2020/2021 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by 868904

If Tkachuk goes back to his point per game pace and goes back to his on ice shenanigans, he is worth $9 million a year. The question is was this past year an aberration or can his upward trajectory prior to last year continue?

This was the first bump in the road for Tkachuk. He had been trending up prior to last season. Was it because of his concussion from the prior playoffs and covid which derailed a good Summer of training?

It wouldn’t be the worst thing if he stuck around and came to camp in the best shape of his life with a chip on his shoulder.

Covid was likely a massive problem for young single stars like Chucky, If there's ever a player that builds of both positive (home fans) and negative (road fans) it's him. Time will tell.

That said, I'd still trade him for Eichel

[savemedrzaius]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

If Mark Stone isn't a superstar, I'm not sure who is. He's probably the best two-way player in the game.

He's a very good player but I feel like superstar means he does stuff that makes your jaw drop plus he commands attention.

Two-way players aren't superstars. Offense is what draws the eyeballs.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

All this talk about trading Tkachuk is because people treat him like an expiring asset. For all intent and purposes I treat him like a UFA at the end of this season. The same as Johnny. I don't see the Flames qualifying him at $9M for one year. That means Tkachuk gets to test the UFA market after this season. I don't see a hometown discount.

There is zero chance that the Flames don’t qualify Tkachuk and let him become a UFA.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

He's a very good player but I feel like superstar means he does stuff that makes your jaw drop plus he commands attention.

Two-way players aren't superstars. Offense is what draws the eyeballs.

Stone is a superstar, unless you are saying there are only 3-4 superstars in the league, in which case why does it even matter how you label them?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[savemedrzaius]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Stone is a superstar, unless you are saying there are only 3-4 superstars in the league, in which case why does it even matter how you label them?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If Mark Stone is a superstar then every team in the NHL has at least one superstar.

I consider myself a big hockey fan and I don't even know what he looks like. I have a general idea but not 100%. A superstar should be known league wide, even by casuals.

[Scroopy Noopers]

^ well if that isn’t sound reasoning I don’t know what is…

[mennoknight]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

If Mark Stone is a superstar then every team in the NHL has at least one superstar.

I consider myself a big hockey fan and I don't even know what he looks like. I have a general idea but not 100%. A superstar should be known league wide, even by casuals.

he's beautiful. inexcusable.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

He's a very good player but I feel like superstar means he does stuff that makes your jaw drop plus he commands attention.

Two-way players aren't superstars. Offense is what draws the eyeballs.

Split the difference and call him a star.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

If Mark Stone is a superstar then every team in the NHL has at least one superstar.

I consider myself a big hockey fan and I don't even know what he looks like. I have a general idea but not 100%. A superstar should be known league wide, even by casuals.

You have made some interesting points, but this surely isn’t one of them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[1qqaaz]

Isn't Stone the best RW in the world? If so, how is he not a superstar? Or do Pastrnak and Kucherov count as RW?

[Azhouse]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

All this talk about trading Tkachuk is madness..

A year ago Tkachuk was untouchable and the lifeblood of the team now after 1 bad season and the threat of a $9mill QO and we have all turned our backs.

News flash, his game fell off the rails after he had no support after the puck flip and was told to tone it down. Tkachuk is not the type of player you tell to tone it down unless he is actively costing you games or is licking opponents or something. We need players that lead us into battle. Historically we have been too soft, folded too easily, never had the killer instinct when the smell of blood was in the air. We need a guy like Tkachuk doing what he does best.

Just cause he has a $9mill QO doesn’t mean he can’t sign a long-term deal for less AAV. It actually happens all the time with other RFA’s so I don’t see why it’s all we talk about. It’s just like how we all knew Johnny was leaving as a UFA. Now we all think he will stay..

The core of this team is actually fairly young, we have some high end pieces and some young ones emerging. The sky is not falling.

It doesn’t even bother me that we talk about trading some of our players it’s just we are so contradictory..

We complain about Tkachuk and Monahan being slow but want to trade for Reinhart who has always been known to be not the best skater.

We talk about how Johnny has been so reliant on PP to generate offense but are talking about trading Tkachuk for a package including Olofsson who is historically a poor 5v5 offensive producer. He had 15 of his 32 points on the PP last season. 17 of his 42 the previous season.

This has been one of the most frustrating season as a Flames fan so I get it but it’s even more frustrating reading how quickly we have turned on our players and even worse we are trading them for players that are not going to help us get better.

I just don’t understand the logic of trading the best player in a deal for two lesser players unless you are put into a position where you have to. Especially when said players have the same shortcomings we complain about our other players.

Tkachuk "leading us into battle (the playoffs)" has left me wanting. He talks a good game though. I agree if you trade the best player you'll regret it.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

The reality of the NHL is depth trumps super stars. Vegas is a team without superstar players, but they have depth that grinds you into the ground. Calgary should be emulating that model, not chasing the unicorns like they do in Edmonton. Money puck is real and it is effective. Give me two guys that will put up 50-60 points versus a single guy who puts up 70-80 for similar money, and I'll have better results. That's the bottom line. Results.

Mostly agreed, but just with this - stars are the moneypuck. Vegas has ~5 stars

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

Yea Vegas, a team with Fleury, Stone, Pietrangelo and Theodore are just a depth team that grinds you into the ground..

You know what makes players "superstars?" Success. Vegas has been a rip roaring success and it started with a team of rag tag players that teams gave up on, and that included Fleury. Or do you not recall the discussions here of the Flames trying to acquire Fleury and most thinking he was washed up and way too much of a risk? Remember when Fleury had been passed by by Murray? Good times. So Fleury went from a star, to a scrub, and now to a superstar! Why? Because of success. It's why our star players are looked down upon by the vast majority of this board, because we don't experience the level of success desired. They're still the same players, just not achieving any success.

Calling Vegas merely a depth team is disingenuous, they have top players, at every position, that can be discussed in the same conversation as any other top player in the league.

It really isn't, because this is the way the team was built. They went out and purposefully built a team with depth through out the lineup, then rallied that depth into success and were able to attract players because of it. Also, that incredible depth they had allowed them to trade for upgrades at positions. Depth is what makes all of that possible, not some fallacy about Vegas being a target destination because of gambling, hookers, and blow it being a great city. Success is all that matters, and Vegas achieved success because of depth. Period.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

rag tag players that teams gave up on,

Already lost me.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

If Mark Stone is a superstar then every team in the NHL has at least one superstar.

I consider myself a big hockey fan and I don't even know what he looks like. I have a general idea but not 100%. A superstar should be known league wide, even by casuals.

Put a mop on top of a Easter Island statue head, and you'll have an idea of what he looks like.

[GreenLantern2814]

Can anyone think of a championship team that didn’t have a plethora of stars/brand-name players?

I don’t even think the 2006 Hurricanes fit that bill.

In fact, I can’t recall of a Final where the less talented team won. Even the 1993 Habs were a better team than the Gretzky Kings - they didn’t have Gretzky, but they did have Roy, and they finished top 10 in both goals for (9th) and goals against (7th).

The Kings finished 5th in GF and 21st in GA - Habs were more complete and thus won the series.

Underdogs can make a mess of things. They can knock out Tampa in round 1.

It’s virtually impossible to pull an upset in a Final.

[Demetric]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

So do you do something a little unexpected then? Do you dangle Tkachuk for Reinhart and Olofsson if they get confirmation Johnny is going to sign an extension? Then make a pitch for a UFA RW that might be flying under radar?

Gaudreau-Lindholm-Armia (UFA)
Oloffson-Monahan-Reinhart
Dube-Backlund-Mangiapane
Lucic-Ruzicka-Ritchie

I think it makes the Flames better and sports three lines that can score and one that is big and can impose their will on the opposition. Doesn't give up and top prospects or picks the Flames desperately need. Just a thought.

So taking MTL's 4th line winger and putting him on the top line where he is at best a 3rd liner? Playing him over Mangiapane? Seriously?

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

If Mark Stone is a superstar then every team in the NHL has at least one superstar.

I consider myself a big hockey fan and I don't even know what he looks like. I have a general idea but not 100%. A superstar should be known league wide, even by casuals.

I would drive Tkachuk to the airport if we could do a 1-for-1 for Mark Stone.

Dude is one of the top-20 players in the NHL. Superstar for sure.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Demetric

So taking MTL's 4th line winger and putting him on the top line where he is at best a 3rd liner? Playing him over Mangiapane? Seriously?

Seriously. When you put a lineup together you just don't look at it and say, "Well, this is my best player at this position, I'm going to play them on the top line." You look for specific skill sets and how they can amplify the talent of the players they are paired with. Gaudreau and Lindholm need a big body that can do the corner work and score ugly goals from in close. Armia fits that bill nicely, Mangipane does not. Mangiapane is a player that can drive a secondary line and has shown success with Backlund. They seem like a logical pair to keep together as you look for three balanced scoring lines.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Seriously. When you put a lineup together you just don't look at it and say, "Well, this is my best player at this position, I'm going to play them on the top line." You look for specific skill sets and how they can amplify the talent of the players they are paired with. Gaudreau and Lindholm need a big body that can do the corner work and score ugly goals from in close. Armia fits that bill nicely, Mangipane does not. Mangiapane is a player that can drive a secondary line and has shown success with Backlund. They seem like a logical pair to keep together as you look for three balanced scoring lines.

Like James Neal.

Actually like Cory Perry, or better yet, Alex Tuch.