[Rumour] Spector: Bennett for Stamkos? Hudler asking $7 mil/yr. Russell available - Page 5 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Igster · 10-21-2015, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poe969

Why trade Bennett for Stamkos, Bennett could have an amazing future, he could even turn out to be like Stamkos. Just saying...

Because Stamkos is a KNOWN commodity. No one knows how good Bennett will be.

PIMking · 10-21-2015, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codynw

So is Jagr. Should the Flames trade Bennett for him?

Ha, 25 vs 2012875398732 years old....

but having Jagr here would be awesome for the fan club and possible models in the Calgary area.

codynw · 10-21-2015, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terminator

big difference between a 45 yr old and a 25 yr old mate.

When both are free agents in July does it really make that much of a difference?

Unless you're 100% sure Stamkos will re-sign, it's just as stupid to trade Bennett for him as it would be for any other rental.

saillias · 10-21-2015, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Stamkos' year by year goals:
23 (rookie year)
51
45
60
29 (48 GP lockout year, on pace for 50 over 82 games)
25 (37 GP due to injury, on pace for 55 over 82 games)
43

This guy didn't just "score 60 goals 5 years ago", he scores at a 50 goal/year pace consistently. Look, I love Bennett as much as the next guy, but you'd have to be delusional to think he'll have the same impact on a team that Stamkos does. He's only 25 too, it's not like he's some old bum now. I don't get how anyone can oppose trading for him under the right conditions.

Despite all that he wasn't the best forward on his team last year, Tyler Johnson was.

Again you're not getting the productive ELC or cheaper RFA years out of him. You're paying him 9 or 10 million when he could settle in to being a 40 goal, 30 assist kinda guy. And if you don't, you're losing him for nothing in the offseason. I see a lose-lose here.

Buck Murdock · 10-21-2015, 11:37 AM

If we had Stamkos we would lose 6-3 instead of 6-2.

East Coast Flame · 10-21-2015, 11:39 AM

Mental. If you can sign Stamkos, you do that trade in a heartbeat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AcGold

Sam Bennett will probably have more points in the rest of his career than Stamkos will, thus why we should keep Bennett. Stamkos is good but Bennett may produce at 70-90 points consistently every season once he becomes 22-23. Stamkos had 3 good years but from this point on Bennetts career will be longer.

polak · 10-21-2015, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poe969

Why trade Bennett for Stamkos, Bennett could have an amazing future, he could even turn out to be like Stamkos. Just saying...

Besides draft position, what makes you think that? Stamkos had 46 pts in 79 games in his rookie season and then 95 points in his second season just for comparison sake. Bennett playing in a way that makes you think he'll be that level?

cam_wmh · 10-21-2015, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

No deal for him is worth it without him signing. We'd be stupid to trade for him without a 100% guarantee that he won't walk at the end of the season.

Withholding using your terms of, stupid & moronic-- to simply state ANY trade for Stamkos is very short sighted.

Ashasx · 10-21-2015, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

Mental. If you can sign Stamkos, you do that trade in a heartbeat.

Even if he's asking for $11 million for 8 years?

Street Pharmacist · 10-21-2015, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polak

Besides draft position, what makes you think that? Stamkos had 46 pts in 79 games just for comparison sake. Bennett playing in a way that makes you think he'll be that level?

The minute Barry fricken Melrose left, he scored a poop ton of goals. No sane person thinks Bennett will have the impact Stamkos does.

I say no because of what a UFA of that price does to the salary structure of the team

Muffins · 10-21-2015, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poe969

Why trade Bennett for Stamkos, Bennett could have an amazing future, he could even turn out to be like Stamkos. Just saying...

A boat's a boat, but the mystery box could be anything! It could even be a boat!

IgiTang · 10-21-2015, 11:43 AM

Stamkos is ELITE people. He is in the conversation of who is better, Tavares, Benn, Perry, Tarasenko, Malkin, Kessel. Personally I put Stamkos above most of them. If you don't agree, feel free to look at the factual numbers.

With Raymond, Jones, Engalland, Wideman, Stajan and potentially Hudler off the book for when a new Stamkos contract kicks in, the Flames can make it work while keeping Johnny and Monahan as well as the Majority of this team.

Add, Backlund has value and in my opinion, we have a player who can replace him. There is more money off the books for what would be "the big 3".

Wideman - $5.25 Aav
Stajan - $3.125 aav
Raymond - $3.150 aav
Jones - $4.0 aav
Engalland -$2.97 aav
Backlund $3.75 aav

Ramo $3.8 aav
Hiller $4.5 Aav

Total - $30.54MM

Over $30 million tied up in guys that I feel we have replacements for, RIGHT NOW!

That's also not including hudler if we let him walk or move him. Of course we would keep one of our goalies but to suggest we can't afford
Monahan and JG's potential $7m ( at worst and that would mean they earned it) contracts extensions.

That still leaves us room to sign a player like Stamkos.

There will always be tough decisions to let middle tier players walk or move them and bring in the guy on the ELC, that's the new NHL.

But to get the chance to bring in an ELITE player to compliment out soon to be elite top 2, is a no brainer and the dollars and cents work too.

Even if it costs us a budding prospect who may or may not have chronic shoulder problems.

DionTheDman · 10-21-2015, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Withholding using your terms of, stupid & moronic-- to simply state ANY trade for Stamkos is very short sighted.

...what?

Unless you expect we'd trade for him and then flip him to another team, I don't see how it's short-sighted. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a trade would be based on him actually playing for Calgary, and that neither GM is stupid. Shall I amend my comment? Ok, if the trade is an un-signed Stamkos for a fifth round pick, it won't be stupid. Does that work better now?

FlamesAddiction · 10-21-2015, 11:45 AM

Bennett is a good prospect still, but I am not convinced that he will ever be a ppg player. He brings other elements to his game of course, so that is not a knock on him.

Locke · 10-21-2015, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

The Flames have a disappointed fan-base right now, and are starved for a win. Seems like any possible options should be considered by BT. I also wonder if there's extra Ownership pressure to make a deal at this point. After all, if you're trying to push for funding for a fancy new rink in the middle of an economic downturn, it helps to have a team that isn't a basement-dwelling embarrassment.

Its generally a bad idea to pursue trades and options when you're in a rut and everyone is feeling low and people's value is at their lowest.

Also I dont think ownership really cares about the new arena 6 games into a new season.

East Coast Flame · 10-21-2015, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Even if he's asking for $11 million for 8 years?

Yes! He's 25 years old! He was second in goals last year! He's got 5 goals in 6 games this year!

I mean, people are talking about him like he is Setoguchi in here. What is going on?

jg13 · 10-21-2015, 11:48 AM

I think most of the people that are opposed to trading Bennett for Stamkos are assuming we wouldn't be able to resign him.

How often are GMs allowed to negotiate a deal with the player before trading for him as a UFA?

Cali Panthers Fan · 10-21-2015, 11:48 AM

I don't do that trade for one simple reason: years that the player is under club control.

Sam is just beginning his NHL years and will be an RFA for at least 7 years IIRC. While nowhere near as good as Stamkos is right now, he could very well be a vital piece in a year or two. Then you have Bennett under club control as an RFA player who cannot command the same salary as a UFA, nor can he just decide to leave the club without some significant compensation coming back.

On the other hand, Stamkos is going to be a UFA coming up, and will get a hefty contract, both in AAV and term. He'll probably be worth most of the value, but UFA contracts are always worse value than RFA contracts. It's unlikely that Bennett will score as many goals as Stamkos, but he could put up as many points as him in a year or so, and cost maybe a quarter to half as much of Stamkos, with a much longer period of being Flames' property.

There's no way I'd trade any of Bennett, Monahan, or Gaudreau for Stamkos, even just straight up. The economics of the game reward teams with young promising talent. Once your star players hit UFA years, you are likely going to trend downwards, if for no other reason than you can't afford the stars and enough complimentary talent to be at the top of the league...at least not long term anyways.

Cflames_12.5 · 10-21-2015, 11:49 AM

IF Stamkos was signing an extension with us I would do that trade in a heartbeat. We got Janko almost ready to make the jump he could be the 2nd line center that Bennett is supposed to be.

nik- · 10-21-2015, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

Yes! He's 25 years old! He was second in goals last year! He's got 5 goals in 6 games this year!

I mean, people are talking about him like he is Setoguchi in here. What is going on?

Because if we want to build a winner, signing one player to a contract like that is a good way to not be able to do it.

If the goal of the Flames is to sell a bunch of jerseys, it's awesome. If the goal is to put together a complete team that can win the Cup, it's not awesome.

Stamkos is an elite player, but signing him to the cap hit he's going to get sinks our chances of ever being a Chicago, LA or even a Boston.