If (and big if, but showing signs of life recently) that, plus getting Stone and Valimaki back, are huge deadline 'adds'.
I'd not be unhappy if they stood pat.
Yeah totally. They could have all the pieces they need in the organization already. Sometimes he best moves are the ones you don’t...
Honestly, the only rental worth giving up a first for is Mark Stone. All other rentals (Ferland, Simmonds, etc) are not worth it, and i'd rather the Flames not make any of those trades.
The best rental for the Flames is James Neal finding his game in the second half and into the playoffs. And guess what? That costs nothing.
I think that changes big time if Panarin becomes available. His agent and Jarmo have a meeting coming up soon here. Duchene as a rental is also easily with a first, but none of those three are guaranteed to be available for trade.
I also think a late pick for goaltending depth is a no brainer. Smith can try to find his game in Stockton. This season is going too well to not hedge our bets in net.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to neo45 For This Useful Post:
i guess the question is - would you have done Hamilton Fox and a 1st for Hanifin and Lindholm??
You would have to lottery protect that 1st to make it comparable. The Flames 1st is worth far less now than it was in the summer when we were a non playoff team.
Would rather avoid any rentals unless it's for goaltending depth. Not only do managers pay through the nose at the trade deadline, even the best looking moves usually hurt teams rather than put them over the hump. Don't know how many of these moves have to backfire before teams stay away from them. I think the best move last year was the Jets picking up Stastny. Didn't get them to the Cup though.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fan in Exile For This Useful Post:
You would have to lottery protect that 1st to make it comparable. The Flames 1st is worth far less now than it was in the summer when we were a non playoff team.
Yep, and not only lottery protect but probably top 15 protect - look no further than the 2013 draft, we've possessed a whole bunch of the later firsts from that draft:
Contrast that with five of the seven guys taken 8th - 14th OA
Ristolainen
Horvat
Domi
Morrissey
Wennberg
Now that we know our pick is probably gonna fall somewhere from 21st-31st overall, and probably worse than 26th, I think it holds less value.
Still, there is some value of picks in this range. Could end up a Kuznetsov or you could flip it for a greater team need (recall Frederik Andersen to Toronto). But overall it's not the same as the uncertainty of our pick in the offseason. Which as we saw in the Hamonic trade could have backfired hard.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
i guess the question is - would you have done Hamilton Fox and a 1st for Hanifin and Lindholm??
Knowing what I do now, absolutely. But since we didn't, and got the winning end of that one, there is no need to give up gains from the first trade in a second trade in order to "restructure" it. I don't think a first for rental-Ferland is a good plan. Ferland was a factor in that last game against the flames until the 2nd when he left injured. He also sat with an injury the day before. Its not so much that I would regret giving up an asset in exchange for 4 months of Ferland, it's that I would worry that your only going to get 50% of that 4 months. If your going to make a trade, make a trade for someone that hasn't been injured recently, or for considerable portions of the year to date.
i guess the question is - would you have done Hamilton Fox and a 1st for Hanifin and Lindholm??
I think last year I would have been fine with that. You were getting rid of a player who didn't want to be here and a player who you probably were not going to be able to sign to get two top 5 drafted players.
Would like to know how conversations with Ferland's agent were going. If you felt you couldn't sign Ferland to a team friendly contract, he was probably a better piece to throw in than the first.
I think last year I would have been fine with that. You were getting rid of a player who didn't want to be here and a player who you probably were not going to be able to sign to get two top 5 drafted players.
Would like to know how conversations with Ferland's agent were going. If you felt you couldn't sign Ferland to a team friendly contract, he was probably a better piece to throw in than the first.
Ferland is probably looking for 5M+ on a 5-6 year deal. And that is a big, HELL NO, from me.
The Following User Says Thank You to Phagoof For This Useful Post:
I love Ferly, but someone is going to regret paying him $5M+ long term. Thankfully, with the Flames cap situation next year and needing to sign their own guys, the chance of the Flames being the one is slim to none.
Not that I think this is at all likely but with where the Flames are in the standings they could just acquire Ferland and rest him up to unleash in the playoffs. He's not needed to help fight for a playoff spot as things stand now and all his real value to the team would come in the playoffs, so he could potentially just have two months of light usage along with physio and rest, then be enabled to go full on as a well rested physical beast when the playoffs start.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
Not that I think this is at all likely but with where the Flames are in the standings they could just acquire Ferland and rest him up to unleash in the playoffs. He's not needed to help fight for a playoff spot as things stand now and all his real value to the team would come in the playoffs, so he could potentially just have two months of light usage along with physio and rest, then be enabled to go full on as a well rested physical beast when the playoffs start.
I doubt a player fighting for his next contract would be willing to sit out with light usage until the playoffs.
If Ferland tanks in the playoffs he's guaranteed to be in Europe with this route.
Can't imagine Ferland landing in the top 6... or Neal moving to the 4th line.
I think if Ferland does come back that the Flames NEED to move Bennett back to centre. All three of Ferland Neal and Bennett are too good to be on the fourth line. Jankowski, on the other hand, as people were discussing in another thread, hasn't been fantastic outside of PK and a move to the fourth wouldn't affect that at all.
I think if Ferland does come back that the Flames NEED to move Bennett back to centre. All three of Ferland Neal and Bennett are too good to be on the fourth line. Jankowski, on the other hand, as people were discussing in another thread, hasn't been fantastic outside of PK and a move to the fourth wouldn't affect that at all.
Where does Ryan go?
He's been one of our best faceoff men on the team so far. Unless you move Janko to the wings and send Eatbread down
He's been one of our best faceoff men on the team so far. Unless you move Janko to the wings and send Eatbread down
Exactly, let Janko take some draws to stay sharp for his PK role but other than that he can play wing and Ryan can take a majority of the draws.
I don't know why everyone is so reluctant to move Janko out of centre, even temporarily, when his numbers show that he's struggling a bit there, especially on the third line. Reduce his ice time, take away some responsibility, it could be good for him and at the same time increase Bennett's responsibility because it looks like he is trending in the right direction for an increased role.
Burke was just on Hockey Central saying Ferland went hunting on his day off in between game (not sure when) and his team mates didn't take too kindly to it.
