Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Jessemadnote39

Realistic Trade suggestions for improvement

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, MP5029 said:

I think it’s time

to move on from Backlund, change could be good for both team and Backlund plus I do kinda like the idea of Danault for 3rd line…at 28 his age is perfect and having him play with Dube on the RW could wok especially if BT could land Reinhart…though in one way or another that would pretty much mean either Tkacuck or Gaudreau is moved…my guess probably Gaudreau so…if the Danault thing could be done and Reinhart that could nearly fix the top 3 lines…

 

Tkacuck/Monahan/Lindholm 
Manji/Reinhart/???

Dube/Danault/???? 
 

is there a  quality RW with a last name starting with D, preferably under 30? Then we could have a triple D line 👍😉

 

bit seriously, only needing to find 2 2nd line RW may be the way to go /or like someone else said they can slide to the RW if some Ctrs are available..options are good and make things much easier to change things than need to be changed.


 

I wonder though, can Backlund show more offensive prowess if he doesn’t have to face other teams’ best players? he would be a good guy at 2nd line C if we did get Daneault. 
 

it’s still a matter of, do you keep Monahan or trade him?

 

Gaudreau, Lindholm, Tkachuk 

Mangiapane, Backlund, Reinhart

Dube, Daneault, Prospect

Lucic, (?)Ryan, (?)Ritchie

 

i dunno if that’s how it would shake out but could work…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, robrob74 said:


 

I wonder though, can Backlund show more offensive prowess if he doesn’t have to face other teams’ best players? he would be a good guy at 2nd line C if we did get Daneault. 
 

it’s still a matter of, do you keep Monahan or trade him?

 

Gaudreau, Lindholm, Tkachuk 

Mangiapane, Backlund, Reinhart

Dube, Daneault, Prospect

Lucic, (?)Ryan, (?)Ritchie

 

i dunno if that’s how it would shake out but could work…

The only thing is Backlund is in the age zone where a natural regular decline is expected and very normal…Monahan is about 3 years away from that maker so for about 1mil in salary difference I’d much rather keep Monahan…also I’d rather Lindholm on RW and Tkacuck on LW…which would have Gaudreau more of a luxury and I’m thinking Gaudreau could fetch more than Tachuck where he has a much longer history of putting up big numbers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MP5029 said:

The only thing is Backlund is in the age zone where a natural regular decline is expected and very normal…Monahan is about 3 years away from that maker so for about 1mil in salary difference I’d much rather keep Monahan…also I’d rather Lindholm on RW and Tkacuck on LW…which would have Gaudreau more of a luxury and I’m thinking Gaudreau could fetch more than Tachuck where he has a much longer history of putting up big numbers 

I can live with typo's, grammar errors and misspellings.  Commit numerous myself.  But constant name butchering drives me crazy.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it's really debatable if moving out Backlund for Danualt actually makes the team better and for my money it wouldn't. They are almost identical players in terms of their style (both run hot and cold) and their numbers turn out similar as well. I think cap wise it's going to turn out to be a pretty similar deal so what are you gaining? 

 

Monahan

Danault

???

or 

Lindhom

Monahan

Danault

 

is not an upgrade over what they have currently and you are going to have the same problems down the middle the Flames have had the last few seasons. Doesn't feel worth it to me. 

 

Danualt only makes sense if you move on from Monahan. Build 3 centers who can all play two way hockey, are positionally and fundamentally sound and can drive play while putting up steady and above avg numbers (particularly at 5 on 5)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cross16 said:

For me it's really debatable if moving out Backlund for Danualt actually makes the team better and for my money it wouldn't. They are almost identical players in terms of their style (both run hot and cold) and their numbers turn out similar as well. I think cap wise it's going to turn out to be a pretty similar deal so what are you gaining? 

 

Monahan

Danault

???

or 

Lindhom

Monahan

Danault

 

is not an upgrade over what they have currently and you are going to have the same problems down the middle the Flames have had the last few seasons. Doesn't feel worth it to me. 

 

Danualt only makes sense if you move on from Monahan. Build 3 centers who can all play two way hockey, are positionally and fundamentally sound and can drive play while putting up steady and above avg numbers (particularly at 5 on 5)


I think I like that option more. If you have the right wingers with them. Then it almost doesn’t matter which line is out there when needing to defend. The team can run with the line that is going the best defensively.
 

Ask for a bit of an in team competition where you say, if you bring it, you’ll be out there when it matters the most. If all three can defend, then the likelihood of success could be higher. 
 

for me, it is a matter of, is Lindholm a C or a RW? 
Can Monahan get back to his play prior to injuries or can we move him for a RW or area of need? Does Johnny still wanna be here if his buddy Monny isn’t? Is he friends enough with the rest of the core. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave it to Eklund to add fuel to a fire that wasn't really burning.

 

Per a source, the Flames, with interest already on Taylor Hall, have also discussed the possibility of obtaining Eichel in a deal that would send Johnny Hockey to Buffalo along with more assets....working on what those might be..  

 

I can understand Tkachuk for Eichel, because he brings a toughness they don't have and is young enough to build around.

I can't understand the logic of getting Gaudreau if they are trading Eichel.

Those two on the same team?  Yeah, for sure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Leave it to Eklund to add fuel to a fire that wasn't really burning.

 

Per a source, the Flames, with interest already on Taylor Hall, have also discussed the possibility of obtaining Eichel in a deal that would send Johnny Hockey to Buffalo along with more assets....working on what those might be..  

 

I can understand Tkachuk for Eichel, because he brings a toughness they don't have and is young enough to build around.

I can't understand the logic of getting Gaudreau if they are trading Eichel.

Those two on the same team?  Yeah, for sure.

 

 

I don't even know what Hall is worth anymore after a horrible season in BUF and then a great run with BOS.  

 

But the idea of bringing Hall in with Eichel again when it didn't work in BUF seems kinda meh.  Good asset management to get Hall for free though.

 

In a perfect world, we pull this off.  This means we still have Tkachuk with Eichel.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Leave it to Eklund to add fuel to a fire that wasn't really burning.

 

Per a source, the Flames, with interest already on Taylor Hall, have also discussed the possibility of obtaining Eichel in a deal that would send Johnny Hockey to Buffalo along with more assets....working on what those might be..  

 

I can understand Tkachuk for Eichel, because he brings a toughness they don't have and is young enough to build around.

I can't understand the logic of getting Gaudreau if they are trading Eichel.

Those two on the same team?  Yeah, for sure.

 

 

I'm also wondering if there's a situation where we trade Gaudreau, Monahan, and Backlund to BUF.  This allows us to protect 4F and 4D for the expansion draft...

 

Eichel, Tkachuk, Lindholm, Mangiapane

Giordano, Tanev, Hanifin, Andersson

 

We will sign Hall this summer and we can target Danault to replace Backlund as some have suggested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I'm also wondering if there's a situation where we trade Gaudreau, Monahan, and Backlund to BUF.  This allows us to protect 4F and 4D for the expansion draft...

 

Eichel, Tkachuk, Lindholm, Mangiapane

Giordano, Tanev, Hanifin, Andersson

 

We will sign Hall this summer and we can target Danault to replace Backlund as some have suggested.

 

If we trading all of that to Buffalo, I would expect better than just Eichel.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

If we trading all of that to Buffalo, I would expect better than just Eichel.

 

 

I doubt they even accept that offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I doubt they even accept that offer.

 

If the plusses were similar to what a Tkachuk deal would look like, it would be Zary + 1st or 2nd.

Gaudreau is worth more and is less of a contract risk at least in the short term.

 

Not saying either your or my proposal does it for either team, just that I think you undervalue it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, travel_dude said:

 

If the plusses were similar to what a Tkachuk deal would look like, it would be Zary + 1st or 2nd.

Gaudreau is worth more and is less of a contract risk at least in the short term.

 

Not saying either your or my proposal does it for either team, just that I think you undervalue it.

 

Gaudreau extended long term is a different story.  With 1-year to UFA, he has a lot lower trade value than we'd like to believe.  Only PHI, NJ, NYR, and NYI would be interested in paying full price for Gaudreau because they would be confident in extending him long term.

 

Monahan's stock has dropped a lot needless to say.

 

Backlund is still okay but he's aging.  Not sure he's what BUF wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Gaudreau extended long term is a different story.  With 1-year to UFA, he has a lot lower trade value than we'd like to believe.  Only PHI, NJ, NYR, and NYI would be interested in paying full price for Gaudreau because they would be confident in extending him long term.

 

Monahan's stock has dropped a lot needless to say.

 

Backlund is still okay but he's aging.  Not sure he's what BUF wants.

 

Let me back up a bit, because I was really just saying the value wasn't there.

If we traded Gaudreau to Buffalo it's to add to a team WITH Eichel.

In that case, Gaudreau probably re-signs because not being a dumpster.

Worse case scenario, they can turn around and trade him to another team.

Higher asking price to East teams.

 

Monahan's stock has dropped due to a injury season.

Last season was a mess, with Peters, playing Backlund as a winger, etc.

Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm all saw their totals drop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

Leave it to Eklund to add fuel to a fire that wasn't really burning.

 

Per a source, the Flames, with interest already on Taylor Hall, have also discussed the possibility of obtaining Eichel in a deal that would send Johnny Hockey to Buffalo along with more assets....working on what those might be..  

 

I can understand Tkachuk for Eichel, because he brings a toughness they don't have and is young enough to build around.

I can't understand the logic of getting Gaudreau if they are trading Eichel.

Those two on the same team?  Yeah, for sure.

 


 

the only positive I see in a JH deal to Buffalo is that it’s either a 3-way deal, or they turn and trade him to another team for assets. Being a low cap team maybe they can eat half the cap space to get more return on him. Or it is like the Gio idea, they see possibility at next year’s TDL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Let me back up a bit, because I was really just saying the value wasn't there.

If we traded Gaudreau to Buffalo it's to add to a team WITH Eichel.

In that case, Gaudreau probably re-signs because not being a dumpster.

Worse case scenario, they can turn around and trade him to another team.

Higher asking price to East teams.

 

Monahan's stock has dropped due to a injury season.

Last season was a mess, with Peters, playing Backlund as a winger, etc.

Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm all saw their totals drop. 

 

Ya I think Tkachuk's value is way higher than both Gaudreau and Monahan because Tkachuk has RFA protection.  For a team like BUF that struggles to keep UFAs, this is a big concern for them.  Backlund at 32 and that cap hit and length... maybe worth a 2nd round pick if we are lucky.

 

In a perfect world, we trade Gaudreau, Monahan, Backlund, Zary, 12th overall for Eichel and Reinhart.

 

Tkachuk - Eichel - Lindholm

Mangiapane - Reinhart - Dube

 

Something like this is a good start.  Don't even need to sign Hall and use that money for Danault instead.  The BOS rumours made me wonder if we can get Nick Ritchie and unite the Ritchie brothers.  Our 3rd line could look Sutter-like,

 

N.Ritchie - Danault - B.Ritchie

 

Lucic would probably factor in as a 4th liner at this point.  We need a 4th line C and RW who are a PK specialists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://floridahockeynow.com/otr-sticker-shock-gms-gasp-at-sabres-nhl-trade-ask-for-eichel-fhn/

 

So apparently the ask for Eichel is "crazy".

 

"We’re talking a top-six center 25 years or under, a top 4 defenseman 25 or under, a first-round pick, and an assortment of three prospects."

 

Is Monahan close enough to 25-years top-six Center?  Or can Dube pass as one? 

Hanifin fits a top 4 defensman 25 or under.

12th overall

Zary?... Phillips?  Poirer?  Francis?  Wolf?

 

We should be okay with Monahan + Hanifin + 12th overall + 3 prospects not named Pelletier, Zary, and Wolf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if the ask is "crazy", but IMO, I would be uncomfortable with parting with 6 players for a single player who is a "star", not a "superstar".

The Flame's organisations player pool is thin enough that I'm not sure it could take a 6 - 1 hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 420since1974 said:

I don't know if the ask is "crazy", but IMO, I would be uncomfortable with parting with 6 players for a single player who is a "star", not a "superstar".

The Flame's organisations player pool is thin enough that I'm not sure it could take a 6 - 1 hit.

 

Depends.  If we are trying to win in the next 2 years, then let's go for it.  Also depends on the level of the 3 prospects.  If all 6 pieces amount to 2nd/3rd/4th line talent, then I think it's worth it to land a #1 Center using 6 pieces.

 

Eichel is a top 7 to 12 Center in the NHL who could peak at top 4 to 6.  Legit #1 Center with 95-point potential.  Can't find those unless we tank for one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The_People1 said:

https://floridahockeynow.com/otr-sticker-shock-gms-gasp-at-sabres-nhl-trade-ask-for-eichel-fhn/

 

So apparently the ask for Eichel is "crazy".

 

"We’re talking a top-six center 25 years or under, a top 4 defenseman 25 or under, a first-round pick, and an assortment of three prospects."

 

Is Monahan close enough to 25-years top-six Center?  Or can Dube pass as one? 

Hanifin fits a top 4 defensman 25 or under.

12th overall

Zary?... Phillips?  Poirer?  Francis?  Wolf?

 

We should be okay with Monahan + Hanifin + 12th overall + 3 prospects not named Pelletier, Zary, and Wolf.

I'm now on the side of not doing player for player deals. If we're trading away our top players, do it for picks and 'A' prospects.

If it is indeed "broken", I don't believe there is a fix in player for player deals.

Imho, I don't believe it's that broken, but does need new life breathed into it. In the flat cap world, to me that means find other teams prospects that they just don't have room to give opportunities to. GMs always move players that they can't fit into the lineup for the benefit of the player.

If we're moving on from good players, I'd rather do it for picks. But I'm patient. The more good young players we can get our hands on, the brighter the future.

Here's an example of the "win now" philosophy:

Leafs send 30th oa pick and the following year's 2nd to Anaheim for Andersen. They've won nothing.

Anaheim now has Sam Steel and Max Comtois from that trade. We should always invest in futures, not sell the farm for other farms that aren't working out.

The pool of the up 'n comers is massive, that's where the game changers are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I'm now on the side of not doing player for player deals. If we're trading away our top players, do it for picks and 'A' prospects.

If it is indeed "broken", I don't believe there is a fix in player for player deals.

Imho, I don't believe it's that broken, but does need new life breathed into it. In the flat cap world, to me that means find other teams prospects that they just don't have room to give opportunities to. GMs always move players that they can't fit into the lineup for the benefit of the player.

If we're moving on from good players, I'd rather do it for picks. But I'm patient. The more good young players we can get our hands on, the brighter the future.

Here's an example of the "win now" philosophy:

Leafs send 30th oa pick and the following year's 2nd to Anaheim for Andersen. They've won nothing.

Anaheim now has Sam Steel and Max Comtois from that trade. We should always invest in futures, not sell the farm for other farms that aren't working out.

The pool of the up 'n comers is massive, that's where the game changers are.

 

Exactly bro.  I'd love to sell Gaudreau and Monahan for picks and prospects and "retool".

 

However, this is ownership and win-now mode.  So go all in.  If we going win-now mode, then there's nothing worse than going halfway.  Win now means win now.  Sell the farm.  Get that #1 Center.  That's the only chance we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Exactly bro.  I'd love to sell Gaudreau and Monahan for picks and prospects and "retool".

 

However, this is ownership and win-now mode.  So go all in.  If we going win-now mode, then there's nothing worse than going halfway.  Win now means win now.  Sell the farm.  Get that #1 Center.  That's the only chance we have.

Yeah I get that. Makes me think of ownership, "do you even get how this works"? It does nothing but set everyone up for failure.

It's in their own history, trade your star for an A prospect that became the face of the franchise.

Trade a 2nd rd pick for a goalie that needed an opportunity.

It's so prevalent in the league, it hits you in the face with a hammer.

Yet we're all terrified of training camp invites, knowing some of these plugs are getting spots ahead of young players for absolutely no reason.

Then everything remains completely dysfunctional because there are no hungry kids around threatening vets' positions to play better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buffalo can ask all they want but I don't think they are going to get that and probably won't even get close to that.

 

I think if Eichel is traded the return is going to be surprising. I don't see a team giving up 2 players under the age of 25 off their roster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cross16 said:

Buffalo can ask all they want but I don't think they are going to get that and probably won't even get close to that.

 

I think if Eichel is traded the return is going to be surprising. I don't see a team giving up 2 players under the age of 25 off their roster. 

 

Yeah, I can't see any team doing close to that either.

It's not like CGY's offer (just speculated here) is a super return, but seems a lot closer to real than that report.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Buffalo can ask all they want but I don't think they are going to get that and probably won't even get close to that.

 

I think if Eichel is traded the return is going to be surprising. I don't see a team giving up 2 players under the age of 25 off their roster. 

 

You won't do Mangiapane + Hanifin for Eichel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

You won't do Dube + Hanifin for Eichel?

Fixed your question 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...