2017/2018 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

what's the rules for 'regular' kids drafted?

aren't kids drafted out of the CHL or euros also put back into the draft if they remain unsigned for a certain amount of time?

I thought that was the reason why Calgary traded Erixon?

I think that's right, they go back in the draft, but are not UFA's.

Not the same motivation for the player not to sign.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by flamesforcup

How is a free agent crop with Tavares and Carlson and Stastny weak

Have you seen next year’s group?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Have you seen next year’s group?

Until their team's sign most of them (which happens almost every year) thus making the UFA class weaker. I would say by UFA standards there is a decent amount of talent in this year's group.

[Demetric]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Stastny is a very good player that has kind of flown under the radar the past few years.

Strong two way player and puts up good point totals despite playing a bit of a secondary role in terms of offensive opportunities.

The issue with him is that he is 32 years old, the Kane contract means that Stastny's contract will start with at least a 7, and he'll probably get 5 or 6 years of term just because someone will step up and offer it.

There's a pretty high chance whoever offers that contract to Stastny will regret it a few seasons down the road.

I'll be surprised if he gets more that 4 years did to his age. Also I actually think his number will start with 6 or a 5.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

what's the rules for 'regular' kids drafted?

aren't kids drafted out of the CHL or euros also put back into the draft if they remain unsigned for a certain amount of time?

I thought that was the reason why Calgary traded Erixon?

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I think that's right, they go back in the draft, but are not UFA's.

Not the same motivation for the player not to sign.

I believe the rule is the same for all players who have not been signed by their drafting team in four years after they were drafted—they all become unrestricted free agents. The difference here being that players in Juniour and most European Leagues are re-elligible to be drafted after two years. This is of course not something that is possible for US college players because of the ridiculous NCAA rules. Because of the NCAA, when a college player signs a NHL contract he loses his scholarships and is ineligible to play in the college leagues. If the same rule applied to college players as it does to other Juniours, then no college players would ever be drafted, because they would all be returned to the draft after two years. Unlike the NCAA, when draft picks from other Juniour leagues sign their ELCs, they most frequently continue to play at the same level for another year, or sometimes two.

It is the NCAA rules for eligibility that require the "loophole," which was designed to protect the team's assets by removing the condition for college players to be returned to the draft after two years. The problem here is with the NCAA.

I am uncertain that there are an increasing number of college players who are foregoing contracts with their drafting teams in favour of attaining UFA status in the four-year time-frame. I think it feels like it because we most often hear of a few higher profile players who do this, but I believe the vast majority of NCAA drafted players still either sign with their drafting team, or are not offered a contract by their drafting team.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Demetric

I'll be surprised if he gets more that 4 years did to his age. Also I actually think his number will start with 6 or a 5.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

This guy projects Stastny at 3 years and $5.4 m. That seems very manageable to me, but I am uncertain it is a deal the Flames could get.

He was pretty close on Evander Kane's cap-hit if not term.

https://twitter.com/cane_matt/status...727937?lang=en


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...0V4/edit#gid=0

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I believe the rule is the same for all players who have not been signed by their drafting team in four years after they were drafted—they all become unrestricted free agents. The difference here being that players in Juniour and most European Leagues are re-elligible to be drafted after two years. This is of course not something that possible for US college players because of the ridiculous NCAA rules. Because of the NCAA, when a college player signs a NHL contract he loses his scholarships and is ineligible to play in the college leagues. If the same rule applied to college players as it does to other Juniours, then no college players would ever be drafted, because they would all be returned to the draft after two years. Unlike the NCAA, when draft picks from other Juniour leagues sign their ELCs, they most frequently continue to play at the same level for another year, or sometimes two.



It is the NCAA rules for eligibility that require the "loophole," which was designed to protect the team's assets by removing the condition for college players to be returned to the draft after two years. The problem here is with the NCAA.



I am uncertain that there are an increasing number of college players who are foregoing contracts with their drafting teams in favour of attaining UFA status in the four-year time-frame. I think it feels like it because we most often hear of a few higher profile players who do this, but I believe the vast majority of NCAA drafted players still either sign with their drafting team, or are not offered a contract by their drafting team.

The guys that go to UFA after 4 seasons in NCAA are usually guys who blossomed later. I can’t think of a prospect who was high end from his Freshman year that waited 4 years and went UFA. Any examples out there?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The guys that go to UFA after 4 seasons in NCAA are usually guys who blossomed later. I can’t think of a prospect who was high end from his Freshman year that waited 4 years and went UFA. Any examples out there?

I wouldn't say that. I think the vast majority of players who leave college as UFAs do so because their drafting teams have not offered them ELCs.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I wouldn't say that. I think the vast majority of players who leave college as UFAs do so because their drafting teams have not offered them ELCs.

True, but I was referring to the ones the ‘spurn’ their drafting team, which is what we were talking about.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by edslunch

True, but I was referring to the ones the ‘spurn’ their drafting team, which is what we were talking about.

Yes, but I think it is important to keep this conversation in context in order to maintain an accurate perspective on things. The concern here is that drafting NCAA players is an increasing risk because of how NCAA rules affect team ownership of players' rights. Is that a legitimate and growing concern? The way to answer that question is to gain a clear and comprehensive perspective of what happens to ALL NCAA drafted players.

In actual fact, from a cursory view of this in the last hour or so, it seems that several of the highest profile college UFAs are actually players who were NOT drafted—such as Drake Caggiula and Spencer Foo. So, on the one hand, you are correct about players who blossom later. However, the fact that a number of these players were never drafted also means that they spurned no one.

[Bingo]

I honestly think people need to chill out on the move Fox for fear of losing him mantra.

There's nothing in his actions to date that suggest he's a flight risk. We went through this with Gaudreau, and to a lesser extent Jankowski. On the other hand we saw they moved on Hickey which could have indicated he wouldn't sign, or maybe they had a read on his slipping play that we saw this year.

Fox has come to the development camps, he's bonded with the other Calgary college player and taken some Flame swag home. I have yet to read anything that suggests he's not going to sigh here.

Move him if it's a good deal and it returns assets that help the team now, lord knows they have four of these emerging players so at least one will get dealt. But don't move him out of panic for not signing.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I honestly think people need to chill out on the move Fox for fear of losing him mantra.

There's nothing in his actions to date that suggest he's a flight risk. We went through this with Gaudreau, and to a lesser extent Jankowski. On the other hand we saw they moved on Hickey which could have indicated he wouldn't sign, or maybe they had a read on his slipping play that we saw this year.

Fox has come to the development camps, he's bonded with the other Calgary college player and taken some Flame swag home. I have yet to read anything that suggests he's not going to sigh here.

Move him if it's a good deal and it returns assets that help the team now, lord knows they have four of these emerging players so at least one will get dealt. But don't move him out of panic for not signing.

Yup.

there is a very large fear that NCAA players who remain unsigned until year 3 means they arent signing at all. SUre that possibility exists, but it doesnt occur very often at all. Most of these guys want to stay in school that 3rd, (and several for their 4th) year because they want the education. Also its a pretty sweet gig when you are 20 years old to be playing hockey for a school whilst getting a largely paid for lifestyle that most would envy.

I agree with trading Fox ONLY if there is a large upgrade up front that he can help seal a deal on. Preferably though, its Kylington that is the guy that does that for BT. Fox is going to be a really good player, OK just doesn't have the same upside IMO.

[Demaeon]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Until their team's sign most of them (which happens almost every year) thus making the UFA class weaker. I would say by UFA standards there is a decent amount of talent in this year's group.

But you should for real check out the 2021 UFA class.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I honestly think people need to chill out on the move Fox for fear of losing him mantra.

There's nothing in his actions to date that suggest he's a flight risk. We went through this with Gaudreau, and to a lesser extent Jankowski. On the other hand we saw they moved on Hickey which could have indicated he wouldn't sign, or maybe they had a read on his slipping play that we saw this year.

Fox has come to the development camps, he's bonded with the other Calgary college player and taken some Flame swag home. I have yet to read anything that suggests he's not going to sigh here.

Move him if it's a good deal and it returns assets that help the team now, lord knows they have four of these emerging players so at least one will get dealt. But don't move him out of panic for not signing.

I think it’s more the log jam in front of him that makes people think he’ll jump and /or he’s a high value prospect that is expendable.

[SeanCharles]

Keep all 4 and allow them to naturally progress into the lineup as they become NHL ready. Ship out the expensive vets as the youngsters emerge.

Players like Stone and Brodie should be the first to go and if Kulak's development plateaus perhaps he will be next in line.

Gio, Hamilton and Hamonic will be top 4 guys for years to come which should allow us to cycle the youth in as the others get shipped out (I'm still a big Kulak fan however and hope he can develop further - which would be a good problem to have).

[Nelson]

In The Athletic yesterday, Scott Wheeler pointed out, in passing, that "trading high picks is amongst the biggest factors in preventing good teams from staying good and becoming dynasties, and bad teams from climbing out of mediocrity."

Currently, I think the Flames are a bad team trying to climb out of mediocrity and are without their 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th round picks this year and 2nd and 6th round pick next year. If Scott Wheeler's words are true and I think they are, then this is already a bad situation. But if they start trading more of their best prospects for veteran players that will potentially help them win now when they were not even a playoff team last year, I think it will become an awful situation.

Therefore, I am absolutely against trading Parsons, Gillies, Valimaki, Dube, Phillips, Andersson, Kylington, or Mangiapane. You could say that many of these players play the same position and the Flames don't need duplicates but it is highly improbable all those players succeed. The Flames prospect pool is going to take a serious hit over the next few years. Let's not damage it further.

I think the Flames should trade Stone and consider trading Brodie and Bennett depending on the return, especially for picks and, even better, good prospects and, best of all, fast and skilled RW/C. I think the Flames will struggle to meet their needs at RW and C by trading those assets because they are all low-value assets currently. Therefore, I think the Flames should do the following this offseason:

• trade Stone for picks and forward prospects and consider trading Brodie and Bennett for picks and forward prospects depending on the returns AND/OR
• shop in the FA bargain bin for RWs and/or Cs because shopping on July 1 may lead to massive overpayments based on Treliving's history then trade them for picks and forward prospects if we're not in the playoffs at the deadline AND/OR
• use their cap space to package taking on a bad contract with Stone, Brodie, and Bennett to get a truly helpful RW and/or C.

My favorite option is a combination of 1 and 2.
-I could see trading Stone for a 3rd/4th, trading Bennett for a 3rd (I'd rather just keep him), and trading Brodie for a 1st plus a prospect, and
-realistically signing 1. Perron, 2. Vanek, 3. Nash, 4. Bozak or 5. Grabner or
-improbably signing 1. Tavares, 2. Stastny, 3. Kovalchuk, 4. Neal or 5. Thornton if possible (I doubt it).

With the FA, I think it just depends on price and availability. I don't think Calgary is an attractive destination. It's not because Calgary is not a great city. It is allegedly one of the top 5 cities to live in in the world. It's the tax situation.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

Keep all 4 and allow them to naturally progress into the lineup as they become NHL ready. Ship out the expensive vets as the youngsters emerge.

Players like Stone and Brodie should be the first to go and if Kulak's development plateaus perhaps he will be next in line.

Gio, Hamilton and Hamonic will be top 4 guys for years to come which should allow us to cycle the youth in as the others get shipped out (I'm still a big Kulak fan however and hope he can develop further - which would be a good problem to have).

Not to mention the fact that all four won't be star players. I would assume all four won't be upper roster players. I would be willing to bet at least one won't play at all (or a cup of coffee)

So if you're dealing one you had better deal the right one.

I always think back to the Broissoit / Ortio decision and hoping they traded the correct future starter. They did. But neither made it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Nelson

• trade Stone for picks and forward prospects and consider trading Brodie and Bennett for picks and forward prospects depending on the returns AND/OR
• shop in the FA bargain bin for RWs and/or Cs because shopping on July 1 may lead to massive overpayments based on Treliving's history then trade them for picks and forward prospects if we're not in the playoffs at the deadline AND/OR
• use their cap space to package taking on a bad contract with Stone, Brodie, and Bennett to get a truly helpful RW and/or C.

I think they need to make room so trading Stone for a 4th makes sense. The big thing to me is the Peters view on the left/right defenseman issue as trading Stone does open up a Andersson but trading Brodie does not.

I've said it before but if I'm Treliving I don't let any GM corner me on the "you want to move Hamilton" angle that creates less market. Admit to the fact that you'd be open to move a dman for a forward for balance but if you don't you don't.

See what teams pitch.

I wouldn't trade Bennett as he has more value in Calgary than anywhere else in my mind. He's a third line player on a good deal with upside, pretty much what the Flames would be shopping for, and shouldn't be shedding.

I would move any of Hamilton, Brodie or Giordano if the offers were great. But I wouldn't marry myself to moving any of them as a directive.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think they need to make room so trading Stone for a 4th makes sense. The big thing to me is the Peters view on the left/right defenseman issue as trading Stone does open up a Andersson but trading Brodie does not.

I've said it before but if I'm Treliving I don't let any GM corner me on the "you want to move Hamilton" angle that creates less market. Admit to the fact that you'd be open to move a dman for a forward for balance but if you don't you don't.

See what teams pitch.

I wouldn't trade Bennett as he has more value in Calgary than anywhere else in my mind. He's a third line player on a good deal with upside, pretty much what the Flames would be shopping for, and shouldn't be shedding.

I would move any of Hamilton, Brodie or Giordano if the offers were great. But I wouldn't marry myself to moving any of them as a directive.

I think you are completely correct. All you have to do to see what getting married to trading a certain player does is look at Peter Chiarelli.

I also agree that trading Stone is probably the only trade that is sort of necessary because we need to get Andersson a spot. You're absolutely correct that trading Brodie does not solve this problem.

The hard part about this is that other teams will know we want to trade Stone. It was a garbage signing at the time and I still dislike it.

In general, I think three things are true:
(1) the Flames are not a team one move away from competing for the Stanley Cup and moves motivated by impatience will probably be harmful long-term;
(2) I think the Flames would be best-served trading Stone for a 4th round pick and acquiring bargain bin FA they can trade at the deadline to acquire picks and forward prospects;
(3) buy low, sell high; the players the Flames want to trade are low right now; I don't have any reason to believe NHL GMs don't know Bennett and Brodie are low right now; if we trade Brodie right now, we will likely get $0.60 on the dollar; this may not apply to Bennett because he is a recent high draft pick, but I don't think you can assume other teams will just ignore the fact that he is projecting to be a middling winger right now.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Nelson

I think you are completely correct. All you have to do to see what getting married to trading a certain player does is look at Peter Chiarelli.

I also agree that trading Stone is probably the only trade that is sort of necessary because we need to get Andersson a spot. You're absolutely correct that trading Brodie does not solve this problem.

I don't see any place in Bingo's post where he has conceded this. Here is everything he said as it pertains to Brodie:

Originally Posted by Bingo

...Admit to the fact that you'd be open to move a dman for a forward for balance but if you don't you don't...

I would move any of Hamilton, Brodie or Giordano if the offers were great. But I wouldn't marry myself to moving any of them as a directive.

I personally believe that there is a deal available to make a significant improvement to the forward group which includes moving Brodie. For all his recent warts he is still a top-four defenseman, and still a couple years shy of his 30th birthday. These are among the most valuable assets league wide.

So, I for one would disagree that "trading Brodie does not solve this problem."

The hard part about this is that other teams will know we want to trade Stone. It was a garbage signing at the time and I still dislike it.

To each his own, but in a world in which second-pairing defensemen are +$4.0 m players, $3.5 m for a player who can move up and down the lineup, possesses size and good skating, and is only under contract until he is 30 provides acceptable value.

In general, I think three things are true:
(1) the Flames are not a team one move away from competing for the Stanley Cup and moves motivated by impatience will probably be harmful long-term;
(2) I think the Flames would be best-served trading Stone for a 4th round pick and acquiring bargain bin FA they can trade at the deadline to acquire picks and forward prospects;
(3) buy low, sell high; the players the Flames want to trade are low right now; I don't have any reason to believe NHL GMs don't know Bennett and Brodie are low right now; if we trade Brodie right now, we will likely get $0.60 on the dollar; this may not apply to Bennett because he is a recent high draft pick, but I don't think you can assume other teams will just ignore the fact that he is projecting to be a middling winger right now.

(1) I agree that moves motivated by impatience are detrimental, and I would not say the Flames are a single move away from competing for the Stanley Cup. But I would say that their window is now open, and there are probably two—or perhaps three—key areas which need to be addressed over the course of the next two years. They are not nearly as far away as you are implying.
(2) I think Stone returns better than a 3rd round pick, but the Flames will probably have a greater need for him on the roster if Brodie is moved. Recouping draft picks is a good idea, but the priority should be improvements to the team which will supplement the current core over the duration of Gaudreau's, Monahan's, and Hamilton's current contracts.
(3) I think the return for a player like Brodie will be a pleasant surprise to a number of posters.

This team is NOT rebuilding. There is an excellent—albeit incomplete—core group of players that are young enough to build around over the course of the next half-decade.