2024 Off-season trade rumours and speculation thread

[dammage79]

Guessing the complications weren't enough for CGY to get involved.

Kinda knew the Habs were in on him.

[Toonage]

Mercer and Bourque were never available. Widely reported. Nothing missed there.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Potentially?

Aatu Raty
Dawson Mercer
David Edstrom
Maverick Bourque


None of them came over in those trades and who knows if they were even on the table or not.

I'm just saying there may have been options within the same trade to maybe snag one from Dallas or Vegas or NJ or Vancouver.

I mean, Vancouver probably would have moved Raty

Raty is probably the only one on that list that was potentially available and I think they made the right choice with Brzustewicz over him. If any of those other guys were available then they would be Flames.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Potentially?

Aatu Raty
Dawson Mercer
David Edstrom
Maverick Bourque


None of them came over in those trades and who knows if they were even on the table or not.

I'm just saying there may have been options within the same trade to maybe snag one from Dallas or Vegas or NJ or Vancouver.

I mean, Vancouver probably would have moved Raty

New Jersey was never trading Mercer, especially for a goalie.

Dallas was not trading Bourque for a rental 34 year old dman.

Edstrom is iffy, as Conroy was also dealing with the agent in the background trying to sabotage deals. He was also traded for another C, and 6 years of retention.

[Niemo]

I'm not too concerned about missing out on Raty, Mercer, Edstrom, Bourque to be honest. Flames need driving Centers for once. I am fine with drafting a couple game changers if that's what the trade market pushes us into.

[Niemo]

I wouldn't mind trading talent to Columbus for futures......they must want to win sooner rather than later?

[Monahammer]

Interesting. If you believe Sec's compendium of rumors on this subject, then IMO we were straight up asking for too much for retention. C'est la vie.

Columbus chose to get 0 value but not have to pay hard for someone else to retain.

[dammage79]

Question now is, CLB has cap space, do they retain all their RFAs or make some move to address other roster weaknesses?

I.E I want Sillinger on the Flames.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Interesting. If you believe Sec's compendium of rumors on this subject, then IMO we were straight up asking for too much for retention. C'est la vie.

Columbus chose to get 0 value but not have to pay hard for someone else to retain.

I don't mind it.

Far to often we have given away draft picks easily, its time to reverse that trend.

Feaster started a reputation of the team being soft in trades, and the first trade Conroy made a lot of people thought he got hosed for Toffoli turns out he knew what he was doing.

I will trust the first GM who is actually rebuilding and not telling the owners lies about winning.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Interesting. If you believe Sec's compendium of rumors on this subject, then IMO we were straight up asking for too much for retention. C'est la vie.

Columbus chose to get 0 value but not have to pay hard for someone else to retain.

I think this actually shows it would be hard to facilitate a trade with retention that makes sense with this offer on the table.

If you are the Flames and you have to retain 50% for the next two seasons then you should rightfully be asking for a 1st to pay out $8.7M over the next two seasons for a player not on your roster. Anything less would not be fair value in return, or even close to it TBH.

But if you're the team acquiring Laine you probably don't want to pay the Flames a 1st, plus potentially still have to send a piece to Columbus, with the question marks around Laine.

And if you're Columbus you're not going to pay a 1st to the Flames when you can send Laine with a 2nd to Montreal with no retention and still get a potential NHL piece like Harris back in return.

Don't think the Flames were asking too much at all TBH, if the Flames would have eaten 50% on Laine and only gotten a 2nd round pick in return that would have been a bad use of that cap space and a retention slot IMO.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Interesting. If you believe Sec's compendium of rumors on this subject, then IMO we were straight up asking for too much for retention. C'est la vie.

Columbus chose to get 0 value but not have to pay hard for someone else to retain.

I mean, $8.7M is still $8.7M in real dollars here, not Monopoly money. For that much, they better be asking for a 1st rounder at least. Guess it's easy for us fans to spend the money, as that's number exercise on a spreadsheet. A little harder for Murray Edwards to actually ok that out without getting something significant in return for his team.

[Sec214]

It fell apart late last night but I’ve been told Calgary was just a cap broker and it was the cost of assets + retention that caused it Columbus to pivot. Montreal was willing to eat the whole thing and that made the deal happen.

Dallas wants the flexibility after Benn contract is up.

FWiW - Sources said Calgary wasn’t retaining on Laine but instead eating someone’s contract for the season. I don’t know who. Columbus was being asked to eat as much as 50% by some teams.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I mean, $8.7M is still $8.7M in real dollars here, not Monopoly money. For that much, they better be asking for a 1st rounder at least. Guess it's easy for us fans to spend the money, as that's number exercise on a spreadsheet. A little harder for Murray Edwards to actually ok that out without getting something significant in return for his team.

I agree with this on some level... but then you look at Montreal setting $18 million on fire in this deal and seemingly laughing. And the Montreal owners are worth less than Murray! The whole family is seemingly worth ~ 1.5 billion less in fact.

I suppose you could say that it's easily absorbed in the Canadiens op budget... but really I think it's ultimately pretty defeating to talk about money when we're talking about plutocrats.

[Tbull8]

Originally Posted by Sec214

It fell apart late last night but I’ve been told Calgary was just a cap broker and it was the cost of assets + retention that caused it Columbus to pivot. Montreal was willing to eat the whole thing and that made the deal happen.

Dallas wants the flexibility after Benn contract is up.

Can you confirm/deny if Sillinger or Johnson was even remotely close to being a flame with this deal?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I think this actually shows it would be hard to facilitate a trade with retention that makes sense with this offer on the table.

If you are the Flames and you have to retain 50% for the next two seasons then you should rightfully be asking for a 1st to pay out $8.7M over the next two seasons for a player not on your roster. Anything less would not be fair value in return, or even close to it TBH.

But if you're the team acquiring Laine you probably don't want to pay the Flames a 1st, plus potentially still have to send a piece to Columbus, with the question marks around Laine.

And if you're Columbus you're not going to pay a 1st to the Flames when you can send Laine with a 2nd to Montreal with no retention and still get a potential NHL piece like Harris back in return.

Don't think the Flames were asking too much at all TBH, if the Flames would have eaten 50% on Laine and only gotten a 2nd round pick in return that would have been a bad use of that cap space and a retention slot IMO.

I don't think they were "objectively" asking for too much, but this is a free market, and someone asked for "less" to dump it, and so it goes. We were asking for too much in that lense, but I agree that may not have made it worth it.

[Sec214]

Originally Posted by Tbull8

Can you confirm/deny if Sillinger or Johnson was even remotely close to being a flame with this deal?

Never. Rasmus name was ansked about but don’t think it got far.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by Sec214

Never. Rasmus name was ansked about but don’t think it got far.

Thank you Sec for always giving us some good tidbits to talk about

[Tbull8]

Mercer could be an offer sheet target for someone too. Jersey likely matches 4.58 though

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Tbull8

Mercer could be an offer sheet target for someone too. Jersey likely matches 4.58 though

Yeah, I think you'd have to be getting into 1st territory

[Yanda]

Columbus draft pick likely to be quite early in the second