[News] Giordano left unprotected in expansion draft

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

At the deadline Hamonic was injured and then had a low dollar contract as a UFA in the following off-season. I don't understand why many Flames universally seem to think that he was ineffective while also thinking there was a missed opportunity to recoup value (again particularly since he was injured)
Brodie is a different situation. One could argue they should have traded him but they were in the playoffs and that wasn't going to happen.

This team has been terrible managing it's asset base overall - trading players too late or not at all and not getting enough value out of them. But it also comes down to the strategy central to it all - to compete.

Teams lose good players. They key is having a pipeline coming along to replace them. And then using the cap space gained effectively.

Teams don't deal players that are hurt (as you said) nor do they move players when they are on a bubble.

Brodie wouldn't be moved at the deadline prior to the Edmonton bubble because the team was too close to the line. That just doesn't happen.

Plus they signed Tanev, and wouldn't have done that if they extended Brodie.

But yeah it's all about the pipeline. If you have cheaper options coming you let players go if you're in contention, and move them if you're not. Either way you need that next wave.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Still think Treliving buckles and sends a 3rd to Seattle for them to pick Kylington.

I'd be behind that.

That's not much to pay to keep the guy in town (and get him into that one year deal year after year rotation).

If the year goes poorly you move him at the deadline, and additionally maybe having him expire in a year avoids spending too much money on a LT contract to replace him.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I would view that as pretty good value and be more than fine with it.
If anything that would be Seattle blinking to me.

I'll go further and predict it's a 3rd+Matthew Phillips for them to pick Kylington.

Maybe I’m overly negative but I don’t see Kylington and Phillips having much of any value. Two 3rds is still a good deal for the Flames IMO. I bet they want a 1st at least.

But Seattle may also really want Gio the player. He seems like a great fit for an expansion team.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Asking and getting are two very different things. I really don't see them taking a 38 year old with a $6.75M contract hit and then hoping he plays well enough to extract a draft pick out of him at the TDL. That is very risky given the player's age, not just from a talent drop off perspective, but also considering injuries and wear and tear on the body. Take the third, take the young player, and call it a win because you can spend that money elsewhere. Seriously, if you can take that $6M advantage and turn that into a Dougie Hamilton or a Gabriel Landeskog, AND you got a prospect and a pick for doing so, you're better off. I think Francis is a smart guy and will go this route. He's bluffing the Flames to get a pick out of them just like he is with Montreal and Price.

Giordano's numbers suggest he's still a #2.

They could trade him Thursday with some retained money for a 2nd at least.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Obviously this ship has sailed, but if he was left unprotected, would the Kraken would have for sure taken Tanev - even with his longer term contract?

Would it have been cheaper for us to make a deal for the Kraken not to take Tanev (because of his contract) than not to take Gio?

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

https://twitter.com/user/status/1417144938878304266

Bet Tre is provably getting to the stage where a definitive answer would be nice. If they are losing Gio , have to think the return for Mony will need a dman. He also still has to figure out if signing Johnny long term can be done or traded. That imo has to be done by July 1st. If they have to trade Johnny then maybe they keep Mony, depending on return.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by klikitiklik

Thanks for your work here Gio but it's time to move on.

Just a quick question. I know that these are extenuating circumstances, but am I wrong in thinking that I've never seen a GM lose so many players for nothing?

Hamonic, Brodey, now Gio. Have their been other lost Assets that we could have gotten something for, or am I just biased?

Losing Gio (if that is the case) falls under "expansion draft". Literally every GM in the league will lose a player. That's the entire purpose. Pretty much the only team to not have lost two players IS Calgary because they were so bad that Vegas would rather have signed Engelland to a contract rather than take a crappy Flames contract (which is more of a blemish on Treliving than anything). There were teams who lost more to Vegas making deals than Calgary lost with those three players you mentioned in my opinion.

I'm all about getting rid of Treliving based on lack of success and not a great promising future, but let's not blame him for the expansion draft.

[FlamesAddiction]

Anything more than a 2nd rounder and an average prospect is too much to protect Gio. They could have easily kept Bennett to use as expansion fodder to shield Seattle from selecting Gio, but instead acquired a 2nd rounder and Heineman. Seattle would have surely picked Bennett is he was available, I am sure of it.

So if it costs more than that to keep Gio, or if he gets taken and Seattle manages to get more than that back in a trade, Treliving will need to answer for that asset management decision.

I don't think Treliving is dumb, so I am inclined to believe he weighed this options and concluded that Gio's value in a trade at the deadline or the protection cost demanded by Seattle would be less than the value he got for Bennett.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Losing Gio (if that is the case) falls under "expansion draft". Literally every GM in the league will lose a player. That's the entire purpose. Pretty much the only team to not have lost two players IS Calgary because they were so bad that Vegas would rather have signed Engelland to a contract rather than take a crappy Flames contract (which is more of a blemish on Treliving than anything). There were teams who lost more to Vegas making deals than Calgary lost with those three players you mentioned in my opinion.

I'm all about getting rid of Treliving based on lack of success and not a great promising future, but let's not blame him for the expansion draft.

Vegas selected a pending UFA from Carolina as well (and didn't even try to sign the player). It did cost Carolina a 5th round though, but it suggests that they didn't see anyone on Carolina's list even worth more than a 5th round pick.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Anything more than a 2nd round and an average prospect is too much to protect Gio. They could have easily kept Bennett to use as expansion fodder to shield Seattle from selecting Gio, but instead acquired a 2nd rounder and Heineman. Seattle would have surely picked Bennett is he was available, I am sure of it.

Bennett had nothing to do with the fact that we have three younger defensemen that need to be protected and that protecting a fourth would have resulted in losing Mangiapane or Dube.

EDIT: or is your argument that with Bennett and Giordano unprotected, they'd have chosen Bennett over Gio? I doubt that. Gio is a culture setter and a prime deadline trade bait for Seattle ... Bennett did nothing in Calgary that would make Seattle think twice.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Bet Tre is provably getting to the stage where a definitive answer would be nice. If they are losing Gio , have to think the return for Mony will need a dman. He also still has to figure out if signing Johnny long term can be done or traded. That imo has to be done by July 1st. If they have to trade Johnny then maybe they keep Mony, depending on return.

Seravalli has reported that the Kraken have made it known to Calgary they will be taking Giordano.

The question thrown to Gio's agent was a foolish attempt to get info. Of course the answer would be basically no comment.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Anything more than a 2nd rounder and an average prospect is too much to protect Gio. They could have easily kept Bennett to use as expansion fodder to shield Seattle from selecting Gio, but instead acquired a 2nd rounder and Heineman. Seattle would have surely picked Bennett is he was available, I am sure of it.

So if it costs more than that to keep Gio, or if he gets taken and Seattle manages to get more than that back in a trade, Treliving will need to answer for that asset management decision.

I don't think Treliving is dumb, so I am inclined to believe he weighed this options and concluded that Gio's value in a trade at the deadline or the protection cost demanded by Seattle would be less than the value he got for Bennett.

You’d be okay trading $6.75 in cap space, a 2nd, a prospect, and Kylington for one year of a 38 year old coming off a bad season? When the team is nowhere close to contending? You might get your wish because that sounds very much to me like a Calgary Flames thing to do.

[Reign of Fire]

Random thought, considering the state of the team and complete screw up on asset management...would it had been better off to go 8/1?

Protect:
Johnny
Tkachuk
Lindholm
Mangiapane
Hanifin
Gio
Andersson
Tanev

Gio would hold more value at the TDL over all the other forwards that were protected


Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[devo22]

then you lose Monahan or Dube. Not sure how that would have helped us in any way.

going 7-3-1 and exposing Gio was the right call, even if it hurts.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Reign of Fire

Random thought, considering the state of the team and complete screw up on asset management...would it had been better off to go 8/1?

Protect:
Johnny
Tkachuk
Lindholm
Mangiapane
Hanifin
Gio
Andersson
Tanev

Gio would hold more value at the TDL over all the other forwards that were protected


Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

I highly doubt the goal at the start of every season for Calgary’s ownership and management, is to maximize value at the trade deadline. Wow

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Reign of Fire

Random thought, considering the state of the team and complete screw up on asset management...would it had been better off to go 8/1?

Protect:
Johnny
Tkachuk
Lindholm
Mangiapane
Hanifin
Gio
Andersson
Tanev

Gio would hold more value at the TDL over all the other forwards that were protected


Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

I know Sean Monahan's reputation has hit an all-time low, but I think he's worth more than Giordano. Look at what Colorado got for Matt Duchene and I think these are similar players.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Giordano's numbers suggest he's still a #2.

They could trade him Thursday with some retained money for a 2nd at least.

There's the rub. The retained money. Not sure the Flames want to do that, even if it is short term pain. You have to retain to get full value out of the player and I don't see Calgary doing that. I'd let him go then turn that $6.75M into two players that can help.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

You’d be okay trading $6.75 in cap space, a 2nd, a prospect, and Kylington for one year of a 38 year old coming off a bad season? When the team is nowhere close to contending? You might get your wish because that sounds very much to me like a Calgary Flames thing to do.

Gio didn't have a bad season.
He had a worse season compared to his historic performance.
But he didn't have a bad season. Particularly in the 2nd half with Tanev.

[Northendzone]

i am somewaht surprised that the flames made what i think is the right decision with respect to gio. it will be interesting to see how much or if they have to p;ay anythign to seattle to keep him in calgary.

if it is a 7th round draft pick fine, but if it is a pair of seconds, then i think the flames would be making another long term mistake

[Toonage]

Its a 1st and a 3rd.

This isn't new info