[Trade] Andersson (50% retained) to Vegas for 27 1st, cond 28 2nd, Whitecloud, Wiebe

[devo22]

the fact that it's Vegas pobably sours me on the deal quite a bit. Especially since there's additional layers to that (we own their 1st and now improve their team, plus there's retention). In isolation, I think it's maybe an okay deal, but that's about it. 1st is probably going to be late, ditto the 2nd. No C prospect to be found. Whitecloud is a decent guy to plug in, but maybe a bit of an odd fit as another RD. Doesn't fit our timeline either. If you can flip him for more assets, great. Otherwise I'm not so sure what the plan is here.

It just absolutely blows that an extension wasn't going to be a part any deal. Question is, will the Flames ever learn? Can't make the same mistake yet again with Coleman.

[getbak]

I think there's too much worrying about Whitecloud. He's not the main return here. No matter who the trade was with, it was virtually guaranteed there was going to be a current NHL d-man coming back the other way. They have to balance roster spots for both teams.

Let Parekh play out his conditioning stint and get his confidence back, then I bet we see either Whitecloud or Pachel moved before the deadline for a mid-round pick to clear space for Parekh.

[CroCop]

This guy played an elevated role on a bad team. It will never be better for him from a minutes standpoint from what he had here. In other words he’s not that good and the return is probably better than fine.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Bingo

By the tables two 2nd round picks by the team drafting 25th in the first round is 1.3 x 2 or 2.6

The 31st pick is worth 2.8

And no I'm not sure Whitecloud is worth a 2nd but doubt it would take long to find some similarities in recent trades that suggest he is or could be.

You don't have to agree but I'm not squinting!

I have posted on another post where I reconsidered. He is a useful player for sure.

[jmac98]

With all the restrictions and roadblocks in the way of this deal, it was likely never going to meet expectations. Having said that, they still traded away their top asset with hopefully more to follow, so essentially mission accomplished. If they can remain near or at the bottom of the standings at seasons end as a result of this addition by subtraction then I’m ultimately happy.

[Flamescuprun2018]

Google AI:

A 29-year-old right-shot defenseman (RHD) playing on the second pair with a cap hit under $3 million is considered an extremely high-value asset in the NHL trade market. Due to the combination of scarcity at the position, low cap hit (high value), and prime age, such a player would likely command a 1st-round pick, or a solid B-level prospect paired with a 2nd-round pick.

Trade Value Breakdown:
High Value/Low Cost: In the 2024-25, 2nd pair defenders often make closer to $4.5 million, making a sub-$3M contract highly desirable, sometimes referred to as "elite value".

Market Scarcity: RHD are scarce and highly sought after, with demand often inflating their trade cost.

Comparable Trades: Similar reliable, right-shot, second-pair players (e.g., Matt Roy at age 29, $3.15M AAV) are viewed as significant trade chips at the deadline.

Age Factor: At age 29, the player is generally considered to be in their prime, offering immediate top-four stability for a contending team, rather than a long-term rebuild project.

What to Expect in Return:

Contender Scenario: A 1st-round pick in a 3-way deal (if salary is retained) or a 2nd-round pick + a high-end prospect.

Trade Deadline Market: A 2nd-round pick is a minimum starting point, with 1st-rounders possible if the player is a pending UFA, as teams pay a premium for RHD stability.

If the player has term remaining beyond the current season, the value would be even higher. If they are a UFA, the value is heavily influenced by their immediate fit for a playoff run.

[SuperMatt18]

I look forward to Rasmus signing with Vegas in two weeks though after saying he wouldn't sign anywhere

[#-3]

So does the '27 2nd become a '28 1st if they win the cup? How does that work?

Assuming that's true the Flames could end up picking twice in the 1st round 5 straight years. This is about building a pipeline of home grown top line talent.

Parekh, Gridden, Reschney, Potter and this years +/-3rdOA is already looking like a good start with 5 more picks to follow some of these guys on ELCs until the 2030s.

I've gotta think that's a part of whats happening here. at a certain point scaping things out helps build a sustainable contender moreso than gets 3 or 4 picks in 1 year.

[scobel]

The more I think about this trade, the more I believe bringing in Whitecloud shouldn’t be underestimated. Even if he isn’t part of the long-term plan, he likely holds standalone value that could be flipped down the road for additional assets—potentially a second- or third-round pick.

Framed that way, does the deal look different if Anderson returns a first, a second, and a third? I may be slightly overvaluing Whitecloud, but regardless, he represents another movable piece that creates optionality. He doesn’t need to remain in Calgary for the full term of his contract to provide value.

From a roster-construction standpoint, this also opens the door to moving on from Pachal and/or Weegar, which adds flexibility both now and in future transactions.

I don’t have enough familiarity with Whitecloud, but is he capable of switching sides?

[Super-Rye]

The return does seem a little underwhelming. However, maybe Vegas wins the cups making it 2 firsts. Then the Flames trade Whitecloud for a 1st making it 3 firsts. Even if Ras extends in Vegas, there's potential there for it to be a good return.

With that said it's the Flames so the return will be one 1st and disappointment, but the potential is there.

One this is clear, it's times for this team to start sending guys who don't fit the long term plans of this team out the door before an extension can even be brought up. Looking at you Coleman.

[Matty81]

Yeah value wise its not super far off what you'd think market would be... if the prospect was better. But the big issue is the first will likely be about as bad as a 1st can be, and we just made one of our own picks this year worse.


For me its another not great trade, I dont think it is terrible but the flames are really getting beat down by their own delays in moving these players and then the players being so rigid in where they want to go. Also... I personally dont get the infatuation with vegas, think its a seedy dump

[Buff]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I look forward to Rasmus signing with Vegas in two weeks though after saying he wouldn't sign anywhere

I read it as he wasn't going to talk contract with other teams before he was traded.

[Johnny Makarov]

I hope he doesn't sign until after the season and turns into Rasmus Denis Schroeder!

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Super-Rye

The return does seem a little underwhelming. However, maybe Vegas wins the cups making it 2 firsts. Then the Flames trade Whitecloud for a 1st making it 3 firsts. Even if Ras extends in Vegas, there's potential there for it to be a good return.

With that said it's the Flames so the return will be one 1st and disappointment, but the potential is there.

One this is clear, it's times for this team to start sending guys who don't fit the long term plans of this team out the door before an extension can even be brought up. Looking at you Coleman.

Treliving doesnt have a 1st, who else do you think would trade a 1st for Whitecloud?

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by #-3

So does the '27 2nd become a '28 1st if they win the cup? How does that work?

Sportsnet is reporting the 2nd as a 2027 2nd, which is why it doesn't make sense that it could become the 2027 1st we already acquired

TSN is reporting the 2nd as a 2028 2nd, which would become a 2028 1st if Vegas wins the Cup this season

[5abi]

Are there conditions on the 1st?

[trackercowe]

No way does Whitecloud return a 1st.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by 5abi

Are there conditions on the 1st?

top 10 protected.

[robertsfanatic]

Originally Posted by 5abi

Are there conditions on the 1st?

apparently top 10 protected

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It does seem like the removal of conditions for a player re-signing has ultimately hurt selling clubs, as it's been replaced by tougher to reach conditions around team success.
I still have never heard the rationale for why that is no longer allowed.

As evidenced, this is good for the players and they are part of the collective bargaining agreement