2019/2020 Trade Speculation and Rumors 2.0

[Jiri Hrdina]

The Avs have pending cap challenges as their good young players will move into RFA status. So they would probably look at Johnny as a 2 year piece, not a long-term piece, thus lowering what they would offer up.
I don't think there is a fit there.

[JTech780]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The Avs have pending cap challenges as their good young players will move into RFA status. So they would probably look at Johnny as a 2 year piece, not a long-term piece, thus lowering what they would offer up.
I don't think there is a fit there.

He has a two years left on his deal. Teams aren't going to offer more because he might sign longer. The return will reflect the value of Gaudreau for two years.

The Avs have a pretty good window to load up and take run in the next two years before they get capped out by their younger players.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by JTech780

We could use our cap space to "help" out St.Louis with their cap troubles and take Tarasenko off their hands so they re-sign Pietrangelo.

Does one of Mangiapane, Dube or Pelletier plus Kylington and a pick get us Tarasenko?

We don’t have that kind of cap space.

The Flames can’t sign Taylor Hall without gutting their defense by letting Brodie and Hamonic walk and not having a ton to spend on replacements.

That is where the trade Johnny idea makes sense. Cap space can be created in trading him while recouping young assets. The cap space created along with the little bit of flexibility they have today can land them Hall.

That package above doesn’t get us Tarasenko in my opinion. I think you need the pick to be our first and include at least 2 of those forwards.

Tarasenko is the same age as Hall I would rather sign Hall and keep our assets.

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by JTech780

I would rank Byram and Newhook as being well ahead of Cozens and Smith, they aren't really even close to being at the same level. Dobson is close, but Newhook and Byram are better prospects.

If we can get one of those two, then yes go for it and I said in my original post, they would my first ask from Colorado. IMO Newhook and Byram have number 1 elite C/D potential. Those guys don't get traded very often.

I don't see Dobson, Cozens or Smith as elite players. They will be very good players, but not elite.

Well I certainly don't see that separation, and the consensus doesn't seem to suggest that either. All four of those prospects should be viewed in a very similar light.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by New Era

Looking at the 10 cities that I think might have a legitimate shot at retaining Gaudreau as a UFA here is my trade list and expectations for return. We would likely have to eat a contract coming back, so be prepared for that. No trade is all sunshine and sparkles, so there are going to be challenges along the way. I'm also working on a trade where Gaudreau, Bennett, and Kylington are the pieces moving out with the intent of recouping a RW, C, RD. No proposal is built around a single player. The trades are a sum of their parts. My favorite targets, top to bottom.

Philadelphia - Voracek, Frost, Myers
Buffalo - Reinhart, Cozens, Montour/Jokiharju
Islanders - Nelson, Dobson, Wahlstrom
Detroit* - Mantha, Rassmussen, Hronek
Washington* - McMichael, Fehervary, Sutter
Rangers* - Buchnevich, Miller, Andersson, Barron
New Jersey* - Boqvist, Smith, McLeod
Columbus* - Bjorkstrand, Anderson, Peeke
Boston* - DeBrusk, Brandon, Studnicka
Pittsburgh - Murray, Hallander, Marino
* undefined contract coming back

Wouldn't make any of the bolded trades: most need significant additions, but some come with contracts that also largely prevent us from signing Hall, which is the point of trading Johnny.

Philly trade: would need to sub Voracek for a contract that's not a total anchor for the next 4 years. And add their first.

Islanders: I would want at least a 1st back with that. Maybe not, but I am not keen on Nelson.

Detroit: Just not enough for Johnny- I doubt they'd include their first.

NYR: Another pile of meh. This one particularly reminds me of a gilmour/phaneuf style trade where the flames just shoot themselves in the foot

NJ: What

Columbus: See NJ

Boston: Debrusk is fine but wont ever sniff johnny numbers. The rest is not useful to us Imo. Their first is relatively worthless. No thanks.

Pittsburgh: Not even in the same realm. if murray is the primary piece coming back we will be in the dark ages again.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by JTech780

I would rank Byram and Newhook as being well ahead of Cozens and Smith, they aren't really even close to being at the same level. Dobson is close, but Newhook and Byram are better prospects.

If we can get one of those two, then yes go for it and I said in my original post, they would my first ask from Colorado. IMO Newhook and Byram have number 1 elite C/D potential. Those guys don't get traded very often.

I don't see Dobson, Cozens or Smith as elite players. They will be very good players, but not elite.

Newhook has been consistently rated below Cozens in prospect listings. I have never seen anyone list them reversed. Byram maybe but I think that's a stretch too.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by JTech780

He has a two years left on his deal. Teams aren't going to offer more because he might sign longer. The return will reflect the value of Gaudreau for two years.

The Avs have a pretty good window to load up and take run in the next two years before they get capped out by their younger players.

Disagree. You will maximize value by finding a team that sees him as an important 2 year piece and believe they can have a realistic chance to sign him.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by JTech780

He has a two years left on his deal. Teams aren't going to offer more because he might sign longer. The return will reflect the value of Gaudreau for two years.

The Avs have a pretty good window to load up and take run in the next two years before they get capped out by their younger players.

I don't think this is necessarily true.

See Mark Stone for an example. It was fairly obvious he would re-sign with the team that acquired him. I think both the Flames' and Golden Knights' offers took this into account during their bidding war.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Wouldn't make any of the bolded trades: most need significant additions, but some come with contracts that also largely prevent us from signing Hall, which is the point of trading Johnny.

Get used to the idea of a trade that is not going to immediately blow your hair back. Just like the Hamilton trade the trade of Gaudreau is not immediately going to make people excited. It will be more focused on the sum of its parts than something sexy. And yes, there will be some salary coming back that is likely going to make the locals upset. This is part and parcel of trades in the NHL. Salary has to fit into both budgets, not just one based on their available cap space. Cap space is only valuable if you can use it, and then if you use it on players that can provide value. Having almost $8M in dead cap space really hurts the Flames. This is something Treliving is going to have to work on.

Maybe Treliving retains 50% to move Lucic to a team that could use some dead space. A team might bite on paying Lucic $6.5M over the next three years, freeing up some extra cash for the Flames. Moving out Bennett, Brodie, and Hamonic add over $11M to the mix. Bring in a cost controlled center, a young blueliner that you can get for under $3M and you can afford another big salary that is likely coming along in a deal for Gaudreau. The important thing is to find cost controlled players that are going to step in and contribute. That is going to save the Flames and make them better.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Disagree. You will maximize value by finding a team that sees him as an important 2 year piece and believe they can have a realistic chance to sign him.

Yeah. You need to involve all teams to start a bidding war, and then a team that feels they can sign him will be more willing to step up with the biggest offer since they think they will be able to re-sign him.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by New Era

Get used to the idea of a trade that is not going to immediately blow your hair back. Just like the Hamilton trade the trade of Gaudreau is not immediately going to make people excited. It will be more focused on the sum of its parts than something sexy. And yes, there will be some salary coming back that is likely going to make the locals upset. This is part and parcel of trades in the NHL. Salary has to fit into both budgets, not just one based on their available cap space. Cap space is only valuable if you can use it, and then if you use it on players that can provide value. Having almost $8M in dead cap space really hurts the Flames. This is something Treliving is going to have to work on.

Maybe Treliving retains 50% to move Lucic to a team that could use some dead space. A team might bite on paying Lucic $6.5M over the next three years, freeing up some extra cash for the Flames. Moving out Bennett, Brodie, and Hamonic add over $11M to the mix. Bring in a cost controlled center, a young blueliner that you can get for under $3M and you can afford another big salary that is likely coming along in a deal for Gaudreau. The important thing is to find cost controlled players that are going to step in and contribute. That is going to save the Flames and make them better.

The fundamental thing I think we disagree on is the purpose of moving Gaudreau. In my mind, we should only move him if the offer blows my hair back (for the record, Lindholm-Hanifin qualified as that in my eyes.) The reason we are moving him shouldn't be to gain extra cap flexibility, that is stupid as he's on a bargain contract. I see plenty of opportunities out there that don't involve us handicapping the team into the future just to offload the team's (arguably) current best player- and frankly I think we should just keep him if the only options available are big salary contracts coming back to us.

The last line of your post rings true: we need to find cost controlled players that can step in and contribute. Voracek is not at all one of these, neither are Nelson and Murray. I guess you should listen to your own advice when formulating trades for our best player.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

I don't think this is necessarily true.

See Mark Stone for an example. It was fairly obvious he would re-sign with the team that acquired him. I think both the Flames' and Golden Knights' offers took this into account during their bidding war.

This isn't true. There was general belief he was heading to Vegas as a free agent. I don't think it's obvious at all that he would have signed with the Flames. They would have had the opportunity, but just because he signed with Vegas doesn't mean he would have signed with Calgary - even at the same dollar amounts.

[MikeMc]

Remind me, why is Taylor Hall going to sign here of all places again?

[TheScorpion]

He's from here, grew up a Flames fan, called Calgary the most special place to play, and the Flames have had big interest in him.

[Jiri Hrdina]

And to stick it to the Oil

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The fundamental thing I think we disagree on is the purpose of moving Gaudreau. In my mind, we should only move him if the offer blows my hair back (for the record, Lindholm-Hanifin qualified as that in my eyes.)

You sure about that?

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I think we lost this trade. Hanifin has not looked as good as Hamilton at any level. Lindholm is a nice addition but I still think it doesn't make up the loss of dougie. Fox should have gotten us a bit more.

Seems you didn't have a really good initial feeling about this trade. Almost like your hair wasn't blown back.

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The reason we are moving him shouldn't be to gain extra cap flexibility, that is stupid as he's on a bargain contract. I see plenty of opportunities out there that don't involve us handicapping the team into the future just to offload the team's (arguably) current best player- and frankly I think we should just keep him if the only options available are big salary contracts coming back to us.

The reason we move any player is to make the team better. You do that by finding players that can contribute to your team and earn wins. We know that our areas of weakness are a top RW, a second line center, and a RD. You make a deal on your needs, and if you believe your window of opportunity is only the next three years, you aren't trading for draft picks or junior age kids. You trade for the best resources that can help you win during that window of opportunity. I believe our window of opportunity is until 2023-24 season, when a number of contracts come off the books. That is the focus. I want the most players that can contribute for the next three seasons and make the Flames a winner during that period.

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The last line of your post rings true: we need to find cost controlled players that can step in and contribute. Voracek is not at all one of these, neither are Nelson and Murray. I guess you should listen to your own advice when formulating trades for our best player.

And how does that jive with "And yes, there will be some salary coming back that is likely going to make the locals upset. This is part and parcel of trades in the NHL. Salary has to fit into both budgets, not just one based on their available cap space. Cap space is only valuable if you can use it, and then if you use it on players that can provide value. Having almost $8M in dead cap space really hurts the Flames. This is something Treliving is going to have to work on"?

The cost controlled players are the ones that come as the other components of the trade and those we promote from within to cover the slots made by departing players. So while you may get three players in return for what Calgary gives up, you're going to eat a salary but have it balanced out by the cost controlled players. So in the Philly deal that you struggle to get your head around, you are sending $10.081 out and getting $9.792 back. You are saving a hair on the trade. Now where it gets interesting is that you get a young defenseman and a young forward that will keep the cost of Voracek's contract in check over a period of time. That makes that contract easier to take on and provides a greater lift. That is where the foresight of weighing your needs and finding players to address those larger needs is required. Those cost controlled players can make eating a more expensive contract work out.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

This isn't true. There was general belief he was heading to Vegas as a free agent. I don't think it's obvious at all that he would have signed with the Flames. They would have had the opportunity, but just because he signed with Vegas doesn't mean he would have signed with Calgary - even at the same dollar amounts.

The fact that he signed within hours signifies that Vegas knew they were going to sign him. It was a 76 million dollar contract. It would be hilarious if they signed a deal that size in that short of a period of time without having any prior discussions. No one believes that to be the case.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by New Era

You sure about that?



Seems you didn't have a really good initial feeling about this trade. Almost like your hair wasn't blown back.



The reason we move any player is to make the team better. You do that by finding players that can contribute to your team and earn wins. We know that our areas of weakness are a top RW, a second line center, and a RD. You make a deal on your needs, and if you believe your window of opportunity is only the next three years, you aren't trading for draft picks or junior age kids. You trade for the best resources that can help you win during that window of opportunity. I believe our window of opportunity is until 2023-24 season, when a number of contracts come off the books. That is the focus. I want the most players that can contribute for the next three seasons and make the Flames a winner during that period.



And how does that jive with "And yes, there will be some salary coming back that is likely going to make the locals upset. This is part and parcel of trades in the NHL. Salary has to fit into both budgets, not just one based on their available cap space. Cap space is only valuable if you can use it, and then if you use it on players that can provide value. Having almost $8M in dead cap space really hurts the Flames. This is something Treliving is going to have to work on"?

The cost controlled players are the ones that come as the other components of the trade and those we promote from within to cover the slots made by departing players. So while you may get three players in return for what Calgary gives up, you're going to eat a salary but have it balanced out by the cost controlled players. So in the Philly deal that you struggle to get your head around, you are sending $10.081 out and getting $9.792 back. You are saving a hair on the trade. Now where it gets interesting is that you get a young defenseman and a young forward that will keep the cost of Voracek's contract in check over a period of time. That makes that contract easier to take on and provides a greater lift. That is where the foresight of weighing your needs and finding players to address those larger needs is required. Those cost controlled players can make eating a more expensive contract work out.

Good cherry pick on my quote, the next day I posted that once I had thought of the trade more I actually really liked it. But, I will take the loss here and admit my hair wasn't blown back from the get go.

Voracek's contract has 4 more years on it- you can't offset that type of load over 4 years on two ELCs that are almost due for renegotiation with players you would simultaneously have to hope will deserve more money than we will be able to pay them. How would you fit a frost or myers extension into a relatively stagnant cap? To me it means definitely not signing Hall, or running a horribly weak bottom 6/ bottom pairing.

I bolded the part of your proposition, and your larger strategy, that I disagree with. I think trading Gaudreau changes the window you've identified, and instead matches the new window to whatever the best portion of the Hall contract is, with a caveat that the real central core player is Tkachuk and you're looking to build around him at all times no matter what.

[Enoch Root]

The fact that some people weren't initially enamored with the Hamilton trade has absolutely nothing to do with the expectations for a Gaudreau trade.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Good cherry pick on my quote, the next day I posted that once I had thought of the trade more I actually really liked it. But, I will take the loss here and admit my hair wasn't blown back from the get go.

Wasn't cherry picked. That was a contemporaneous post that gauged your enthusiasm for the trade. Nothing sneaky or underhanded, just a review of what you felt at the time. And don't feel bad, a lot of people didn't have their hair blown back and it took a lot of time for this trade to grow on people. I wasn't thrilled because we gave up the best asset and the best future player. It turned out good though because Treliving got some great value in contract negotiations.

Voracek's contract has 4 more years on it- you can't offset that type of load over 4 years on two ELCs that are almost due for renegotiation with players you would simultaneously have to hope will deserve more money than we will be able to pay them. How would you fit a frost or myers extension into a relatively stagnant cap? To me it means definitely not signing Hall, or running a horribly weak bottom 6/ bottom pairing.

You have to work the problem and see where other contracts come off the books to help out and make moves to free up space as needed. As I suggested, maybe the Flames eat half of Lucic's deal and entice someone to take the cap hit, but pay less on the contract. Lots of teams out there that have shown a propensity to do that. Ryan's $3.125M contract comes off the books in 21-22. Then you have $2.66M coming off the books in 22-23 from Brouwer and Stone's contract mistakes, when Frost's contract is up. Bridge deal covered. The only UFA of concerns during this period are Dube and Valimaki, which will be a bridge contracts at worst. The Flames are actually well positioned to take a good three to four year run at things.

I bolded the part of your proposition, and your larger strategy, that I disagree with. I think trading Gaudreau changes the window you've identified, and instead matches the new window to whatever the best portion of the Hall contract is, with a caveat that the real central core player is Tkachuk and you're looking to build around him at all times no matter what.

No, gaining Hall and trading Gaudreau enhances that window. If they do their trades correctly they have more quality assets in the line up to win with. The window closes as Giordano begins to suffer the effects of time and as contracts for Monahan, Tkachuk, Lindholm, Backlund, and Hanafin expire. That's the chunk of your team that going to cause a retool or rebuild. As those contracts come due and become more expensive, either causing a sell off of players or players just leaving, the window snaps shut.