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

Jump to content


Photo

[trade Proposal] Cal-van


This topic has been archived.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

#1 West_Coast_Snipes12

West_Coast_Snipes12

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:59 AM

Okay, I'll get right to the proposal

To VAN-Sven Baertschi
To CAL-Zack Kassian,Chris Tanev,1st rd pick 2014

Okay, so what do you guys think about giving up Baertschi for this package? We get a powerforward prospect to play along-side Jankowski,a shut-down d-man who has already proven to be calm with the puck and reliable in his own end as well as a 1st rd pick in 2014.

I was also thinking of this as an alternative

To VAN-Sven Baertschi
To CAL-Alex Edler

Vancouver gets a playmaking forward to help their offence, while the Flames get a young, #1 d-man who can man the point on powerplays with Wideman and is a force, physically.

Please let me know what you think, all feedback good or bad is welcome :)

#2 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,534 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 08:17 AM

You will find zero appetite in the Flames fan base to trade Baertschi for anything less then dramatic overpayment. In reality you would probably find the same thing with the Flames management.

If they did trade him(and they won't) it would never be to Vancouver. Imagine having that rubbed in your face every year if he does develop into a star.

If they did trade him (and they won't) it won't be for quantity (2-lesser prospects and a pick) or for a D-man who is a free agent at the end of this season.

#3 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,181 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 10:25 AM

I'm not surprised an obvious Canuck fan is trying to pass himself off as a Calgary fan with the use of "we get" when the Flames get screwed in both proposals.

As kehatch said, 2 lesser prospects or a rental that is likely gone to the highest bidder as a UFA @ on July 1/13.

#4 DirtyDeeds

DirtyDeeds

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,153 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 11:46 AM

Okay, I'll get right to the proposal

To VAN-Sven Baertschi
To CAL-Zack Kassian,Chris Tanev,1st rd pick 2014

.................................

To VAN-Sven Baertschi
To CAL-Alex Edler

.................................

Please let me know what you think, all feedback good or bad is welcome :)



You could probably get Vancouver to throw in Roberto Luongo to either of these two deals just because....
We don't need him either.........

Do you honestly think Flames would trade a blue chip prospect, for a 3rd line prospect and an undrafted free agent signing? Has Vancouver got a top 10 1st round pick in 2014? No thanks, not even close to a fair deal.

#5 Carty

Carty

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,094 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:03 PM

Please let me know what you think, all feedback good or bad is welcome :)


And... It looks like the feedback is not going to be very positive... :lol:

But that is to be expected from such one sided proposals... ;)

#6 another_one_bites_the_dust

another_one_bites_the_dust

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:02 PM

But that is to be expected from such one sided proposals... ;)



lol, Maybe we should throw in Iginla as well, that way Van City doesn't get robbed!


:rolleyes:

#7 Crzydrvr

Crzydrvr

    Resident Draft Junkie

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:45 PM

Okay, I'll get right to the proposal

To VAN-Sven Baertschi
To CAL-Zack Kassian,Chris Tanev,1st rd pick 2014

I was also thinking of this as an alternative

To VAN-Sven Baertschi
To CAL-Alex Edler


Posted Image

#8 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,017 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 03:36 PM

You will find zero appetite in the Flames fan base to trade Baertschi for anything less then dramatic overpayment. In reality you would probably find the same thing with the Flames management.

If they did trade him(and they won't) it would never be to Vancouver. Imagine having that rubbed in your face every year if he does develop into a star.

If they did trade him (and they won't) it won't be for quantity (2-lesser prospects and a pick) or for a D-man who is a free agent at the end of this season.

I agree that it is highly unlikely that the Flames trade Bartschi but I disagree with you saying that they wouldn't trade him for quantity.

Flames still have more room in the cupboards for prospects. For example, the Flames IMO would be better off trading Bartschi for a young player, prospect and 1st than the Flames trading Bartschi, Brodie, 1st FOR Getzlaf.

#9 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,181 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 05:41 PM

I agree that it is highly unlikely that the Flames trade Bartschi but I disagree with you saying that they wouldn't trade him for quantity.

Flames still have more room in the cupboards for prospects. For example, the Flames IMO would be better off trading Bartschi for a young player, prospect and 1st than the Flames trading Bartschi, Brodie, 1st FOR Getzlaf.

OK, you talked us into it you sly devil.

Sven for Eberle, Yakupov & Edmonton's 1st in 2013.

Dang, you drive a hard bargain for a GM in training.






:lol:

#10 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,534 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 02:21 AM

I agree that it is highly unlikely that the Flames trade Bartschi but I disagree with you saying that they wouldn't trade him for quantity.

Flames still have more room in the cupboards for prospects. For example, the Flames IMO would be better off trading Bartschi for a young player, prospect and 1st than the Flames trading Bartschi, Brodie, 1st FOR Getzlaf.


The Flames aren't short on promising prospects. They are short on legitimate NHL ready blue chip prospects. They aren't trading the only guy they have that meets that description for a bunch of non-blue chip prospects / picks. Especially given the success Baertschi has had and how high the organization and fan base is on him.

The only scenario I could possibly see them trading Baertschi is in a package for a legitimate top line C. And I seriously doubt they do that.

#11 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,017 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:23 PM

The Flames aren't short on promising prospects. They are short on legitimate NHL ready blue chip prospects. They aren't trading the only guy they have that meets that description for a bunch of non-blue chip prospects / picks. Especially given the success Baertschi has had and how high the organization and fan base is on him.

The only scenario I could possibly see them trading Baertschi is in a package for a legitimate top line C. And I seriously doubt they do that.

I agree that Bartschi is a blue chipper the Flames need to build around but hypothetically if they were to trade him, it would be for an older centre not a centre Bartschi's age. Trading for a player like Getzlaf would likely take more than Bartschi and it would lessen the Flames prospect depth while increasing the average age of the team.

Trading Bartschi for a package would result in lesser prospects coming back but increase the depth of the prospect pool.

#12 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,534 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 09:30 PM

I agree that Bartschi is a blue chipper the Flames need to build around but hypothetically if they were to trade him, it would be for an older centre not a centre Bartschi's age. Trading for a player like Getzlaf would likely take more than Bartschi and it would lessen the Flames prospect depth while increasing the average age of the team.

Trading Bartschi for a package would result in lesser prospects coming back but increase the depth of the prospect pool.


I can't imagine them trading Baertschi. Anymore then I can imagine Minnesota trading Granlund or Edmonton trading Yakupov or Florida trading Huberdeau. Even a contending team like Boston wasn't likely to trade Seguin (no way they do now) nor is a team like the Rangers likely to trade Kreider. They just don't.

But if any of those teams does trade one of those players you can bet your last dollar it is going to be in a package involving a high profile NHLer (aka Erixon++ for Nash). There is a distant chance it could be in exchange for another blue chip prospect that fits better. But it certainly won't be for a group of second tier prospects and picks. Not unless the prospect demands a trade, refuses to sign, etc (aka Erixon, Schultz, Turris).

If Calgary thought they had a chance at a guy like Duchene then perhaps they consider it. Something Colorado might consider given O'Reilly and Stastny at C and the issues that Duchene had last season. But I think it is unlikely Colorado moves Duchene. I also think there is to much excitement around Baertschi in Calgary for Feaster to consider moving Baertschi.

#13 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,017 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:52 PM

I can't imagine them trading Baertschi. Anymore then I can imagine Minnesota trading Granlund or Edmonton trading Yakupov or Florida trading Huberdeau. Even a contending team like Boston wasn't likely to trade Seguin (no way they do now) nor is a team like the Rangers likely to trade Kreider. They just don't.

But if any of those teams does trade one of those players you can bet your last dollar it is going to be in a package involving a high profile NHLer (aka Erixon++ for Nash). There is a distant chance it could be in exchange for another blue chip prospect that fits better. But it certainly won't be for a group of second tier prospects and picks. Not unless the prospect demands a trade, refuses to sign, etc (aka Erixon, Schultz, Turris).

If Calgary thought they had a chance at a guy like Duchene then perhaps they consider it. Something Colorado might consider given O'Reilly and Stastny at C and the issues that Duchene had last season. But I think it is unlikely Colorado moves Duchene. I also think there is to much excitement around Baertschi in Calgary for Feaster to consider moving Baertschi.

I agree that trading Bartschi makes no sense, I'm just saying that if the Flames were to trade him quantity over quality would better fit the organizational needs.

I see where you're coming from but the scenario rarely happens. I believe you're saying that if Bartschi for a young #1 centre then maybe they do it. The problem with that is you're picturing a centre around the same age as Bartschi; a player still on or starting is ELC or maybe just out of it like Duchene. The thing is Colorado is much more likely to trade Stastny over Duchene. The potential #1 centre would be at least in his mid twenties and already in a big contract. That's why I say that if Bartschi were to get traded, getting a group of prospects Bartschi's age or younger would be better than getting a mid to late twenty year old centre at the cost of Bartschi+.

#14 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,534 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 08:23 AM

I agree that trading Bartschi makes no sense, I'm just saying that if the Flames were to trade him quantity over quality would better fit the organizational needs.

I see where you're coming from but the scenario rarely happens. I believe you're saying that if Bartschi for a young #1 centre then maybe they do it. The problem with that is you're picturing a centre around the same age as Bartschi; a player still on or starting is ELC or maybe just out of it like Duchene. The thing is Colorado is much more likely to trade Stastny over Duchene. The potential #1 centre would be at least in his mid twenties and already in a big contract. That's why I say that if Bartschi were to get traded, getting a group of prospects Bartschi's age or younger would be better than getting a mid to late twenty year old centre at the cost of Bartschi+.


I said they are not trading him, but if they did it wouldn't be for a collection of second tier prospects like Tanev and Kassian. It would be for someone like Duchene, Yandle, etc. The fact that those guys are probably not available doesn't change the fact that it would have to be that caliber of player for the Flames to even consider moving him.

#15 returnofthejets

returnofthejets

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 580 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:25 AM

I know money can't be traded...unless that gets put in the new CBA. But that trade proposal would break down like this if cash-

To Van- $$$$$
To Cal- $

Yeah, first thought was I wouldn't do that trade, but after a min. to think it over clearly, I still don't do that trade.

#16 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,181 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:49 AM

I can't imagine them trading Baertschi. Anymore then I can imagine Minnesota trading Granlund or Edmonton trading Yakupov or Florida trading Huberdeau. Even a contending team like Boston wasn't likely to trade Seguin (no way they do now) nor is a team like the Rangers likely to trade Kreider. They just don't.

But if any of those teams does trade one of those players you can bet your last dollar it is going to be in a package involving a high profile NHLer (aka Erixon++ for Nash). There is a distant chance it could be in exchange for another blue chip prospect that fits better. But it certainly won't be for a group of second tier prospects and picks. Not unless the prospect demands a trade, refuses to sign, etc (aka Erixon, Schultz, Turris).

If Calgary thought they had a chance at a guy like Duchene then perhaps they consider it. Something Colorado might consider given O'Reilly and Stastny at C and the issues that Duchene had last season. But I think it is unlikely Colorado moves Duchene. I also think there is to much excitement around Baertschi in Calgary for Feaster to consider moving Baertschi.

I too doubt Baertchi will be traded & certainly not just for quantity. Trading Sven for a few lesser prospects would be the equivalent of trading a top 5 pick in an average draft (up to 15 might look good) for 2-3 later round picks. Sure, it increases the # of prospects but decreases the quality. The idea is to strengthen the Flames rather then the Heat.

I also agree that as part of a package for that elusive #1C whether it be an established 1 (like Getzlaf) or a comer (like Duchene) Feaster would/should consider it.

I have great hopes for Baertchi but Calgary rightfully approaches every season with the intention of being a contender. Our wingers are good enough so adding that C (fully developed or dang close) is a huge need. Even drafting a future top line 1 is unlikely when the idea is to earn only late picks (the closer to 30th the better).

#17 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,181 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:03 PM

I agree that Bartschi is a blue chipper the Flames need to build around but hypothetically if they were to trade him, it would be for an older centre not a centre Bartschi's age. Trading for a player like Getzlaf would likely take more than Bartschi and it would lessen the Flames prospect depth while increasing the average age of the team.

Trading Bartschi for a package would result in lesser prospects coming back but increase the depth of the prospect pool.

Getzlaf (or Stastny) would result in moving 1 player for 1 that's 6-7 years older. That doesn't up the average age of the team as a whole much. It adds .5 maximum to the average. As part of a package adding a vet going the other way might actually decrease the average.

Would Edmonton turn down Shea Weber because he's older then your core 4?

#18 kehatch

kehatch

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,534 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:15 PM

I too doubt Baertchi will be traded & certainly not just for quantity. Trading Sven for a few lesser prospects would be the equivalent of trading a top 5 pick in an average draft (up to 15 might look good) for 2-3 later round picks. Sure, it increases the # of prospects but decreases the quality. The idea is to strengthen the Flames rather then the Heat.

I also agree that as part of a package for that elusive #1C whether it be an established 1 (like Getzlaf) or a comer (like Duchene) Feaster would/should consider it.

I have great hopes for Baertchi but Calgary rightfully approaches every season with the intention of being a contender. Our wingers are good enough so adding that C (fully developed or dang close) is a huge need. Even drafting a future top line 1 is unlikely when the idea is to earn only late picks (the closer to 30th the better).


You and I rarely agree on how Calgary should manage its current situation (to rebuild or not rebuild) but I agree on this. We need a 1C and in probability we don't have one in the system (we will see how Jankowski progresses). If they could get Getzlaf (assuming he comes with a contract extension) or Duchene I would be okay with moving Baertschi (depending what else had to be added to make the trade).

#19 Carty

Carty

    Advanced Member

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,094 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:51 PM

If they could get Getzlaf (assuming he comes with a contract extension) or Duchene I would be okay with moving Baertschi (depending what else had to be added to make the trade).


I just do not see them trading Baertschi...

But I will agree that if he was to be moved, the only viable reason would be to acquire a true #1 C of the calibre of a Getzlaf (with a contract extension) or Duchene...

That said, giving up Baertschi's skill level, drive, his apparent promise for the future, and then intangibles like his popularity of being arguably the most promising prospect the Flames have had in years, and also the spark he brought to a team that had been decimated by injuries last season would be a major loss for the team...

There is also the possibility that a different package deal could be made to get that elusive #1 center so the Flames could retain Baertschi, maybe even get a player like a Stastny instead, which would still be an upgrade...

The climate for trades could also change depending on the new CBA...

Hey, you can't blame me for hoping... :)

#20 Flyerfan52

Flyerfan52

    Elder Statesman

  • SeniorMembers
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,181 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:55 PM

You and I rarely agree on how Calgary should manage its current situation (to rebuild or not rebuild) but I agree on this. We need a 1C and in probability we don't have one in the system (we will see how Jankowski progresses). If they could get Getzlaf (assuming he comes with a contract extension) or Duchene I would be okay with moving Baertschi (depending what else had to be added to make the trade).

Bud, we want the same result. We just disagree on how to get there sometimes. A #1C (Getzlaf) or a shortcut to 1 (Duchene) gets us there faster then adding a talented winger (something we agree on).

I'll give my #3 team a bye for drafting high because we didn't start with a contender so have work to do but my #1 & 1A teams do have winning traditions & pride so I expect a lot out of both every season.
If they fall short for any reason but lack of effort I forgive but not wanting to win is unforgivable IMO.