[Rumour] Flames aggressively trying to move up. UPD: Treliving and Kekelainen meeting on floor

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

8 is a long time to tie your wagon to the same horses these days, regardless who they are. I'd be disappointed in bridge deals, but what, from a Flames perspective makes you want 8 year deals? I've seen nothing (yet) in the NHL that leads me to believe that an 8 year cycle with the same core can win consistently. I guess maybe Chicago has a shot, time will tell.

Pitt has done not too shabby of a job with Sid over the last 8 years.

Johnny is a special player. 8 years. Get it done.

[debil]

No ####! i was thinking it's irrelevant which position you draft from according to some experts here. proud for winning games last month of the regular season.

[debil]

i'd do monahan for laine straight ahead.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by debil

i'd do monahan for laine straight ahead.

I would too if I was a jets fan.

[flamesforcup]

I would love to get pulj he would be great with bennett. Tho starting next season i would put frolik-backlund-pulj as a line to get him some mentorship. That line would be awesome to watch

[polak]

Id be surprised if Colborne had more value than a 3rd and Ferland is probably not worth much at all at this point.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I would argue that the drop from 4 to 8 last year was at least as big as the drop from 3 to 6 this year.

Having to give up all 3 2nds would be painful. So its probably a fair trade.

They want out of the Hartnell contract (and we could use his grit). How about something like:

#3 + Hartnell for #6 + Colborne + 2nd

I don't think Columbus views Hartnell's contract as a salary dump. From what i have read they are expecting a return for trading Hartnell. By no means do i think they are going to hit a home run, but i could see a team giving a 3rd round pick and a $ 1million/ 1 year term pressbox player back.They actually might not even have to take a contract back. Hartnell is still a top 6 player. The only concern is the 3rd year left in the deal.

Colborne is a RFA that might get a good settlement if he goes to arbitration. I don't see more than a 3rd round pick for trade value. So basically the way i see your trade proposal is Hartnell and Colborne are a wash and it would be like Columbus accepting #6 and a 2nd for #3. Not going to happen.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Pitt has done not too shabby of a job with Sid over the last 8 years.

Johnny is a special player. 8 years. Get it done.

I would be more inclined myself for 8 on Johnny vs. Mony, but when you have to drag out Sid as a compatible, I think that proves my point. 8 should be reserved for some very very special company IMO.

[iloveicedhockey]

That's not the point they were making though. They were saying teams should lock up their best players to 8 years, not that only Crosby level players get 8.
Kane, Toews, Seabrook, kopitar, subban, tarasenko, Giroux, voracek, the guys you want to be part of your long term core.

While it's nice to here we're aggressively trying to move up, with all the press and skewed value recently, I don't see how we do it.

[Heavy Jack]

I think something like 6th + all 2nds for 3rd + Hartnell capdump would work... just would make the numbers game very tricky.

I think post that kinda trade, if Colborne wasn't involved we could easily flip his rights for a 3rd round pick which takes away the money that would be allocated to him but we would need to shed a big contract or two with the need for a goalie + Johnny/Mony reups.

Tricky stuff for sure but I don't think Treliving is going to disappoint at the draft for the 2nd straight year.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

Tricky stuff for sure but I don't think Treliving is going to disappoint at the draft for the 2nd straight year.

Not sure I'm reading this right.
You are saying Treliving disappointed at the draft last year, or saying didn't disappoint?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

No doubt BT is working the phone, but I don't see a big move this year for the Flames. If it takes a massive overpayment, then you don't do it. We lost some prospect depth making the move for Hamilton, so I think we'll stay put and possibly move down. If they can package the lower seconds to move up or for goalie help, great, but I don't see them selling the farm for #3.

[StrykerSteve]

To CBJ - 2016 6th overall+ 2017 CGY 1st round pick + 2016 55th overall
To CAL - Hartnell + 2016 3rd overall

Sounds about right in terms of value.

Then you use a roster player (Colborne), plus 35th + 53rd to try and acquire Fleury.

Flames would need to trade Wideman's salary away to make it work though.

Flames add Hartnell, Puljujarvi and Fleury for next season.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by polak

Id be surprised if Colborne had more value than a 3rd and Ferland is probably not worth much at all at this point.

Colborne due to his age, size, and career season definitely has worth. How much is hard to say but he could be used in part of a big trade. Ferland's worth is more in the range of late round draft picks and not a player that a team is going to want in a blockbuster trade.

[Insufficient Funds]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

To CBJ - 2016 6th overall+ 2017 CGY 1st round pick + 2016 55th overall
To CAL - Hartnell + 2016 3rd overall

Sounds about right in terms of value.

For me that's a big overpay and I wouldn't want to include anything to do with our 2017 first rounder. We still don't have a goalie besides an unsigned Ortio. That could be 1St overall... Can you imagine the pure vile we would spit at Bt?

[Yoho]

I can't see a ton of people comfortable with giving up 2017 1st even if it's lottery protected. This coming year could be last year bad if one or two things go south.

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by Insufficient Funds

For me that's a big overpay and I wouldn't want to include anything to do with our 2017 first rounder. We still don't have a goalie besides an unsigned Ortio. That could be 1St overall... Can you imagine the pure vile we would spit at Bt?

For sure, which is why I think that's likely what it takes to make it happen.

If it doesn't hurt from a Calgary fan's perspective, it's probably not enough. Otherwise, what's CBJ's incentive to pull the trigger.

The real question then is, is it even worth doing in that case.

[Insufficient Funds]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

For sure, which is why I think that's likely what it takes to make it happen.

If it doesn't hurt from a Calgary fan's perspective, it's probably not enough.

The real question then is, is it even worth doing in that case.

I understand that both fan base's need to feel like it's not enough for it to be even close to fair. But there are other pieces that we would much rather keep, like say Anderson and Jankowski.

This management groups "process" on everything wouldn't let them do next year's 1st for almost anything I don't think.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Yoho

I can't see a ton of people comfortable with giving up 2017 1st even if it's lottery protected. This coming year could be last year bad if one or two things go south.

Even if next year is good they need to be careful giving away high picks and letting the farm get thin. I'm ok trading the extra picks they have this year but they shouldn't cut into next year's core picks.

[SuperMatt18]

Yeah the 2017 first rounder would be too much. The Hartnell cap dump is equivalent to a 2nd.

6th overall + 35th Overall + 55th overall + Wotherspoon for 3rd & Hartnell

Actually wouldn't mind Hartnell at all as a LW for Bennett. Still a 50 point and 100 PIM guy who has really helped Giroux and Johannson grow as players.

Columbus needs to get out of the NMC due to expansion draft but in reality the Flames have an extra forward spot that they can leave unprotected (assuming no FWDs take a huge leap in performance this year). 3 years at $4.75 isn't terrible and would be comparable to what ppl would want to do for Backes but cheaper term and cap hit.