Sign in with your NHL account:
  • Submit
  • Or
  • Sign in with Google

Jump to content


Photo

Trade Iginla/kiprusoff


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
28 replies to this topic

Poll: Should we trade 1/both (13 member(s) have cast votes)

Do we trade one or both of these guys?

  1. Trade Kiprusoff (2 votes [15.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.38%

  2. Trade Iginla (2 votes [15.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.38%

  3. Trade both (3 votes [23.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.08%

  4. Keep both (6 votes [46.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.15%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 conundrumed

conundrumed

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,842 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:51 AM

It seems like everyone wants to trade these guys, and I know that that isn't the case.

I thought perhaps a thread discussing the merits of either move.

On the one hand, I understand these are our 2 biggest assets regarding return.
Perhaps they're at a stage where they want a better shot at a cup.

But I'm on the flip side.
They are our 2 biggest assets for good reason.
Iginla is an icon amongst hockey fans everywhere.
Kiprusoff single-handedly introduced the world to Finnish goaltenders.
We need skilled leaders moving forward, and Iggy and Kipper drive the Calgary hockey market over and above that.
Doesn't make me right, just wondering your thoughts about that.
I welcome argument and agreement alike. aka, discussion.

#2 Flame111

Flame111

    Flames Zombie (Reality Bites)

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,441 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:56 AM

As per my sig, count me in the trade both column.

Reasoning is simple. With both of them the Flames have still missed the playoffs three years in a row. The team is standing still. This is the last chance to actually get some kind of return for them.

Plus (1) Iginla may actually be asking to be traded at this point to get a Cup. Who thinks he is going to want to finish his career in Calgary Cupless, which he will be, he has stated numerous times he wants to win the Cup and recently that he has no desire to be part of a team on the rebuild / retool.

(2) Kipper was completely cognizant of the type of contract he signed. He probably took more money to leave himself open to any trade in the final year. This is his choice at the time. Again with Kipper the Flames are missing the playoffs, what is the point of keeping him? Sentimentality?

A trade return for him could be pivotal in revitalizing the entire franchise…
________

And trading one with out the other is just counter productive. The Flames are either on a youth movement and taking a new direction, enough of this waffling in the middle for years, as they have done.

#3 C_worthy

C_worthy

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,807 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:53 PM

It isn't that black and white.

However, that is one of the fundamental problems and sources of frustration/debate around here: for some people it IS black and white - they just want to trade them. Period.

And that is wrong.

At this point, the FLames HAVE TO consider offers, and even look into what interest is out there, for both of them.

But to say 'should we trade them?' puts the cart before the horse. You look to trade players that are a problem or don't fit. GOOD players like Iggy and Kipper you trade only if there is an offer that improves the team and is too good to say no to.

#4 Flame111

Flame111

    Flames Zombie (Reality Bites)

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,441 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:57 PM

It isn't that black and white.

However, that is one of the fundamental problems and sources of frustration/debate around here: for some people it IS black and white - they just want to trade them. Period.

And that is wrong.

At this point, the FLames HAVE TO consider offers, and even look into what interest is out there, for both of them.

But to say 'should we trade them?' puts the cart before the horse. You look to trade players that are a problem or don't fit. GOOD players like Iggy and Kipper you trade only if there is an offer that improves the team and is too good to say no to.


I agree, the Flames are trading from a position of strength. I certainly do not advocate trading Iggy and kipper for the fire sale prices that Luo is going to get or any player that demands a trade.

They only go if the return is significant enough to help the team and fits but it should be very seriously considered at this point.

Who even knows what there value is, that is why we have so many threads this year. Everyone is trying to figure out what they are worth because with that it becomes clear if trading them even makes sense...

#5 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,107 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 03:37 PM

This is unlikely to surprise anyone but I voted to keep both.

As with any player I'm OK with moving him if the return benefits the team more then retaining him but what return does that is a matter of prospective.

I'm also in the solidly win now group so I don't see a # of picks/prospects as achieving that end because then you are living with the hope the player becomes what you imagine. We have 2 excellent players that help in the here & now while doing so for a few more years. A few years of living in the basement with the "hope" of climbing out on the backs of these "maybes" just isn't appealing. A proper return has to be 1 that causes us to climb in the standings.

Just MO but I despise losing & view weakening the team (even for what is hoped to be short term) as not even trying to compete. You might as well just concede games @ the puck drop.
If management doesn't seem to want to win the players might as well ignore team rules. "Sit me for staying in the bar past curfew, big deal! [Radulov & Kostitsyn were on every site again.]" "Train? I can lose just fine without working out."

That crap makes Roger Neilson waving the white flag look classy by comparison!

#6 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,439 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 04:16 PM

Trade either / both if you get a:

  • Prospect with a high chance of being a top 2D in the next 3-seasons AND a roster player (top 6F, top 4D) or 1-round pick
  • Prospect with a high chance of being a top 3F in the next 3 seasons AND a roster player (top 6F, top 4D) or 1-round pick
  • 1C
  • Top 5 pick
  • A combination of a roster player (top 6F, top 4D), 1-round pick, top 50-prospect

If you don't trade him in the summer you trade Iginla at the deadline if both criteria are met:

  • He hasn't signed an extension, AND
  • You do not currently have home-ice advantage in the playoffs

If you don't trade him in the summer you trade Kipper at the deadline if both criteria are met:

  • Irving looks ready for starter's duty, AND
  • You do not currently have home-ice advantage in the playoffs

In either case if you are well out of a playoff position by the deadline you trade both.

That is my criteria. Iginla is conditional on him waiving his NMC.

#7 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,062 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 04:36 PM

It seems like everyone wants to trade these guys, and I know that that isn't the case.

I thought perhaps a thread discussing the merits of either move.

On the one hand, I understand these are our 2 biggest assets regarding return.
Perhaps they're at a stage where they want a better shot at a cup.

But I'm on the flip side.
They are our 2 biggest assets for good reason.
Iginla is an icon amongst hockey fans everywhere.
Kiprusoff single-handedly introduced the world to Finnish goaltenders.
We need skilled leaders moving forward, and Iggy and Kipper drive the Calgary hockey market over and above that.
Doesn't make me right, just wondering your thoughts about that.
I welcome argument and agreement alike. aka, discussion.

I can't just say we should trade them for a couple of reasons.

1. Does not matter what value they might have to other teams. It does matter the treatment they both deserve from the Flames for past performance.
2. One or both may still fit long term plans in other ways, like mentoring.(up to their retirement)

Having said that there comes a time when you can't say they are untouchable. That could occur when you:
* See the performance is no longer as good as the replacement you had the foresight to nuture.(Like Irving for example).
* An offer is too good to pass up.
* The price to keep them is too high.

So trading them for the sake of trading them is pointless, just like saying either is untouchable may not be the best for us going forward either.

Edit: So those thoughts don't fit your poll thus I did not vote.

#8 Crzydrvr

Crzydrvr

    Resident Draft Junkie

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 05:05 PM

Going to take a wild stab and say that the two guys who voted for "Trade Both" are Flame111 (since he already stated it) and geos. Ok, maybe not so wild.

I don't mind veteran players who can play. Kipper can play. Iginla can still play and will be a top-6 forward for at least the next few years. The stuff that they can bring (Kipper is a starting netminder who will eventually become a 1B or a backup;Iginla will probably tail off to 3rd liner) is worth more than the return we'd net for them. Sure, we could trade them now for pennies, but I'd much rather have the veteran presence and leadership over a B prospect and a late first round pick.

If you were going to trade him, you missed your window. It wouldn't have been as bad had you gotten a massive return. Now, I'd have to think the value of riding them out until the ends of their careers would be more of a return than any half-assed proposal. We won't be getting enough for what they mean to this franchise and either way ownership has been adamant that neither are leaving.

#9 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,439 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 05:42 PM

Going to take a wild stab and say that the two guys who voted for "Trade Both" are Flame111 (since he already stated it) and geos. Ok, maybe not so wild.

I don't mind veteran players who can play. Kipper can play. Iginla can still play and will be a top-6 forward for at least the next few years. The stuff that they can bring (Kipper is a starting netminder who will eventually become a 1B or a backup;Iginla will probably tail off to 3rd liner) is worth more than the return we'd net for them. Sure, we could trade them now for pennies, but I'd much rather have the veteran presence and leadership over a B prospect and a late first round pick.

If you were going to trade him, you missed your window. It wouldn't have been as bad had you gotten a massive return. Now, I'd have to think the value of riding them out until the ends of their careers would be more of a return than any half-assed proposal. We won't be getting enough for what they mean to this franchise and either way ownership has been adamant that neither are leaving.


I voted trade both. But that assumes the value is there. Which I stated in my post.

#10 CallMeElvis

CallMeElvis

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:17 PM

these are the two pieces of the puzzle that aren't broken. deal with the ufas/rfa's, get two big fast hardnosed goal scoreing forwards from the ufa's out there. Get bigger, get rid ot the floaters (atleast 5 of them), bring up atleast 2 maybe 5 guys from the A and then see how your doing. If it's all good stay with it if not make this decision at the trade deadline.

#11 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,439 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:40 PM

these are the two pieces of the puzzle that aren't broken. deal with the ufas/rfa's, get two big fast hardnosed goal scoreing forwards from the ufa's out there. Get bigger, get rid ot the floaters (atleast 5 of them), bring up atleast 2 maybe 5 guys from the A and then see how your doing. If it's all good stay with it if not make this decision at the trade deadline.


And those UFAs are....

#12 CallMeElvis

CallMeElvis

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:57 PM

What do I have to do everything?
ok well Parise would be one I'd like to see.

#13 Flame111

Flame111

    Flames Zombie (Reality Bites)

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,441 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 07:28 PM

What do I have to do everything?
ok well Parise would be one I'd like to see.


Parise /Suter are total pipe dreams.

I think the Flames may be able to put top dollar on the table for Wideman but i doubt they get the big UFA whales...

Going to take a wild stab and say that the two guys who voted for "Trade Both" are Flame111 (since he already stated it) and geos. Ok, maybe not so wild.

I don't mind veteran players who can play. Kipper can play. Iginla can still play and will be a top-6 forward for at least the next few years. The stuff that they can bring (Kipper is a starting netminder who will eventually become a 1B or a backup;Iginla will probably tail off to 3rd liner) is worth more than the return we'd net for them. Sure, we could trade them now for pennies, but I'd much rather have the veteran presence and leadership over a B prospect and a late first round pick.

If you were going to trade him, you missed your window. It wouldn't have been as bad had you gotten a massive return. Now, I'd have to think the value of riding them out until the ends of their careers would be more of a return than any half-assed proposal. We won't be getting enough for what they mean to this franchise and either way ownership has been adamant that neither are leaving.


I am on the same page as Kehatch - you do not dump them for "pennies" - you only move them for a solid return, that makes sense for the team.

Review the many threads trying to feel out their value. Some are good moves, some are realistic and some are pure fantasy.

I still think Iginla holds value as an elite player with consistency. He may even be asking for the trade and we don't know, certainly you don't condemn the trade happening in the case, after all his years of service to Calgary, that is the least they can do for him.

Kipper, again the return has to be there. If it isn't, I fully support keeping him till he retires. There is no point moving him for nothing or little in return. His value is hard to establish but the best one so far I think is the Chiacgo proposal. Toronto is a possibility too but I haven't seen a good suggestion there yet.

Once again you only deal them in trades that a realistic fan would see as positive for the Flames.

Now there will always be the people out there who think you can trade Iginla for Crosby but in a practical valuation, you can tell the difference and I expect a good trade.

#14 swtrooper

swtrooper

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,388 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 07:38 PM

I voted keep them both. Lets see, without Iggys 30+ goals for the past x amount of seasons, where would we be without those goals? Not to mention his assists. We are a low scoring team and without him it will get worse. Before any of you mention what we may get for him in terms of picks, please tell me how you assume they wont be the next Rico Fata.

Without Kipper we would be a bottom feeder. If you disagree with this you obviously havent been paying much attention to Flames games since 04. Except for his losing streak last year he is our backbone. As far as Irving replacing him....maybe, but hes not gonna be a Kipper! You can quote me on that! We ve been spoiled by the great goalie Kipper has been. Does anyone remember who the last excellent goalie we had before him was? Been a while hasnt it? I would say that goalie was Vernon (and not the retire in a flames jersey Vernon), and that was probably longer ago then many of the young ones on this board remember.

Bottom line take out the top two players on any team, espically when they re your only decent players see how that works out for them. Calgarys talent drops off significantly if we lose those two and if we re lucky the return may be great, but it can also be a bust and how would that sit with you?

#15 lordxan

lordxan

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 742 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 07:45 PM

There is another consideration to take into account. Many of the UFAs have come to Cgy because of Iggy and Kiper, and landing future UFAs will require some name worthy stars, trading one or both will make landing future UFAs over the next few years much harder.

All things considered, IF the deal is too good to say no then yes trade one or both, otherwise Cgy might as well just do a full rebuild. I'm not sure that is the direction they are looking at for the moment nor do I think they should do a full rebuild. There are some things they should look to change or improve including the RW, 1st Ctr and the top 4 D needs another person along with decent D depth at 5/6 spot would be nice too.

The only other thing to consider is moving Irving up and trading one of Karlsson or Ramo as both are redundant.

#16 Flame111

Flame111

    Flames Zombie (Reality Bites)

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,441 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:18 PM

I voted keep them both. Lets see, without Iggys 30+ goals for the past x amount of seasons, where would we be without those goals? Not to mention his assists. We are a low scoring team and without him it will get worse. Before any of you mention what we may get for him in terms of picks, please tell me how you assume they wont be the next Rico Fata.

Without Kipper we would be a bottom feeder. If you disagree with this you obviously havent been paying much attention to Flames games since 04. Except for his losing streak last year he is our backbone. As far as Irving replacing him....maybe, but hes not gonna be a Kipper! You can quote me on that! We ve been spoiled by the great goalie Kipper has been. Does anyone remember who the last excellent goalie we had before him was? Been a while hasnt it? I would say that goalie was Vernon (and not the retire in a flames jersey Vernon), and that was probably longer ago then many of the young ones on this board remember.

Bottom line take out the top two players on any team, espically when they re your only decent players see how that works out for them. Calgarys talent drops off significantly if we lose those two and if we re lucky the return may be great, but it can also be a bust and how would that sit with you?


With or without Kipper and Iginla - the Flames are a non-playoff team. 14th or 30th overall - it is the same end result on the season. The Flames have had them for 3 non-playoff years. So why keep them for yet another non-playoff year?

For me the bottom line is building to a Cup team, that is the whole point of everything. Certainly they are good players, elite players but honestly if you keep them till retirement what is the point? Finishing just out of the playoffs again or even having the past perspective of making the playoffs and being bounced in the first round?

The Flames have had that "just make the playoffs" philosophy for years now and they haven't done it. Feaster has hinted in a change of philosophy finally and many of us welcome it as a breath of fresh air.

Also there is no reason you have to construct the trades for just picks / prospects. They can take a lot of different forms and the return from Iginla and Kipper can give the Flames a younger and still competitive team. Regehr for Butler is a great example. So is Langkow for a younger Stempy.

#17 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,439 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:23 PM

What do I have to do everything?
ok well Parise would be one I'd like to see.


The point getting impact players through free agency is difficult at the best of times let alone when you have missed the playoffs three seasons in a row. Easy to say. Tough to do. And not a practical direction for the Flames.

#18 conundrumed

conundrumed

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,842 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 09:15 PM

With or without Kipper and Iginla - the Flames are a non-playoff team. 14th or 30th overall - it is the same end result on the season. The Flames have had them for 3 non-playoff years. So why keep them for yet another non-playoff year?


Because they keep us competitive and give us marketable identity as a franchise.
Are you in a big race to finish 30th?
Yay, #1 pick, then we finish 30th again...do you want to be in the middle of February and have meaningless hockey because you're in 28th?

Sorry, but I can't get past David Moss in your sig. If I only watched the Flames from November through January, I wouldn't even know he was on this team, let alone in future plans.

#19 Flame111

Flame111

    Flames Zombie (Reality Bites)

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,441 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 09:32 PM

Because they keep us competitive and give us marketable identity as a franchise.
Are you in a big race to finish 30th?
Yay, #1 pick, then we finish 30th again...do you want to be in the middle of February and have meaningless hockey because you're in 28th?

Sorry, but I can't get past David Moss in your sig. If I only watched the Flames from November through January, I wouldn't even know he was on this team, let alone in future plans.


Hate to break it to you but Iginla is no longer carrying this team and Kipper had a great season but a trade properly constructed can replace him. If the trades are carefully constructed, this team next season might do a lot better than you think.

The Flames need to fill out their roster and if you think Moss is not worth resigning on a good price I would say you have no concept of two-way hockey. Moss is a solid 3rd line player who you can probably resign for a year on a million - one year deal. Give the guy a chance to go to market when he doesn't have an injury shortened season.

That is the kind of identity of the Flames, they care about their players and Moss is a career Flame, drafted by them 2001, he has never played for another team. No way they throw him out on the street to scramble for a min pay contract as a UFA this off-season. He deserves better and he will get it from Calgary.

#20 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,017 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 09:50 PM

If the Flames want to maximize their return, they should trade both.

If the Flames want to make the playoffs (or get close ot it), they will need to keep Kiprusoff.

I also get the feeling that Flames' ownership wants Iginla to retire a Flame. I think they will keep trying to produce a playoff team to keep Iginla in the hopes of winning a cup in Calgary.

That is why I see it as both or none and much more likely to keeping both.