave Conny a choice.

The trade itself was pretty great. What followed was the disaster . Too much money, toouch pressure, too much square pegging into a round hole. That's the mess.

There was just zero chance they were going to enter the season with Huberdeau unsigned. If he had another 100 point season and then walked it would have been a real bad look.

The Carolina trade was the way to go in hindsight.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Niemo

I haven't been impressed with our pro scouts' abilities for a long time now. Seems like we have a lot more misses than hits when it comes to UFA signings. I'm very interested in seeing how Conroy's low risk / good reward signings work out this year.

I believe for some time there, the team only had one pro scout. One of the first things Conroy did as GM was to build a proper pro scouting department, and it shows. He's been good so far at buying low on players who can benefit from a bigger opportunity.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I believe for some time there, the team only had one pro scout. One of the first things Conroy did as GM was to build a proper pro scouting department, and it shows. He's been good so far at buying low on players who can benefit from a bigger opportunity.

FWIW my Flames connection said it was Tre that slammed through the Neal signing and it wasn't a super popular decision amongst other management

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Bonded

There was just zero chance they were going to enter the season with Huberdeau unsigned. If he had another 100 point season and then walked it would have been a real bad look.

The Carolina trade was the way to go in hindsight.

There is a lot of hindsight in the Huberdeau conversation.

The Flames (Treliving) and most of the media felt the Flames had done a masterful job of avoiding a downturn with the Gaudreau and Tkachuk departures and were ready to compete for the division once again.

If they knew that wasn't the case, then you don't sign Huberdeau.

If you see it as a complete team ...

Elite goaltender
Deep defense core
Huberdeau replaces Gaudreau
Kadri makes the Flames tough to play against down the middle with Lindholm and Backlund.

Then you don't want to risk Huberdeau walking the next year (Weegar too).

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Get rid of Huby and good luck making the cap floor.

He’s not going anywhere

Ok, here is my jail-break scenario re: Huby.
We owe him $73.5M for the remainder of his contract.
We agree to mutually terminate his contract, and then re-sign him for 3 years at league max ($17.6M*3 = $52.8M).

Why would he walk away from $20M?
Getting out of 4 years in a place he is unhappy is valuable. He will be able to make up some of the financial loss in free agency, and be in a better environment for his skill set.

Why would the Flames agree to pay him league max?
We would save $20M overall and do not need the cap space over the next 3 years.

I don't believe this violates the CBA, but someone smarter than I can tell me otherwise.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

We agree to mutually terminate his contract, and then re-sign him for 4 years at league max ($17.6M*3 = $52.8M).

I don't believe this violates the CBA, but someone smarter than I can tell me otherwise.

I don't think this is allowed, but I don't know for sure either.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Bingo

There is a lot of hindsight in the Huberdeau conversation.

The Flames (Treliving) and most of the media felt the Flames had done a masterful job of avoiding a downturn with the Gaudreau and Tkachuk departures and were ready to compete for the division once again.

If they knew that wasn't the case, then you don't sign Huberdeau.

If you see it as a complete team ...

Elite goaltender
Deep defense core
Huberdeau replaces Gaudreau
Kadri makes the Flames tough to play against down the middle with Lindholm and Backlund.

Then you don't want to risk Huberdeau walking the next year (Weegar too).

For sure, I was in the sign or trade camp myself. The team on paper looked good but happened to be a frankenteam that didn't click at all which was further hurt by a bad year from Markstrom.

It would have been a great trade if Huberdeau refused to sign and was flipped.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Icon

I don't think this is allowed, but I don't know for sure either.

Another team would have to sign him to that contract and trade him to the Flames. I am not sure the league would be so forgiving on this one though

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/...s-orpik-buyout

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

There is a lot of hindsight in the Huberdeau conversation.

People are forgetting the league-wide shock and dismay at the departures of Gaudreau and Tkachuk. Lots of media, pundits, and fans asking what was wrong with Calgary, why nobody wanted to play there. The team was becoming a punchline. The Flames braintrust was in full-on crisis mode.

Extremely unlikely the decision to extend Huberdeau was Treliving’s alone. The Flames were desperate to change the narrative about the team, and you can bet Edwards, Maloney, etc were all onboard with showing that the Flames weren’t going to roll over.

When Conroy was asked about the deals on the table for Tkachuk, he said at least one was a futures-oriented deal (we know now that was probably Carolina) but that the management team agreed that wasn’t the route they wanted to take the franchise. These big decisions of strategic direction are not one-man calls. And most of the people who made those decisions are still in their roles with the team.

Then you don't want to risk Huberdeau walking the next year (Weegar too).

Especially when your whole franchise is in turmoil because one of your top players just walked as a UFA. Doing it again the next off-season would have made the Flames organization look like a gong-show.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Another team would have to sign him to that contract and trade him to the Flames. I am not sure the league would be so forgiving on this one though

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/...s-orpik-buyout

Didn't we buy out Mike Stone and then resign him in 2019?

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Didn't we buy out Mike Stone and then resign him in 2019?

Correct

https://flamesnation.ca/news/flames-...out-last-month

The CBA only forbids the signing of players bought out using compliance buyouts for one year. There is no restriction on re-signing players on ordinary course buyouts.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

Ok, here is my jail-break scenario re: Huby.
We owe him $73.5M for the remainder of his contract.
We agree to mutually terminate his contract, and then re-sign him for 3 years at league max ($17.6M*3 = $52.8M).

Why would he walk away from $20M?
Getting out of 4 years in a place he is unhappy is valuable. He will be able to make up some of the financial loss in free agency, and be in a better environment for his skill set.

Why would the Flames agree to pay him league max?
We would save $20M overall and do not need the cap space over the next 3 years.

I don't believe this violates the CBA, but someone smarter than I can tell me otherwise.

This would be flagrant salary cap circumvention under the "spirit" of the rules. My recollection is the Flames had to defend the signing of Stone to the league when it happened.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by Freeway

This would be flagrant salary cap circumvention under the "spirit" of the rules. My recollection is the Flames had to defend the signing of Stone to the league when it happened.

In the proposed scenario, if I am reading it correctly, the teams salary cap hit increases during the term. So, not really cap circumvention, but dealing with term. And again, the player would need to agree. Arguing semantics here as not likely to occur.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

In the proposed scenario, if I am reading it correctly, the teams salary cap hit increases during the term. So, not really cap circumvention, but dealing with term. And again, the player would need to agree. Arguing semantics here as not likely to occur.

Player makes less money and term is shorter. Pretty clear circumvention.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Royle9

FWIW I haven't heard anything on either of these. With that said its been very quiet. I will ask specifically about Pageau, but I don't see a fit personally.

Huberdeau isn't going anywhere, at least not until some sort of resurgence and an 80+ point season at the very least. What is clear is both the player and the team are not happy with the production. I know he was getting blasted for his comments about the system etc, but he wasn't wrong.

He came from Florida who played as the most offensively aggressive team in the NHL. They played a very heavy east/west system where creativity and passing was key, which go figure fits very well into Jonathan's strengths. Just go back and watch his 110+ point season highlights, almost 90% of the offensive generation was east/west passing.

He came into Calgary and was forced into a more defensively focused system, focusing strictly on north/south aggression which removes the creativity and replaces it with high shot generation and hopefully rebounds while maintaining a strict focus on reduced chances.

Simply put, his game doesn't translate into that kind of system which is very evident. Unfortunately if the Flames continue to go down this road of north/south dump and chase then I don't see him getting back to his old ways, he needs to be allowed to generate those cross ice east/west puck movement and play way more open and aggressive offensively.

He didn't forget how to play hockey, I know we all like to dump on him because he's sucked here and there's no sugar coating it. But he's also not playing the type of hockey he's played his whole career. You have to let your offensive threats play to their strengths, which is why we saw the Jonny-Lindholm-Tkachuk line thrive the final year under Darryl because he let them play east /west and use the creativity.

Totally agree with the points 5 on 5 but the PP has also really hurt his production. In Florida over his last 4 years he averaged 0.44 Power play points per game. If he averaged that in Calgary he would have had

75 points in year one compared with 55
69 points last year compared with 52

A half decent PP alone would move him to not horrifically terrible in terms of production. Not that I want the new PP coach to just focus on how to use him but he is one of our top two pure offensive weapons so figuring out how to use him should improve the PP and his production.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Totally agree with the points 5 on 5 but the PP has also really hurt his production. In Florida over his last 4 years he averaged 0.44 Power play points per game. If he averaged that in Calgary he would have had

75 points in year one compared with 55
69 points last year compared with 52

A half decent PP alone would move him to not horrifically terrible in terms of production. Not that I want the new PP coach to just focus on how to use him but he is one of our top two pure offensive weapons so figuring out how to use him should improve the PP and his production.

Yea true, Calgary's PP has been awful for what feels like a millennium.
Last 20 games it seemed to turn a corner a bit, but historically its been awful.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bingo

There is a lot of hindsight in the Huberdeau conversation.

The Flames (Treliving) and most of the media felt the Flames had done a masterful job of avoiding a downturn with the Gaudreau and Tkachuk departures and were ready to compete for the division once again.

If they knew that wasn't the case, then you don't sign Huberdeau.

If you see it as a complete team ...

Elite goaltender
Deep defense core
Huberdeau replaces Gaudreau
Kadri makes the Flames tough to play against down the middle with Lindholm and Backlund.

Then you don't want to risk Huberdeau walking the next year (Weegar too).

They had some decent young players if Sutter would have just been a but less stubborn and a bit more open to youth. And the team didn't realize they wouldn't have Kylington all season when you made that decision which was also a big loss.

Markstrom, Vladar : Should have been a top 10 goaltending tandem.

Andersson, Weegar, Tanev, Kylington, Hanifin, Zadorov, Stone: Should have been a top 5 defensive core but they missed Kylington's skating all season.

Huberdeau, Kadri, Lindholm, Toffoli, Backlund, Coleman, Dube, Mangiapane: Should have been a middle of the pack top 9 and better if Huberdeau was 90+ points as expected.

I'll always wonder what that team looks like if you replace:

Lewis, Lucic, Ritchie, Ritchie with Rooney, Ruzicka, Pelletier, Zary, Duehr, Phillips going right back to that offseason.

The makings of a good team were there...Sutter just needed to adjust his approach a little bit to be a bit more open to youth and creativity...and instead with those other guys leaving he leaned the other way and became even more stubborn.

[Freeway]

The CBA explicitly forbids restructuring of existing contracts.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Freeway

The CBA explicitly forbids restructuring of existing contracts.

I see we've entered the point of the Summer where Freeway has to once again say quoted above. Every summer.