2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[Teroy]

The only reason you don't want to do that deal is because you have blind faith that Huberdeau will return to form. But, you can't sign Lindholm/Baclund without the cap space. Do that deal if you get that chance or a similar deal.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Teroy

The only reason you don't want to do that deal is because you have blind faith that Huberdeau will return to form. But, you can't sign Lindholm/Baclund without the cap space. Do that deal if you get that chance or a similar deal.

depends on the characterization - prior to last season, in the three seasons that Huberdeau had were cumulatively top 3 in points in the NHL iirc.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the room was in diarray last year due to Sutter...That clearly effected the team negatively.

Huberdeau doesn't have to bounce back to 115 points; this roster doesn't have that kind of talent around him imo...but 70-80 points? That would be my prediction. Not worth the contract Tre signed him to however.

Seems pointless to sell the guy at the lowest value possible without determining whether he will bounce back.

Like I said, I am not convince Lindholm wants to stay. If he does, they you have him sign that contract before cutting bait .

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Teroy

The only reason you don't want to do that deal is because you have blind faith that Huberdeau will return to form. But, you can't sign Lindholm/Baclund without the cap space. Do that deal if you get that chance or a similar deal.

Blind faith? There's way more evidence to suggest last year was an anomaly then the other way around.

[Teroy]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

depends on the characterization - prior to last season, in the three seasons that Huberdeau had were cumulatively top 3 in points in the NHL iirc.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the room was in diarray last year due to Sutter...That clearly effected the team negatively.

Huberdeau doesn't have to bounce back to 115 points; this roster doesn't have that kind of talent around him imo...but 70-80 points? That would be my prediction. Not worth the contract Tre signed him to however.

Seems pointless to sell the guy at the lowest value possible without determining whether he will bounce back.

Like I said, I am not convince Lindholm wants to stay. If he does, they you have him sign that contract before cutting bait .

The problem is; if he doesn't bounce back then you have nothing to sell.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Teroy

The problem is; if he doesn't bounce back then you have nothing to sell.

And the top 6 will almost assuredly be worth next year

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Teroy

The problem is; if he doesn't bounce back then you have nothing to sell.

Confident he'll bounce back.

[memphusk]

If Huberdeau can put up 90 points a year and play defence for the first 5 years of this deal making 10.5 I would be ecstatic. I'm interested to see what happens under Huska. Does he get comfortable and try to play river hockey or will he keep some defence up also.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by memphusk

If Huberdeau can put up 90 points a year and play defence for the first 5 years of this deal making 10.5 I would be ecstatic. I'm interested to see what happens under Huska. Does he get comfortable and try to play river hockey or will he keep some defence up also.

Huska was in charge of pk and defense under Sutter.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Seems pointless to sell the guy at the lowest value possible without determining whether he will bounce back.

His lowest possible value is that we can’t move him at all. With how much he is overpaid and his age it is possible that happens sooner than later.

Not saying that proposal is a slam dunk, would depend on whether you think Kylington is coming back or not if he is I think it’s an easy no, but you have to consider it to get rid of the albatross Hubredeau contract.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Huska was in charge of pk and defense under Sutter.

Yes I know that. I'm just wondering what to expect.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Teroy

The problem is; if he doesn't bounce back then you have nothing to sell.

Originally Posted by Spurs

His lowest possible value is that we can’t move him at all. With how much he is overpaid and his age it is possible that happens sooner than later.

Not saying that proposal is a slam dunk, would depend on whether you think Kylington is coming back or not if he is I think it’s an easy no, but you have to consider it to get rid of the albatross Hubredeau contract.

Its undoubtedly a risk.

that said, its a dude speculating on the interwebz, not an actual proposal.

A lot would depend on Lindholm, Hanifin and Toffoli's intentions... if all those guys want out, maybe its time to rebuild, which would mean jettisoning Huberdeau. I am not convinced this is something the Flames organization wants to do. With Phillips, it Love gets an asst coaching position there is a possible he gets a renewed look as well as a desire to stay if he believes he gets a fair shot. Not saying he's a legit NHLer, but if Love is a coach, he'd definitely have an advocate on staff.

Cap space is great if you have actual talent to sign...I would stay far away from the UFA market which is weaker than usual, as you pay through the nose for guys on the downside of their careers (with a few exceptions), whose contracts could end up being similar boat anchors.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

must be on drugs.

huberdeau, kylington, phillips and our 16 OA for their 13 OA and a 3rd?

feel dumber having read that.

Philips is a UFA, not sure why he's included.

If you can get rid of Huberdeau for basically nothing, you do that every day, as it would signal a rebuild, which is good.

Not sure why Buffalo would take on that contract though, zero chance of it.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

If you can get rid of Huberdeau for basically nothing, you do that every day

Not picking on you directly, as others have said the same thing, but this is such an extreme anti-Flames viewpoint. Let’s get rid of a superstar for nothing because his contract is large. Insane thought.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Not picking on you directly, as others have said the same thing, but this is such an extreme anti-Flames viewpoint. Let’s get rid of a superstar for nothing because his contract is large. Insane thought.

I think it is up for debate whether he is a superstar and it is not only because his contract is large but also the team that we have around him that will compete for nothing during the length of his deal.

Fans are tired of the team trying so hard to build a mediocre team, especially when they pair that mediocrity with an unlikable group of players.

[Rollin22x]

Originally Posted by Spurs

I think it is up for debate whether he is a superstar and it is not only because his contract is large but also the team that we have around him that will compete for nothing during the length of his deal.

Fans are tired of the team trying so hard to build a mediocre team, especially when they pair that mediocrity with an unlikable group of players.

8 years of competing for nothing. That's a pretty bleak outlook.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Rollin22x

8 years of competing for nothing. That's a pretty bleak outlook.

That is what happens when you prioritize 2-3 home play-off games over building a winning team.

How long has it been since we competed for anything? Its been 19 years since 2004. Not sure why 8 years would be crazy especially with how poorly built we are right now.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Spurs

I think it is up for debate whether he is a superstar and it is not only because his contract is large but also the team that we have around him that will compete for nothing during the length of his deal.

Fans are tired of the team trying so hard to build a mediocre team, especially when they pair that mediocrity with an unlikable group of players.

So many things to unpack here

- What does Huberdeau’s status have to do with what the team will compete for? Is Crosby no longer a superstar because the Penguins missed the playoffs?

- is superstar status only related to salary? Are you saying Nurse is a superstar because his salary is large?

- Trying to build a mediocre team? Do you seriously believe that is the goal?

- Unlikable group of players - according to who? To you? Unlikable because they missed the playoffs?

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by calculoso

So many things to unpack here

- What does Huberdeau’s status have to do with what the team will compete for? Is Crosby no longer a superstar because the Penguins missed the playoffs?

Who said his status had anything to do with what the team will do? I said it is debatable whether he is a superstar based on how people would define superstar. I would have a much more narrow parameters for superstar and a short list so Hubredeau would come nowhere near it. Others may have a longer list, that is what makes it debatable. The teams ability or results have little to do with that unless you are talking about his impact on those results.

- is superstar status only related to salary? Are you saying Nurse is a superstar because his salary is large?

Again I never said anything close to this not sure where you get these made up arguments from.

-

Trying to build a mediocre team? Do you seriously believe that is the goal?

I don't think that they state "we have to be mediocre" but I think that they prioritize making round 1 of the play-offs so they can get home game revenue over taking short term pain for long term gain.

That approach results in building mediocre teams. I think the Flames would take 5 years of first round losses over risking 4 years not making the play-offs and building a team that actually contends in that 5th year. The risk of missing out on play-off revenue would be too great and play-off revenue trumps winning with this ownership, or at least Edwards, in my view.

- Unlikable group of players - according to who? To you? Unlikable because they missed the playoffs?

Yes according to me, who else would it be according to when I am the one posting.

I say unlikable because I don't find any of the players particularly likable or that I would want to cheer for. Not making the play-offs doesn't really matter as i felt that way at the start of the season. Doesn't mean every player is unlikable there is a lot of meh guys that are just there in my view.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Not picking on you directly, as others have said the same thing, but this is such an extreme anti-Flames viewpoint. Let’s get rid of a superstar for nothing because his contract is large. Insane thought.

I think you do it for a few reasons:

(1) He's likely not a superstar, although he may be quite a good player. How good, is up for debate.
(2) If he was a UFA today, there is no way anyone would be paying him $84MM over 8 years.
(3) Calgary is likely not a contender, although that is also up for debate.


There is much risk to his contract, and if Calgary is not a contender, it is better to get rid of the contract if they can and rebuild.

I don't think that's an insane proposition. Especially based on many of our opinions that there is much risk that Huberdeau is not a superstar.

You may not agree with our premise (as I mention it is indeed debatable), but once you accept that it may be debatable, the option of dumping his contract may make some sense.

In any event, I doubt anyone would simply take it on, as cap is King these days. That should tell you it's not an insane proposition.

Do you think it's "anti-Flame" to prefer a major rebuild right now?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Spurs

Yes according to me, who else would it be according to when I am the one posting.

I say unlikable because I don't find any of the players particularly likable or that I would want to cheer for. Not making the play-offs doesn't really matter as i felt that way at the start of the season. Doesn't mean every player is unlikable there is a lot of meh guys that are just there in my view.

Except it wasn't "according to you". You said "fans" felt this way like you were speaking on behalf of them all.

I am a Flames fan and with a couple of exceptions, I don't find them unlikeable at all, and that includes Huberdeau who seems like a very decent guy.