2016/2017 Trade Speculation and Rumors - Page 195 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

868904 · 05-12-2017, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComixZone

With Anaheim's 1st round pick now belonging to Dallas...does that not seem like the perfect asset to send to New Jersey for Kovalchuk's rights?

I'm not going to be surprised if Dallas ends up winning the West next year. They've got a lot of fire power, solid goaltending, and assets to spend to this summer to address their defense and some depth upfront.

It could also blow up. You have a defense first coach and the best player tends to march to his own beat.

Something is very wrong with that dressing room. Lindy Ruff is a good coach. It'll be very interesting to see how Hitch does.

spennywalks · 05-12-2017, 10:58 AM

nevermind read his stat line incorrectly looks like saros is exempt

Love · 05-12-2017, 04:28 PM

I don't have a problem with trading for Fleury, but I am vehemently against trading our first for a goalie.

jayswin · 05-12-2017, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Love

I don't have a problem with trading for Fleury, but I am vehemently against trading our first for a goalie.

You wouldn't trade our first for Murray if that was available? I think most people in the hockey world, including Treliving would do that without even blinking. That would be a landslide win for organization.

Love · 05-12-2017, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayswin

You wouldn't trade our first for Murray if that was available? I think most people in the hockey world, including Treliving would do that without even blinking. That would be a landslide win for organization.

Murray's not getting traded, but obviously for him there would be an exception. I was talking about for the Grubauer's, Pickard's, Fleury's etc

savemedrzaius · 05-12-2017, 05:14 PM

For any half-decent goalie you get in a trade you are going to have to trade your first.

It's a bad draft so a mid-pick this draft is similar to a late-pick last draft.
Leafs traded a 1st and a 2nd for Andersen.

You guys keep thinking you can trade for a good goalie with peanuts.

AC · 05-12-2017, 05:16 PM

I figure trading for Fleury or Murray would cost #16 + Gillies with a pick coming back as well, or something along those lines.

Royle9 · 05-12-2017, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC

I figure trading for Fleury or Murray would cost #16 + Gillies with a pick coming back as well, or something along those lines.

There's no way, they cant protect both so the price wont be that high.

AC · 05-12-2017, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royle9

There's no way, they cant protect both so the price wont be that high.

While true, it's not like we're the only team in the mix looking for a goalie.

I think Pittsburgh will have many teams calling about acquiring one of their goalies, so I'm not sure the cost will be insignificant.

To be clear, the pick coming back I had in mind was a 2nd or 3rd to compensate not having either and losing our 1st in the scenario.

So #16 + Gillies for Fleury/Murray and #61/#62.
Edit: Of course PIT doesn't have a 2nd, so make it #92/#93 I guess.

Vinny01 · 05-12-2017, 05:31 PM

How many teams can take on Fleury prior to expansion? Calgary, and Phillyn(unless they like Neuvirth). That is pretty much it as everyone else has a goalie they already want to protect. I suppose a team could swap the goalie they want to protect for Fleury but who?

AC · 05-12-2017, 05:39 PM

Good point. There are several teams that would probably like to add Fleury, but they don't want to risk losing their backup. Such as Markstrom in VAN.

ComixZone · 05-12-2017, 05:44 PM

It certainly sounds like Fleury is Vegas bound, so I don't even think he's on the table at this stage. (there's too many "insiders" making mention of it - and it makes a lot of sense, so when there's smoke...)

Love · 05-12-2017, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royle9

There's no way, they cant protect both so the price wont be that high.

Exactly. These teams have their backs against the wall. There is zero chance they can demand a first round pick.

Love · 05-12-2017, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

For any half-decent goalie you get in a trade you are going to have to trade your first.

It's a bad draft so a mid-pick this draft is similar to a late-pick last draft.
Leafs traded a 1st and a 2nd for Andersen.

You guys keep thinking you can trade for a good goalie with peanuts.

The mid round picks have comparable value. It's a bad draft for the top 3, that's about it.

Also, I didn't know that there was an impending expansion draft the year Andersen got traded in which he was going to be exposed - and thus forced to be traded to not lose a free asset.

Oil Stain · 05-12-2017, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royle9

There's no way, they cant protect both so the price wont be that high.

If they trade away a goalie for peanuts they also lose a roster player to expansion.

So then they are losing two players for basically nothing.

I would think they won't trade a goalie unless someone really makes it worth it.

Losing a goalie in expansion hurts less than a player IMO.

N-E-B · 05-12-2017, 06:15 PM

I'm slowly coming to terms with the fact that Elliott will likely be back next year. I jut don't see any other realistic upgrades on him at this point. If they can't land one of the Penguins goalies then Elliott might be the best option available.

Love · 05-12-2017, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I'm slowly coming to terms with the fact that Elliott will likely be back next year. I jut don't see any other realistic upgrades on him at this point. If they can't land one of the Penguins goalies then Elliott might be the best option available.

Fleury, Raanta, Grubauer, Pickard etc

I'm sure BT and his staff have been watching loads of film on all

savemedrzaius · 05-12-2017, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

If they trade away a goalie for peanuts they also lose a roster player to expansion.

So then they are losing two players for basically nothing.

I would think they won't trade a goalie unless someone really makes it worth it.

Losing a goalie in expansion hurts less than a player IMO.

Especially a goalie they really don't need.

I agree with you. If a team really wants to get Fleury they will have to give something back as good as the roster player the Pens will have to expose in the draft to replace Fleury.

savemedrzaius · 05-12-2017, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Love

Fleury, Raanta, Grubauer, Pickard etc

I'm sure BT and his staff have been watching loads of film on all

Aren't these guys all pretty unproven? You want to sign them as your new starter?

I don't think Pickard will be available. Avs would expose Varlamov.

PepsiFree · 05-12-2017, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

Aren't these guys all pretty unproven? You want to sign them as your new starter?

I don't think Pickard will be available. Avs would expose Varlamov.

Sakic has already said Varlamov will be protected