2018/2019 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

If you're the Panthers, do you trade Huberdeau in exchange for the chance to sign Panarin to a long term deal?

I wouldn't, but if the Panthers think Panarin is all that and a bag of chips, then you have to give to get. I think Huberdeau is the better all around player and you really aren't getting enough to justify losing him. But when a GM gets it in his head that he has to have a certain player, almost anything is possible.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by New Era

Put the shoe on the other foot. Say we're at the end of Gaudreau's contract and there is no indication he wants to sign here. Philadelphia comes knocking and says they have interest. What get's your attention? An Offer of a late first, Oskar Linblom, and Andrew MacDonald, or an offer of Nolan patrick/Sean Couturier? I think the answer is obvious. You have to give to get, and sometimes it hurts to get what you want. This was an example of that.

For what its worth, I would prefer that Treliving only tried to do something minor, like improve the goaltending and not do anything crazy, like selling off draft picks we desperately need to fill a pretty barren system. Lets see what this team has.

If we were looking to be in as terrible a spot as Ottawa is then I absolutely would not be expecting to get much for Gaudreau on an expiring deal. On top of the fact that both players are pending UFAs, and therefore their values are GREATLY diminished just by that fact alone, it is also being widely reported that there’s a good chance none of the players have any interest in signing with Ottawa. Even considering trading someone like Tkachuk for players in that situation is just insane. There’s even talk that one of the three might come out this week and say they aren’t interested in resigning in Ottawa. Ottawa is in between a rock and hard place, largely of their own doing, and throwing them an elite talent like Tkachuk to help them out is frankly one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever seen here. If Ottawa can’t sign any of the three then they’re going to need to take on bad deals just to reach the salary floor. My current guess is Stone and Duchene walk and Dzingel gets way overpaid by the Sens just so that they can be cap compliant.

The package for Stone or Duchene is ultimately going to be very underwhelming for Senators fans. If one of the players indicates that they are interested in resigning then I see almost no way they get traded. But that sure doesn’t seem to be the case by almost any report or rumour that is out there.

[Lanny_McDonald]

I wonder what you would have said about the Flames trading Brett Hull if you were alive at the time? You have to give to get. This isn't NHL19.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Why are some people so fixated on trading Tkachuk, a 21-year-old star who is on pace for a 36-point improvement over last year? This is madness.

Apparently he's being carried by Backlund even though he has twice as many points as Backlund

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by New Era

I wonder what you would have said about the Flames trading Brett Hull if you were alive at the time? You have to give to get. This isn't NHL19.

Lol oh ya a trade that was very obviously a dumb move by the Flames nearly 30 years ago as an example, you really knocked that one out of the park. And while we’re on that topic, the idea that they don’t win the cup if they don’t acquire Rob Rammage and a backup goalie is one of the dumbest fairy tales still around in Flames lore.

I know this isn’t NHL19. It is a honest assessment of the situation, something you clearly can’t comprehend. Ottawa isn’t getting any even approaching Tkachuk level out of the situation they are in. That is all there is to it. I’ts a very stupid idea, and I wouldn’t be so harsh if you weren’t insistent on telling everyone else how bad their ideas are when you have the worst of them all.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by New Era

Fixated? It was the first time I've ever seen a suggestion to do so. It was actually the only realistic trade suggestion made in the past month IMO. You have to give to get, and when you are talking about trying to acquire big game you need big assets. Treliving has already said he won't move the 1st for anything short term, so that means you need to move an asset of value to bring in what pushes you over the top. And it is not madness. Madness is suggesting that Ottawa is going to give up their best assets for a late first, a support player, and a cap dump. The reason I made the suggestion was to inject a little bit of realism into the discussion. Tkachuk is a keeper, IMO, but in the spirit of moving a future asset for the now, and go big game hunting, Tkachuk was an asset that was the best fit.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Say we're at the end of Gaudreau's contract and there is no indication he wants to sign here. Philadelphia comes knocking and says they have interest. What get's your attention? An Offer of a late first, Oskar Linblom, and Andrew MacDonald, or an offer of Nolan patrick/Sean Couturier? I think the answer is obvious. You have to give to get, and sometimes it hurts to get what you want. This was an example of that.

For what its worth, I would prefer that Treliving only tried to do something minor, like improve the goaltending and not do anything crazy, like selling off draft picks we desperately need to fill a pretty barren system. Lets see what this team has.

Lol

Realism? Your suggestion is the most out to lunch trade in their thread

I have a news flash for you. If we hold on to Johnny until the deadline before he is ufa we have ZERO chance of getting a Couturoer or Patrick type.

Treliving has said he won’t move a 1st so it must mean he would consider moving our future captain for 2 rentals. It also appears to be commonplace that high end rentals will do a sign and trade so their value doubles. Stone and Dizinge are ready to sign reasonable extensions and skip free agency so the Sens can extract significantly more value in a trade. Sure your suggestion was realistic.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Frank Seravelli suggests that the Panthers may trade Jonathan Huberdeau in a deal with Columbus to pick up Panarin in a sign and trade. Jonthan Huberdeau has a full NMC that begins this July 1st which may be why they are trying to move him now to upgrade the roster. This allows Columbus to get a good player back for the playoffs and Huberdeau also has cost certainty with a relatively good deal for the next 4 years.

https://www.tsn.ca/panthers-huberdea...oard-1.1255876

I'm wary of this. Huberdeau isn't as talented as Panarin, but the gap isn't huge. But Huberdeau gives his all and is a tough competitor who has committed to Florida pretty well despite the lack of team success. Does a Panarin upgrade on offense push the Panthers over the top? Team defense and goaltending have been the biggest issues, and I don't see how Panarin fixes that. And yet, the Panthers could benefit from the addition of pure skill that Panarin brings. I also question Panarin's commitment to the NHL long term. I worry he pulls a Kovalchuk and goes home if he doesn't like the team he's signed to, which is a risk playing for the Panthers.

If you're the Panthers, do you trade Huberdeau in exchange for the chance to sign Panarin to a long term deal?

It’s not a chance to sign Panarin. It was specified as a signed Panarin.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by New Era

I wouldn't, but if the Panthers think Panarin is all that and a bag of chips, then you have to give to get. I think Huberdeau is the better all around player and you really aren't getting enough to justify losing him. But when a GM gets it in his head that he has to have a certain player, almost anything is possible.

That's what I'm worried about. Tallon has a habit of being headstrong on an idea without carefully analyzing all the details.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

It’s not a chance to sign Panarin. It was specified as a signed Panarin.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Did I say something other than that?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Did I say something other than that?

Yeah you did:

"If you're the Panthers, do you trade Huberdeau in exchange for the chance to sign Panarin to a long term deal?"

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Yeah you did:

"If you're the Panthers, do you trade Huberdeau in exchange for the chance to sign Panarin to a long term deal?"

Most of us start from the top of a post. Helps with context.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Lol oh ya a trade that was very obviously a dumb move by the Flames nearly 30 years ago as an example, you really knocked that one out of the park. And while we’re on that topic, the idea that they don’t win the cup if they don’t acquire Rob Rammage and a backup goalie is one of the dumbest fairy tales still around in Flames lore.

I know this isn’t NHL19. It is a honest assessment of the situation, something you clearly can’t comprehend. Ottawa isn’t getting any even approaching Tkachuk level out of the situation they are in. That is all there is to it. I’ts a very stupid idea, and I wouldn’t be so harsh if you weren’t insistent on telling everyone else how bad their ideas are when you have the worst of them all.

Interesting take.

I heard right from the mouth of one of the guys who is wearing a ring from that team who explicity stated that the team doesn't win the cup without Ramage/that trade.

Im sure you know better though.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Most of us start from the top of a post. Helps with context.

Ya and when you do it begs the question as to why he framed the end question in that way. It should be ‘do you trade Huberdeau for a signed Panarin’, not a chance at signing Panarin. They don’t do the deal if he isn’t signed, and I doubt Panarin signs any deal right now when he’s this close to free agency. You’re right, context does matter.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Interesting take.

I heard right from the mouth of one of the guys who is wearing a ring from that team who explicity stated that the team doesn't win the cup without Ramage.

Im sure you know better though.

Ya I’m not here to get into this, fact is that it was a ridiculous comparison given that it is an example from what was ostensibly a wholly different league in a completely by gone era

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Most of us start from the top of a post. Helps with context.

Then why the end sentence? That's context right there.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Except it wasn't a ridiculous comparison. A very highly gifted young player was dealt for depth that allowed the Calgary Flames to win their only Stanley Cup. The scenario here is the same. The trade that sent Brett Hull out of town was not a deadline deal, it was a hockey trade, exactly what I am proposing here. This is not a deal for throw away players, this is a hockey deal for players who are supposed to be around for another contract, and address the immediate needs of a team trying to be a championship team. As I said in the original post, there are conditions to this trade going down, and that includes contract extensions for the two free agents. And no, that is not unreasonable if this is a hockey trade and not just a deadline deal. The proposed deal makes the Flames better if those conditions are met. If they aren't, the trade doesn't happen and the team is status quo. No need for insults or stupid comments.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Interesting take.

I heard right from the mouth of one of the guys who is wearing a ring from that team who explicity stated that the team doesn't win the cup without Ramage/that trade.

Im sure you know better though.

Sure someone said that, but a year later he was traded for a second round pick and then two years after that he was exposed in the expansion draft... a year after that he was exposed in the expansion draft again. The question could be asked if it was fair value...

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Sure someone said that, but a year later he was traded for a second round pick and then two years after that he was exposed in the expansion draft... a year after that he was exposed in the expansion draft again. The question could be asked if it was fair value...

That is a question you'll have to ask yourself as you reminisce over the Canucks' Stanley Cup victory. See what I did there?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by New Era

That is a question you'll have to ask yourself as you reminisce over the Canucks' Stanley Cup victory. See what I did there?

uhhh, okay?

[Vinny01]

Ultimately if the Flames shop a package around our 1st, Dube, and a roster player like Frolik I think that puts them in the mix for a higher end rental. When looking at rentals that command a 1at they typically include a 1st pick, prospect with a very high likelyhood of playing in the NHL and another piece be it a young fringe player or useful vet.