2017/2018 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[Par]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Can't remember what you wrote 15 minutes ago bud?



Maybe you should choose your words more carefully. Or stick to beating people up in parking lots.

This is what I said:

Flames on lookout for top-4 D... believe they've looked into Hamonic, Methot, among others; also still trying to re-sign M. Stone...

https://twitter.com/PierreVLeBrun/st...15%26page%3D20


We don't really have any valuable things to give, just re-sign stone and sign Franson.


Giordano-Hamilton
Stone-Brodie
Franson-A young kid from fram

Could work nicely and we don't give anything up and there will be injuries, so other kids will get a chance.

[Atodaso]

I think Methot benefited a lot from playing with Karlsson. I'd rather target C. Miller.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Don't forget about 2018 picks. 2019 picks.

Are you suggesting Jankowski, Andersson, Kylington, Gillies, Parsons Fox, etc don't have league wide value? Because that's a very stupid thing to suggest IMO. Are you suggesting we only have 2-3 good or valuable prospects? Because that's 100% false.

Listen bud I've been watching the Flames for 20 years following the draft and our prospects closely. The value of the young players, prospects and picks that the Flames have now is higher than anytime in the last 20 years. We're asset rich right now. Not lacking assets.

We may not want to move a lot of the assets but suggesting we have little to nothing to trade is completely untrue

There's a difference between having a competent farm system and being asset rich as you suggest. A segment of our fanbase seems to struggle with this notion that the Flames are certainly not asset rich. A huge portion of the league has farm systems with a very similar quality of prospects as the ones you have listed.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

By the same logic some of you are using you must not have believed we had anything valuable to trade prior to the Hamilton deal. And yet we acquired a young top 3 puck moving defensemen with size.

Obviously Treliving can't make a Hamilton trade every year but to suggest we have nothing valuable we can or would part with is false.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

There's a difference between having a competent farm system and being asset rich as you suggest. A segment of our fanbase seems to struggle with this notion that the Flames are certainly not asset rich. A huge portion of the league has farm systems with a very similar quality of prospects as the ones you have listed.

We certainly are asset rich. A lot of them happen to be pieces we'd rather not move but that doesn't change the fact we're by far the most asset rich we've ever been in my 20+ years of following the team. It's not because of the prospects. It's because of our amazing young players + the prospects.

How much value league wide do you think players like Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Tkachuk, Backlund, Ferland, Giordano, Hamilton and Brodie have? TONS. So we can agree with have excellent assets on the main team right?

Combine all that with our good young prospects and picks and we're asset rich. We're asset rich to the point where we can actually afford to start giving up top prospects if its in a deal that really makes sense. If we didn't draft Monahan and Bennett could we think about trading Janko? Not a chance. But with Monahan, Bennett, Janko and Backlund all projecting as top two line centres we're extremely, extremely asset rich at that position right now. Most fans may not want to trade those assets but to say we aren't asset rich there would be false. If we didn't trade for Hamilton could we ever think about trading Andersson, Fox or Kylington? Wouldn't be wise. But we have enough good depth on defense that we conceivably could afford to give up one of them now. We're asset rich at that position and thus we were able to trade a guy like Hickey without it depleting our depth noticeably and probably can afford to deal one more prospect defenseman if Treliving finds the right deal.

We're rich enough in assets and have enough good prospects that we could afford to give up a 1st rounder in the right deal.

I don't know why people try to insist we aren't asset rich. When have we ever had as many valuable young players, prospects and picks? I can't think of a time in the last 25 years.

[sureLoss]

Pierre LeBrun @PierreVLeBrun
Hearing that the Devils are among the teams that have inquired with Montreal about Alex Galchenyuk...

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

By the same logic some of you are using you must not have believed we had anything valuable to trade prior to the Hamilton deal. And yet we acquired a young top 3 puck moving defensemen with size.

Obviously Treliving can't make a Hamilton trade every year but to suggest we have nothing valuable we can or would part with is false.

Not meaning to interrupt, however...

I responded to your question on the feasibility of having a top (4) 5 that would include 2 of Methot Stone Harmonic.

Any further thoughts?

Would be great if it could work but I don't see it.

Acquisition cost and cap.

[TheFlamesVan]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

In 3 years? Certainly looks like that's the long term plan

Well it can't really be a long term plan. Unless you get lucky and your entry level goalie is your starter and you have 3 years of entry level salary. You can't operate on a budget that doesn't include starting goalie salary. Or are you thinking about going from rookie goalie to rookie goalie... to rookie goalie....

Long term plan?

[JurassicTunga12]

A Kings fan over at hf proposed Muzzin for Jankowski. What do you guys think about that?

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by JurassicTunga12

A Kings fan over at hf proposed Muzzin for Jankowski. What do you guys think of that?

We don't know what we have in Janko yet, way to early to deal him for Muzzin who I feel is over-rated.

[GranteedEV]

No on Methot. He is 32 years old.
Huge no on Hamonic. He has always been flashy with rushes, hits and shot blocking but he gets walked multiple times every game and brings ostensibly less offense than Stone. Also had some of the worst shots against AND goals against numbers in the league.

I would almost rather throw Oliver Kylington into the deep end to see if he can swim. Not that that is what I want to do.

Originally Posted by JurassicTunga12

A Kings fan over at hf proposed Muzzin for Jankowski. What do you guys think about that?

The Value is there but I just feel like we would regret it when Jankowski's development is complete.. call it emotional attachment or sunk cost fallacy but we have poured five years into Jankowski and he is starting to look like the player Button/Feaster/Weisbrod thought had a big ceiling... I wouldn't do it. Probably the best trade for both teams that could happen. But Muzzin is very good. Good enough that we would have the best top four defense since the 2010 Blackhawks.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Pierre LeBrun @PierreVLeBrun
Hearing that the Devils are among the teams that have inquired with Montreal about Alex Galchenyuk...

Send Cammalleri back...

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by JurassicTunga12

A Kings fan over at hf proposed Muzzin for Jankowski. What do you guys think about that?

After waiting 5 years to see Janko in the NHL I'd rather just hang onto him now.

Big smart fast and skilled. Lets not watch him turn into something on a rivals roster.

[TheFlamesVan]

Originally Posted by Par

We don't really have any valuable things to give, just re-sign stone and sign Franson.

I kind of agree with this, but I would word it as "we can't really afford to give up our valuable prospects at this time". We aren't exactly overloaded in that department. Would rather develop some of those high end talents than trade them for another question mark. Flames should be much better this year if Smith can play to his ability.

Really hope they re-sign Stone.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by TheFlamesVan

Well it can't really be a long term plan. Unless you get lucky and your entry level goalie is your starter and you have 3 years of entry level salary. You can't operate on a budget that doesn't include starting goalie salary. Or are you thinking about going from rookie goalie to rookie goalie... to rookie goalie....

Long term plan?

Well the point is that we'll likely pay less for goaltending after Smith moves on. Obviously we won't pay low salary indefinitely but as we immediately transition to Gillies/Parsons they would be lower. That's all I was trying to say.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

After waiting 5 years to see Janko in the NHL I'd rather just hang onto him now.

Big smart fast and skilled. Lets not watch him turn into something on a rivals roster.

I would love to see Janko excell in the NHL but you make that deal 10 times out of 10 if that is 1 for 1.

No chance the Kings make that deal IMO. We are adding a least our 1st and the discussion probably starts with Bennett not Janko if we want Muzzin.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by timbit

Not meaning to interrupt, however...

I responded to your question on the feasibility of having a top (4) 5 that would include 2 of Methot Stone Harmonic.

Any further thoughts?

Would be great if it could work but I don't see it.

Acquisition cost and cap.

I'm not sure Stone had a good enough season to command 4+ million. But there's always the chance he takes a bit of a discount to play here given his connections. Like I said I don't think 3.5 milly is out of the question, guess we'll see. And that wouldn't be much more than Engelland made here to play bottom pairing.

I'm sure the acquisition cost on Hamonic/Methot would be substantial. Probably 1st+. Would it be worth it? I dunno.

But I have a lot of faith in Treliving to round out our defense. He's a former defensemen and I think his moves regarding our defense have been very solid.

[sureLoss]

Chris Nichols @NicholsOnHockey
McKenzie on #Isles: "I'm not sure they could add Duchene to what they just did w/ Eberle, but they're going to trade Travis Hamonic." #Avs

Chris Nichols @NicholsOnHockey
McKenzie: "I think Hamonic is going to get traded here. I'd be surprised if he's not traded here in fairly short order." #Isles

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I would love to see Janko excell in the NHL but you make that deal 10 times out of 10 if that is 1 for 1.

No chance the Kings make that deal IMO. We are adding a least our 1st and the discussion probably starts with Bennett not Janko if we want Muzzin.

I'd wait to see what is available in free agency. Muzzin is good and the contract ($4M til 2020) looks great. However, I'd like to see what they can get for $4M~ without having to give up a guy who might very well end up being a top 6 C.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

We certainly are asset rich. A lot of them happen to be pieces we'd rather not move but that doesn't change the fact we're by far the most asset rich we've ever been in my 20+ years of following the team. It's not because of the prospects. It's because of our amazing young players + the prospects.

How much value league wide do you think players like Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Tkachuk, Backlund, Ferland, Giordano, Hamilton and Brodie have? TONS. So we can agree with have excellent assets on the main team right?

Combine all that with our good young prospects and picks and we're asset rich. We're asset rich to the point where we can actually afford to start giving up top prospects if its in a deal that really makes sense. If we didn't draft Monahan and Bennett could we think about trading Janko? Not a chance. But with Monahan, Bennett, Janko and Backlund all projecting as top two line centres we're extremely, extremely asset rich at that position right now. Most fans may not want to trade those assets but to say we aren't asset rich there would be false. If we didn't trade for Hamilton could we ever think about trading Andersson, Fox or Kylington? Wouldn't be wise. But we have enough good depth on defense that we conceivably could afford to give up one of them now. We're asset rich at that position and thus we were able to trade a guy like Hickey without it depleting our depth noticeably and probably can afford to deal one more prospect defenseman if Treliving finds the right deal.

We're rich enough in assets and have enough good prospects that we could afford to give up a 1st rounder in the right deal.

I don't know why people try to insist we aren't asset rich. When have we ever had as many valuable young players, prospects and picks? I can't think of a time in the last 25 years.

A team is only "asset rich" if they have considerably more at their disposal than the majority of their competition. The current situation is such that the franchise has merely pulled even with much of the field over the last 10 years when prior to that they were so far behind it wasn't even funny. Jankowski, Dube, Anderson, Kylington, Gillies, Parsons and Fox are not exactly blue chip prospects in any way shape or form. They're a group of good prospects that are all trending in the right direction for sure but are not going to get you anything significant when standing on their own.

Young players like this need to show they can progress to the next level (NHL) before they hold significant value. Do you really think a team is going to give up anything significant for one of these prospects without bundling them with picks and roster players? No, they wont, because just about every team in the league has a few F, D and G prospects that are in the exact same boat.