[Rumour] Oilers' first-rounder, young forward, a goaltender "all likely in play" for help at F

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But it's not likely a top 5 pick.

It is far more likely to be a 10-15 pick. And if you make the trade now, and he helps the Oilers make the playoffs, it's a 15-20 pick.

Lots of potential for that trade to blow up in our faces. As I said before, I would only consider it after the season, knowing the Oilers had already missed the playoffs (and probably still wouldn't do it)

fair enough... certainty of the pick placement makes sense prior to making that decision.

at 10-15 that's a bigger gamble.

its pie in the sky though; if Edmonton were to trade that pick, they'd package it for a bigger return than Bennett

of course, its Chia... so maybe he'd employ the 'scorched earth' strategy

[dying4acup]

If you grab get a top 15 pick with lotto potential for Bennett you do it.

The Flames could package their own 1st for Duchene or Stone.

In Honesty there is no way the Flames and Oilers are making a deal.

[djsFlames]

I wouldn't be afraid of Bennett "blossoming" into a PPG type player with McDavid. He's played with Gaudreau on different occasions and we've seen the results. He does elevate in the playoffs which would be the concern but Edmonton is a ways off from being even a perennial april team. The guy is streaky in the regular season for the most part, with some sand paper/intangibles. He would be better than most of their current winger options for line 1 at least.

For an 8-12 range pick, I probably would. Then would package the Calgary 1st and 2nd for a young impact roster player or solid 1b insurance in net.

[dino7c]

I would do it only if I had another move lined up with the pick or our pick.

Can't hurt the current team for future unknown

[KipperFaNaTic]

I personally wouldn't trade anyone on the main roster. I wouldn't want to risk team chemistry. I would only give up picks or someone in the farm.

Also, Bennett is valuable even though he isn't scoring as much as we'd like. He adds grit and energy.

[Leo]

Was there any way the oilers could’ve kept hall and Eberle and still resigned McDavid and Draisaitl? Is that why they were traded? I can’t help but think thier team would look so much better with those 2 slotted in top 6

[It's a great day 4 hockey]

Originally Posted by Leo

Was there any way the oilers could’ve kept hall and Eberle and still resigned McDavid and Draisaitl? Is that why they were traded? I can’t help but think thier team would look so much better with those 2 slotted in top 6

Wouldn't surprise me at all if Mcdavid was the one who set the oil straight about Hall's attitude. Hall has come out and said he turned out the coaching staff in Edmonton for his last 2-3 years there.

Not a chance McDavid wasn't aware of this early into his first year. As soon as McDavid was known to be picked by Edmonton Hall started to shove his head up McDavid's butt. Hall is then traded for a 3/4 defenseman as soon as McDavid's first year is over and everyone is to believe McDavid didn't speak his mind about all of this to management?



As the expression goes;

"Where there's smoke in Edmonton,
there's a tire fire".

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Edmonton would be idiots to trade a top 5 pick for Bennett.

That said, as a Calgary fan, i'd have no issue making that deal... a potential franchise player/top line player for a guy, with all due respect, that is a third liner (albeit with some nice intangibles that could blossom in the post season)?

that's a no brainer imo

You think Edmonton wouldn't jump to acquire a gritty winger with top tier upside, who happens to be mcdavid's childhood buddies?

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I wouldn't be afraid of Bennett "blossoming" into a PPG type player with McDavid. He's played with Gaudreau on different occasions and we've seen the results. He does elevate in the playoffs which would be the concern but Edmonton is a ways off from being even a perennial april team. The guy is streaky in the regular season for the most part, with some sand paper/intangibles. He would be better than most of their current winger options for line 1 at least.

For an 8-12 range pick, I probably would. Then would package the Calgary 1st and 2nd for a young impact roster player or solid 1b insurance in net.

I wouldn't trade Bennett at this time except for a likely top 3 pick. He provides much more to the team than scoring. I have noticed that the team plays best when there is at least one player on each line that provides energy. With his electric play, Gaudreau is that player on the Monahan line. Tkachuk does that for the Backlund line, and Hathaway for the Ryan line. Bennett provides the energy for the Jankowski line. When he is not on that line, they tend to get hemmed in their own zone and get scored on or take a penalty. The team's overall energy level also seems much lower when either Hathaway or Bennett are absent from the lineup.

In any case, you can't trade a roster player for unknown futures when you're a Cup contender.

[LWcrowfoot]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

You think Edmonton wouldn't jump to acquire a gritty winger with top tier upside, who happens to be mcdavid's childhood buddies?

If Treliving can play that angle to Edmonton good for him but the idea of Bennett having top tier upside is dead.

[crapshoot]

Originally Posted by LWcrowfoot

If Treliving can play that angle to Edmonton good for him but the idea of Bennett having top tier upside is dead.

Guy is 22 years old. Nothing regarding his potential is dead.

[devo22]

people were writing off Backlund at 22/23 too. There's still a lot of time for him to develop ... also let's not forget he's almost 2 years younger than Jankowski for example. Time is not exactly running out for Bennett.

[Yrebmi]

The Lanny Sammy stache cannot goto Edmonton!!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by devo22

people were writing off Backlund at 22/23 too. There's still a lot of time for him to develop ... also let's not forget he's almost 2 years younger than Jankowski for example. Time is not exactly running out for Bennett.

Backlund stepped up at 22/23 and had showed some positive growth along the way. Bennett has been going the wrong direction with his development. Was projected to be a top line center, then a second line winger, now a third line role player, and he's struggling there as well. Bennett is not showing the same potential Backlund did, in any shape or form. The thing that held Backlund back was injuries, but he worked through those and continued to show positive growth in his game.

As far as development goes, I like to use the 250 game played mark to determine the type of player a guy is going to be. For Backlund, that 250 game mark was reached when he was 24, and he had established himself as what we see today - a solid 2nd line player with high end 3rd line capability. Bennett has played 286 games and he is on pace to score 12goals and 29 points. That is consistent with his last two seasons. Sam Bennett is what he is, a 25-30 point player who tries really hard but doesn't accomplish much. If he had some speed I would call him the modern day Paul Ranheim.

If the Flames could get something of value that would improve the team now or restock the cupboards with some good prospects, I would move him. He is not an integral part of the team and is nothing more than a widget at this point.

[Fuzz]

It's also really really cruel thing to do to Sam. Poor guy, being sent to that dump. Have you people no souls?

[CalgaryFan1988]

A 10-15 pick has greater odds of being worse than Bennett, people realize that, right??

So trade Bennett for the likes of Bartschi, Kobasew or maybe Saprykin, who are former Flames picked in that range?

Yeah, no thanks. Peter, just keep the boat.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

You think Edmonton wouldn't jump to acquire a gritty winger with top tier upside, who happens to be mcdavid's childhood buddies?

for a pick that could be anywhere from 1-15?

yeah, they'd be idiots.

would you trade a top 15 pick for kevin hayes?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by crapshoot

Guy is 22 years old. Nothing regarding his potential is dead.

Exactly. Many players haven't really developed until 25 or so. The Sedins took quite a while to get more than the low 30's in points, even though they were getting premium ice time.

Blake Wheeler took time. Kevin Hayes was 22 when he broke into the league, and this is the first year he's produced at a 60 point pace, and he's now heading to UFA.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Exactly. Many players haven't really developed until 25 or so. The Sedins took quite a while to get more than the low 30's in points, even though they were getting premium ice time.

Blake Wheeler took time. Kevin Hayes was 22 when he broke into the league, and this is the first year he's produced at a 60 point pace, and he's now heading to UFA.

I think you keep Bennett, and I think he will still improve. But:

At 22 the Sedins put up 54 and 42 points. Henrik was 39 points the year before, 36 the year before that. This was also the dead puck era. The year after the lockout Henrik jumps by 30 points - the new rules were made for those guys.

Wheeler was from university so his rookie year was age 22 (and he got 46 points). He then put up 38 and 54 points over the next couple years. In Year 4 he was at 64 points.

Hayes was also a 22 year old rookie. And while it's true he is producing even more this year, he's never put up less than 36 and he's been in the 30s only once.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by devo22

people were writing off Backlund at 22/23 too. There's still a lot of time for him to develop ... also let's not forget he's almost 2 years younger than Jankowski for example. Time is not exactly running out for Bennett.

This, a million times this. I swear its the same people too who gave up on Backlund early and were saying the same nonsense they are now saying about Bennett.

Some players take more time than others, it would be stupid to give up Bennett he has such a huge upside if he gets it together.