Nashville, Vegas, San Jose and Winnipeg all get better today. And Calgary improved Stockton's defense?
Those teams had to. Calgary is ahead of all of them in the standings. They are currently second in the NHL. I wonder if the Lightning fans are angry they didn't make a significant trade.
__________________
My thanks equals mod team endorsement of your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Jesus this site these days
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
He just seemed like a very nice person. I loved Squiggy.
This is an excellent addition for Nashville. On top of being a good two-way player Granlund has been a top 10 RW in points for the last three years.
I think this trade is going under the radar a bit but could have a big impact on the Preds overall play and especially PP. No idea why Minnesota did this.
Those teams had to. Calgary is ahead of all of them in the standings. They are currently second in the NHL. I wonder if the Lightning fans are angry they didn't make a significant trade.
Exactly, I dont think Lightning fans are angry about anything right now. Team is stacked and rolling. Flames are sitting good too.
Last edited by Samonadreau; 02-26-2019 at 08:24 AM.
Of all the deadline trades, this one is the most baffling. What the hell was Minny thinking?
And Nashville acquiring a player of Granlund's skillset, that really elevates their roster. They are the favorite from the Central now, IMO. Until yesterday, I would have said a tossup between them and WPG, or put the Jets slightly ahead. Not now.
Exactly, I dont think Lightning fans are angry about anything right now. Team is stacked and rolling. Flames are sitting good too.
The difference is that the Lightning are clearly far and away the class of the league. If they lose in the playoffs, then the better team lost. There is no one you could even come close to saying has the advantage in a playoff series against them right now.
You can't clearly say that about the Flames if the Flames play the Sharks, Knights, Predators or Jets. There's a reasonable debate about which of those teams should be favoured in a series. In that circumstance, where you've got that many teams that close to each other in terms of overall quality, you do want to try to get better.
I don't agree with the "this wasn't the year to go for it" talk. This is the best a Flames team has looked in... well, you could argue 30 years, but at least a decade and a half. If now's not the time to go for it, when? And don't give me "next year", because the stars only align for so long sometimes, and there's absolutely no guarantee next year will be nearly as good. The Rangers won the president's trophy in 2016; the next year they were 9th. In 2016, Dallas was 2nd in the NHL; the next year they were 24th. In 2017 Chicago was first in the west; last year they were third worst. Last year MIN and ANA were 8-9 in the league; this year they're 18th and 28th.
I'm not saying that the Flames are those teams or will experience a precipitous decline (although Dallas should perhaps be a bit of a cautionary tale), but they're 2nd in the NHL right now. They're outstanding. There's no guarantee they'll still be that level of contender from year to year even if they're still a good team. Hard to position yourself much better than best in the conference... Take your swing when you're at your peak, is my view.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The difference is that the Lightning are clearly far and away the class of the league. If they lose in the playoffs, then the better team lost. There is no one you could even come close to saying has the advantage in a playoff series against them right now.
You can't clearly say that about the Flames if the Flames play the Sharks, Knights, Predators or Jets. There's a reasonable debate about which of those teams should be favoured in a series. In that circumstance, where you've got that many teams that close to each other in terms of overall quality, you do want to try to get better.
I don't agree with the "this wasn't the year to go for it" talk. This is the best a Flames team has looked in... well, you could argue 30 years, but at least a decade and a half. If now's not the time to go for it, when? And don't give me "next year", because the stars only align for so long sometimes, and there's absolutely no guarantee next year will be nearly as good. The Rangers won the president's trophy in 2016; the next year they were 9th. In 2016, Dallas was 2nd in the NHL; the next year they were 24th. In 2017 Chicago was first in the west; last year they were third worst. Last year MIN and ANA were 8-9 in the league; this year they're 18th and 28th.
I'm not saying that the Flames are those teams or will experience a precipitous decline (although Dallas should perhaps be a bit of a cautionary tale), but they're 2nd in the NHL right now. They're outstanding. There's no guarantee they'll still be that level of contender from year to year even if they're still a good team. Hard to position yourself much better than best in the conference... Take your swing when you're at your peak, is my view.
I think they should give this group a chance. What if they go all in on Stone and the Goaltending lays an egg? This postseason will answer a lot of questions and will help Tre determine what to do next season.
I think you give this group the best chance by bolstering the depth, at least. Kevin Hayes would have been a good addition; so would Simmonds or Zuccarello or Johansson, all of whom were traded for a reasonable price. Even Nyquist would have been fine. Fantenburg is at best injury relief.
I get the counter-argument, I just think Treliving should have been a bit more willing to give up a few futures to give some more support to the best chance at a cup this team has had in many, many years.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I think you give this group the best chance by bolstering the depth, at least. Kevin Hayes would have been a good addition; so would Simmonds or Zuccarello or Johansson, all of whom were traded for a reasonable price. Even Nyquist would have been fine. Fantenburg is at best injury relief.
I get the counter-argument, I just think Treliving should have been a bit more willing to give up a few futures to give some more support to the best chance at a cup this team has had in many, many years.
It doesn't really matter if the prices were reasonable or not - the Flames didn't have the necessary chips to offer.
2nd round picks are big time currency. And it seems like teams wanted 2019 picks.
So we can all agree the prices were reasonable, but the Flames still had to
- Beat those prices (or meet them)
- In some cases convince the player to come here
Who did the Flames have that was the equivalent of Ryan Hartman or Kevin Fiala?
Last edited by Jiri Hrdina; 02-26-2019 at 09:29 AM.
If Treliving wasn't creative enough to structure similar-value offers with what the Flames have on hand, he wouldn't be in his job. I really hate how the NHL has fostered this culture where everyone thinks it's really hard to structure a trade.
Saying a guy like Stone would screw up the whole cap structure I kind of get (although even there, you will always have options to make it work - see the Leafs). But saying a team couldn't have made a similar offer because they didn't have the same trade chips their competitors have is just nonsense, to me.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I think you give this group the best chance by bolstering the depth, at least. Kevin Hayes would have been a good addition; so would Simmonds or Zuccarello or Johansson, all of whom were traded for a reasonable price. Even Nyquist would have been fine. Fantenburg is at best injury relief.
I get the counter-argument, I just think Treliving should have been a bit more willing to give up a few futures to give some more support to the best chance at a cup this team has had in many, many years.
I think Treliving is probably gun shy to use the pick on a rental since he's had success using those picks to get young impact players at the draft.
Would we rather our GM use the 1st round pick on a rental like Kevin Hayes who may not re-sign, or see what this team does in the playoffs, assess what we need to add, and then move it at the draft for a 23 year old like when we moved for Hamilton.
Think that's part of the hesitation on his part. They can hold a lot more value on draft day when more teams are looking at shaking things up.
If Treliving wasn't creative enough to structure similar-value offers with what the Flames have on hand, he wouldn't be in his job. I really hate how the NHL has fostered this culture where everyone thinks it's really hard to structure a trade.
Saying a guy like Stone would screw up the whole cap structure I kind of get (although even there, you will always have options to make it work - see the Leafs). But saying a team couldn't have made a similar offer because they didn't have the same trade chips their competitors have is just nonsense, to me.
Why is it nonsense? Just because you say it?
Tell me
What could the Flames offer to meet or beat
- 2019 2nd
- Ryan Hartman
- Kevin Fiala
What, in your view, are "similar value offers".
The Following User Says Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
It doesn't really matter if the prices were reasonable or not - the Flames didn't have the necessary chips to offer.
2nd round picks are big time currency. And it seems like teams wanted 2019 picks.
So we can all agree the prices were reasonable, but the Flames still had to
- Beat those prices (or meet them)
- In some cases convince the player to come here
Exactly. In a lot of cases we would have had to beat them. If two teams are offering the same package (with picks involved) then the team that is lower in the standings would be more appealing.
Also sounds like Simmonds wouldnt waive to come here.
The difference is that the Lightning are clearly far and away the class of the league. If they lose in the playoffs, then the better team lost. There is no one you could even come close to saying has the advantage in a playoff series against them right now.
I don't agree with the "this wasn't the year to go for it" talk. This is the best a Flames team has looked in... well, you could argue 30 years, but at least a decade and a half. If now's not the time to go for it, when? And don't give me "next year", because the stars only align for so long sometimes, and there's absolutely no guarantee next year will be nearly as good. The Rangers won the president's trophy in 2016; the next year they were 9th. In 2016, Dallas was 2nd in the NHL; the next year they were 24th. In 2017 Chicago was first in the west; last year they were third worst. Last year MIN and ANA were 8-9 in the league; this year they're 18th and 28th.
Take your swing when you're at your peak, is my view.
I think people using Tampa as a reason for not making trade deadline moves are using it for the wrong reason. As you said, Tampa is clearly by far the best team and Calgary is in a dog fight for top spot. Tampa knows what type of team they have because of sustained success over time while Calgary does not have sustained success.
You're right there is no guarantee that Calgary will be good next year this is the EXACT reason why they shouldn't have mortgaged their future assets on this trade deadline. Our goal tending with Rittich looks promising but that could easily bottom out given how unpredictable goalies are, we've had what I would call an unsustainable amount of third period comebacks, multiple players having career years and we simply don't know how this group will perform in the playoffs. To me it makes WAY more sense to see what we have with this group and to save those assets for the off season where we will have better information on how this group performs in playoff pressure and perhaps even trade for a goalie if we need to.
I don't understand the urgency to mortgage the future when the team is just starting to show some real promise. Let's have a year or two of sustained success before trying to go all in like Columbus (which makes sense given their team's development curve).
I think you give this group the best chance by bolstering the depth, at least. Kevin Hayes would have been a good addition; so would Simmonds or Zuccarello or Johansson, all of whom were traded for a reasonable price. Even Nyquist would have been fine. Fantenburg is at best injury relief.
I get the counter-argument, I just think Treliving should have been a bit more willing to give up a few futures to give some more support to the best chance at a cup this team has had in many, many years.
Simmonds as older rental depth was traded for Hartman, who is younger, cost controlled depth. Hayes is top six, not really depth, and a rental who seems to want to play in the US. Zuccarello hasn't really worked out well, and who knows when he's back.
Johansson as a rental doesn't really attract me. He's put up points, but some have come with his placement up the lineup due to injury. He won't get those points here.
On the overall point though, I don't think (and I suspect Treliving thinks the same way) that this is Calgary's one and only shot. All the teams that made bigger moves have windows that are closing rapidly. That's not the case here.
If Treliving wasn't creative enough to structure similar-value offers with what the Flames have on hand, he wouldn't be in his job. I really hate how the NHL has fostered this culture where everyone thinks it's really hard to structure a trade.
Saying a guy like Stone would screw up the whole cap structure I kind of get (although even there, you will always have options to make it work - see the Leafs). But saying a team couldn't have made a similar offer because they didn't have the same trade chips their competitors have is just nonsense, to me.
Lol, this is arm-chair GMing at its finest. Sens were in the conference finals 2 years ago, losing in game 7 in double OT and now they are hot garbage because their GM is an idiot.
Why is it nonsense? Just because you say it?
Tell me
What could the Flames offer to meet or beat
- 2019 2nd
- Ryan Hartman
- Kevin Fiala
What, in your view, are "similar value offers".
To Fiala? Bennett is probably close. Less productive / less skill but more useful in a third line role.
To Hartman and a Nashville 4th? Maybe Mangiapane and a first, and Philly adds a 3rd? Might not even need Mangiapane there, honestly. Or you make Dube part of a deal that requires Philly to add something else.
But my valuation of various players isn't the point. The point is that you don't need a second round pick to compete with these offers. There are other things you can put together, particularly when later picks can be flipped for earlier ones to adjust the value as the parties see fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Simmonds as older rental depth was traded for Hartman, who is younger, cost controlled depth. Hayes is top six, not really depth, and a rental who seems to want to play in the US. Zuccarello hasn't really worked out well, and who knows when he's back.
Okay, well, in my view you're underrating some useful forwards there. It's particularly unfair to say "Zuccarello hasn't worked out" when he got hurt in his first game.
I just imagine the Flames in a series against the Knights or whoever, it's double overtime, can I see Wayne Simmonds or Mats Zuccarello scoring the game winner? Yeah, I really can.
Quote:
On the overall point though, I don't think (and I suspect Treliving thinks the same way) that this is Calgary's one and only shot. All the teams that made bigger moves have windows that are closing rapidly. That's not the case here.
I don't think it's their only shot, either, but it might be their best shot. There's a decent chance that it is, because this is a really good team. And I disagree about windows closing - that's not the case for Vegas, Winnipeg or Nashville. You could certainly argue it is for the Sharks, but we've been saying that for about ten years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay
Lol, this is arm-chair GMing at its finest. Sens were in the conference finals 2 years ago, losing in game 7 in double OT and now they are hot garbage because their GM is an idiot.
I'm going to go ahead and say that that one is the owner's fault... Dorion's trades recently haven't actually been terrible considering the position he's in, which is basically a fire sale. Not that he shouldn't be fired because of the whole Duchene disaster - especially given the optics if Colorado drafts Hughes - but it's really not all his fault (or even mostly his fault).
Anyway, I don't know what you're suggesting here. That if Treliving makes trades to bolster the roster, the Flames will turn into Ottawa? There are a lot of stops on the Awful Train between where the Flames are and where Ottawa is. I'm pretty confident that Treliving can avoid that outcome.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 02-26-2019 at 11:37 AM.
If Treliving wasn't creative enough to structure similar-value offers with what the Flames have on hand, he wouldn't be in his job. I really hate how the NHL has fostered this culture where everyone thinks it's really hard to structure a trade.
Saying a guy like Stone would screw up the whole cap structure I kind of get (although even there, you will always have options to make it work - see the Leafs). But saying a team couldn't have made a similar offer because they didn't have the same trade chips their competitors have is just nonsense, to me.
The Leafs haven't made it work yet. They have a lot of work to do in the offseason. If the salary cap gets to $83 million they have only $16 million left to sign five RFA's and replace two UFA's and they could easily burn through most of that on just Marner and Kapanen. They are pretty well up against the wall long term.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
