2020/2021 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Please find me a quote from Stone that says this, a good GM's job is to sign players under contract and the flames would have had months to do so, I don't buy this story and never have, the only thing I do believe is Brad didn't like the numbers Mark wanted.

But by all means set me straight.

It is literally simple math. The Flames did not have 9.5M to sign a player that summer. Tkachuk could have been vulnerable to an offer sheet and chances are high Stone walked anyway

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Please find me a quote from Stone that says this, a good GM's job is to sign players under contract and the flames would have had months to do so, I don't buy this story and never have, the only thing I do believe is Brad didn't like the numbers Mark wanted.

But by all means set me straight.

On Sunday evening, the Calgary Flames withdrew from the sweepstakes because the ask was simply too high and the competition too great. Any deal that was going to happen between the Flames and Senators had to include either Jusso Välimäki or Rasmus Andersson going the other way but the Flames had no indication that Stone was going to re-sign in Calgary and they had no desire to move Välimäki. By Monday morning, the Flames were publicly out of the race.

https://thehockeywriters.com/mark-st...trade-details/

So there is that.

Now what can you provide that suggests that he could have or would have re-signed with the Flames?

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I do not agree with your take. Look at the deal with Carolina. Initial response to that trade was mixed at best with a lot of fans absolutely hating the deal. If Lindholm does not break out the way he did that trade would have been a loss for the Flames and there was a ton of risk.

It is like you want him to make a move to make a move. Reminds me of Jay Feaster when we were all excited to see the return on Regehr which immediately turned to pure anger when you see the return.

I don’t agree with your take on everyone saying “we should have beat that offer” look no further than the Dubois trade where Flamea fans were really hoping to get him. When the deal breaks and it is Laine+Roslivic going the other way most Flames fans knew that was not a price we could match. If Anaheim makes a move where they trade the 3rd pick, another young player and take on that cap hot without sending any salary back it is simply something Calgary couldn’t do.

That leads me to your Mark Stone take and sheer lack of acknowledging the salary cap. I have no idea how the Flames would have been able to make that deal work. At minimum the Flames would have needed the Sens or someone to take back Neal in that trade which would never of happened. The Flames could barely make the cap work that summer with Tkachuk signing a bridge deal let alone sign another player for at least 9.5M.

Treliving didn’t give up the pieces for Stone because he was almost surely a rental. The way that team performed in those playoffs it would have been wasted assets because Stone doesn’t turn thinks around against the Avs.


I definitely do not agree with any 2 players a prospect for Eichel. For instance Tkachuk, Lindholm, Zary/Pelletier is not a price I want the Flames to pay. It doesn’t free up much cap space at all while taking 2 first line players and replacing them for one who is injured.

That is the deal I fear is what it would take.... Tkachuk, Lindholm, and (1st or zary or pelletier).

Steep steep price... That being said, regardless of whether eichel is generational or not, he'd be the best center the franchise would have in the last 30 years. As such, I still believe you have to think long and hard on even this deal.

[Flames_F.T.W]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

That is the deal I fear is what it would take.... Tkachuk, Lindholm, and (1st or zary or pelletier).

Steep steep price... That being said, regardless of whether eichel is generational or not, he'd be the best center the franchise would have in the last 30 years. As such, I still believe you have to think long and hard on even this deal.

I'm a HUGE Eichel fan and would be willing to back the truck up for him. Buuuuut, I draw the line at including BOTH Tkachuk and Lindholm. One or the other I think I could get behind, but certainly not both. I think the goal IF we're trying to acquire Eichel would be to keep Lindholm and run with a 1-2 punch of Eichel and Lindolm centering our top 2 lines.

[Saqe]

I don't understand this talk about not paying Tkachuk because of saving cap space, like for what? So that Treliving can spend it on some over the hill UFAs again?

You pay him and move pieces elsewhere to make the cap work, you DON'T let young elite talent walk for picks or prospects hoping they turn into something similar. Even if he's overpaid.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Saqe

I don't understand this talk about not paying Tkachuk because of saving cap space, like for what? So that Treliving can spend it on some over the hill UFAs again?

You pay him and move pieces elsewhere to make the cap work, you DON'T let young elite talent walk for picks or prospects hoping they turn into something similar. Even if he's overpaid.

I guess that’s the crux of the debate, that “elite” marker.

We need cap space because we don’t have an elite player on the team (aside from Gaudreau, but his elite skillset relies a lot on complimentary parts).

I feel like I speak for everybody when I say: no, obviously not for over the hill UFAs.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Saqe

I don't understand this talk about not paying Tkachuk because of saving cap space, like for what? So that Treliving can spend it on some over the hill UFAs again?

You pay him and move pieces elsewhere to make the cap work, you DON'T let young elite talent walk for picks or prospects hoping they turn into something similar. Even if he's overpaid.

I get it. In the vast majority of trades, the team that gets the best player wins the trade.
If Tkachuk is traded for anything other than Eichel, this is likely to be the case.

But you have to draw the line somewhere. What would you rather have: Tkachuk at $14 mill per season, or five 1st round picks?
An absurd question, but at a certain point, it's better to have picks than an overpaid elite player.

[Dan403]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

That is the deal I fear is what it would take.... Tkachuk, Lindholm, and (1st or zary or pelletier).

Steep steep price... That being said, regardless of whether eichel is generational or not, he'd be the best center the franchise would have in the last 30 years. As such, I still believe you have to think long and hard on even this deal.

Its not going to cost that much.

Yes, it will be expensive, but not that much.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by transplant99

https://thehockeywriters.com/mark-st...trade-details/

So there is that.

Now what can you provide that suggests that he could have or would have re-signed with the Flames?

Man, how many times does this story need to be posted? No we’re not going to get some quote from Stone saying “I wasn’t going to sign in Calgary” because what player ever says that? Nor are you going to get a GM to say “Stone wasn’t willing to sign here” because what GM says that. No one has ever refuted this story, and Calgary wasn’t the only team that got the cold shoulder when trying to cut a deal with Stone.

As for Calgary doing the same deal as Vegas, it would have cost $1.5M more per year for Calgary to give Stone the same take-home pay.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Top 2 things I'm tired of reading about on CP
1. The Flames should have traded for Mark Stone
2. The Flames should have drafted Brayden Point b/c he was "in their own backyard"

[Fighting Banana Slug]

On the Freidman hit this morning, he indicated that Anaheim was definitely in on an Eichel trade, which would include the 3OA. He didn't totally answer the question, but indicated that with 3OA, the + would not include Drysdale or Zegras.

So perhaps something closer to what Cliff suggested.

I think the return might be somewhat underwhelming, given what people seem willing to give up from the Flames. We don't have a 3OA, but if Tkachuk was involved, the other pieces might not be that crazy (or alternatively, if 12OA is included, it wouldn't also include Tkachuk/Zary/etc.)

[Toonage]

I think we all need to get comfortable with the idea of Eichel being a Duck (or a King)

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

On the Freidman hit this morning, he indicated that Anaheim was definitely in on an Eichel trade, which would include the 3OA. He didn't totally answer the question, but indicated that with 3OA, the + would not include Drysdale or Zegras.

So perhaps something closer to what Cliff suggested.

I think the return might be somewhat underwhelming, given what people seem willing to give up from the Flames. We don't have a 3OA, but if Tkachuk was involved, the other pieces might not be that crazy (or alternatively, if 12OA is included, it wouldn't also include Tkachuk/Zary/etc.)

If the Flames can't beat an offer that is 3rd OA + something other than Zegras/Drysdale, I will be pretty disappointed.

That trade doesn't even really make sense for either Anaheim or Buffalo in my opinion.
But Anaheim seems to be involved in everything these days. Perhaps their ownership is impatient.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Would probably come down to if they want to make a hockey trade (Tkachuk) or a futures trade (3rd overall). But at 3rd overall they aren't likely to get a franchise or even 1st line player in this year's draft. A good player, but not a game changing piece.

Tkachuk probably could be sold to the fan base a little more easily too.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Top 2 things I'm tired of reading about on CP
1. The Flames should have traded for Mark Stone
2. The Flames should have drafted Brayden Point b/c he was "in their own backyard"

If you do a post mortem on where this rebuild went wrong in 5 years...there is no doubt that the mandate of "trucullence" post Feaster for a year derailed us. In a league this close...it just takes a Kucherov and Point pick to turn around the whole next decade. Instead we went after the Keegan Kanzig, Hunter Smith type players. The Schneider over Demko pick even at the time didn't make sense.

In a 31 team league...3 decisions like that at the different between 1st and bubble team.

PS: I recognize it's a fools game to go back and say yes...every team with the 3 best lower pick players would be a Stanley Cup contender...but there is justification in questioning why we chose player A over player B, especially when there were geographical advantages...

[Jiri Hrdina]

If one believes there is such thing as geographical advantages I guess.
I don't know if there is any basis for that in a world where there is tremendous scouting coverage across core leagues, and even secondary leagues plus the addition of way more availability of video, and analytical models.

So the fact a player happens to be within a certain radius of where your team is located - I just don't see why that matters at all.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

If one believes there is such thing as geographical advantages I guess.
I don't know if there is any basis for that in a world where there is tremendous scouting coverage across core leagues, and even secondary leagues plus the addition of way more availability of video, and analytical models.

So the fact a player happens to be within a certain radius of where your team is located - I just don't see why that matters at all.

You don’t? We discuss constantly how crappy a place Calgary is for free agents. Every bit helps.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

You don’t? We discuss constantly how crappy a place Calgary is for free agents. Every bit helps.

Why would it. These guys are getting scouted fully no matter what. The WHL isn't some far reaching, hard-to-get-to-league.
Is there any evidence that teams have advantage in scouting players closer to them from a geographical POV?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Why would it. These guys are getting scouted fully no matter what. The WHL isn't some far reaching, hard-to-get-to-league.
Is there any evidence that teams have advantage in scouting players closer to them from a geographical POV?

I think I misunderstood, I agree there isn’t an advantage to knowing more about a player due to location.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Yeah, the picking players because they are in "our backyard" is weird. Flames end up with St. Croix from the Oil Kings instead of Gaudreau with that line of thinking.

I do think there's two different arguments happening though. One is having some form of advantage by being able to scout them when they are closer, which I don't think holds true (money into scouting is more important), and the other is somehow making us more attractive as a 'long-term' plan for the draft pick, which I mean the Flames own the rights for at least 7 years and I believe the only two that came up to bite the Flames in recent years was because they were going to play in New York (and not like we care about Tom anymore).