2022/2023 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, they lost their best winger and were forced to trade their second-best. But signing Kadri was a straightforward effort to improve at C, and IIRC, Treliving was on record before the Tkachuk trade as saying he wanted to upgrade the D.

The Flames' GM did a brilliant job of getting exactly what he wanted and what he thought his team needed. He didn't just let random parts fall into his lap.

Sure, but you’re just changing the argument so it doesn’t really matter. The point being that he didn’t set out to move Gaudreau and Tkachuk to cover weaknesses at C and D, so suggesting that he did and that’s why it wouldn’t make sense to go move a lesser D than the one we got for help on the wing, in turn, makes no sense.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure, but you’re just changing the argument so it doesn’t really matter.

If I'm coming across like I'm changing the argument, then communication is failing to occur.

The point being that he didn’t set out to move Gaudreau and Tkachuk to cover weaknesses at C and D, so suggesting that he did and that’s why it wouldn’t make sense to go move a lesser D than the one we got for help on the wing, in turn, makes no sense.

The point I'm seeing is that he made moves deliberately for the purpose of covering weaknesses at C and D, and he's not going to undo those moves to fill a hole at a less important position.

You seem to have the idea that Treliving won Weegar in a lottery and has no idea what to do with an extra defenceman, so he needs to get rid of one.

[Rick M.]

Sutter likes to point out that the Flames employed 10 D-men in the 2004 playoffs and could have employed more if they had them.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure, but you’re just changing the argument so it doesn’t really matter. The point being that he didn’t set out to move Gaudreau and Tkachuk to cover weaknesses at C and D, so suggesting that he did and that’s why it wouldn’t make sense to go move a lesser D than the one we got for help on the wing, in turn, makes no sense.

No, I never said he set out to move Gaudreau and Tkachuk. However, he DID want to improve the C and D positions. And the net result of all his actions was exactly what he was looking to do - improve the C and D. I never tried to imply that losing Gaudreau and Tkachuk was part of a master plan, simply that the result of his actions, in dealing with those events was brilliantly on point.

Now that we are there, I am saying it doesn't make sense to try and switch it back to where it was. A team with strong C and D depth is more desirable than one with strong wing depth.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Rick M.

Sutter likes to point out that the Flames employed 10 D-men in the 2004 playoffs and could have employed more if they had them.

The old phrase is that you can never have enough D depth in the playoffs. And both 2004 and last year, were proof of that.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, I never said he set out to move Gaudreau and Tkachuk. However, he DID want to improve the C and D positions. And the net result of all his actions was exactly what he was looking to do - improve the C and D. I never tried to imply that losing Gaudreau and Tkachuk was part of a master plan, simply that the result of his actions, in dealing with those events was brilliantly on point.

Now that we are there, I am saying it doesn't make sense to try and switch it back to where it was. A team with strong C and D depth is more desirable than one with strong wing depth.

And I’m saying that Weegar, Tanev, Andersson, Kylington, Zadorov, Stone is still an improvement over Tanev, Andersson, Hanifin, Kylington, Zadorov, Gudbranson. It’s not like anyone was thrilled with Zadorov or Gudbranson at the start of the season, there were articles calling them terrible through training camp, so I’m not sure what good counting out Stone/Mackey/Valimaki does.

The top end of our defensive core has been improved so much so that we could afford to lose some in the middle or bottom end of it. It wouldn’t be switching it back to where it was defensively, and obvious the improvement at C would remain untouched, so I don’t get it really. There’s also always the chance you swing a 2nd line scoring RW and a Kylington/Zadorov/Gudbranson level guy in a Hanifin move. Not everything has to be one for one.

And again, not that we have to. Not that we’ll be screwed if we don’t. But that we’re in a position where it would make sense. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You seem to have the idea that Treliving won Weegar in a lottery and has no idea what to do with an extra defenceman, so he needs to get rid of one.

No one who has read my posts would reasonably come to that conclusion, given the number of times I’ve reiterated the same point to make it clear (see above). Some people just want to argue in circles, I guess?

[USflamesfan]

https://twitter.com/FlamesNation/sta...XZK4Ovzn80Ujwg

Ruzicka signed!

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by USflamesfan

https://twitter.com/FlamesNation/sta...XZK4Ovzn80Ujwg

Ruzicka signed!

Nice team friendly contract , now he just needs to prove that he belongs with the big squad.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And I’m saying that Weegar, Tanev, Andersson, Kylington, Zadorov, Stone is still an improvement over Tanev, Andersson, Hanifin, Kylington, Zadorov, Gudbranson. It’s not like anyone was thrilled with Zadorov or Gudbranson at the start of the season, there were articles calling them terrible through training camp, so I’m not sure what good counting out Stone/Mackey/Valimaki does.

The top end of our defensive core has been improved so much so that we could afford to lose some in the middle or bottom end of it. It wouldn’t be switching it back to where it was defensively, and obvious the improvement at C would remain untouched, so I don’t get it really. There’s also always the chance you swing a 2nd line scoring RW and a Kylington/Zadorov/Gudbranson level guy in a Hanifin move. Not everything has to be one for one.

And again, not that we have to. Not that we’ll be screwed if we don’t. But that we’re in a position where it would make sense. Simple as that.



No one who has read my posts would reasonably come to that conclusion, given the number of times I’ve reiterated the same point to make it clear (see above). Some people just want to argue in circles, I guess?

Even so, many of us would object to moving a young top 4 defenseman on a team-friendly contract for a second line winger and a bottom pair defenceman, especially when there isn’t enough cap space for those assets that would be returning

[bax]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And I’m saying that Weegar, Tanev, Andersson, Kylington, Zadorov, Stone is still an improvement over Tanev, Andersson, Hanifin, Kylington, Zadorov, Gudbranson. It’s not like anyone was thrilled with Zadorov or Gudbranson at the start of the season, there were articles calling them terrible through training camp, so I’m not sure what good counting out Stone/Mackey/Valimaki does.

The top end of our defensive core has been improved so much so that we could afford to lose some in the middle or bottom end of it. It wouldn’t be switching it back to where it was defensively, and obvious the improvement at C would remain untouched, so I don’t get it really. There’s also always the chance you swing a 2nd line scoring RW and a Kylington/Zadorov/Gudbranson level guy in a Hanifin move. Not everything has to be one for one.

And again, not that we have to. Not that we’ll be screwed if we don’t. But that we’re in a position where it would make sense. Simple as that.



No one who has read my posts would reasonably come to that conclusion, given the number of times I’ve reiterated the same point to make it clear (see above). Some people just want to argue in circles, I guess?

I’m not sure if that new group without Hanifin is head and shoulders better than the old group. Hanifin and Weegar are pretty comparable talent wise at the top of the rotation, maybe slight edge to Weegar, but Gudbranson to Stone is a massive downgrade.

Repeating myself here but a few points on having any of those guys pencilled in for a permanent role on the bottom pairing:

Stone is poor skater and now 32 years old. He hasn’t been an NHL regular in 4 seasons.

Mackey is is now 26 years old (older than Hanifin, Andersson, and Kylington) and hasn’t found a spot in the NHL with only 9 career games.

Valimaki has suffered some really bad injuries and has lost a ton of mobility. He lost the trust of the coaches in the AHL last season.

When the goal for the Calgary Flames this season is to win a Stanley cup, you can’t actually expect Sutter to be okay with pencilling any of these guys in full time. They are insurance depth.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And I’m saying that Weegar, Tanev, Andersson, Kylington, Zadorov, Stone is still an improvement over Tanev, Andersson, Hanifin, Kylington, Zadorov, Gudbranson. It’s not like anyone was thrilled with Zadorov or Gudbranson at the start of the season, there were articles calling them terrible through training camp, so I’m not sure what good counting out Stone/Mackey/Valimaki does.

The top end of our defensive core has been improved so much so that we could afford to lose some in the middle or bottom end of it. It wouldn’t be switching it back to where it was defensively, and obvious the improvement at C would remain untouched, so I don’t get it really. There’s also always the chance you swing a 2nd line scoring RW and a Kylington/Zadorov/Gudbranson level guy in a Hanifin move. Not everything has to be one for one.

And again, not that we have to. Not that we’ll be screwed if we don’t. But that we’re in a position where it would make sense. Simple as that.



No one who has read my posts would reasonably come to that conclusion, given the number of times I’ve reiterated the same point to make it clear (see above). Some people just want to argue in circles, I guess?

I disagree that there is much if any improvement over the two sets of D pairings in the bolded. How do you see it as an improvement?

You're suggesting Hanifin is a middle or bottom pairing Dman? I am guessing I have misunderstood - but Hanifin is 1 or 2 Dman on most teams.

If we lose Hanifin and gain a winger of equal value, that is IMO making the team worse. The D pretty much goes back to what it was last year, and the RW position would be closer to what it was last year - I don't imagine we would get anyone near Tkachuk's value. So the compared to last year we would have similar D, stronger C, slightly weaker RW - OR - we stand pat, and we have stronger D, stronger C, weaker RW... I prefer the latter, seems like a team better built to contend. Especially a Sutter team - I think we'll be very hard to score on.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And I’m saying that Weegar, Tanev, Andersson, Kylington, Zadorov, Stone is still an improvement over Tanev, Andersson, Hanifin, Kylington, Zadorov, Gudbranson. It’s not like anyone was thrilled with Zadorov or Gudbranson at the start of the season, there were articles calling them terrible through training camp, so I’m not sure what good counting out Stone/Mackey/Valimaki does.

The top end of our defensive core has been improved so much so that we could afford to lose some in the middle or bottom end of it. It wouldn’t be switching it back to where it was defensively, and obvious the improvement at C would remain untouched, so I don’t get it really. There’s also always the chance you swing a 2nd line scoring RW and a Kylington/Zadorov/Gudbranson level guy in a Hanifin move. Not everything has to be one for one.

And again, not that we have to. Not that we’ll be screwed if we don’t. But that we’re in a position where it would make sense. Simple as that.



No one who has read my posts would reasonably come to that conclusion, given the number of times I’ve reiterated the same point to make it clear (see above). Some people just want to argue in circles, I guess?

Also Hanifin was not our 3rd or 4th best dman he was on the top pairing and second in points. I don't think we have anyone to step into that role from Stone or Mackey. Mackey looked ok last year but his play fell off. Stone just isn't very good.

Mangiapane can play both wings, and scored a lot on the right side so if we are trade someone to play in the top 6 they will have to bump a 35 goal scorer to the left side, and Toffoli a 25 goal guy to the 3rd line.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by VilleN

You're suggesting Hanifin is a middle or bottom pairing Dman? I am guessing I have misunderstood - but Hanifin is 1 or 2 Dman on most teams.

No, I’m suggesting you could subtract from the middle/bottom of our D depth, doesn’t have to be Hanifin. He’s in the middle, 3rd or 4th. Weegar and Tanev are better, and I could see arguments for Andersson being better but less polished, but those two are kind of a wash to me. Close enough that it’s not a worthwhile debate.

The reason Hanifin would be a 1-2 on most teams and isn’t the 1st or 2nd best d on the Flames is the ENTIRE basis for trading him. High value, coveted player, and we’re lucky to have two better players. Some teams don’t even have one better player than Hanifin in the back end.

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Also Hanifin was not our 3rd or 4th best dman he was on the top pairing and second in points. I don't think we have anyone to step into that role from Stone or Mackey. Mackey looked ok last year but his play fell off. Stone just isn't very good.

We have Weegar. Stone or Mackey or whoever would be replacing Gudbranson, who everyone counted out last season, too. Did you?

[ForeverFlameFan]

Why can’t we figure out the Hanifin situation next offseason? You never know if injuries happen.

[Tbull8]

Robertson will not attend training camp without a contract. Now there’s a player Brad should target for Hanifin

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Why can’t we figure out the Hanifin situation next offseason? You never know if injuries happen.

I think the reason for this is the uncertainty of the RW that will play with Huberdeau and Lindholm. Right now, assuming Mangiapane does not play on the first line and Backlund and Coleman stay togther the most likely players to play in the role are.

Dube, Toffoli and Pelletier. I think Toffoli will be much better this year but also like him on a line with Mangiapane and Kadri. If Sutter went with this line then that leaves Dube as the likely candidate. I doubt Pelletier gets first line minutes to start the season.

I see a big swing in this team getting better if we got a much better option to fill the slot. I personally think Hanifin is at his peak and Weegar is better. We could role 3 very very good lines with a good RW and still throw out a better and deeper defense than last year as I personally think Weegar is that much better than Hanifin. IMO he's better on the PP, 5 on 5 and on the PK.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Tbull8

Robertson will not attend training camp without a contract. Now there’s a player Brad should target for Hanifin

It would be a very expensive contract to add, in addition to the trade capital required.

Hanifin is very good, but it would take a lot more.

Anyway, I doubt Robertson is going anywhere, but dare to dream big.

[bax]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, I’m suggesting you could subtract from the middle/bottom of our D depth, doesn’t have to be Hanifin. He’s in the middle, 3rd or 4th. Weegar and Tanev are better, and I could see arguments for Andersson being better but less polished, but those two are kind of a wash to me. Close enough that it’s not a worthwhile debate.

The reason Hanifin would be a 1-2 on most teams and isn’t the 1st or 2nd best d on the Flames is the ENTIRE basis for trading him. High value, coveted player, and we’re lucky to have two better players. Some teams don’t even have one better player than Hanifin in the back end.



We have Weegar. Stone or Mackey or whoever would be replacing Gudbranson, who everyone counted out last season, too. Did you?

Stone? The guy who played 11 games last year? The guy the Sutter only used as an insurance policy?

I can’t believe some people want him playing 82 games

[Enoch Root]

Is Weegar + Stone better than Hanifin + Gudbranson? They are pretty comparable IMO. are they 'a big improvement'? I think it's hard to make that argument, unless you are not a fan of Hanifin.

[Enoch Root]

The other thing that I keep coming back to, when I look at the D depth, is that there is no guarantee that Tanev will still be the guy he was last year. Quite a bit of risk there, IMO.