[Rumour] UPD: Gustafsson plans to head to UFA unless Flames up their offer

[united]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

A third round pick is actually a lot for a rental of this quality.

A very stupid trade in hindsight.

No hindsight required. It was terrible at the time.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by united

No hindsight required. It was terrible at the time.

In particular it's the accumulation of these deals that has depleted the team's assets. And what did they acquire for this collection of mid to late picks:

Erik Gustafsson
Derek Forbort
Oscar Fantenberg
Nick Shore
Curis Lazar
Michael Stone

All but one was a rental. BT was doing so much better as a seller.

[Robbob]

It's been so long, how is Valamaki's shot/offensive instincts? I seem to recall he was able to get he puck to the net. Looking at his AHL numbers, .7ppg for a dman sounds decent. Been so long, which probably answers my question.

[jlh2640]

Good let him walk

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

In particular it's the accumulation of these deals that has depleted the team's assets. And what did they acquire for this collection of mid to late picks:

Erik Gustafsson
Derek Forbort
Oscar Fantenberg
Nick Shore
Curis Lazar
Michael Stone

All but one was a rental. BT was doing so much better as a seller.

If you are going to list picks moved out to complain about lost assets, at least include picks added in that time too to give a fair picture. We gave up a 7th for Shore, but also acquired a 7th getting rid of Lack. We traded a 4th for Fanta, but added a 4th trading Frolik. We traded a 3rd for Gus, but added a 3rd in the Neal/Lucic swap. We gave up a 2nd for Lazar, but the draft prior we added 2 seconds (and traded another in the Elliott deal). Treliving has also added more NCAA and European free agents than most GMs to help counter the loss of picks.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

If you are going to list picks moved out to complain about lost assets, at least include picks added in that time too to give a fair picture. We gave up a 7th for Shore, but also acquired a 7th getting rid of Lack. We traded a 4th for Fanta, but added a 4th trading Frolik. We traded a 3rd for Gus, but added a 3rd in the Neal/Lucic swap. We gave up a 2nd for Lazar, but the draft prior we added 2 seconds (and traded another in the Elliott deal). Treliving has also added more NCAA and European free agents than most GMs to help counter the loss of picks.

I wasn't assessing every move the guy has made and even acknowledged he did well as a seller. The question is whether the deadline deals were good or not and were worth the assets you moved out. The fact that you gained a 4th in the Frolik deal has absolutely nothing to do with whether spending a 4th on Forbort is a solid acquisition. Just as the inverse is true as well.

The bolded is an interesting point and I'd be interested in seeing some support for the assertion. Of course it has nothing to do with the deadline deals either. Or are you stating the Flames are deep enough in prospects that they should value draft picks less than other teams?

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I wasn't assessing every move the guy has made and even acknowledged he did well as a seller. The question is whether the deadline deals were good or not and were worth the assets you moved out. The fact that you gained a 4th in the Frolik deal has absolutely nothing to do with whether spending a 4th on Forbort is a solid acquisition. Just as the inverse is true as well.

The bolded is an interesting point and I'd be interested in seeing some support for the assertion. Of course it has nothing to do with the deadline deals either. Or are you stating the Flames are deep enough in prospects that they should value draft picks less than other teams?

I'm saying just looking at deadline deals is unfair, you need to look at the entire picture. That includes other picks recouped and other prospects added, which help give you extra capital to make deadline deals.

Edit: As for Treliving signing more NCAA and European free agents, I don't have numbers, but it seems every time there is a top free agent, we are in on it and we have been getting alot of them. Mackey, Poolman, Foo and Morrison were widely considered top NCAA Free agents. Lerby and Kinvall wereconsidered top Euro UFAs. We've also added the likes of Rittich, Zagadulin and Yelesin as well.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

I'm saying just looking at deadline deals is unfair, you need to look at the entire picture. That includes other picks recouped and other prospects added, which help give you extra capital to make deadline deals.

It would be unfair to judge the GM entirely based on their deadline moves. I don't see why it's unfair to look at what they've done at the deadline which hasn't been a success thus far.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It would be unfair to judge the GM entirely based on their deadline moves. I don't see why it's unfair to look at what they've done at the deadline which hasn't been a success thus far.

Because no deadline deals are "successful" unless you win a cup. It's a pretty pointless exercise.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I wasn't assessing every move the guy has made and even acknowledged he did well as a seller. The question is whether the deadline deals were good or not and were worth the assets you moved out. The fact that you gained a 4th in the Frolik deal has absolutely nothing to do with whether spending a 4th on Forbort is a solid acquisition. Just as the inverse is true as well.

The bolded is an interesting point and I'd be interested in seeing some support for the assertion. Of course it has nothing to do with the deadline deals either. Or are you stating the Flames are deep enough in prospects that they should value draft picks less than other teams?

I think the fact he gained some picks so that he’d be in a position to try and shore up defence, or other areas, is a factor to consider.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by AC

Prior to the trade, the Flames had 18th best PP at 19.9% in the regular season.

After the trade, the Flames had the 2nd best PP in the rest of the regular season at 35.7%

In the playoffs: 28.6% PP (also 2nd best).

You need to use caution as you're comparing a 70 game sample size without him in the lineup versus a mere 17 game sample size with a massive gap in play.

As far as i'm concerned, he is worth nowhere near the contract he is likely to fare in free agency.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think the fact he gained some picks so that he’d be in a position to try and shore up defence, or other areas, is a factor to consider.

That's not what he's done in total though. I guess you can pick out the trades he made to acquire picks and say good on him, he used those picks.

But really, I was just trying to look at the quality of deadline rentals and whether they were worth it and not assess all the picks moved in and out the rest of the year. Because then I don't know why you wouldn't also include things like the Hamonic deal, the goalie trades etc.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

That's not what he's done in total though. I guess you can pick out the trades he made to acquire picks and say good on him, he used those picks.

But really, I was just trying to look at the quality of deadline rentals and whether they were worth it and not assess all the picks moved in and out the rest of the year. Because then I don't know why you wouldn't also include things like the Hamonic deal, the goalie trades etc.

I’m not a rental guy in general. But rentals to add depth are much more acceptable IMO, considering where 4th round picks typically end up. IMO the fact Treliving had picks he could use for that purpose is extremely relevant.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

Because no deadline deals are "successful" unless you win a cup. It's a pretty pointless exercise.

I just think that’s wrong, especially your criteria for success. Pointless to examine deadline deals?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I’m not a rental guy in general. But rentals to add depth are much more acceptable IMO, considering where 4th round picks typically end up. IMO the fact Treliving had picks he could use for that purpose is extremely relevant.

Sure but my point is whether the picks would have been better used in the draft or other off season trades vs. rentals. I can understand wanting to do it, I just think spending so many later picks on short term depth isn’t good value, particularly where the Flames sit as a contender. And most of these rented players just weren’t very good.

But another way I think of it is that if you’re inclined to acquire defensive depth at the deadline, I’d have preferred the club hadn’t invested so heavily in the back end prior to the start of each season.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

You need to use caution as you're comparing a 70 game sample size without him in the lineup versus a mere 17 game sample size with a massive gap in play.

As far as i'm concerned, he is worth nowhere near the contract he is likely to fare in free agency.

Yep. Which is why Flash Walken and I both tried to provide more context by at least excluding the Bill Peters team to start the season in posts 59 and 61.

[Macindoc]

I don't think there's ever any long-term value in a rental pick-up, unless you go deep in the playoffs.

This year, any team could have come in from the break hot and gone all the way. Just look at Dallas, they're fundamentally not that great a team, but you can't argue with their results. I'm OK with the assets we spent at the deadline this year under the circumstances, but it isn't something we should be doing on an annual basis, just when it's what we might need to push us over the top. This requires a realistic assessment of the team's playoff chances every year prior to the deadline.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

If you are going to list picks moved out to complain about lost assets, at least include picks added in that time too to give a fair picture. We gave up a 7th for Shore, but also acquired a 7th getting rid of Lack. We traded a 4th for Fanta, but added a 4th trading Frolik. We traded a 3rd for Gus, but added a 3rd in the Neal/Lucic swap. We gave up a 2nd for Lazar, but the draft prior we added 2 seconds (and traded another in the Elliott deal). Treliving has also added more NCAA and European free agents than most GMs to help counter the loss of picks.

Treliving has picked 6 fewer times than he would have had he not trades any picks since the 2015 draft (he did not really have the ability to trade 2014 picks). Including the 2014 draft he is down 7 picks compared to what the Flames started with. The breakdown from 2015-2019 is : two first round picks, one second round pick, three 3rd round picks, one fifth round pick. He is up one 4th rounder. Pretty hard to find enough NCAA free agents or European free agents to balance odd trading away 40 percent of your picks in the first 3 rounds. I guess we do have Hanifin (or Lindholm) to show for those picks that were traded.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

Because no deadline deals are "successful" unless you win a cup. It's a pretty pointless exercise.

That isn't true at all, there is lots of potential for deadline deals to work out for one or both teams.

The reason they don't work out for the flames is because the flames make short term decisions with long term assets most of the time in years where they aren't warranted.

The Bruins grabbed a budget player with an extra year on his deal for a cap dump and a 1st.

Vegas acquired a defensemen with an extra year for a couple of 2nds

Tampa acquired two budget forwards with years left.

The penguins landed zucker who had multiple years left.

These deals will continue to benefit these teams going forward, and that's just a sampling from this year alone.

[Enoch Root]

nm