Should we be going for Ovie?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

Why would Shatt come here?
Chances of that a very remote.
And you end up signing him probably for as much or more than Gio makes. Not sure why one would assume a lower cost.
This is the problem. People can say that certain prospects are ready (absent proof of them actually being ready) or that you can easily acquire a dman to replace Gio.
But we know both those are probably unlikely.
Look how hard it has been to fill the need in net.
The more holes you have, the harder it is to fill them.

Shattenkirk comes here for the same reason anyone else does. Money, a job, a chance to be part of a winning team... However IMO the NYR has the best shot at him.

I don't know that he makes more than Gio does right now in a new contract. I sure wouldn't do it. He's not as good, and his POs weren't great. I'm not sure what his ask was with St. Louis, but I suppose one could look and see.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

More like ie, making an inference based on a vague and broad statement. I like how you drew the conclusion of "equivalent contribution" from the statement "legitimate hockey deal". Do they not teach the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning in schools anymore?!?

Check what has been referred to as ‘legitimate hockey deals’ in recent times by the media: Subban for Weber. Hall for Larsson. Jones for Johansen. One roster player for another of more or less equivalent value. Go ahead, ask somebody in the business what is meant by a legitimate hockey trade; I'll wait here. Hint: Trading a star player for picks, prospects, and/or spare parts, just to get out from under his cap hit, is not a legitimate hockey trade; and that is the only kind of trade being rumoured between the Capitals and Flames.

Deductive reasoning is a chain of formal logic leading infallibly from ground to consequent. Inductive reasoning is the process of validly drawing general inferences from multiple observations. The distinction between them has absolutely nothing to do with what anybody is saying in this thread, including yourself. You threw that in to try to make yourself look smart, and you failed spectacularly.

Did he answer a question that asked point blank "will you, or are, trading Alex Ovechkin?". No, he brought up the idea of Ovy potentially being traded.

Only to say that he wasn't going to do it. The context makes it clear that he was addressing complaints from fans.

So yeah, smug for no reason.

And you conclude by repeating your insult to a third party, since I wasn't even part of the conversation at that point. Again you try to look smart and fail.

[Vinny01]

I was thinking about this deal and trying to be more realistic. Brouwer/Frolik, prospects and picks is not nearly enough. I started to think what Washington would want from Calgary in order to continue to be a competitive team and recoup some futures. Using the Rick Nash trade of Anisimov, Dubinsky, Erixon, 1st as somewhat of a baseline I created a new proposal that I think better reflects the Value for Ovi and addresses the need to keep winning and looking to the future.

Now I would love nothing more than Brouwer, Fox, 1st to getnit done. In no way am I interested in Bennett, Kylington, 2 1sts

Let me know what you think of this:

To Cgy: Ovechkin
To Wash: Backlund, Ferland, Hickey/Fox, 1st

In this deal the Caps add a fantastic 2nd/3rd line centre, a young cheap RFA winger with upside, one of our top D prospects, and a 1st

Caps get actual value and players that help them now and in the future. They immediately save $6M on the cap (likely closer to $4M once Ferland would be signed). The trade actually hurts the Flames because they are giving up valuable players which should be the case when acquiring a superstar.

[Jay Random]

In terms of trade value, I suspect that's in line with what the Caps would likely get if they did offer Ovechkin on the open market. But it does hurt the Flames seriously, taking their best all-round centreman and a chunk out of their prospect depth. It doesn't make sense for a team at this stage to do that, unless the owners are desperate for a big name to sell tickets.

Remove Backlund and Ferland, add Ovechkin, and this team still isn't an immediate contender. I see no reason to make that deal.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

In terms of trade value, I suspect that's in line with what the Caps would likely get if they did offer Ovechkin on the open market. But it does hurt the Flames seriously, taking their best all-round centreman and a chunk out of their prospect depth. It doesn't make sense for a team at this stage to do that, unless the owners are desperate for a big name to sell tickets.

Remove Backlund and Ferland, add Ovechkin, and this team still isn't an immediate contender. I see no reason to make that deal.

Yeah it is a massive blow to the roster to lose Backlund and $4-$6M in cap space to massively upgrade on Ferland.

I think the Flames could get away with moving one of their top 4 young D prospects (Andersen, Kylington, Fox, Hickey) and I kept the Flames best of those prospects (Andersen). Moving a 1st is simply a given.

This hypothetical scenario would come down to 2 things. Most importantly how convinced are Gulutzan and Treliving that Monahan, Bennett, and Jankowski can handle the middle of the ice? And lastly the point you make about how badlymdonownwrs want another superstar to sell tickets and jerseys?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I was thinking about this deal and trying to be more realistic. Brouwer/Frolik, prospects and picks is not nearly enough. I started to think what Washington would want from Calgary in order to continue to be a competitive team and recoup some futures. Using the Rick Nash trade of Anisimov, Dubinsky, Erixon, 1st as somewhat of a baseline I created a new proposal that I think better reflects the Value for Ovi and addresses the need to keep winning and looking to the future.

Now I would love nothing more than Brouwer, Fox, 1st to getnit done. In no way am I interested in Bennett, Kylington, 2 1sts

Let me know what you think of this:

To Cgy: Ovechkin
To Wash: Backlund, Ferland, Hickey/Fox, 1st

In this deal the Caps add a fantastic 2nd/3rd line centre, a young cheap RFA winger with upside, one of our top D prospects, and a 1st

Caps get actual value and players that help them now and in the future. They immediately save $6M on the cap (likely closer to $4M once Ferland would be signed). The trade actually hurts the Flames because they are giving up valuable players which should be the case when acquiring a superstar.

Meh. I only do it if Washington retains a good amount, like 20%. 7.6M for Ovechkin from ages 32 to 35 maybe allows us to be a contender. An extra 2M in cap space for him, along with 4.5M in dead cap space in Brouwer, and you're just treading water.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Meh. I only do it if Washington retains a good amount, like 20%. 7.6M for Ovechkin from ages 32 to 35 maybe allows us to be a contender. An extra 2M in cap space for him, along with 4.5M in dead cap space in Brouwer, and you're just treading water.

Agreed with that value they should consider retention. Also Brouwer would have to go to Vegas in this scenario. I don't see cap space for a $7M forward with Brouwer earring up $4.5M on our 3rd/4th line

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Shattenkirk comes here for the same reason anyone else does. Money, a job, a chance to be part of a winning team... However IMO the NYR has the best shot at him.

I don't know that he makes more than Gio does right now in a new contract. I sure wouldn't do it. He's not as good, and his POs weren't great. I'm not sure what his ask was with St. Louis, but I suppose one could look and see.

He likely gets all those things in other markets that he prefers.
Shatt is going to get big coin and sign a contract that probably the team that gets him will regret in the next few years.
But he is the big name and does enough things well that someone is going to overpay to get him.

This was a reported deal that he rejected from the bolts:
According to a report by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch‘s Jeremy Rutherford, the Blues had a deal in place six weeks ago to send Shattenkirk to a team that was offering a long-term contract: seven years and $42 million. The problem? Shattenkirk reportedly turned the deal down.

Longer-term, lower cap hit than Gio's deal

But again he rejected that.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Yeah it is a massive blow to the roster to lose Backlund and $4-$6M in cap space to massively upgrade on Ferland.

Backlund was the team's de facto #1 centre for much of this season. His line was, according to the numbers, the best in the league at getting play out of the defensive zone and driving it up the ice. Without that line, the Flames would have been a train wreck defensively. Nobody else on the roster or in the system has that level of proven ability. Jankowski may have the potential, but he's not even an NHL player yet.

Do you take that away for the sake of adding (possibly) an extra 20 goals for? I'm not sure any coach would make that choice.

I think the Flames could get away with moving one of their top 4 young D prospects (Andersen, Kylington, Fox, Hickey) and I kept the Flames best of those prospects (Andersen). Moving a 1st is simply a given.

Yes, moving a 1st is a given. But is it an asset you can afford to give up for the return? You're talking about subtracting Backlund and Ferland's scoring to add Ovechkin's plus (in all likelihood) a replacement-level forward, and then losing everything Backlund contributes defensively. I'm not sure the difference is worth it.

As for the Flames' D prospects, from everything I'm hearing, Fox is a better prospect than Andersen, and probably Hickey is as well. Considering that the team has nothing on the third pairing and a huge hole on the second, they want as many chances as possible to fill those spots from within. That's a much more important position than the wing.

This hypothetical scenario would come down to 2 things. Most importantly how convinced are Gulutzan and Treliving that Monahan, Bennett, and Jankowski can handle the middle of the ice?

I don't imagine they are convinced at all, since none of those three has the skill set at this time to take Backlund's place.

And lastly the point you make about how badly do owners want another superstar to sell tickets and jerseys?

This market has never needed a superstar to sell tickets and jerseys. I don't see why it would start needing one now.

[CSharp]

He's signed until 2021. No way the Flames will give everything up for the next 10 years to support Ovie's salary and rebuild on nothing. You'd consider getting Ovie only if he becomes a free agent and you just throw money at him. Otherwise, it's too much to give up while he's signed. In 4 years, who knows if he's at an age where his production starts to go south.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Backlund was the team's de facto #1 centre for much of this season. His line was, according to the numbers, the best in the league at getting play out of the defensive zone and driving it up the ice. Without that line, the Flames would have been a train wreck defensively. Nobody else on the roster or in the system has that level of proven ability. Jankowski may have the potential, but he's not even an NHL player yet.

Do you take that away for the sake of adding (possibly) an extra 20 goals for? I'm not sure any coach would make that choice.



Yes, moving a 1st is a given. But is it an asset you can afford to give up for the return? You're talking about subtracting Backlund and Ferland's scoring to add Ovechkin's plus (in all likelihood) a replacement-level forward, and then losing everything Backlund contributes defensively. I'm not sure the difference is worth it.

As for the Flames' D prospects, from everything I'm hearing, Fox is a better prospect than Andersen, and probably Hickey is as well. Considering that the team has nothing on the third pairing and a huge hole on the second, they want as many chances as possible to fill those spots from within. That's a much more important position than the wing.



I don't imagine they are convinced at all, since none of those three has the skill set at this time to take Backlund's place.



This market has never needed a superstar to sell tickets and jerseys. I don't see why it would start needing one now.

Yes by no means is it a slam dunk trade but valuewise I think it is closer to what it would take then the speculative trades from articles and bogus twitter accounts will tell us.

It was a couple of things for me that opened my eyes to what it would likely really take. First was looking back at the Rick Nash trade that is likely the best comparable considering his age, production, salary and same era he was traded in. The second was a poster who commented on a similar return for Iginla when he was 31 and I agree the crap some of us were suggesting (myself included) was no where near enough.


If the Flames are going to add Ovie it likely is going to hurt in some areas. The hope of moving expendable assets and bad contracts is unlikely. At the end of the day the Flames would acquire a generational scorer on his back 9 without touching the core of Monahan, Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Bennett, Giordano, Brodie, Hamilton.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Yes by no means is it a slam dunk trade but valuewise I think it is closer to what it would take then the speculative trades from articles and bogus twitter accounts will tell us.

I agree that something like that is what it would take. I just don't agree that it would be a beneficial trade from the Flames' standpoint.

Until the time comes when the Caps are actively looking to deal Ovechkin (which has not happened yet, rumours to the contrary), nobody is going to acquire him without a pretty hefty overpayment. He means far more to that franchise than his contribution on the ice. They will demand a price that reflects that; but he doesn't have the same kind of value to any other established team, because they haven't been relying on him to put bums on seats.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

He likely gets all those things in other markets that he prefers.
Shatt is going to get big coin and sign a contract that probably the team that gets him will regret in the next few years.
But he is the big name and does enough things well that someone is going to overpay to get him.

This was a reported deal that he rejected from the bolts:
According to a report by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch‘s Jeremy Rutherford, the Blues had a deal in place six weeks ago to send Shattenkirk to a team that was offering a long-term contract: seven years and $42 million. The problem? Shattenkirk reportedly turned the deal down.

Longer-term, lower cap hit than Gio's deal

But again he rejected that.

I agree Calgary isn't probably his top choice. But then again, not all teams need him. The Rangers are the most likely.

It's true that he rejected a lower offer. But then, so did Russell and Glencross, to use more extreme examples. He might be in for a surprise come July.

Since I agree you can't count on Shattenkirk, the question is - if you traded Gio (which I would consider given his age) for Ovie, who wins that straight up, and who has a harder time filling the hole?