2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[Bingo]

If this is true you only trade him to the Bruins extended, which ups his value.

Or you deal him wherever you want (other than 8 teams on his list)

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

No, but if that report is true, it just means we can trade him somewhere else purely as a rental, which will diminish his value substantially, or we can trade him to Boston for whatever they might be willing to pay (marginally more than what we might be offered for Hanifin as a rental).
We basically have to hope that there's a team that thinks they can change his mind

1 year of 27-year-old Hanifin for $2.475M is more valuable to me than 9 years for $62.475M.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by stemit14

No but I could see that scaring off several teams. The coyotes, for example, were interested in a sign-and-trade. The best way to maximize Hanifin’s value in trade would have been to have him signed long-term for the acquiring team. He can’t stop the flames from trading him but, if this is true that he only wants to sign with Boston, it will mean he is a pure rental for any team trying to acquire him (besides the bruins).

It isn't true.

[1_Flames_Fan]

The NHL should get rid of no trade, no movement, etc. clauses in contracts. They just completely handicap teams abilities to do business. Go where you're told and if you don't like it wait until you are a free agent

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by 1_Flames_Fan

The NHL should get rid of no trade, no movement, etc. clauses in contracts. They just completely handicap teams abilities to do business. Go where you're told and if you don't like it wait until you are a free agent

Totally agree. Or at least limit how many a team can hand out, and what criteria is needed for a player to be eligible for one. You know, like every other league does.

With Hanifin, it might not be the NTC he has, but more that teams who want to acquire him, want it to come with an extension in place, which he might not be willing to do yet.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by 1_Flames_Fan

The NHL should get rid of no trade, no movement, etc. clauses in contracts. They just completely handicap teams abilities to do business. Go where you're told and if you don't like it wait until you are a free agent

Get rid of the salary cap at the same time. Let owners pay the players what they think the players are worth. Too many restrictions I say.

[Tbull8]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

It isn't true.

The "Boston only" talk isnt true?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Tbull8

The "Boston only" talk isnt true?

Correct.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Correct.

Assumption based on the reporter's prior work, or word through the Flames?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Get rid of the salary cap at the same time. Let owners pay the players what they think the players are worth. Too many restrictions I say.

no thanks

[Buff]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Lysell is a far more likely piece than Poitras

Why not both?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by 1_Flames_Fan

The NHL should get rid of no trade, no movement, etc. clauses in contracts. They just completely handicap teams abilities to do business. Go where you're told and if you don't like it wait until you are a free agent

They should tie salaries to the salaries of teachers.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They should tie salaries to the salaries of teachers.

that just has the owners making even more money though

[Bandwagon Surfer]

Originally Posted by 1_Flames_Fan

The NHL should get rid of no trade, no movement, etc. clauses in contracts. They just completely handicap teams abilities to do business. Go where you're told and if you don't like it wait until you are a free agent

I would go with the opposite approach: make them unwaiveable. Like training a dog, rub the GMs nose in the mess they made.

If GMs want players to go where they are told, then they should not be signing contracts that say otherwise. This problem is 100% the GM's fault.

GMs use these clauses to make contracts more appealing, so they obviously have value to the players. But then GMs can turn around and try to weasel out of their end of the bargain, and people blame the players instead of the GM who made the deal.

It is like if a job offered an employee extra vacation days in lieu of a higher salary. Then when the employee tried to take it, the boss tries to force the employee to waive their vacation. Complete with a public media campaign about how bad the employee is for expecting their boss to honor the deal they signed.

Get rid of the loopholes. Give these clauses enough weight that people signing take them more seriously. The problem will take care of itself.

[shutout]

They should tie salaries to the salaries of teachers.

Tie everything to teachers than the hockey season will be shorter with more time off during the season as well.

And everyone will be given a Stanley Cup at the end of every season

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

I would go with the opposite approach: make them unwaiveable. Like training a dog, rub the GMs nose in the mess they made.

If GMs want players to go where they are told, then they should not be signing contracts that say otherwise. This problem is 100% the GM's fault.

GMs use these clauses to make contracts more appealing, so they obviously have value to the players. But then GMs can turn around and try to weasel out of their end of the bargain, and people blame the players instead of the GM who made the deal.

It is like if a job offered an employee extra vacation days in lieu of a higher salary. Then when the employee tried to take it, the boss tries to force the employee to waive their vacation. Complete with a public media campaign about how bad the employee is for expecting their boss to honor the deal they signed.

Get rid of the loopholes. Give these clauses enough weight that people signing take them more seriously. The problem will take care of itself.

Also if the Flames want to be a destination - Make yourself a destination

Players don't block trades to Edmonton anymore (Even though they still suck)

If anything the Flames should be investing more in facilities for players and their families to WOW the players as geographically they are at a disadvantage.

Instead we have the worst facilities.

[Bingo Jr.]

Any idea on who we got going to the World Juniors?

Wasn't sure where else to put this

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

that just has the owners making even more money though

Nah, cap ticket prices at movie rates.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Assumption based on the reporter's prior work, or word through the Flames?

This is inside information I have heard. Hanifin has not even closed the door on the Flames nor anybody else, he has not told Conroy he will only extend in Boston. Hanifin is actually in a holding pattern much like the team for the most part right now.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Also if the Flames want to be a destination - Make yourself a destination

Players don't block trades to Edmonton anymore (Even though they still suck)

If anything the Flames should be investing more in facilities for players and their families to WOW the players as geographically they are at a disadvantage.

Instead we have the worst facilities.

How did Edmonton make themselves a destination? Lucking into McDavid?

Which what players have happily accepted trades to Edmonton? The ones without a NTC?

The overpaid for a broken Elkhom. Signed a bankrupt rapist that no one else wanted. Brought in McDavids friends.