[Rumour] UPD: Flames are done for the day. Zucker deal does not go through

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

IMO i don't think Neal or Frolik were involved at all. Nobody is taking Neal right now. Frolik is the kind of jack of all trades player you need for playoff hockey. Also he seems to fit with Backlund the best.


Also if Tre was upset deal didn't go through i trust that this deal would have been good for the flames no matter who was involved.

Agreed
I think it was Kylington/Dube + 1st
Given the team acquired another dman earlier in the day my guess is Kylington+1st.

To me that would fit Boomer's tweet as I think the inclusion of Kylington significantly ups the price being paid
And frankly I would have viewed that deal as being fair and I probably would have been happy with it - as I think Zucker would have been a good fit
But I also don't mind that Kylington and the 1st are still in BT's pocket.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I can't think of a scenario where the flames were adding 5 million with term without sending at least that much money back.

How much salary would the Flames have had to shed to acquire Zucker? If I remember correctly they were in a position to add a $4.0 m cap hit without any subtractions, no?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I can't think of a scenario where the flames were adding 5 million with term without sending at least that much money back.

Actually they could fit him this year, but the summer would be more messy.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Actually they could fit him this year, but the summer would be more messy.

Yup and you deal with that then. It is a solvable enough problem in the summer that it would not have stood in the way of making the deal now.

[Flash Walken]

Zucker doesn't seem near enough value to be talking either a 1st or a kylington, especially coming off the season he's having. Sure, one season removed from 30, but still, long contract.

I like where this speculation is going though, I'd like to figure this out as well.

[Nelson]

I just really want to know what the deal was. If Treliving was white hot, then I imagine it wasn't a deal he was ho hum about. He must've thought it was a good deal for the team.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Agreed
I think it was Kylington/Dube + 1st
Given the team acquired another dman earlier in the day my guess is Kylington+1st.

To me that would fit Boomer's tweet as I think the inclusion of Kylington significantly ups the price being paid
And frankly I would have viewed that deal as being fair and I probably would have been happy with it - as I think Zucker would have been a good fit
But I also don't mind that Kylington and the 1st are still in BT's pocket.

I'm also glad they have the first and Kylington in the pocket. Something tells me that they might need those assets in summer to fill our goalie situation.

That said , if deal went through losing that first is no big deal. Flames should be getting to second round and maybe farther. That ends up being a pretty late first in a not so good draft class.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

How much salary would the Flames have had to shed to acquire Zucker? If I remember correctly they were in a position to add a $4.0 m cap hit without any subtractions, no?

Originally Posted by Bingo

Actually they could fit him this year, but the summer would be more messy.

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Yup and you deal with that then. It is a solvable enough problem in the summer that it would not have stood in the way of making the deal now.

It just doesn't make sense based on the player coming back. It's not like Zucker is on some huge tear or looking like he's significantly outplaying his contract value etc.

I see him as being incentive to replace Neal while giving you a better player with slightly better cap hit.

a 1st and kylington gets into the stratosphere of assets that i'm not sure the wild have or would see the need to move.

IMO, you move a 1st with neal to get rid of the contract entirely to do another move that sees you bring in salary, you don't move a 1st + neal to take back 20 million in salary liability for a guy on pace for ~35 points.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Zucker is just one year removed from a 30 goal season
And again Boom said it was significantly more than Frolik+1st. I don't think Neal+1st is that.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It just doesn't make sense based on the player coming back. It's not like Zucker is on some huge tear or looking like he's significantly outplaying his contract value etc.

I see him as being incentive to replace Neal while giving you a better player with slightly better cap hit.

a 1st and kylington gets into the stratosphere of assets that i'm not sure the wild have or would see the need to move.

IMO, you move a 1st with neal to get rid of the contract entirely to do another move that sees you bring in salary, you don't move a 1st + neal to take back 20 million in salary liability for a guy on pace for ~35 points.

I'm not convinced a team would take on Neal right now for a late 1st. He really needs to show something when he comes back, or next year, otherwise he is in buyout territory.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Zucker is just one year removed from a 30 goal season
And again Boom said it was significantly more than Frolik+1st. I don't think Neal+1st is that.

I mean, I don't think Zucker is that good. He might be a fit, but I don't think he's a jewel in a crown type acquisition. Agree about being removed from a 30 goal season, but again, huge salary liability for a guy looking to clear 30 POINTS this year. He was shooting 15% last year, maybe he does that in Calgary, but that's a tough sell for me.

I would definitely deal Zucker for Neal straight up, or Zucker for Neal and something relatively significant, but I agree, Frolik + 1st or + Kylington or both...I just don't see how Zucker specifically is the target or anything more than making salaries work for the more significant assets changing hands.

Brodie for Brodin? Save a little cap, add an extra year to Brodie's deal?

It would have to be something like that in my mind to justify kylington/1st talk that we seem to be zeroing in on here.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I'm also glad they have the first and Kylington in the pocket. Something tells me that they might need those assets in summer to fill our goalie situation.

That said , if deal went through losing that first is no big deal. Flames should be getting to second round and maybe farther. That ends up being a pretty late first in a not so good draft class.

Big Save Dave is going to make a lot of people eat their words.

[Phagoof]

Honestly, I'd rather have it that we get rid of Frolik, Stone, And Brodie.

We go into next year with a D of

Giordano-Andersson
Hanifin-Hamonic
Valimaki-Kylington

Stone and Frolik for a 3rds/4ths

Sign Talbot and Rittich

Get a line driving center to play with Neal(I just don't see how he's moveable unless your giving up a huge assett, give him another shot) and Tkachuk, (Brodie+Janko for Kadri)

Bring back Ferland for 4-4.5

Gaudreau-Monahan-Lindholm
Tkachuk-Kadri-Neal
Bennett-Backlund-Ferland
Dube/Mangiapane-Ryan-Czarnik

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by icecube

Big Save Dave is going to make a lot of people eat their words.

I hope so, but as of now Smith is the starter.

[CanadaMatt]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Yup and you deal with that then. It is a solvable enough problem in the summer that it would not have stood in the way of making the deal now.

Does Frolik have a NTC?

[Ashasx]

According to CapFriendly, Frolik "submits a 10 team no trade list". https://www.capfriendly.com/players/michael-frolik

There's no way Treliving would have been negotiating down to the wire without having already obtained this list from Frolik. This isn't the player quashing the deal.

[Geeoff]

Now that I think about it, I bet Frolik's agent would have submitted a list back when he was complaining about Frolik's ice time. I don't think this was the hold up.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Zucker is just one year removed from a 30 goal season
And again Boom said it was significantly more than Frolik+1st. I don't think Neal+1st is that.

Yeah, I tend to agree, but I also don't think that comparatively speaking Kylington+1st is in line value wise with other trades over the past week. Is the term attached to Zucker worth more than Kevin Hayes?

I am guessing this is not a trade that I would have loved.

[Love]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yeah, I tend to agree, but I also don't think that comparatively speaking Kylington+1st is in line value wise with other trades over the past week. Is the term attached to Zucker worth more than Kevin Hayes?

I am guessing this is not a trade that I would have loved.

Idk the idea of Tre being "white hot" sounds like he was absolutely infatuated with the deal and his trading track record is valid enough for me to trust in his judgement calls at this point

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

That 2005 season could be very analogous.



Lost a 1st round heartbreaker when they couldn't score enough goals. They were the class of the league defensively, but didn't have enough finish up front.



The Flames and Ducks both scored 17 goals in the series. Iggy scored 8 points in 7 games, 5 goals!, but it wasn't enough. Yelle, McCarty, Amonte and Kobasew couldn't get it done.



That year the ducks added Friesen and Sean O'Donnell at the deadline. They combined for 3 goals in the series.



The Flames can definitely score goals this year, they are probably as close to the opposite team formulation as that 06 group. The question for me is, can they score ENOUGH goals. Kipper lost that series with a .923 sv%. Would an .896 sv% be enough to sink this roster in the first round? Scary thought.

God bringing up awful memories, that series loss was brutal for my 10 year old self.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk