2022/2023 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Toonage

In the end, the Oilers series, it kind of was.

If losing a top-4 defenceman is a catastrophe, you’re blue-line isn’t that great to begin with.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Last year had Zadorov and Gudbranson on the bottom which is fine. One injury messed it up. Kylington is not a real top 4 defence - he just had Tanev to lean on.

I’m not as big on Stone as some. The big shot is highly overrated and he just isn’t very good otherwise. And Mackey is completely untried.

And you aren’t getting an elite RW - that’s the point. You aren’t getting Kucherov for Hanifin. You are getting Anderson and losing the trade. The pickings of available guys are so slim.

I’d try to move Kylington plus for a 2RW as opposed to Hanifin.

Stone isn't very good, and his shot is heavy and hard but very inaccurate he just blasts away.

A top 6 winger is going to get you what 40-50 points? The same amount as Hanifin.

[bax]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If losing a top-4 defenceman is a catastrophe, you’re blue-line isn’t that great to begin with.

I don’t think it was a catastrophe, but I do think replacing Gudbranson with Weegar makes life a lot easier on everyone in those situations.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If losing a top-4 defenceman is a catastrophe, you’re blue-line isn’t that great to begin with.

Well I think the issue is that Tanev makes his partner so much better/more stable.
So when you lose Tanev you blow up an entire pair.

Which I agree isn't awesome, and is hopefully addressed by adding Weegar.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Well I think the issue is that Tanev makes his partner so much better/more stable.
So when you lose Tanev you blow up an entire pair.

Which I agree isn't awesome, and is hopefully addressed by adding Weegar.

Right, last series they (a) lost Tanev and (b) Kylington regressed to his previous level. Also team D sucked but that's another story.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by bax

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here. So just to clarify the timeline of events is:

1. Flames lose a top 4 D in the playoffs resulting in every defenseman having to shoulder some more responsibility and the result isn’t great.

2. Treliving publicly states (in addition to all the Gaudreau and Tkachuk drama) that improving the defense is a top priority this off season.

3. Treliving effectively replaces a bottom pairing defenseman (Gudbranson) with a top pairing defenseman (Weegar) improving not only the top end of our defense, but also the bottom end (by pushing players down the rotation and adding depth in Meloche and Gilbert).

4. Now some fans are advocating for trading away a top 4 cog on defense (essentially erasing the improvement Treliving made to the D) in order for help at forward? Even though he replaced Tkachuk and Gaudreau with Huberdeau and Kadri?

Not only do I disagree with that direction, I just don’t think it’s realistic at all based on what Treliving has said.

I’m baffled that some posters would be okay with either Michael Stone or Connor Mackey pencilled in to play a full season.

In a year when the team has Stanley Cup aspirations Treliving and Sutter aren’t going to rely on a 32 year old slow defenseman who hasn’t been a regular player in 4 seasons or a 26 year old NHL rookie to play a permanent role, it just won’t happen.

If anything Kylington needs to be bumped down the rotation and thrive in a more sheltered role. That way the defense is unquestionably better and better suited to adapt in case of injury.

With that being said I also acknowledge that another top 6 winger would be nice to have, but I haven’t seen one realistic name that would be A) actually available and B) worth giving up any of our defenseman.

I think if Milano impresses at camp the Flames will be happy to give him a shot in the top 6 or potentially make an add near the deadline when they don’t need to trade a core piece to do it.

Well there are two schools of thought from those of us that are advocating trading a D for forward help.

The first is that some the D that are currently destined for the 3rd pairing have more to give. A lot of our D are relatively young, and Kylington in particular looks like he can take another step. Playing on the 3rd pairing might limit that development. The same can be argued for Mackey who in my opinion was one of the better D in the AHL last year. That way we still end up with an upgraded D even if we move a one of our top 4 D-man.

The second is more about dealing one of Kylington/Zadorov. It seems the D would still be improved because of the really strong top 4, and still have one D that can step into the top 4 in case of one injury. The bottom line is that we have 10 D under contract, I would argue that 8/9 of them would not look out of place on the bottom pairing. For example I don't think that replacing Zadorov with Mackey will cost us any points in the standings.

Personally I'm very cautious about trading someone like Hanifin, but I could see the return for him being similar to what we got in the Hamilton deal. Most of the posters are still on the high from the Tkachuk trade, and think that we can get a star in the making for Hanifin. That said, I actually think that he was the one carrying that pairing with Andersson, and he can become a #1D as soon as this season, but Andersson is on the better(and longer) contract.

At the end of the day, I don't think we're going to trade any of our D until the next Summer. That's when the coaching staff and management will decide which 3D they prefer to keep out of Hanifin, Kylington, Zadorov, and Tanev. One of them will be dealt, my money is on Z.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Well there are two schools of thought from those of us that are advocating trading a D for forward help.

The first is that some the D that are currently destined for the 3rd pairing have more to give. A lot of our D are relatively young, and Kylington in particular looks like he can take another step. Playing on the 3rd pairing might limit that development. The same can be argued for Mackey who in my opinion was one of the better D in the AHL last year. That way we still end up with an upgraded D even if we move a one of our top 4 D-man.

The second is more about dealing one of Kylington/Zadorov. It seems the D would still be improved because of the really strong top 4, and still have one D that can step into the top 4 in case of one injury. The bottom line is that we have 10 D under contract, I would argue that 8/9 of them would not look out of place on the bottom pairing. For example I don't think that replacing Zadorov with Mackey will cost us any points in the standings.

Personally I'm very cautious about trading someone like Hanifin, but I could see the return for him being similar to what we got in the Hamilton deal. Most of the posters are still on the high from the Tkachuk trade, and think that we can get a star in the making for Hanifin. That said, I actually think that he was the one carrying that pairing with Andersson, and he can become a #1D as soon as this season, but Andersson is on the better(and longer) contract.

At the end of the day, I don't think we're going to trade any of our D until the next Summer. That's when the coaching staff and management will decide which 3D they prefer to keep out of Hanifin, Kylington, Zadorov, and Tanev. One of them will be dealt, my money is on Z.

The packages I can think of for a Hanifin trade just make the Tkachuk trade seem even more impressive for Treliving.

I think the Hamilton trade was a similar steal now that mull it over, especially considering where the pieces are now.

[bax]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Well there are two schools of thought from those of us that are advocating trading a D for forward help.

The first is that some the D that are currently destined for the 3rd pairing have more to give. A lot of our D are relatively young, and Kylington in particular looks like he can take another step. Playing on the 3rd pairing might limit that development. The same can be argued for Mackey who in my opinion was one of the better D in the AHL last year. That way we still end up with an upgraded D even if we move a one of our top 4 D-man.

The second is more about dealing one of Kylington/Zadorov. It seems the D would still be improved because of the really strong top 4, and still have one D that can step into the top 4 in case of one injury. The bottom line is that we have 10 D under contract, I would argue that 8/9 of them would not look out of place on the bottom pairing. For example I don't think that replacing Zadorov with Mackey will cost us any points in the standings.

Personally I'm very cautious about trading someone like Hanifin, but I could see the return for him being similar to what we got in the Hamilton deal. Most of the posters are still on the high from the Tkachuk trade, and think that we can get a star in the making for Hanifin. That said, I actually think that he was the one carrying that pairing with Andersson, and he can become a #1D as soon as this season, but Andersson is on the better(and longer) contract.

At the end of the day, I don't think we're going to trade any of our D until the next Summer. That's when the coaching staff and management will decide which 3D they prefer to keep out of Hanifin, Kylington, Zadorov, and Tanev. One of them will be dealt, my money is on Z.

To counter your points:

1. Kylington was great last year, no questions asked. However, he looked lost without Tanev next to him. He might be ready to take another step, he might not be. Sutter and Treliving are trying to win a cup so why take the chance? Kylington can be great with easier matchups and lesser minutes. This isn’t a year for development, this is a year to try and win.

2. You don’t see a downgrade from Zadorov to Mackey? Zadorov is a big, good skating, physical defenseman with almost 500 games of NHL experience. Mackey is an NHL rookie who is older than half of the guys ahead of him on the depth chart and hasn’t been able to stick in the NHL. If you’re Sutter which guy are you picking?

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

The first is that some the D that are currently destined for the 3rd pairing have more to give. A lot of our D are relatively young, and Kylington in particular looks like he can take another step. Playing on the 3rd pairing might limit that development. The same can be argued for Mackey who in my opinion was one of the better D in the AHL last year. That way we still end up with an upgraded D even if we move a one of our top 4 D-man.

The one thing about Sutter's system is that he mostly runs his d-pairings at pretty even usage at 5 on 5. So 3rd pairing isn't really getting less use.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

And you aren’t getting an elite RW - that’s the point. You aren’t getting Kucherov for Hanifin. You are getting Anderson and losing the trade. The pickings of available guys are so slim.

I’d try to move Kylington plus for a 2RW as opposed to Hanifin.

If Hanifin is so good and if D is so much more valuable than RW, why aren't we getting anything for him?

And of course, if we aren't, you don't move him.

People are acting like the concept of trading Hanifin revolves around moving him for the sake of moving him. It doesn't. Hanifin is a good player, has a ton of value, and moving him would still leave us improved on the back end over last season.

If you can't get value for him, you don't move him. It doesn't have to be hard. But out of every D we have, you have the biggest opportunity to get a high value player with Hanifin. And we could do that without giving up our first or second best defenseman. That's why it is appealing. Doesn't mean you do it for just anything. I find a lot of the "Oh but you'd only get Anderson" comments totally pointless. If it's true, then you don't trade him. It's not like anyone is bound to trade a player for anything available just because someone said it was worth exploring on the internet.

I don't think you get the same value out of Kylington. Maybe a young third line type that can score 15. But the same goes for him. If you can get good value out of him that improves the team, you do it.

The only thing that has gotten worse this offseason is our offensive production potential. Makes sense to address that by reducing the amount we already improved a near-league-best team defence. Without Hanifin we're still defensively better than last year. With Hanifin we're a LOT better... and I don't think we needed that big of an improvement.

[HighLifeMan]

This narrative that Kylington only played well with Tanev is simply incorrect, in fact in the playoffs he had ridiculous analytics with Stone, and outscored the opposition 5-2 at even strength.

He really only struggled when paired with Gudbranson.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If Hanifin is so good and if D is so much more valuable than RW, why aren't we getting anything for him?

And of course, if we aren't, you don't move him.

People are acting like the concept of trading Hanifin revolves around moving him for the sake of moving him. It doesn't. Hanifin is a good player, has a ton of value, and moving him would still leave us improved on the back end over last season.

If you can't get value for him, you don't move him. It doesn't have to be hard. But out of every D we have, you have the biggest opportunity to get a high value player with Hanifin. And we could do that without giving up our first or second best defenseman. That's why it is appealing. Doesn't mean you do it for just anything. I find a lot of the "Oh but you'd only get Anderson" comments totally pointless. If it's true, then you don't trade him. It's not like anyone is bound to trade a player for anything available just because someone said it was worth exploring on the internet.

I don't think you get the same value out of Kylington. Maybe a young third line type that can score 15. But the same goes for him. If you can get good value out of him that improves the team, you do it.

The only thing that has gotten worse this offseason is our offensive production potential. Makes sense to address that by reducing the amount we already improved a near-league-best team defence. Without Hanifin we're still defensively better than last year. With Hanifin we're a LOT better... and I don't think we needed that big of an improvement.

Why don't you get more for him? First, I don't think Hanifin is elite or anything. I do think he's worth more than a second line RW. But a team with a 1st line RW won't want to create a hole to plug another one (and I actually can't think of many teams with a strong 1RW that also needs a Dman of Hanifin's calibre). You'd need a team with a second very strong RW who needs a D. and even then I don't like the hole you've just created. I just think the D depth and transition game is more important than an extra 15-20 goal man.

The closest fit I've seen is the Nylander proposal.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If Hanifin is so good and if D is so much more valuable than RW, why aren't we getting anything for him?

And of course, if we aren't, you don't move him.

People are acting like the concept of trading Hanifin revolves around moving him for the sake of moving him. It doesn't. Hanifin is a good player, has a ton of value, and moving him would still leave us improved on the back end over last season.

If you can't get value for him, you don't move him. It doesn't have to be hard. But out of every D we have, you have the biggest opportunity to get a high value player with Hanifin. And we could do that without giving up our first or second best defenseman. That's why it is appealing. Doesn't mean you do it for just anything. I find a lot of the "Oh but you'd only get Anderson" comments totally pointless. If it's true, then you don't trade him. It's not like anyone is bound to trade a player for anything available just because someone said it was worth exploring on the internet.

I don't think you get the same value out of Kylington. Maybe a young third line type that can score 15. But the same goes for him. If you can get good value out of him that improves the team, you do it.

The only thing that has gotten worse this offseason is our offensive production potential. Makes sense to address that by reducing the amount we already improved a near-league-best team defence. Without Hanifin we're still defensively better than last year. With Hanifin we're a LOT better... and I don't think we needed that big of an improvement.

Interesting. I think just as a whole league scoring is going to go down and last year was a outlier. Did anyone actually look at last years training camp roster and think that group had almost 300 goals in them?

We get a full season of Toffoli and a elevated role for Mangiapane. Even if Johnny and Matthew came back I think our scoring was going to be down. Now we have more consistent and better players to replace them, not sure how the team looks worse off now.

[SeanCharles]

The best part about this argument is last offseason all anyone could talk about is how bad Hanifin, Gaudreau and Tkachuk were that year.

Now everyone loves Hanifin again and can't fathom trading him.

Not saying Hanifin from two seasons ago is the true Hanifin and this past years one is not but its hilarious how quickly these perceptions of a player change.

As some have pointed out Hanifin is a good dman but IMO he tops out as an ideal #3 because he doesn't have elite offensive or defensive ability. He is above average in those categories but doesn't quite have the skills to reach that next level.

In contrast, I think Kylington has the skills to potentially reach a higher level offensively. I don't want to push him down the depth charts. I want to increase his role and give him a full-time spot on the PP.

Sure we could stay status quo and keep all these dmen in the fold but we have a gapping hole in the top 6 forwards group and have 5 guys who played top 4 D minutes last season. Sure it gives us depth for when injuries arise but I think we already have a number of guys who can fill and play top 6 D mins.

Meloche earned a full-time role last year and projects to be a player in the similar vein to Gudbranson.

A couple reports out there are indicating Valimaki has had an impressive offseason, both mentally and physically, and might finally be ready/mature enough to earn a full-time role.

Stone and Mackey have both proved they can handle top 6 mins, albeit over short periods.

I just think too much depth in one position can be detrimental because you are playing guys lower than their skill level would normally dictate and you can't give younger guys looks when injuries occur because you have too many bodies. Not only that too much cap is allocated to one position it leaves another barren (top 6 RW).

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by bax

To counter your points:

1. Kylington was great last year, no questions asked. However, he looked lost without Tanev next to him. He might be ready to take another step, he might not be. Sutter and Treliving are trying to win a cup so why take the chance? Kylington can be great with easier matchups and lesser minutes. This isn’t a year for development, this is a year to try and win.

2. You don’t see a downgrade from Zadorov to Mackey? Zadorov is a big, good skating, physical defenseman with almost 500 games of NHL experience. Mackey is an NHL rookie who is older than half of the guys ahead of him on the depth chart and hasn’t been able to stick in the NHL. If you’re Sutter which guy are you picking?

Yeah I get where you're coming from, but I don't see Tanev going anywhere, so I don't see why Kylington will be lost all of a sudden.

As for Zadorov yeah I don't see us getting any less points in the standings with a D that is making $3M less than him taking his place. Especially if that $3M was used to upgrade the forward position. We started last year with Z being a healthy scratch, and Valimaki - Gudbranson wasn't that much of a downgrade. As for Mackey, in my eyes, the only reason that Mackey wasn't able to make it is the Flames depth on D so far.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Why don't you get more for him? First, I don't think Hanifin is elite or anything. I do think he's worth more than a second line RW. But a team with a 1st line RW won't want to create a hole to plug another one (and I actually can't think of many teams with a strong 1RW that also needs a Dman of Hanifin's calibre). You'd need a team with a second very strong RW who needs a D. and even then I don't like the hole you've just created. I just think the D depth and transition game is more important than an extra 15-20 goal man.

The closest fit I've seen is the Nylander proposal.

Yeah I don't think Hanifin is a elite player either, its just weird thinking we can take him off the team and things just roll on. He finished 6th on our team in points last season. How much of a difference is a winger going to add? Its not about being better defensively he contributes on the offensive side as well especially in the transition game.

The only name brought up so far was Pastrnak and I don't think he is available.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

The best part about this argument is last offseason all anyone could talk about is how bad Hanifin, Gaudreau and Tkachuk were that year.

Now everyone loves Hanifin again and can't fathom trading him.

Not saying Hanifin from two seasons ago is the true Hanifin and this past years one is not but its hilarious how quickly these perceptions of a player change.

As some have pointed out Hanifin is a good dman but IMO he tops out as an ideal #3 because he doesn't have elite offensive or defensive ability. He is above average in those categories but doesn't quite have the skills to reach that next level.

In contrast, I think Kylington has the skills to potentially reach a higher level offensively. I don't want to push him down the depth charts. I want to increase his role and give him a full-time spot on the PP.

Sure we could stay status quo and keep all these dmen in the fold but we have a gapping hole in the top 6 forwards group and have 5 guys who played top 4 D minutes last season. Sure it gives us depth for when injuries arise but I think we already have a number of guys who can fill and play top 6 D mins.

Meloche earned a full-time role last year and projects to be a player in the similar vein to Gudbranson.

A couple reports out there are indicating Valimaki has had an impressive offseason, both mentally and physically, and might finally be ready/mature enough to earn a full-time role.

Stone and Mackey have both proved they can handle top 6 mins, albeit over short periods.

I just think too much depth in one position can be detrimental because you are playing guys lower than their skill level would normally dictate and you can't give younger guys looks when injuries occur because you have too many bodies. Not only that too much cap is allocated to one position it leaves another barren (top 6 RW).

Stone maybe. Mackey has played 9 games in two seasons.

I don't think the hole at RW is very gaping. Lots of teams play with two elite guys and a 3rd. Clark Gillies made the HOF doing it. TB used Killorn. Toffoli on top line could work fine. So could Mangiapane.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Pascal Dupuis was tied to Crosby's hip for a period of time they even won a cup. That's why you get top centers.

[bax]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

The best part about this argument is last offseason all anyone could talk about is how bad Hanifin, Gaudreau and Tkachuk were that year.

Now everyone loves Hanifin again and can't fathom trading him.

Not saying Hanifin from two seasons ago is the true Hanifin and this past years one is not but its hilarious how quickly these perceptions of a player change.

As some have pointed out Hanifin is a good dman but IMO he tops out as an ideal #3 because he doesn't have elite offensive or defensive ability. He is above average in those categories but doesn't quite have the skills to reach that next level.

In contrast, I think Kylington has the skills to potentially reach a higher level offensively. I don't want to push him down the depth charts. I want to increase his role and give him a full-time spot on the PP.

Sure we could stay status quo and keep all these dmen in the fold but we have a gapping hole in the top 6 forwards group and have 5 guys who played top 4 D minutes last season. Sure it gives us depth for when injuries arise but I think we already have a number of guys who can fill and play top 6 D mins.

Meloche earned a full-time role last year and projects to be a player in the similar vein to Gudbranson.

A couple reports out there are indicating Valimaki has had an impressive offseason, both mentally and physically, and might finally be ready/mature enough to earn a full-time role.

Stone and Mackey have both proved they can handle top 6 mins, albeit over short periods.

I just think too much depth in one position can be detrimental because you are playing guys lower than their skill level would normally dictate and you can't give younger guys looks when injuries occur because you have too many bodies. Not only that too much cap is allocated to one position it leaves another barren (top 6 RW).

Why does Kylington have so much room to grow, but Hanifin doesn’t? Hanifin is only 5 months older than Kylington and quite frankly a much better player right now.

A top 6 of Huberdeau, Lindholm, Kadri, Mangiapane, Toffoli, Milano/Dube/Coleman is hardly a gaping hole. That’s still a very capable group.

Meloche is a nice depth option, but he didn’t play a full season last year. Could be a nice option on the bottom pairing, but when the goal is to win the cup I don’t think Sutter will be relying on him as an every day player.

Where are these Valimaki reports? Genuinely curious as I would like to read them, but regardless he has been regressing for the past couple of seasons and wasn’t even really trusted in the AHL last season.

Agree on Stone and Mackey- capable of filling in, but shouldn’t be pencilled in to the opening night line up.

“Giving young guys a look” isn’t and shouldn’t be a concern for the Flames this season. The goal is to win now. What’s wrong with having a great player play a bit lower in the lineup? If anything that should allow them to win even more of their matchups. That’s what good depth does.

As for the cap the Flames are allocating $25,050,000 to their defense this upcoming season. Good for 11th most in the league. They are spending 7th most on forwards as well so too much allocation to D really isn’t an issue.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by bax

Why does Kylington have so much room to grow, but Hanifin doesn’t? Hanifin is only 5 months older than Kylington and quite frankly a much better player right now.

A top 6 of Huberdeau, Lindholm, Kadri, Mangiapane, Toffoli, Milano/Dube/Coleman is hardly a gaping hole. That’s still a very capable group.

Meloche is a nice depth option, but he didn’t play a full season last year. Could be a nice option on the bottom pairing, but when the goal is to win the cup I don’t think Sutter will be relying on him as an every day player.

Where are these Valimaki reports? Genuinely curious as I would like to read them, but regardless he has been regressing for the past couple of seasons and wasn’t even really trusted in the AHL last season.

Agree on Stone and Mackey- capable of filling in, but shouldn’t be pencilled in to the opening night line up.

“Giving young guys a look” isn’t and shouldn’t be a concern for the Flames this season. The goal is to win now. What’s wrong with having a great player play a bit lower in the lineup? If anything that should allow them to win even more of their matchups. That’s what good depth does.

As for the cap the Flames are allocating $25,050,000 to their defense this upcoming season. Good for 11th most in the league. They are spending 7th most on forwards as well so too much allocation to D really isn’t an issue.

I'm saying Kylington has the higher offensive ceiling and can potentially fill the high end offensive dman role we have been lacking for years.