The Flame, like any team, need good players. Whether you get them through the draft, trade, or free agent signing should be secondary.
If you can get a good player through trade, you do it.
I get it. The examples provided are of teams who too the next step right away and won cups.
I’ve watched Cozens. I don’t need him in a keeper league. He’s not a good player.
Now McTavish is different. That’s a trade I can get behind as long as it’s fair because again I don’t see him being worth an overpay or trading 2 of our top prospects and picks.
It’s really dependent on either Cozens or McTavish being buy low options. If you’re paying for them at top value, it’s not worth it. My opinion is that the reaction should be pretty unanimous that the flames got one or both of them for a very low cost. For example:
To Anaheim:
Posposil
New Jersey’s 2025 1st round pick
Calgary’s 2025 2nd round round pick
Poirier
To Calgary:
McTavish
To Buffalo:
Florida’s 2025 1st round pick (assuming it doesn’t go to Montreal)
Washington’s 2025 2nd round pick
Stromgren
Pelletier
To Calgary:
Cozens
My personal opinion of these two centres is that both of them may have been over hyped based on their draft position and on their rookie season performances. I could be wrong but I remember McTavish being closer to ranked as 9-11th overall pick up until a few days before the draft when it became rumoured Anaheim really liked him (similar to Sennecke this year). He also was a standout in the world Juniors but he was also one of the older and more developed players at that point. Similar case with Cozens.
I still think both could be great buy low candidates that develop into solid 2nd line centres but it has to be a bargain for the flames to go after them IMO.
So the Flames are teady to take the next step and compete for a cup?
You're moving the goal posts. You stated that teams that win draft and develop their players. Which is true. But I provided examples of teams that win that also acquire players via trade or free agency.
This is such a stupid argument. Every single team in the league has drafted players on their roster, free agents on their roster, and players acquired via trade on their roster. The winners and the losers. And in each case, if they were missing something they were not able to draft and/or develop... they traded for them.
If you need a #1 center (like Calgary does), and one you think coudl become that center becomes available for trade, are you just going to say no because you didn't draft him? Crazy. Washington failed with their core over and over and over, and they added to the core with a guy like Oshie to help push them over the edge. Good thing no one told Vegas this before they traded for Eichel and he led the playoffs in scoring on his way to a cup. Good thing no one told St Louis when they traded for O'Reilly, who had failure tagged on in both Colorado and Buffalo.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ped For This Useful Post:
You're moving the goal posts. You stated that teams that win draft and develop their players. Which is true. But I provided examples of teams that win that also acquire players via trade or free agency.
This is such a stupid argument. Every single team in the league has drafted players on their roster, free agents on their roster, and players acquired via trade on their roster. The winners and the losers. And in each case, if they were missing something they were not able to draft and/or develop... they traded for them.
If you need a #1 center (like Calgary does), and one you think coudl become that center becomes available for trade, are you just going to say no because you didn't draft him? Crazy. Washington failed with their core over and over and over, and they added to the core with a guy like Oshie to help push them over the edge. Good thing no one told Vegas this before they traded for Eichel and he led the playoffs in scoring on his way to a cup. Good thing no one told St Louis when they traded for O'Reilly, who had failure tagged on in both Colorado and Buffalo.
What goalposts am I moving ? You are providing me examples of teams who built a core through drafting and made a move to push them over the top except Vegas.
All those teams had drafted core players that they added too. I’m not against trading for pieces but we don’t even have a foundation yet. What core are we going to add to?
This is why rebuilds in Canada is so hard. Not only is the ownership impatient so are fans.
We still need to go through at least 3 drafts and drafting high to even have a roster to make a big move to add to.
You have brought up “did you notice him against us” a couple of times. I’m starting to think this is the only time you have seen him.
I’ve watched him plenty since he came into league. I drafted him in my keeper pool and I keep very good tabs on players I draft. This kid is big , can fly on the ice and has some serious skills. Even though he only got 49 points last year , which is still pretty good considering age, he looked dangerous a lot of the time. I will give you he doesn’t look great this year when I have seen him.
Agreed. Considering we have Kerins and maybe lipinski as centers i have made the pitch several times about using our plethora of winger prospects to nab a center.
The obvious question for some is we are too early in the rebuild to expend assets in trades?? While i would normally agree we have an absolute glut of wingers in the system. Coronnato, pellletier, stromgren, honzek knocking on the door. Suniev, basha, battaglia, misa, just off the top of my head as well as 4 picks in the top two rounds this year barring any trades ( and i am all for moving Anderson this year)one if which is likely to be a winger.
Getting a young center that could pop is worth it to my mind. It could be the difference between rebuild snd re tool.
Also some posters have a weird valuation system. Yes we need a top line center. However we need center depth through the organization. What would happen if kadri blew an ankle on that goal the other night and a week later backs was out for a couple if weeks? We pretty much have nothing.
When people post just a second line center were talking about kadri level player in his prime thats worth a lot to the team he is on and a lot of others who would love to have him.
We have a goalie, we have defensive depth but unclear about upper end ( Anderson is a top pair but does he stay), we have a plethora of wingers and almost nothing at center. If you can get a possible top six center on a contract i say its worth it. Dependng on cost of course.
I get it. The examples provided are of teams who too the next step right away and won cups.
I’ve watched Cozens. I don’t need him in a keeper league. He’s not a good player.
Now McTavish is different. That’s a trade I can get behind as long as it’s fair because again I don’t see him being worth an overpay or trading 2 of our top prospects and picks.
Well, what’s an overpay? I think that’s a term that gets thrown around here often but I don’t think many of us actually know what an ‘overpay’ actually is because we don’t have full view of the market.
A players value is what the acquiring team is prepared to pay. That’s probably established by a competitive market. GM’s and their staff do this, constantly. It’s there job to talk with other clubs about what their intentions are and what they’re willing to do to get there. If McTavish or Cozens are available, the Ducks and Sabres probably have a good idea who is interested and who is willing to pay what. From there you can enter a negotiation.
If one team offers slightly more than the next is that an ‘overpay’? Because, generally, that’s usually how it works. Did the Wild overpay for Jiricek? It sounds like several teams were interested so I’m not sure what differentiates ‘overpay’ for the team that put the best proposal together, in the minds of the other team, opposed to the other offers. Chances are, the margins are slim.
Anyway it's a bit silly to declare a winner of a trade when it is made, or consider something an overpay. Look at the Huberdeau traded. Almost everyone agreed Treliving made a great trade in a bad situation. Now? Not so good.
We might think a team overpaid or got robbed, but time will tell, not initial reactions.
Anyway it's a bit silly to declare a winner of a trade when it is made, or consider something an overpay. Look at the Huberdeau traded. Almost everyone agreed Treliving made a great trade in a bad situation. Now? Not so good.
We might think a team overpaid or got robbed, but time will tell, not initial reactions.
I think the trade was actually quite good. It’s been the Huberdeau extension that’s been the problem.
And I would bet that extension was as much the owners decision as it was Treliving’s.
Anyway it's a bit silly to declare a winner of a trade when it is made, or consider something an overpay. Look at the Huberdeau traded. Almost everyone agreed Treliving made a great trade in a bad situation. Now? Not so good.
We might think a team overpaid or got robbed, but time will tell, not initial reactions.
I think its pretty clear we "won" that trade, you can argue whether or not the Hubey signing makes sense for sure. We have a long term signed Weegar, probably a good leader on any team and a top 2 defender on most teams, a top 6 LW in Hubey and a late first round pick for a guy that was leaving and would have landed us a lot less on a 1 year 8-10 million contract at the deadline 8 months later. Saying who won on trade like that is very difficult, Tkachuk wasn't gonna be a flame for 8 more years, did the Panthers get the better player yes they did.
I think going out and - hypothetically - grabbing BOTH MacTavish and Cozens - isn't going to turn this organization around overnight.
Calgary is still likely to finish at the bottom of the standings this season, and next season, and probably the season after that. Great shot at drafting another top-end centre prospect this year, a great chance at the McKennea lottery following draft, and probably still a good chance at the Dupont lottery too. As long as Calgary does not trade away their own firsts in the upcoming years, I am good with a trade for Cozens and MacTavish.
A plethora of centres would be damn amazing for a change. Having to convert some to wing, or then keeping the two best and shipping out another one or two to trim the roster off?
What I don't want to see is the Flames to start trading away assets for 'win now' players, even at their primes. I don't want this organization to prioritize the standings over this year and next and turning this rebuild around artificially into a mediocre mess again. I don't think it becomes that with MacTavish and Cozens - I mean, Anaheim and Buffalo have been poor with them.
Calgary is not going to turn into a playoff or 'mushy middle' team with the defence as is. They have been better than expected, but as teams are cranking up their GAF levels, and with the losses mounting, things are starting to snowball the way most people assumed they would.
I have absolutely no issues that Calgary trades SOME futures with SOME prospects (even a healthy dose of each) - just absolutely NOT the 1st round picks in the upcoming drafts as those can really bite the Flames in the butt soon. The Devil's? Sure. Even the unprotected Vegas pick (which I am loathe to trade away 'just in case!' - these are important assets for the rebuild, but they don't have to be used in the draft. If you can package up some of these assets to either grab players like MacTavish and/or Cozens, or even package up assets and move up ever draft, I am all for it. There is a lot of quantity in the Flames organization, but there is definitely a lack of quality still, though there are young players that are exceeding expectations to this point in time.
