What should it take to trade for 1st Overall?

[keenan87]

Backlund
Tanev
2nd

for

1st overall

---

Who says no?

[Flamesfan05]

The right to speak to Milan Lucic

[DJones]

I'd give Chicago a pre-signed contract and tell them to write whatever they want on it.

[GioforPM]

I wonder if the deal would have changed if it was done prior to the draft (and Lindros' famous refusal). Probably not.

The deal looks worse because the Avs won the cup. But people forget the Flyers made the finals in 1997 (and Lindros got his first concussion the next year followed by incredible mismanagement pf his injuries by Clarke).

[Reggie Dunlop]

Permission to speak to Darryl Sutter.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Spurs

Nothing in terms of significant pieces for a rebuild. There are some decent players but nothing that would indicate you are ready to with a McDavid.

For me the example I would use is Anaheim look at the pieces they have added recently- MacTavish, Zegras, Drysdale plus the secondary pieces, if Chicago had those level of players I think you could justify thinking about going with McDavid, but Chicago doesn't have anyone close to that level right now.

It's early to make claims.

They have 8 picks in the first 3 rounds next week. They'll have no problem attracting free agents with Bedard and cap space galore.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I would not take McDavid one for one, if I'm the Hawks (and that isn't because, Oilers)

Chances are that Bedard won't be as good as McDavid, but he MIGHT be. And he is going to be $10M cheaper for the next 3 years, and still cheaper, after that (unless Bedard turns out to be better than McDavid, in which case, you're glad you kept him).

There is no guarantee of even keeping McDavid, beyond 3 years, whereas you are guaranteed 7 with Bedard, and more if you're smart about it.

If you're offering me McDavid, it would have to include significant cap retention, and probably prospects or picks:

McDavid + 24 and 25 1sts.

That might convince me to take the deal.

Have you watched Bedard much?

I think it is extremely improbable he ends up as good as McDavid. While his shot is elite and likely on par or even better, his skating (especially), hockey IQ, and size are all inferior to McDavid. While it's certainly plausible he could improve, coming into the league I think McDavid was already a step or two better than Bedard.

Personally, I think Bedard is over-hyped quite a bit and people may be surprised that, while he will be an excellent NHLer and likely a star, not a generational talent. I watched him a few times, and there were often times he was outright not noticeable, despite his enormous point totals. Defensively, he is either lazy or just doesn't know where to go, I can't quite tell. He's a unique player in that, even though you might not notice him much he still exits every game with like 2-3 points because when he does get the puck he is so dangerous and his shot is that good. But will that stand up to NHL goalies and defences? Dunno.

But to project as possibly at par or even better than McDavid is over-the-top IMO.

[GioforPM]

Defensively lazy actually sounds a lot like McDavid

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Have you watched Bedard much?

I think it is extremely improbable he ends up as good as McDavid. While his shot is elite and likely on par or even better, his skating (especially), hockey IQ, and size are all inferior to McDavid. While it's certainly plausible he could improve, coming into the league I think McDavid was already a step or two better than Bedard.

Personally, I think Bedard is over-hyped quite a bit and people may be surprised that, while he will be an excellent NHLer and likely a star, not a generational talent. I watched him a few times, and there were often times he was outright not noticeable, despite his enormous point totals. Defensively, he is either lazy or just doesn't know where to go, I can't quite tell. He's a unique player in that, even though you might not notice him much he still exits every game with like 2-3 points because when he does get the puck he is so dangerous and his shot is that good. But will that stand up to NHL goalies and defences? Dunno.

But to project as possibly at par or even better than McDavid is over-the-top IMO.

I don't think any one is saying Bedard will be better than McDavid, or even as good.

But given where Chicago is in its stage, and the cap hit of McDavid now and in the future, Bedard has move value to Chicago.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

It's early to make claims.

They have 8 picks in the first 3 rounds next week. They'll have no problem attracting free agents with Bedard and cap space galore.

It is not too early to say they don't have a roster to add in a right now player like McDavid.

Again I am not saying they have bad pieces, I am saying their roster makes more sense for a Bedard aged player than dropping in McDavid unlike my example of Anaheim that have those 3 top level players on their roster already in Zegras, MacTavish and Drysdale that might have it make more sense for them to look at the McDavid hypothetical versus Chicago.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Have you watched Bedard much?

I think it is extremely improbable he ends up as good as McDavid. While his shot is elite and likely on par or even better, his skating (especially), hockey IQ, and size are all inferior to McDavid. While it's certainly plausible he could improve, coming into the league I think McDavid was already a step or two better than Bedard.

Personally, I think Bedard is over-hyped quite a bit and people may be surprised that, while he will be an excellent NHLer and likely a star, not a generational talent. I watched him a few times, and there were often times he was outright not noticeable, despite his enormous point totals. Defensively, he is either lazy or just doesn't know where to go, I can't quite tell. He's a unique player in that, even though you might not notice him much he still exits every game with like 2-3 points because when he does get the puck he is so dangerous and his shot is that good. But will that stand up to NHL goalies and defences? Dunno.

But to project as possibly at par or even better than McDavid is over-the-top IMO.

Maybe you forget what McDavid looked like at 18 - without the puck, he was often lost or ineffectual as well, that's just normal for an 18YO offensive talent.

And I said he is likely to not be as good as McDavid, though IMO, you are under-rating Bedard, especially with respect to hockey IQ

But the discussion is about value. And the fact of the matter is that you only have 3 years of control on McDavid, at $12.5M, whereas with Bedard, you have 7-10 years, at less than $4M for the first 3 years.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Spurs

It is not too early to say they don't have a roster to add in a right now player like McDavid.

Again I am not saying they have bad pieces, I am saying their roster makes more sense for a Bedard aged player than dropping in McDavid unlike my example of Anaheim that have those 3 top level players on their roster already in Zegras, MacTavish and Drysdale that might have it make more sense for them to look at the McDavid hypothetical versus Chicago.

Yet this was your post previous.

Originally Posted by Spurs

I think McDavid is the only one for one deal that would even be under consideration and even that deal would be far from a slam dunk.

If they had talked to McDavid's reps and had rock solid info that he would sign long term for them when he deal was done I think that is a deal that I would make because we have seen in Edmonton how much he can carry a team with nothing around him. If you are getting McDavid you have to think you will do a better job than Edmonton has in surrounding him with talent, otherwise it doesn't matter what you do with Bedard as your team will be screwed.

[Cube Inmate]

Watching VGK and Seattle outperform the Flames this year made me think about how long it would take to build a cup contender from absolutely nothing. But then, what is "nothing" in terms of a hockey team? Expansion teams didn't start from nothing... and every team gets its draft picks replenished every year.

You could say a team with no players on contract, holding no prospect or RFA rights, and filling their roster with league minimum replacement level players on 1-year contracts has zero assets. Start the year like that, trade away all this year's draft picks for expiring players (every year), and see where that gets you. All with zero long term asset management. That team would suck but every once in a while you'd hit paydirt with expiring contacts.

Take that approach, then add in Bedard for the max amount you're allowed to pay him...and i think that team wins a cup before the Flames, with their current "assets."

[Username: Flames]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Watching VGK and Seattle outperform the Flames this year made me think about how long it would take to build a cup contender from absolutely nothing. But then, what is "nothing" in terms of a hockey team? Expansion teams didn't start from nothing... and every team gets its draft picks replenished every year.

You could say a team with no players on contract, holding no prospect or RFA rights, and filling their roster with league minimum replacement level players on 1-year contracts has zero assets. Start the year like that, trade away all this year's draft picks for expiring players (every year), and see where that gets you. All with zero long term asset management. That team would suck but every once in a while you'd hit paydirt with expiring contacts.

Take that approach, then add in Bedard for the max amount you're allowed to pay him...and i think that team wins a cup before the Flames, with their current "assets."

So true...Flames have no real assets! I wanted to try to come up with some kind of proposal, but honestly, what do the Flames have?

Lindholm
Hanifin
Cornato
Peltier
Wolf
1st rounders for the next 5 years.

That's the closest to a Lindros trade I can think of.

Probably not even close to what other teams could offer.

[Ullr]

Even if a trade was accepted for those 20 high value assets.. The addition of that many assets for a player like Bedard would cause more harm than good imo.

[Goriders]

Markstrom?

[Mathgod]

Bedard + salary dumps

for

Eichel + Marchessault + Whitecloud + Theodore + 1st

and sign Hill as a FA

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Ullr

Even if a trade was accepted for those 20 high value assets.. The addition of that many assets for a player like Bedard would cause more harm than good imo.

Aren’t you effectively then therefore saying that this trade is in Chicagos favour massively?

I agree haha. I was only putting forth such a ridiculous offer as a point in counter to the “wholly untradeable” crowd, which IMO is a ridiculous position.

Even Gretzky had a price.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Yet this was your post previous.

Ok?

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

What was the delta between Crosby and Bobby Ryan. Lindros and Falloon? Kane to JVR? Matthews to Laine?


Then again there is Ovechkin to Malkin or McDavid to Eichel.

Daigle to Pronger? Nugent-Hopkins to Landeskog? Stefan to the Sedins?