[Rumour] Spector: Flames are willing to move Hudler and Wideman

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If the Flames haven't developed a top 6 forward by two years from now, this will be a long, long rebuild.

Exactly. If we're two years away, why are we trading Hudler now? He's our best offensive player and is a great locker room guy. Just the kind of guy you want around the young kids during a rebuild. I get the whole buy low, sell high aspect but he's only 30, I wouldn't expect a major drop off in performance, in fact I think it's more likely that'll improve on previous seasons. I just think trading Hudler before were sure one of the prospects can step in and be an adequate replacement is a risky game. I can't see his trade value plummeting drastically if we decide to hold on to him for at least a few months, so we can see how Johnny and Sven are doing.

[Read Only]

Is the "great lockeroom guy" stuff coming from Monohhan living with him or is there more to it?

Because when he left Detroit the things said didn't sound like a great character guy. It's possible he has grown up since then and it wasn't horrible stuff said but he certainly didn't seem like a guy you wanted influencing young guys.

[DuffMan]

If Hudler goes, who replaces his truculence?

but seriously, I hope we keep him.

[jofillips]

lol bubsy i got ekblad and bennett whilst keeping hudler!

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Read Only

Is the "great lockeroom guy" stuff coming from Monohhan living with him or is there more to it?

Because when he left Detroit the things said didn't sound like a great character guy. It's possible he has grown up since then and it wasn't horrible stuff said but he certainly didn't seem like a guy you wanted influencing young guys.

Links? I don't remember seeing anything like that.

[Read Only]

I'll get them when at home but it was basically Babcock saying he wasn't going to spend much time trying to coach Hudler because he wasn't able to reach /get him to listen.

Like I said not awful things but far from a leader.

I also think it was before he went to the KHL so may have changed with that experience.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

in NHL14 (lined up be a GM where the flames pick at #4 and backed it up so i can run thru various scenarios during the boring time of the summer hockey-wise). I put hudler on the block on draft day, and traded him+col's 2nd+ptt 3rd in exchange for another top10 pick (i think it was Det, naturally stupid) but ended up with draisatl+ritchie as our first round picks.

If only......

I got S. Reinhart and Ekblad at #15 and #16 ... Don't know why they went that low on my GM.. Ritchie was like #3 .

[ForeverFlameFan]

I would trade Hudler for Stone from the Coyotes. Not sure they'd do it, but they have a surplus of defenseman.

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Hextall said he is looking for a LW.

I honestly wouldn't be upset if a package based around Glencross, Hudler or Wideman brought us the Schenns or Coburn.

[Massonite]

Would anyone be open to trading Hudler or Wideman in a deal involing Ryan O'Reilly's rights?

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Massonite

Would anyone be open to trading Hudler or Wideman in a deal involing Ryan O'Reilly's rights?

Every Flames fan would be open to it. Just don't include the 2015 1st round draft pick.

[Scoutski]

I fully expect our roster on opening day to be pretty different to the way it looks on the day after the deadline. That said, with injuries and trades, it seems like we don't have the depth to handle losing Cammy and Hudler, even if we push guys up, when injuries occur, I'm pretty worried about our ability to cover the holes. If we retain Cammy, I am totally fine with Hudler on the way out for future assets.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Exactly. If we're two years away, why are we trading Hudler now?

He does not play heavy hockey.
So you trade him or Sven.
With Gaudreau, there isn't room for two more smallish forwards in the Flames long range plans.
Simply good asset management

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Fire

Every Flames fan would be open to it. Just don't include the 2015 1st round draft pick.

Which is why there is not much point in talking about it. That would be the starting point for Colorado

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by aedge

How is hudler so easily replaced? Does gaudreau become that good after a year or two in the ahl automatically? How do you replace veteran presence with young players and assume it's the same? If we move hudler it better be a first..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Easily replaced in 1-2 years is what I said. Yes I think Gaudreau has a good chance to be an even more special player than Hudler. And I think Granlund and Baertschi have a good chance to become as good. So between those 3 we should have a Hudler replacement within 1-2 years. With 3 good rolls of the dice I'm confident in saying that he can be easily replaced within 1-2 years, not immediately.

Moving him for a 1st makes us immediately worse. But he could also be packaged in a trade for a player that could play now. There's also the idea that we move Hudler in one deal, and then move a 2nd/3rd rounder for a winger who can play now.

Long term I don't think you can have as many small or non-physical guys as we have in Hudler, Byron, Gaudreau, Baertschi, Granlund, potentially Cammalleri, etc. If we want to keep both Gaudreau and Baertschi then we have to move Hudler at some point. It makes some sense to move him after a really good year where he led the team in scoring because his value may never be higher than it is right now.

I'm fine either way but he remains one of our best assets that can be considered expendable long term. Long term we are deep in small, skilled forwards. Treliving and Burke both want the team to get bigger and stronger so if you keep Hudler then you're probably looking at trading Baertschi. Take your pick. Gaudreau's upside is so big that I don't think we can really consider trading him at this point.

And if we trade Hudler it doesn't have to mean we're handing spots to Gaudreau or Baertschi. Treliving can trade picks or prospects for a young winger to replace him or you could get a replacement in the Hudler deal itself.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by the2bears

Links? I don't remember seeing anything like that.

I definitely heard Duha talk about his on the Fan around when Hudler was left off the Olympic team. He said it was a silly move, but explained how the whole reason Detroit had been willing to let him go was due to his "immaturity" (he did not expand on that) and that it was this same attitude which had got him in the bad books with the national coach.

Again, no expansion on what the issue was, and Duha went on to talk about how from what he's heard Hudler had matured since coming to Calgary and his whole point was it was silly to be leaving a guy of his abilities off the National team, especially since he seemed to have grown and erased any of the previous issues in Calgary.

Regardless if it's true or not about his previous issues, Hudler's "leadership" seems to be drastically overated by those who want to keep him. True none of us know with out being there, but it's not like the team is appointing him with any formal leadership duties (and there was plenty of chance to do so last year with all our injuries), so I'm sure he's not that key of a cog in the "leadership" department for this club. I'm also sure he's not bad for the team either and sounds like he helped out with things like Monahan staying at his house, but I'd wager whatever he brings in the leadership department is likely easily replaceble (same can be said for most on this team minus Gio). The Flames will miss his creativity more than anything if he's moved.

[sun]

Originally Posted by Read Only

I'll get them when at home but it was basically Babcock saying he wasn't going to spend much time trying to coach Hudler because he wasn't able to reach /get him to listen.

Like I said not awful things but far from a leader.

I also think it was before he went to the KHL so may have changed with that experience.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Russell and Smid as your second pairing punches your ticket into the McDavid sweepstakes

Smid and Russell at their best are legitimate #4 Dman in my view. The issue is they need to be at their best. If not, they are closer to being #5 in the league. Still, I don't think those two being our second pairing necessarily makes this team a bottom 5 team. It's not ideal, but I think they are good enough to make this team competitive.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by FAN

Smid and Russell at their best are legitimate #4 Dman in my view. The issue is they need to be at their best. If not, they are closer to being #5 in the league. Still, I don't think those two being our second pairing necessarily makes this team a bottom 5 team. It's not ideal, but I think they are good enough to make this team competitive.

Just my thoughts - not trying to pretend I know anything in particular.
It's not really about that pairing on defense... more about the Flames offense.
I like Smid a lot. He is very valuable, imo. But his numbers are truly terrible when it comes to driving offense. So as part of a third pairing, in a secondary shutdown role of some type - maybe killing penalties as well, Smid is great. Otherwise he effectively eliminates the possibility for Flames offense while he is on the ice - and this team will likely struggle to score already (assuming most talent remains in the AHL). Russell is OK but not a guy to drive this pairing anywhere else, imo.
That's why I suggested the McDavid sweepstakes were a lock with that second pairing.

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Just my thoughts - not trying to pretend I know anything in particular.
It's not really about that pairing on defense... more about the Flames offense.
I like Smid a lot. He is very valuable, imo. But his numbers are truly terrible when it comes to driving offense. So as part of a third pairing, in a secondary shutdown role of some type - maybe killing penalties as well, Smid is great. Otherwise he effectively eliminates the possibility for Flames offense while he is on the ice - and this team will likely struggle to score already (assuming most talent remains in the AHL). Russell is OK but not a guy to drive this pairing anywhere else, imo.
That's why I suggested the McDavid sweepstakes were a lock with that second pairing.

I don't mind Smid on the second pairing, covering for a talented offensive puck-mover like Russell (and occasionally Wideman) and their defensive lapses. Smid-Wideman as the 3rd pairing could actually be very good, especially if we found a decently sized 2nd-pairing calibre player to play with Russell.

I think once all the Oiler stank comes off of Smid he'll play much better. A full training camp with a real NHL team should do him a world of good.