2018/2019 Trade Speculation and Rumors - Page 499 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

bax · 02-14-2019, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

for the talked about acquisition cost / salary I hope Stone ends up elsewhere.

He’s a good winger you can count on for 20 goals and 60 points for as long as his skating holds up. That’s not worth a big hit to cap long term and the team depth it would take IMO.

Let's not ignore his elite defensive play though. He would win a Selke if he was a center. The epitome of a two way player.

Also, 20 goals and 60 points his selling him short. He has 46 goals and 119 points in his last 114 games while playing on one of the worst teams in the league.

That averages out to 33 goals and 85 points over 82 games.

Scroopy Noopers · 02-14-2019, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

So because he wasn't needed to do other deals, means he wont be the request in any others.

Solid logic.

“Speculation”.

Oling_Roachinen · 02-14-2019, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

When we traded for Hamilton it had to have been for Bennett.
When we traded for Hamonic, obviously Bennett was going the other way.
When we traded for Lindholm, of course the Hurricanes were getting Bennett so both players would get a change of scenery.

Bennett "has" to part of the package for a Mark Stone that is presumably NOT re-signing in OTT?

Presumably had Bennett been included in the Hamilton deal they would have had kept their first and drafted Barzal. Had he been included in the Hamonic trade, they likely have Dobson or better (assuming Bennett helped the team in the standings). So really, are you saying we should be hoping that Bennett is included?

bax · 02-14-2019, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Presumably had Bennett been included in the Hamilton deal they would have had kept their first and drafted Barzal. Had he been included in the Hamonic trade, they likely have Dobson or better (assuming Bennett helped the team in the standings). So really, are you saying we should be hoping that Bennett is included?

That's quite a stretch. I actually remember reading the Flames were dialed in on Kylington and Chabot for their first that year if they didn't trade it.

Oling_Roachinen · 02-14-2019, 11:42 AM

Chabot, the point-per-game sophomore defenseman. Doesn't really help the argument.

bax · 02-14-2019, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Chabot, the point-per-game sophomore defenseman. Doesn't really help the argument.

Nope, I agree, but for all we know they could have gone all in on Kylington. Regardless, you can't just go back in time and assume the Flames would have drafted the best player with hindsight.

Could have got Senyshyn, Svechnikov, Eriksson Ek, etc.

sureLoss · 02-14-2019, 11:49 AM

TSN says the Flames have internally discussed getting Quick, but no indication the Kings will move him. They also cite high acquisition cost and injury concerns.

https://www.tsn.ca/examining-the-goa...rade-1.1257747

Vinny01 · 02-14-2019, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

TSN says the Flames have internally discussed getting Quick, but no indication the Kings will move him. They also cite high acquisition cost and injury concerns.

https://www.tsn.ca/examining-the-goa...rade-1.1257747

Quick would likely take us out of any major forward acquisition. I wish he had 2 years left after this and not 4.

Quick and Stone would be neat but if we land one I doubt we have the ability to land the other

CanucksWorstNightmare · 02-14-2019, 11:53 AM

Wonder if they make a bigger deal and trade for both Quick and Toffoli. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.What would the cost of that be I wonder,it would address 2 positions that need upgrading.

TheScorpion · 02-14-2019, 11:53 AM

Maybe the Kings would take Neal in a deal for Quick? Who knows, honestly. They do need someone to score.

Toonage · 02-14-2019, 11:55 AM

I get that Neal has been nothing short of a colossal disappointment, but getting rid of him before seeing what he brings to the playoffs (on or even off the ice to this group) would be the bigger mistake.

GranteedEV · 02-14-2019, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Presumably had Bennett been included in the Hamilton deal they would have had kept their first and drafted Barzal. Had he been included in the Hamonic trade, they likely have Dobson or better (assuming Bennett helped the team in the standings). So really, are you saying we should be hoping that Bennett is included?

Actually people thought it was Bennett AND the first for Hamilton. Hamilton was hyped like crazy at the time.

Roof-Daddy · 02-14-2019, 11:56 AM

Man this Flames goaltending situation is so annoying.

Friggin Ben Bishop. Why couldn't he just have signed here FFS?

Toonage · 02-14-2019, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Man this Flames goaltending situation is so annoying.

Friggin Ben Bishop. Why couldn't he just have signed here FFS?

Meh. He'd be hurt right now and we'd be in the same spot. Or worse.

Vinny01 · 02-14-2019, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toonage

I get that Neal has been nothing short of a colossal disappointment, but getting rid of him before seeing what he brings to the playoffs (on or even off the ice to this group) would be the bigger mistake.

While I want to see what Neal does in the playoffs if we could get out of that contract it has to be looked at. I just don’t see LA making the deal without a big +

Quick and Toffoli are an intriguing combo though that fit our needs

Super-Rye · 02-14-2019, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

TSN says the Flames have internally discussed getting Quick, but no indication the Kings will move him. They also cite high acquisition cost and injury concerns.

https://www.tsn.ca/examining-the-goa...rade-1.1257747

Gross, I hope not. This team does love to get old declining goalies though. I'm hopeful they find a younger 1B to tandem with Rittich.

Roof-Daddy · 02-14-2019, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toonage

Meh. He'd be hurt right now and we'd be in the same spot. Or worse.

He's started 87 games and counting for Dallas the last two years, with a .920~ save percentage.

So no, we wouldn't be in "the same spot. Or worse."

Matata · 02-14-2019, 12:01 PM

Quick is 33, declining, with another 4 years @ $5.8M. I wouldn't want him for free.

What are they even discussing? "every 30+ goalie we've committed to has been an embarrassing disaster, but we got a good feeling about this one."

Toonage · 02-14-2019, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

He's started 87 games and counting for Dallas the last two years, with a .920~ save percentage.

So no, we wouldn't be in "the same spot. Or worse."

He's hurt right now.

Roof-Daddy · 02-14-2019, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toonage

He's hurt right now.

He missed 3 games, and could dress as early as Saturday. He's probably going to start close to around 100 games for Dallas in two seasons.

I'd take that over what we've been dealing with instead, but I've de-railed this thread enough already.