[Rumour] UPD: Friedman: Flames discussing 1st, pick, and prospect for Hamonic

[SportsJunky]

I'd prefer they go a different route. I like Hamonic but trading 1sts is a risk I don't want Calgary to take right now.

[Roof-Daddy]

I wonder if it's a D or forward prospect..

[Moneyhands23]

Originally Posted by dammage79

No, he isn't when there's literally 4 or 5 d men they can have for free. This is getting dumb.

No doubt. Signing Stone or Kulikov and keeping our 1st and likely 2nd next year not to mention a prospect is way better for the long term.

[AC]

Hamonic is the type of #4 this team needs. He'd be a huge part of this team going forward with Brodie and Dougie long term.

The other D options are good, but in a Michael Stone alternative role.

[SportsJunky]

My issue with going the UFA route is that they will surely have to overpay to get the one or two Dmen that are needed. Stone, Kulikov, Del Zotto...they are going to get contracts that aren't going to look good on the books at some point.

[Atodaso]

I don't mind if the Flames are trading 1sts, I'm just not sure to do it for guys like Hamonic is the way to go. I'm actually more concerned at who the prospect would be.

[keenan87]

If we can get Hamonic ans dump Brouwer, it will be a successful day. I want someone other than Brouwer.. I am looking at you Neal

[dammage79]

You don't stop drafting for a #4 -5 d man with a reasonable cap hit. He's just not good enough to warrant anything similar to Hamilton.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Atodaso

I'm actually more concerned at who the prospect would be.

probably depends on the other pick in the deal. If it's a pick in the first three rounds then I doubt it'll be a good prospect. If it's a later pick I wouldn't be surprised if it was someone like Shinkaruk or Kylington.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

My issue with going the UFA route is that they will surely have to overpay to get the one or two Dmen that are needed. Stone, Kulikov, Del Zotto...they are going to get contracts that aren't going to look good on the books at some point.

I think the Flames are shorter in draft picks than they are in cap space.
Brouwer has the only bad contract on the team (Stajan's only has 1 year left).

Plus, did you see the picture of Michael Stone's twins? He's pretty likely to sign for a reasonable price.

[Toonage]

If the Islanders are losing a top D they will likely want a D prospect back

[Atodaso]

Originally Posted by devo22

probably depends on the other pick in the deal. If it's a pick in the first three rounds then I doubt it'll be a good prospect. If it's a later pick I wouldn't be surprised if it was someone like Shinkaruk or Kylington.

I could live with Shinkurak, Klimchuk, and maybe even Poirier. I really dont want to see names like Kylington, Andersson, Fox, Mangiapane, Jankowski, Dube, etc.

[Vinny01]

Hamonic >> Stone

Flames window is opening they don't have a lot of tradeable assets off their roster so this is the route they should be exploring

[Table 5]

I'm ok with trading a 1st for Hamonic, but I would've been much more comfortable with it being the 2017 pick.

[devo22]

I understand those who don't want to give out picks like candy, but I believe the Flames are in a position where they can go that route for a year or two. They have a young core and drafted quite well recently, so the prospect cupboard is decently stocked. Hamonic fills a major need and gives the Flames a fantastic top 4 on the blueline. Young enough, decent contract, right-handed shot, plays a physical game. He's exactly what they need.

[Vinny01]

Double
Post

[locsofblu]

Please don'the be true. Stone is a perfectly good number 4 that we don'the need to give up anything assets for? We should be thinking of a top 3rd winger.

[bax]

I hope we land him

[Roof-Daddy]

I wonder if Tre is pursuing Hamonic as a replacement for Stone, or if he's pursuing him in addition to Stone?

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I wonder if Tre is pursuing Hamonic as a replacement for Stone, or if he's pursuing him in addition to Stone?

I honestly think its in addition to.