06-22-2017, 12:30 PM
|
#441
|
First Line Centre
|
I'd trade our 1st + one of klillington or anderson for Hamonic $3.8MM for next 3 years.
rather do that then sign stone for $3.5
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to MacDaddy77 For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:30 PM
|
#442
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
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.
|
Makes me want to do the deal even less. I get what you are saying though.
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:30 PM
|
#443
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CGY
|
Quote:
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.
|
Agreed.
As excited as some of us can get about al these big rumors I don't see the Flamesmhaving the chips tonsot at the table this summer unless they move a core piece that is going to hurt.
I love big trades and was on cloud 9 for days after the Hamilton heist 2 years ago.
One thing about the Flames though is they have been in blockbuster rumors for all 3 of Trelivings drafts before this one.
2014 - cap dumps for top 10 picks. Rumors of Ward/Ribero and the 7th and 12th picks in the draft. Nothing happened and we moved a 3rd for Bollig
2015- Hamilton blockbuster rumored and acquired by Treliving
2016- Bishop rumors and moving into the top 3 dominated the day on the Friday. Ultimately the Flames kept the 6 pick and got lucky with Chucky. Swing the Elliott trade shortly after
2017- remains to be seen but I think we will continue to hear about the Flames looking at a Dman or winger
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:31 PM
|
#444
|
Resident Videologist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary
|
I'd be all over Hamonic if possible.
Our 1st + one of our D prospects maybe gets it done? Probably not enough.
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:32 PM
|
#445
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
|
I could see the Islanders trying to re-coup their first and add a prospect goalie since Berube busted out.
Could see our 1st or Gillies being a key piece in a trade for Hamonic.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to SuperMatt18 For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:33 PM
|
#446
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC
I'd be all over Hamonic if possible.
Our 1st + one of our D prospects maybe gets it done? Probably not enough.
|
If the cost is any higher than that, I don't know if he presents enough of an upgrade over Stone to justify.
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:33 PM
|
#447
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JurassicTunga12
A Kings fan over at hf proposed Muzzin for Jankowski. What do you guys think about that?
|
If this trade ever happened (It wouldn't) it would be a fleecing on the scale of Erat for Forsberg
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobHopper
The thing is, my posts, thoughts and insights may be my opinions but they're also quite factual.
|
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:33 PM
|
#448
|
Franchise Player
|
I'd just like to say, I hope Tre signs one of Jagr or Justin Williams on July 1. Preferably Jagr. That's how they sell me one of these Myanmar shirts.
46 points last year, played for Gulutzan in Dallas, has never played in Canada before. Do it for a year, Brad.
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:36 PM
|
#449
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus
A team is only "asset rich" if they have considerably more at their disposal than the majority of their competition.
|
That seems like a very arbitrary made up definition on your part. IMO we're asset rich when we have a lot of valuable assets. Seems like that's the definition of the words.
However since young assets are often worth the most I'd suggest we are in the upper half easily. Maybe even more asset rich than 2/3 of the league.
Any teams just coming out of a rebuild are asset rich. See TOR. See BUF. See CGY. We're in a great position.
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:37 PM
|
#450
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMatt18
I could see the Islanders trying to re-coup their first and add a prospect goalie since Berube busted out.
Could see our 1st or Gillies being a key piece in a trade for Hamonic.
|
Gillies and 1st is too much we need to hold onto Gilles, Rittich and Parsons and hope like hell we finally find a goalie.
Finding 2 starters under 26 would be a goldmine and net more return than Hamonic down the road
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:39 PM
|
#451
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus
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.
|
So what is "asset rich"? Prospects will be all stages of development, so if those prospects that can "show progress to the next level" (whatever that means) are the only ones that hold any real value, then no team can be asset rich.
I don't think that is correct. All teams have assets. Some are in a better position to use those assets for something tangible now. Some use tangible assets (NHL players) at the deadline for picks. Those are obviously assets as well, without showing any inclination they could make it to the NHL.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Fighting Banana Slug For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:41 PM
|
#452
|
Retired
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Back in Guelph
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
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.
|
That would be ideal, but goalies are impossible.... especially young ones. You have to keep options open, so anticipating 5-6mil per year for 2 goalies would be the lowest I would forecast.
Ideally one of those two comes in and gives the Flames a reason to pull out the chequebook.
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:43 PM
|
#453
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus
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.
|
Disagree on a few of those. I think Jankowski is clearly a bluechip prospect. I think his value is high on his own. I think a lot of fans underrate his upside and his value. I think both Gillies and Parsons are blue-chippers as well. Andersson is close for me too. The rest I think are a cut below. I do think Fox and Kylington have some decent trade value right now.
Interesting to note Craig Button has Parsons as the 2nd best goalie prospect and the 12th best prospect overall ahead of such names as Juolevi, Dubois. So there's some confirmation he's considered bluechip league-wide.
http://www.tsn.ca/test1-1.677389
Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 06-22-2017 at 12:49 PM.
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:44 PM
|
#454
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
Pierre LeBrun @PierreVLeBrun
Not surprising given that he was left unprotected for the expansion draft, but the Panthers are open to moving Jason Demers for right price has 4 more years left on his deal at a $4.5 M cap hit.
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:47 PM
|
#455
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uranus
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
That seems like a very arbitrary made up definition on your part. IMO we're asset rich when we have a lot of valuable assets. Seems like that's the definition of the words.
However since young assets are often worth the most I'd suggest we are in the upper half easily. Maybe even more asset rich than 2/3 of the league.
Any teams just coming out of a rebuild are asset rich. See TOR. See BUF. See CGY. We're in a great position.
|
You're defining a few of the Flames good prospects (that most NHL teams have several of) as somehow more valuable than the majority of the leagues prospect base...doesn't make much sense to me. The Flames are in good shape but they hardly have a wealth of riches at their disposal prospect wise.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:51 PM
|
#456
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus
You're defining a few of the Flames good prospects (that most NHL teams have several of) as somehow more valuable than the majority of the leagues prospect base...doesn't make much sense to me. The Flames are in good shape but they hardly have a wealth of riches at their disposal prospect wise.
|
The main reason we're asset rich is the value of Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Tkachuk, Backlund, Ferland, Brodie, Giordano, and Hamilton. The prospects are a secondary consideration. When you have a young core the value of your team in terms of assets is higher because young players are the easiest to move and worth the most in trades.
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:55 PM
|
#457
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uranus
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
Disagree on a few of those. I think Jankowski is clearly a bluechip prospect. I think his value is high on his own. I think a lot of fans underrate his upside and his value. I think both Gillies and Parsons are blue-chippers as well. Andersson is close for me too. The rest I think are a cut below. I do think Fox and Kylington have some decent trade value right now.
Interesting to note Craig Button has Parsons as the 2nd best goalie prospect and the 12th best prospect overall ahead of such names as Juolevi, Dubois. So there's some confirmation he's considered bluechip league-wide.
http://www.tsn.ca/test1-1.677389
|
So the Flames suddenly have 5 blue chip prospects in their system?
Any one of these players could easily not make the NHL for a variety of reasons just as easily as they could flourish. That in itself, disqualifies them from being blue chip.
I like the group of prospects we have but I'm certainly not going to assume they are sure bet NHL players right now.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
Last edited by Hot_Flatus; 06-22-2017 at 01:00 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Hot_Flatus For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-22-2017, 12:58 PM
|
#458
|
Retired
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Back in Guelph
|
I think Vegas gets Hamonic involving Pickard somehow.
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 01:00 PM
|
#459
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus
So the Flames suddenly have 5 blue chip prospects in their system?
Any one of these players could easily not make the NHL for a variety of reasons just as easily as they could flourish. That in itself, disqualifies them from being blue chip.
|
Whatever man. I guess we have to define each word before we use it?
Almost every prospect has a chance of busting so I guess there's only a couple bluechip prospects drafted each year according to your definition?
How many prospects on Button's list that I linked above would you consider bluechip? If I used the word top prospect instead of bluechip would that suddenly make things okay?
Not even sure what we're really arguing about now. I think that Jankowski has good trade value if teams have scouted him. I think Parsons obviously has good trade value. I think Gillies has good trade value. I think Andersson, Fox and Kylington all have some trade value. They are assets.
|
|
|
06-22-2017, 01:06 PM
|
#460
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uranus
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
Whatever man. I guess we have to define each word before we use it?
Almost every prospect has a chance of busting so I guess there's only a couple bluechip prospects drafted each year according to your definition?
How many prospects on Button's list that I linked above would you consider bluechip? If I used the word top prospect instead of bluechip would that suddenly make things okay?
Not even sure what we're really arguing about now. I think that Jankowski has good trade value if teams have scouted him. I think Parsons obviously has good trade value. I think Gillies has good trade value. I think Andersson, Fox and Kylington all have some trade value. They are assets.
|
Circling back to the original point - the Flames don't have a glut of can't miss prospects they can afford to consider trade bait. Sure, you could find takers but these players are more valuable to the Flames as is. What on earth would it accomplish to move a prospect like Jankowski or Gillies now after years of development? All you'd be doing is moving them out at pennies on the dollar in order to return something of moderate, short-term value.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
Last edited by Hot_Flatus; 06-22-2017 at 01:08 PM.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:58 AM.
|
|