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

[Hackey]

Is it a rental? Seems like it's a delayed extension like Hanifin. Plus 50% retained. I don't mind the return because I was expecting something very similar, but this is likely not a typical rental trade.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I'm a whiner. I don't like letting Vegas be able to top 10 protect that 2027 pick without having to give up another pick for lost time. I'm also skeptical that the Flames will manage Whitecloud as an asset effectively. I said my piece about Whitecloud in the Conroy thread. If they make another move to shift Whitecloud or another vet out, I maybe come around a bit. But at this stage I think the Flames are the nice friendly team in the league and in this league nice guys don't finish last. But they spend eternity hanging out with a changing group of other losers.

I voted "modest loss" and I'm still content with that vote, but I hear you. I share the same worries about managing Whitecloud as an asset (same goes for Coleman).

The fact that it's Vegas still sours the trade for me. In-division, with retention, strengthening their team while we own their 1st. Just doesn't sit right with me at all, but it is what it is. I think we all knew a 1st would be in there, just really hoped we could also snag a decent prospect, ideally a center. But many of those hopes hinged on an extension as part of the deal, and sadly it wasn't to be. Really curious about what we do with Whitecloud. Move him for a decent return at the deadline, and this looks a lot better IMO. Just wouldn't be surprised if we held onto him for a while.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So with all the new wrinkles ... doesn't Vegas have to be cap compliant at the end of training camp next year?

If they sign Andersson wouldn't that mean they'd have to find a taker for the final year of Pietrangelo's contract?

Would be interesting if the Flames picked up an additional 2nd or 3rd to facilitate.

No, get the Knights' 2030 1st rounder.

All their 1sts belong to us.

[Macindoc]

I suspect either Weegar or Whitecloud will be traded once Parekh shows he’s ready for top 4 minutes on a nightly basis. Probably Whitecloud. There might even be quite a market for Whitecloud now that he’s on a non-contender.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Is it a rental? Seems like it's a delayed extension like Hanifin. Plus 50% retained. I don't mind the return because I was expecting something very similar, but this is likely not a typical rental trade.

Its a rental trade due to the fact he wasn't signing anywhere else...even if he signs there there was no market for a deal with an extension.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by devo22

I voted "modest loss" and I'm still content with that vote, but I hear you. I share the same worries about managing Whitecloud as an asset (same goes for Coleman).

The fact that it's Vegas still sours the trade for me. In-division, with retention, strengthening their pick while we own their 1st. Just doesn't sit right with me at all, but it is what it is. I think we all knew a 1st would be in there, just really hoped we could also snag a decent prospect, ideally a center. But many of those hopes hinged on an extension as part of the deal, and sadly it wasn't to be. Really curious about what we o with Whitecloud. Move him for a decent return at the deadline, and this looks a lot better IMO. Just wouldn't be surprised if we held onto him for a while.

Agreed. If they deal Whitecloud and get a 2nd or more I like this trade a lot more. Chances are though, the Flames keep him around and it's just a classic Flames trade where we get an okay asset or two for the rebuild plus a mediocre player for the now. It's like they want to rebuild but are so deathly afraid of being slightly worse than they already are.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

I suspect either Weegar or Whitecloud will be traded once Parekh shows he’s ready for top 4 minutes on a nightly basis. Probably Whitecloud. There might even be quite a market for Whitecloud now that he’s on a non-contender.

Trade Weegar next TDL or after next season, thereby, making room for...Makar.

[VilleN]

I know a lot of people are saying "This is bad value because it really isn't a rental" - I disagree. This is a rental, just because Vegas knows they can re-sign him is irrelevant - they didn't agree to terms with him because they don't need to. Why would they work against themselves by paying the price in a trade for an extension, when they have a high degree of certainty that he wants to sign anyways? This is the Vegas advantage, and it seems as though really no other team can compete with that.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Agreed. If they deal Whitecloud and get a 2nd or more I like this trade a lot more. Chances are though, the Flames keep him around and it's just a classic Flames trade where we get an okay asset or two for the rebuild plus a mediocre player for the now. It's like they want to rebuild but are so deathly afraid of being slightly worse than they already are.

Wait, you think the Flames aren't "slightly worse" after trading away Andersson? Then the trade is a massive win! More term, less salary, extra assets, what's not to like?

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Agreed. If they deal Whitecloud and get a 2nd or more I like this trade a lot more. Chances are though, the Flames keep him around and it's just a classic Flames trade where we get an okay asset or two for the rebuild plus a mediocre player for the now. It's like they want to rebuild but are so deathly afraid of being slightly worse than they already are.

The discussion on Fan960 today with the LV media suggested that if Conroy traded away Whitecloud and only got a 2nd in return for him, he should be fired.

[Roko]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

The discussion on Fan960 today with the LV media suggested that if Conroy traded away Whitecloud and only got a 2nd in return for him, he should be fired.

I genuinely think he is worth a first.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Is it a rental? Seems like it's a delayed extension like Hanifin. Plus 50% retained. I don't mind the return because I was expecting something very similar, but this is likely not a typical rental trade.

The second Andersson said he wouldn't sign with anyone it was a defacto rental from the Flames perspective.

Nothing less.

Vegas has leverage, and probably thinks he can be signed, but if no other team gets a look it's a rental.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I know a lot of people are saying "This is bad value because it really isn't a rental" - I disagree. This is a rental, just because Vegas knows they can re-sign him is irrelevant - they didn't agree to terms with him because they don't need to. Why would they work against themselves by paying the price in a trade for an extension, when they have a high degree of certainty that he wants to sign anyways? This is the Vegas advantage, and it seems as though really no other team can compete with that.

Agreed. Andersson still has the UFA leverage with Vegas if his agent wanted to push really hard on them.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I know a lot of people are saying "This is bad value because it really isn't a rental" - I disagree. This is a rental, just because Vegas knows they can re-sign him is irrelevant - they didn't agree to terms with him because they don't need to. Why would they work against themselves by paying the price in a trade for an extension, when they have a high degree of certainty that he wants to sign anyways? This is the Vegas advantage, and it seems as though really no other team can compete with that.

The only reason it is a rental is because Conroy made it a rental by not trading Andersson last year. He gave up a ton of leverage on this trade for whatever reason it may be. This return is fine for a rental but is a huge letdown compared to what it should have been last year.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

The discussion on Fan960 today with the LV media suggested that if Conroy traded away Whitecloud and only got a 2nd in return for him, he should be fired.

This quote brought to you by "The Loosest Slots On The Strip"!

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

The only reason it is a rental is because Conroy made it a rental by not trading Andersson last year. He gave up a ton of leverage on this trade for whatever reason it may be. This return is fine for a rental but is a huge letdown compared to what it should have been last year.

I don't know that the return would've been much different last year. Andersson looked pretty bad last year.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I don't know that the return would've been much different last year. Andersson looked pretty bad last year.

And if you look at the ones that did occur with term, the returns aren't much different (many worse).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Agreed. If they deal Whitecloud and get a 2nd or more I like this trade a lot more. Chances are though, the Flames keep him around and it's just a classic Flames trade where we get an okay asset or two for the rebuild plus a mediocre player for the now. It's like they want to rebuild but are so deathly afraid of being slightly worse than they already are.

If they didn't get slightly worse, then they just acquired a 1st and a 2nd for nothing! That's a fricking home run, no?

[Rhett44]

I analyzed the trade and it isn't as bad as I thought.

We did quite well for a rental. My main frustrations were with it being Vegas, and not getting the signed return we would have from Boston. Oh well, such is life.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

The only reason it is a rental is because Conroy made it a rental by not trading Andersson last year. He gave up a ton of leverage on this trade for whatever reason it may be. This return is fine for a rental but is a huge letdown compared to what it should have been last year.

Andersson was coming off arguably the worst season of his career last year, what makes you think he'd have garnered more in return?