2017/2018 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[kukkudo]

Originally Posted by dino7c

People still confusing RFA contracts with UFA contracts...oh CP

Stajan/Brouwer made 7.5M this past season...I would be happy to "overpay" a top end player

It brings up the question if you remove Stajan/Brouwer's 7.5M and had ROR and his 7.5M this past season would the Flames made the playoffs?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

It brings up the question if you remove Stajan/Brouwer's 7.5M and had ROR and his 7.5M this past season would the Flames made the playoffs?

It sure wouldn't have hurt their chances haha.

[Eric]

I ran into Matt Barzal yesterday in Kamloops. He just finished buying a new car. Asked him if he thought Tavares would be an Islander next year and he seemed fairly confident that he would be. He also said you never know with these things though.

[Hackey]

Put me in the group that enjoys hearing about trades that almost happened. I can totally understand why Treliving said no to that trade and thank god he did. Anderson for Juolevi might have been a bit more enticing though if you didn't think Tkachuk would be available. Thank god things played out the way they did.
I think stuff like that gives a bit of perspective on how things actually work. It isn't as simple as some people would like to believe.

[EverfresH15]

Originally Posted by Eric

I ran into Matt Barzal yesterday in Kamloops. He just finished buying a new car. Asked him if he thought Tavares would be an Islander next year and he seemed fairly confident that he would be. He also said you never know with these things though.

But what kind of car did he buy? Thats what we really care about.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Hackey

I think stuff like that gives a bit of perspective on how things actually work. It isn't as simple as some people would like to believe.

You never want to help out teams in your division either.

Jones had to be involved in two trades to end up in SJ. Andersen went out east.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

You never want to help out teams in your division either.

Jones had to be involved in two trades to end up in SJ. Andersen went out east.

I know that this is the general thinking in the NHL, but it aggravates to no end. If you think your team is good and can improve it with a piece, you do it. It's completely stupid to worry about how a player added to a rival will affect your team.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

I know that this is the general thinking in the NHL, but it aggravates to no end. If you think your team is good and can improve it with a piece, you do it. It's completely stupid to worry about how a player added to a rival will affect your team.

Unless you give someone 10 points from your own pocket by giving them a goalie that has spent time learning your shooters tendencies.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev

Unless you give someone 10 points from your own pocket by giving them a goalie that has spent time learning your shooters tendencies.

Or you gave them a goalie that your shooters have shot on a million times and know his tendencies... It's chicken and the egg.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev

Unless you give someone 10 points from your own pocket by giving them a goalie that has spent time learning your shooters tendencies.

If trading a goalie, all by itself, is enough to turn a 5-0 record against one opponent into a 0-5 record, you're doing everything else wrong, too, and you might as well give up.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If trading a goalie, all by itself, is enough to turn a 5-0 record against one opponent into a 0-5 record, you're doing everything else wrong, too, and you might as well give up.

Not necessarily that your trading away an Uber goalie.... You could just be helping out a team that decided to run with a Mason/Elliot tandem, or had key injuries to a bonified starter.

As for trading someone a goalie that all your shooters know vs a goalie that knows your shooters, I have to say I think that advantage still belongs to the goalie.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

I know that this is the general thinking in the NHL, but it aggravates to no end. If you think your team is good and can improve it with a piece, you do it. It's completely stupid to worry about how a player added to a rival will affect your team.

I disagree. If I can improve my team without improving a direct rival, especially one I may competing with for a playoff spot, then I take that deal over any that improves those said teams. Even if I have to compromise a little on the return, I think the value balances out.

Consideration for another team's success should definitely be a factor in making deals.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

Or you gave them a goalie that your shooters have shot on a million times and know his tendencies... It's chicken and the egg.

Sure worked when the Flames played Johnson last time. Did they even try to shoot glove side high?

[AC]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Sure worked when the Flames played Johnson last time. Did they even try to shoot glove side high?

Janko and Monahan both scored gloveside, chasing Johnson out of the net.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by AC

Janko and Monahan both scored gloveside, chasing Johnson out of the net.

I thought Johnson stoned them last time out

ETA: my bad I was thinking of the game before in January.

[Toonage]

nm

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Yeah, the Flames would be stupid to bring in an elite #1 center who's still south of 30. Haha.

Not at $12M per season. Not when the guy isn't a $12M player. Not when his salary establishes the benchmark all others will be measured against. What happens to the salary structure when Tavares doesn't live up to expectations and is outscored by lesser paid players on the club? What is the ripple effect?

Tavares isn't a game changer? You have got to be kidding me.

He's not. He's a good player, but he isn't a game changer. He isn't a guy that grabs a game by the balls and takes control of it. He doesn't go out and win games for you. He scores a bunch of points, doesn't win you games. He doesn't make those individual efforts that leave you shaking your head. His 3 game winners were not all that impressive, even on his own team. Barzal (4) and Eberle (7) recorded more. Even when you take the full lines into consideration, Barzal's was more likely to have the impact when the game was on the line (14 GWG to 8).

If you're a game changer it shows in that you control the game at both ends of the ice. Tavares' -12 doesn't exactly show he's controlling the play both ends of the ice. Barzal, Eberle (!), and Beauvillier were all + players on the Islanders. Tavares' -12 was one of the worst on the team. I get that he is put out in situations when the game is on the line, but it is clear he is not achieving results compared to his peers. He isn't even the game breaker on his team. For comparison, McDavid was a whopping +20 on a team that was -29. We love to crap all over McJesus, but the guy is the epitome of a gamebreaker and has the ability to control the game every time he steps on the ice. Tavares does not have the ability.

No he's not as good as McDavid, that we can agree on. One signed an RFA contract with little options, the other will be signing a UFA contract with a ton of offers from just about every team.

You draw your line in the sand and wait for someone else to make the mistake. If Tavaraes wants to come to Calgary, there is number they should not go over to bring him here. Who really cares if the Rangers sign him for $12M? If they want to handcuff themselves with a salary like that, for a player who can't perform to those lofty expectations, then so be it. That doesn't mean he is worth that, or is worth that to the Flames. Smart teams keep a budget and don't get crazy trying to spend over it. Treliving has shown to be pretty smart in this regard, right up to the Backlund deal. I don't think he would go and toss around McDavid money for a player that isn't McDavid.

There is always gotta be one person who goes against the grain that's for sure haha.

By going against the grain you mean exercising some logic and being a a pragmatist. No one with a brain in their head is on-board with paying Tavares $12M a season. Sure, it would be wonderful to have him in a Flames uniform, but is he the difference between this team going someplace and not? Not based on his track record in New York, and not based on the needs of this hockey team. Treliving would be much smarter to spend that money on two players, and bring in a scoring winger and improve our speed on the bottom lines. Tavares does not answer any of the problems affecting this hockey club.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by New Era

Not at $12M per season. Not when the guy isn't a $12M player. Not when his salary establishes the benchmark all others will be measured against. What happens to the salary structure when Tavares doesn't live up to expectations and is outscored by lesser paid players on the club? What is the ripple effect?

The guy who has made everyone around him better, despite playing on several terrible Islander teams through the years, is not expected to live up to expectations? Why? Which lesser paid players are expected to outperform him? Crosby, Benn, Kane and Kucherov are the only players who have outscored him in the past four seasons.

Originally Posted by New Era

If you're a game changer it shows in that you control the game at both ends of the ice. Tavares' -12 doesn't exactly show he's controlling the play both ends of the ice. Barzal, Eberle (!), and Beauvillier were all + players on the Islanders. Tavares' -12 was one of the worst on the team.

Plus minus to indicate game changing abilities? Uggh. Last time the Flames made the playoffs, Frolik was +13. Stajan was +3. Gaudreau was -7. Enough said.

[Roof-Daddy]

Haha.

You heard it here first folks.

John Tavares is not a game changer because he was -12.

12 million is only going to be about 15% of the cap next season. That's no big deal at all when your core (minus Tkachuk) is all signed for multiple years at a max of $6.57 million per. Iggy's $7 million per back when the cap was first introduced took up 18% of the cap, for comparison.

Tavares is elite. He's a legit 1st line center who can drag average line mates to well above average production. In Calgary he'd have one of Gaudreau or Tkachuk on his wing for the majority of his contract he'd sign. He'd give the Flames two legit 1st lines.

It would be a franchise altering signing, in a good way, even at $12 million per.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

12 million is only going to be about 15% of the cap next season.

15% of the cap? That's almost as much as the 18% of the cap Iginla had when he signed his UFA contract! Or Ovechkin when he signed for 19% of the cap as an RFA.

I'm sure both teams would have been much better without those players.