2015/2016 Trade Speculation and Rumors - Page 6 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

N-E-B · 06-17-2015, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Would love it the Flames could trade for O'Reilly, as long as they could get him extended long term to a fair cap number. Anything above $6 million cap hit is silly, but $6 million or lower and he'd be a great piece to a real solid core IMO.

ROR on a long-term deal at $6m/year would hurt this team in the long run IMO.

Roof-Daddy · 06-17-2015, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N-E-B

ROR on a long-term deal at $6m/year would hurt this team in the long run IMO.

Not really IMO. As long as he was identified as a core piece, and Treliving didn't go crazy cap wise with the depth players.

O'Reilly is a core piece too IMO. 60 point two way center, with smarts and an unreal work ethic.

Gaudreau (22) - Monahan (21) -
Bennett (19) - O'Reilly (24) -

Those are your big four forwards.

Build the forwards around them and the cap would be fine.

JurassicTunga12 · 06-17-2015, 09:08 PM

I don't know what we would trade to the Avs as they want defensemen most likely.

Yoho · 06-17-2015, 09:10 PM

That trade will not happen with Flames IMO.

hockey.modern · 06-17-2015, 09:14 PM

Didn't the Flames try to get him a year or two ago?

cam_wmh · 06-17-2015, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire

Except you don't know if Stamkos will sign until after you traded the 1st rounder. 90%+ chance you are giving away a 1st rounder for nothing.

You do if you have exclusive negotiating rights, come to an agreement, and make the trade in a comprehensive transaction.

How did you arrive at your arbitrary "90%"?

hockey.modern · 06-17-2015, 09:52 PM

I would kill to have Ryan O'Reilly on our team. The guy is still young and is exactly what we need. A player with size, two way game and very good offensive production.

Would the Avalanche be interested in Wideman, I may get hate for this but, Wotherspoon maybe? As well as one of our second rounds.

Party Elephant · 06-17-2015, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

Didn't the Flames try to get him a year or two ago?

What? I never heard about that

dammage79 · 06-17-2015, 09:59 PM

ROR still has a year left on his deal. COL is going to ask for a lot right now.

I would like ROR on the Flames but the cost may be too much. Who the heck knows.

dino7c · 06-17-2015, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JurassicTunga12

I don't know what we would trade to the Avs as they want defensemen most likely.

its okay...if its in a 3-way

hockey.modern · 06-17-2015, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Party Elephant

What? I never heard about that

Yeah, we would've have been screwed if they accepted our offer sheet.

Due to O'Reilly playing in the KHL, he would have to go through waivers before being a Flame so basically the Flames would've lost O'Reilly, and a First Round Pick. (Which we used to pick Monahan)

IamNotKenKing · 06-17-2015, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

Yeah, we would've have been screwed if they accepted our offer sheet.

Due to O'Reilly playing in the KHL, he would have to go through waivers before being a Flame so basically the Flames would've lost O'Reilly, and a First Round Pick. (Which we used to pick Monahan)

No.
That's. Not. True.

hockey.modern · 06-17-2015, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

No.
That's. Not. True.

What's the truth then? Just read an article that said it.

Husky · 06-17-2015, 10:20 PM

Only risk with RoR is being a UFA soon. If you could get an extension in place before trade I'd have no issue trading 15th overall for him.

IamNotKenKing · 06-17-2015, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

What's the truth then? Just read an article that said it.

The original memorandum of understanding ("MOU") left it open to interpretation.

In the actual CBA, which was finalised after the offer sheet, the wording changed such that this situation would have resulted in O'Reilly having to clear waivers.

But, that was not the situation going off of the MOU, which was the only document in play at the time.

Working off of the MOU, Calgary's interpretation was valid, such that the worst that likely would have happened is that the offer sheet would have been voided, and there would have been no issue.

Since Colorado matched, it didn't matter, and the wording was firmed up in the actual CBA.

The difference was between "a team's list" and "the team's list".
As O'Reilly was on "a team's list" (Colorado's), the waiver issue did not apply. They changed the wording to "the team's list" in the final CBA, meaning to sign an RFA who played elsewhere after the season started, he had to be on your own team's list (the signing team's), not just a team's list.

H2SO4(aq) · 06-17-2015, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Husky

Only risk with RoR is being a UFA soon. If you could get an extension in place before trade I'd have no issue trading 15th overall for him.

Well he has signed with Calgary before... I assume we could extend him.

I'd much rather trade 2016 1st + ____ for RoR as I believe we'll be a better team next season, especially if he's our #2 centre.

Oil Stain · 06-17-2015, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N-E-B

ROR on a long-term deal at $6m/year would hurt this team in the long run IMO.

That's the going rate for a player of his calibre.

Recently signed:
Foligno
Bolland
Dubinsky
Steen
Callahan
Pominville

All those guys are in that salary range, and most of them are on the wrong side of 30.

O'Reilly would be a good bet to live up to that contract IMO.

Jacks · 06-17-2015, 11:46 PM

Love to have ROR if we could lock him up to a reasonable extension and if the asking price is decent. Those are 2 big if's, sounds like the Avs want a lot.

Jacks · 06-17-2015, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I disagree, Weber is an elite D man, that makes him more valuable imo.

Matter of opinion but they are comparable at the very least. You aren't getting Stamkos for a 1st and a prospect is the point I was driving at.

Vulcan · 06-18-2015, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

The original memorandum of understanding ("MOU") left it open to interpretation.

In the actual CBA, which was finalised after the offer sheet, the wording changed such that this situation would have resulted in O'Reilly having to clear waivers.

But, that was not the situation going off of the MOU, which was the only document in play at the time.

Working off of the MOU, Calgary's interpretation was valid, such that the worst that likely would have happened is that the offer sheet would have been voided, and there would have been no issue.

Since Colorado matched, it didn't matter, and the wording was firmed up in the actual CBA.

The difference was between "a team's list" and "the team's list".
As O'Reilly was on "a team's list" (Colorado's), the waiver issue did not apply. They changed the wording to "the team's list" in the final CBA, meaning to sign an RFA who played elsewhere after the season started, he had to be on your own team's list (the signing team's), not just a team's list.

The thing you're forgetting is that yeah it may have been open to interpretation but all Feaster had to do was phone the NHL for a ruling. That Feaster didn't means he didn't know that ROR had played the two games in the KHL after the agreement and his later claim was trying to save his butt. I don't blame him that much for not knowing about the KHL games, even his agent didn't know but his claim that the ruling would have been in dispute wasn't the main mistake.

In the long run it all worked out, we were terrible and got Monahan and the long awaited rebuild began. I also have no wish to return to the ROR sweepstakes. I don't see us needing another centre as our weakness is on defence and maybe in goal.