What was the worst trade in Flames history?

[Dajazz]

Considering today's scouting system, stat availability, video resources and general transparency I would say Iginla, Bouwmeester and Phaneuf.

All were (more or less) all stars at the time and netted late firsts plus b/c-level prospects, or even worse, a bunch of 3rd liners. Regher trade was horrendous too, but they had to pay to get rid of Kotalik I guess.

Darryl's six month psychosis and Feaster's time really set the franchise back several years.

[calgaryblood]

Iginla wasn't a star when he was traded. Bouwmeester was a pylon for Calgary his entire tenure here and his value suffered. Phaneuf trade was terrible now and then. Even though he was also a pylon, he brought other facets to the game where you'd think his value would have been higher especially considering his age.

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Lol @ probably behind Murzyn.

Like a legitimize out loud laugh.

Hardly the gross overstatement you think it is, but I should have said possibly instead of probably. If you look at the 88-89 regular season, Murzyn and Ramage were pretty comparable, wth Murzyn having a few more points and a few less penalty minutes.
We all agree that in the playoffs, when Suter was lost to injury, Ramage performed admirably, and I'll concede that, in the playoffs, Ramage was ahead of Murzyn, who also played in all the games I believe. So, the point I was making stands - Ramage was a number 5 defenseman on the 88-89 Flames.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

It keeps getting repeated because it is the only evidence we have about Stajan's trade value. Vegas valued draft picks so if Stajan does have value it only makes sense they would have picked and flipped him like Methot. Yes the NTC complicates things but I'm guessing he would have waived to go to a contender instead of staying on an expansion team. Instead of Stajan, Vegas picked a player they could have signed as a UFA which speaks volumes about what they thought of his value.

I am a fan of Stajan and think he makes a great 4th line centre and veteran leader but that doesn't change the fact he has little to no trade value due to his age and contract. Also, even if he was somehow traded for a 2nd that still doesn't change the fact the Phaneuf trade was bad.

But it has been explained to you several times that your conclusion is wrong.

The evidence we have is that Vegas chose Engelland over Stajan.

The only conclusion we can draw from that is that they preferred Engelland over Stajan, or felt that Engelland had more trade value than Stajan.

Your view that this shows that Stajan has no trade value is entirely in your head.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Steve Bozek

Hardly the gross overstatement you think it is, but I should have said possibly instead of probably. If you look at the 88-89 regular season, Murzyn and Ramage were pretty comparable, wth Murzyn having a few more points and a few less penalty minutes.
We all agree that in the playoffs, when Suter was lost to injury, Ramage performed admirably, and I'll concede that, in the playoffs, Ramage was ahead of Murzyn, who also played in all the games I believe. So, the point I was making stands - Ramage was a number 5 defenseman on the 88-89 Flames.

Yeah save the stats. I WATCHED them. Ramage was an all-start WHEN he was acquired. Due to riches on Flames D corps, he didn't repeat while here.

Murzyn was 6'5, and played 5'5. He was a turnover machine who was lucky to be ever be iced on those good Flames teams.

The top 3 was cast in concrete; Chopper, Suter, Sarge.

Leaving a MaCoun vs Ramage comparison, as they were both top 4 capable BUT not interchangeable because they shot opposite of each other.

Often Ramage got top 4 minutes and sometimes MaCoun did too.

Murzyn shot opposite of Ramage and isn't his replacement. That's Nattress.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

LV chose to take no player under contract . I think it is pretty safe to say no one wants him

If nobody wanted Stajan, don't you think the Flames would've bought him out like they did Bouma, who was also left exposed and not picked. Who ended up wanting that guy?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

It keeps getting repeated because it is the only evidence we have about Stajan's trade value.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Yeah save the stats. I WATCHED them. Ramage was an all-start WHEN he was acquired. Due to riches on Flames D corps, he didn't repeat while here.

Murzyn was 6'5, and played 5'5. He was a turnover machine who was lucky to be ever be iced on those good Flames teams.

The top 3 was cast in concrete; Chopper, Suter, Sarge.

Leaving a MaCoun vs Ramage comparison, as they were both top 4 capable BUT not interchangeable because they shot opposite of each other.

Often Ramage got top 4 minutes and sometimes MaCoun did too.

Murzyn shot opposite of Ramage and isn't his replacement. That's Nattress.

Well we both watched him, and we'll have to agree to disagree.
To me, Ramage didn't live up to his pre-Flames performance, and was a particular disappointment in the latter part of the 87-88 season, when compared to what we gave up for him. I didn't think he showed any improvement inthe 88-89 regular season, but have always acknowledged his improvement and good play in the 89 playoffs. If the Flames really valued him as an "all star" defenseman, they would have found a way to keep him rather than trade him for a 2nd round draft pick in the 89 draft.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Steve Bozek

Well we both watched him, and we'll have to agree to disagree.
To me, Ramage didn't live up to his pre-Flames performance, and was a particular disappointment in the latter part of the 87-88 season, when compared to what we gave up for him. I didn't think he showed any improvement inthe 88-89 regular season, but have always acknowledged his improvement and good play in the 89 playoffs. If the Flames really valued him as an "all star" defenseman, they would have found a way to keep him rather than trade him for a 2nd round draft pick in the 89 draft.

You don't need to "acknowledge" his post season play in 89 when the entire fan base recognizes how he stepped up. Latter half of "87-88". Lol, those 12 games eh.

I can appreciate he wasn't top pairing as often as the other 3, but both badger and crispy played him top 4 regularly, and for someone who suggested Murzyn is his probable better , well I'll take their hockey acumen over yours.

In addition to a return of a healthy Suter, the Flames as has been established thru the further years, began to liquidate tenured players as they had one of the most expensive rosters in the league. Starting with Ramage & Mullen. (Both traded for 2nds)

Anyway, this off-topic discussion has been appropriately distinguished. You stepped away from the absurdly embarassing notion of comparing Ramage to Murzyn, which as I explained more cordially in my previous post is apples/oranges.

It's god damn indefensible.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Steve Bozek

If the Flames really valued him as an "all star" defenseman, they would have found a way to keep him rather than trade him for a 2nd round draft pick in the 89 draft.

One thing about Cliff Fletcher: He was always sensitive to the feelings and ambitions of his players, and several times he traded away a player who felt that he was being under-used and could get better opportunities with another team. I heard at the time that this was why Charlie Bourgeois was included in the Beers-Mullen trade, and why Paul Reinhart was let go as a free agent.

Certainly when Ramage arrived in Calgary he never expected to be pushed to the third pairing, because Jamie Macoun was then out with major nerve damage in his arm, and it was not yet known whether he would ever play again. I suppose the original plan was to pair Ramage with Al MacInnis, which, along with Suter-McCrimmon, would give the Flames two top-quality pairings. Instead, Macoun made a full recovery and took that spot.

It was great for the Flames to have a player of Ramage's calibre as their #5 defenceman, but it must have been frustrating for Ramage himself, and he may have requested that trade.

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

One thing about Cliff Fletcher: He was always sensitive to the feelings and ambitions of his players, and several times he traded away a player who felt that he was being under-used and could get better opportunities with another team. I heard at the time that this was why Charlie Bourgeois was included in the Beers-Mullen trade, and why Paul Reinhart was let go as a free agent.

Certainly when Ramage arrived in Calgary he never expected to be pushed to the third pairing, because Jamie Macoun was then out with major nerve damage in his arm, and it was not yet known whether he would ever play again. I suppose the original plan was to pair Ramage with Al MacInnis, which, along with Suter-McCrimmon, would give the Flames two top-quality pairings. Instead, Macoun made a full recovery and took that spot.

It was great for the Flames to have a player of Ramage's calibre as their #5 defenceman, but it must have been frustrating for Ramage himself, and he may have requested that trade.

As I recall, you're right - there were other factors such as this involved in the trade - but the return reflects the perceived value of Ramage's abilities by both teams.
Fletcher did a similar thing with the Joe Mullen trade the next year - a favour to send an aging veteran back close to home - but he seriously overestimated the rate of decline of Mullen's skills - Bob Johnson was delighted.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Iginla wasn't a star when he was traded. Bouwmeester was a pylon for Calgary his entire tenure here and his value suffered. Phaneuf trade was terrible now and then. Even though he was also a pylon, he brought other facets to the game where you'd think his value would have been higher especially considering his age.

Jaybo was playing on the greatest d ever assemled about a year later...he also had a year left on his deal, it was a terrible trade.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Jaybo was playing on the greatest d ever assemled about a year later...he also had a year left on his deal, it was a terrible trade.

But not good enough to make the team in 2010... He played like crap here, and has always been prone to major brain farts. Why they chose him in 2104 over arguably much better dmen is beyond me.
Regardless, I think the Flames did ok, they Got Berra who they flipped for a second, and Poirier, whom I'm still high on. It was a better return then we gave up to Florida for his rights in the fist place.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Dajazz

Considering today's scouting system, stat availability, video resources and general transparency I would say Iginla, Bouwmeester and Phaneuf.

All were (more or less) all stars at the time and netted late firsts plus b/c-level prospects, or even worse, a bunch of 3rd liners. Regher trade was horrendous too, but they had to pay to get rid of Kotalik I guess.

Darryl's six month psychosis and Feaster's time really set the franchise back several years.

You realize we made the Playoffs one year after Feasters tenure, and BT did not make any major changes to the previous years lineup, other than sign JG, a Feaster era pick?

[sketchyt]

Trading JS Gigeure for a pick seemed like a pretty bad idea.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Regardless, I think the Flames did ok, they Got Berra who they flipped for a second, and Poirier, whom I'm still high on. It was a better return then we gave up to Florida for his rights in the fist place.

Wow laughable analysis. Did you actually compare his value mere days before becoming an UFA to his value with a year left on his contract? Those can't be compared directly, total fail there.

The trade remains horrible. You don't trade top pairing defencemen for that little. Feaster got boned on that trade. Feaster needed to get a top prospect and a first or multiple firsts. Bouwmeester with a year left on his deal was traded for barely more than Regehr and Doug Murray were traded for at trade deadlines as pending UFAs. Look at all the entire recent history of NHL trades for defencemen and it's clear that trade was horrible, no matter how bad you think Bouwmeester played for us.

To really put it in perspective Bouwmeester with a year left on his deal as a top pairing dman was traded for a package very similar to what Kris Russell (4/5 dman) was traded for at a trade deadline as an upcoming UFA. Think about that for a minute. Feaster got around the same amount for a top pairing dman with a year left as Treliving traded Russell who many think is a #5 on a good team was traded for with only months left on his deal.

The Bouwmeester trade was a joke by a bad GM. There's no other conclusion you can draw if you compare it to all the defencemen trades made in the past 5-7 years. And this is part of the reason why Feaster was recommended to be turfed by Burke. He lost the Bouwmeester and Regehr trades hard in a league where defencemen are routinely traded for premium commodities.

[dino7c]

Jaybo is and was EASILY a top 4 Dman in this league...go look what other top 4 dman have gone for. It may not be the worst trade in franchise history but its certainly up there. There was absolutely no rush to trade the guy he could have at least waited for the deadline, the draft, the following summer.

Lets not forget that after the deal he came out and defended it by saying the cap space for the next season was an asset and part of the return. Cap space that the team never used lol.

[Dajazz]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

You realize we made the Playoffs one year after Feasters tenure, and BT did not make any major changes to the previous years lineup, other than sign JG, a Feaster era pick?

I do, and that was as much a fluke of a season you'll ever see. Everything clicked, the come backs, the timely goals etc.

Sutter did a good job overall, and Feaster cleared some cap, but don't tell me Feaster got that team to the playoffs - he flunked the Iginla, Regehr and Bouw trades while almost signing Richards and O'Reilly.

[StrykerSteve]

It's the Gilmour deal. No question.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Wow laughable analysis. Did you actually compare his value mere days before becoming an UFA to his value with a year left on his contract? Those can't be compared directly, total fail there.

The trade remains horrible. You don't trade top pairing defencemen for that little. Feaster got boned on that trade. Feaster needed to get a top prospect and a first or multiple firsts. Bouwmeester with a year left on his deal was traded for barely more than Regehr and Doug Murray were traded for at trade deadlines as pending UFAs. Look at all the entire recent history of NHL trades for defencemen and it's clear that trade was horrible, no matter how bad you think Bouwmeester played for us.

To really put it in perspective Bouwmeester with a year left on his deal as a top pairing dman was traded for a package very similar to what Kris Russell (4/5 dman) was traded for at a trade deadline as an upcoming UFA. Think about that for a minute. Feaster got around the same amount for a top pairing dman with a year left as Treliving traded Russell who many think is a #5 on a good team was traded for with only months left on his deal.

The Bouwmeester trade was a joke by a bad GM. There's no other conclusion you can draw if you compare it to all the defencemen trades made in the past 5-7 years. And this is part of the reason why Feaster was recommended to be turfed by Burke. He lost the Bouwmeester and Regehr trades hard in a league where defencemen are routinely traded for premium commodities.

I know what his status was prior to the Calgary deal. I'm speaking purely in a price paid to price received value. We still came out ahead.