Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Jessemadnote39

Realistic Trade suggestions for improvement

Recommended Posts

The price for defense has been super high this year. Nurse, Jones, Hamilton, Werenski all got 9 million+ contracts this season. Even Pionk landed a deal worth almost 6. Top 4 guys like Hanifin making what he does would be attractive I would think, but also very expensive to replace.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Losing Hanafin and Giordano in one season is going to virtually guarantee a bottom 10 finish.  What about a three way deal?

 

  • To Buffalo: Valamaki, Coronato, a first, a second (from Ottawa)
  • To Ottawa: Monahan
  • To Calgary: Brannstrom, Eichel

Maybe we follow that up with another trade.  Something like Tkachuk/Backlund (2m retained) for Tarsenko/Thomas.  Not sure that one works.  But something to shift LW to D/C/RW.

 

The only way an Eichel trade really works for Calgary is if we give up one of our top forwards (Monahan, Tkachuk, Gaudreau, or Lindholm).  I appreciate those guys may not appeal to Buffalo, or they may not waive to go to Buffalo.  Adding a third team helps bridge that. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kehatch said:

Losing Hanafin and Giordano in one season is going to virtually guarantee a bottom 10 finish.  What about a three way deal?

 

  • To Buffalo: Valamaki, Coronato, a first, a second (from Ottawa)
  • To Ottawa: Monahan
  • To Calgary: Brannstrom, Eichel

Maybe we follow that up with another trade.  Something like Tkachuk/Backlund (2m retained) for Tarsenko/Thomas.  Not sure that one works.  But something to shift LW to D/C/RW.

 

The only way an Eichel trade really works for Calgary is if we give up one of our top forwards (Monahan, Tkachuk, Gaudreau, or Lindholm).  I appreciate those guys may not appeal to Buffalo, or they may not waive to go to Buffalo.  Adding a third team helps bridge that. 

 

Well, we are a 13th worst team as we stand right?  Bottom 10 was a matter of 4-points.  We aren't far anyways if we stand pat?

 

Try Eichel if it takes Hanifin.  Take the chance.  Try to find a value LD and hope Valimaki can rise to the occasion.  Eichel on IR could free $2-mil for a 4/5/6 LD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Well, we are a 13th worst team as we stand right?  Bottom 10 was a matter of 4-points.  We aren't far anyways if we stand pat?

 

Try Eichel if it takes Hanifin.  Take the chance.  Try to find a value LD and hope Valimaki can rise to the occasion.  Eichel on IR could free $2-mil for a 4/5/6 LD. 


 

if the season wasn’t laid out the way it was and if Vancouver didn’t end up with a covid outbreak, could that 4 points have been made up? By the time Van came back, they were basically done and didn’t feel like playing. On the other side, the Flames iced their best players and went for the wins. Moral victories are worth their weight in gold. It’s costly! Some say it is worth it to teach a winning attitude, but when a team ends the year poorly they say results don’t carry over from one season to another. 
 

we should’ve been picking in a top 10 spot in the draft.

 

I am in the boat that it will cost too much and then we lose out on a high first rounder in the process and kills us in 3 years.

 

although, does a healthy Eichel make the team more desirable in the future for players?

 

I think we can sign a depth D in the process after trading Hanifin.

 

go for Hutton and Vatanen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Well, we are a 13th worst team as we stand right?  Bottom 10 was a matter of 4-points.  We aren't far anyways if we stand pat?

 

Try Eichel if it takes Hanifin.  Take the chance.  Try to find a value LD and hope Valimaki can rise to the occasion.  Eichel on IR could free $2-mil for a 4/5/6 LD. 

 

A top 4 of Zadarov-Andersson / Valamki-Tanev is really really bad. I am not saying Eichel isn't worth Hanafin, but my hope is Treliving can find another way that doesn't leave us with one of the worst top 4 in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, kehatch said:

 

A top 4 of Zadarov-Andersson / Valamki-Tanev is really really bad. I am not saying Eichel isn't worth Hanafin, but my hope is Treliving can find another way that doesn't leave us with one of the worst top 4 in the league.


Agreed. Dare I say it, we’d resemble the Oilers. 🤮

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lou44291 said:


Agreed. Dare I say it, we’d resemble the Oilers. 🤮

 

But we are already worse than them! 

the difference is, they can outscore teams. At the moment, we probably cannot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lou44291 said:


Agreed. Dare I say it, we’d resemble the Oilers. 🤮

I dunno, Valimaki could very much rise to be a top 4…it’s more a mater of them being young and unproven 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like reading all the trade options that are put out there to get Ec I hate to be there bearer of bad news but we will never get Ec not unless he is close to retiring and has one leg. There are a ton of teams out there that can offer more than us although most would not waist all the players Buff is asking for You guys are very intelligent Flames fans why do you think  we have a chance picking him up and if we were going to trade for him I would have kept Gio as part of a trade I do believe he is of value and if not we would still have our best D man we could have put out Kyl instead of Gio don't understand why we didn't but I'm sure I missed ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, zima said:

I like reading all the trade options that are put out there to get Ec I hate to be there bearer of bad news but we will never get Ec not unless he is close to retiring and has one leg. There are a ton of teams out there that can offer more than us although most would not waist all the players Buff is asking for You guys are very intelligent Flames fans why do you think  we have a chance picking him up and if we were going to trade for him I would have kept Gio as part of a trade I do believe he is of value and if not we would still have our best D man we could have put out Kyl instead of Gio don't understand why we didn't but I'm sure I missed ?


Technically, with Eichel’s neck injury, you’re not too far off with your one leg and close to retiring comment 
 

The reasons why it’s in the realm of possibility Zima is the following:

- Buffalo greatly prefers to send him to the western conference so that he doesn’t haunt them in the East. 

- After all of the UFA signings and such, many teams don’t have the cap space to absorb Eichel’s $10mil per year without sending significant cap back - which Buffalo isn’t interested in unless it’s in the ages 25 and under bracket. 
- We do have a C (Monahan) to offer back, not sure many teams have a C to send in exchange

- Buffalo is looking for futures as well, which we have. 

- We didn’t finish well last year, so, Buffalo could anticipate a high first round draft pick to be included from us 

- We can fit his cap hit 

 

Those are the ones that come to the top of my mind. I’m sure there’s more, and there’s also additional ones supporting Eichel ending up in LA or something. The fact that Gio got taken by the Kraken (and his cap hit coming off our books) is what’s given us cap space to be a potential destination. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole talk of acquiring Eichel without including Tkachuk and figuring out the cap and filling other holes later makes no sense. It is making a trade for the sake of making a trade and you are killing the future with respect to the cap.

 

If you think Hanifin, Mangiapane + picks and prospects is how to acquire Eichel, what cap space and trade pieces are left to acquire a top 4 LD (more likely a top LD) because Giordano is also gone? Valimaki may eventually become a top LD, but he hasn’t proven that yet. Still much growing to do. He may be ready for second pair, but not top at this time.

 

Flames have 11.4 mil cap space at this time. Still need to sign Zadorov, Valimaki, Dube, Mackey and that does not include Vladar contract. Zadorov alone will take over 3 mil of that, Vlad is 750k. Hanifin and Mangiapane combine for 7.4 mil ish while Eichel is 10 mil, that’s 2.6 mil difference. Taking Zadorov and Eichel contracts alone means you only have about 5.5 mil to sign Dube, Valimaki, bring up Vlad (likely around 3 mil for the 3), and you expect to get a top LD and someone to fill the Mangiapane hole for the remaining 2.5 mil? 
 

Who do you trade out to get that top LD? If you say Monahan or Gaudreau then that makes no sense. Lucic won’t do, Backlund would mean you need to fill his spot and so you likely don’t save enough cap to do that once paying for the top D. Why create a hole, only to use the pieces you don’t want to move for Eichel to fill the holes you create trading for Eichel?

 

 I get some fans want to see change and really want Eichel, but the holes created by pieces suggested would need to be filled and the cap space is not there to do so. That doesn’t even look towards next year trying to re-sign both Tkachuk and Gaudreau.

 

Flames are deep on LW, so the only way that an Eichel deal makes any sense is moving a LW as the main piece, not a D. If you think Hanifin wasn’t good enough for top pair then trade him, but the return needs to bring back, or leave cap space and pieces, to bring back a better LD, not just create holes in multiple positions to make a moderate at best improvement at one position.

 

Can’t just fill holes and fix cap space later, it’s not that easy. Flames have been trying that for years without success. The only way to improve is to trade from strength, and the Flames D is no longer that. 


Eichel may improve the top line, but to get him would weaken other parts of the team and we don’t even know if he will find chemistry with the team. Nor do we know what effect his injury, surgery and recovery will have on his game.

 

I continue to be a no to acquire Eichel, I just don’t see the reward being high enough for the cost.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kehatch said:

Losing Hanafin and Giordano in one season is going to virtually guarantee a bottom 10 finish.  What about a three way deal?

 

  • To Buffalo: Valamaki, Coronato, a first, a second (from Ottawa)
  • To Ottawa: Monahan
  • To Calgary: Brannstrom, Eichel

Maybe we follow that up with another trade.  Something like Tkachuk/Backlund (2m retained) for Tarsenko/Thomas.  Not sure that one works.  But something to shift LW to D/C/RW.

 

The only way an Eichel trade really works for Calgary is if we give up one of our top forwards (Monahan, Tkachuk, Gaudreau, or Lindholm).  I appreciate those guys may not appeal to Buffalo, or they may not waive to go to Buffalo.  Adding a third team helps bridge that. 


Hey Kehatch! Good to have you back. 
 

I was also thinking of Ottawa as a third party. I do like what you setup above. I was thinking something along the lines of:

 

To OTT

Matt Tkachuk

 

To CGY 

Eichel

 

To Buff

1st + from OTT 

1st + from Calgary 

 

I’m not sure what the “+” from Calgary and OTT should be to Buffalo, but it’s likely that Ottawa would hang on to both Tkachuk brothers (not trade  them back to the west which Buffalo might do if Tkachuk refuses to sign there), and Matthew would conceivably re-sign in Ottawa to continue to play with his brother. Plus, hailing from Toronto, I’d get a personal kick out of watching the Tkachuk brothers do some damage to the Leafs and I’d rub it in my family’s faces hahaha. 
 

Cap-wise, $7m goes out with Chucky and $10m comes in with Eichel. We take on a $3m cap hit. That fits quite easily. Then I was thinking you have Monahan available for trade after the big fish Eichel has been taken. You get something for Mony maybe from St. Loo or elsewhere (would MTL be interested in Mony with Danault’s departure? Would they trade Toffoli now that they signed Hoffman? How about Rakell from the Ducks? Dvorak from Arizona?) to shore up the team. 
 

Similar ideas for sure regarding Ottawa - I just went with Chucky, and you went with Mony. Either way, it could work to give Buff what they’re looking for, us, and OTT. 
 

edit:

Just saw a report saying OTT is looking for a top 6 forward - C or Wing - and are potentially using Brannstrom as a trade chip in a deal. They kicked tires on Eichel but backed off due to the price. Logan Brown and Chris Tierney may also be available. 
 

https://nhlrumors.com/nhl-rumors-and-notes-winter-olympics-and-the-ottawa-senators/2021/08/15/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kehatch said:

Losing Hanafin and Giordano in one season is going to virtually guarantee a bottom 10 finish.  What about a three way deal?

 

  • To Buffalo: Valamaki, Coronato, a first, a second (from Ottawa)
  • To Ottawa: Monahan
  • To Calgary: Brannstrom, Eichel

Maybe we follow that up with another trade.  Something like Tkachuk/Backlund (2m retained) for Tarsenko/Thomas.  Not sure that one works.  But something to shift LW to D/C/RW.

 

The only way an Eichel trade really works for Calgary is if we give up one of our top forwards (Monahan, Tkachuk, Gaudreau, or Lindholm).  I appreciate those guys may not appeal to Buffalo, or they may not waive to go to Buffalo.  Adding a third team helps bridge that. 

 

Good idea, but Ottawa gets Monahan for Brannstrom + 2nd.

Branstrom, a 5'9" LHD RD and a 2nd?

How about Pinto, Branstrom and a 2nd.

Or Batherson + 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kehatch said:

Losing Hanafin and Giordano in one season is going to virtually guarantee a bottom 10 finish.  What about a three way deal?

 

  • To Buffalo: Valamaki, Coronato, a first, a second (from Ottawa)
  • To Ottawa: Monahan
  • To Calgary: Brannstrom, Eichel

Maybe we follow that up with another trade.  Something like Tkachuk/Backlund (2m retained) for Tarsenko/Thomas.  Not sure that one works.  But something to shift LW to D/C/RW.

 

The only way an Eichel trade really works for Calgary is if we give up one of our top forwards (Monahan, Tkachuk, Gaudreau, or Lindholm).  I appreciate those guys may not appeal to Buffalo, or they may not waive to go to Buffalo.  Adding a third team helps bridge that. 

 

2 hours ago, bosn111 said:

The whole talk of acquiring Eichel without including Tkachuk and figuring out the cap and filling other holes later makes no sense.

 

59 minutes ago, lou44291 said:

I was also thinking of Ottawa as a third party.

 

49 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Good idea, but Ottawa gets Monahan for Brannstrom + 2nd.

Branstrom, a 5'9" LHD RD and a 2nd?

How about Pinto, Branstrom and a 2nd.

Or Batherson + 2nd.

 

Exactly exactly guys.  Don't you see in your very own replies?  The brainstorming of how to get that LD back if we include Hanifin for Eichel?  It's like a social experiment in action.  If we successfully trade Hanifin+ for Eichel, then we are in a situation where,

 

"Monahan for whoever's top 4 LD" VS "a whole bunch of stuff for someone's top 10 NHL Center"

 

It's just so obvious which is a better situation to be in moving forward.  Monahan for someone's top 4 LD is possible and we can imagine many trades that can happen.  In comparison, getting a Barkov, Aho, Scheifele, Point, Barzal, etc is literally impossible.  They are not available.  Plain and simple.  Get Eichel first and then deal with a LD afterwards.  In a worse case scenario, we still have Zary and Pelletier as trade assets to land a good LD.  Perhaps, if we cannot extend Gaudreau past TDL, then we trade Gaudreau for a LD instead of losing him for nothing.  We have options.

 

Lastly again, we are a 13th worst team in the NHL.  We are a team that should take extreme chances because we aren't a playoff team as we currently stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree Peeps. I get the principle that a 1C is harder to find then a 2D, but that is a make believe scenario and likely not the choice facing the Flames. 

 

First, I think we are a playoff team. We have a full year of Sutter and Treliving has brought on the kind of pieces that fit in a Sutter team. I think we are going to surprise people this season. I don't think we are good enough for a cup, but I do think we have a strong chance for the playoffs. Take away one of our top 4 D though and we arent competitive, especially with Sutter as the coach. 

 

Second, your underestimating the difficulty of getting a replacement D. Look up North for an example of how hard these guys are to get, especially when your right at the cap. 

 

But most importantly, this isn't a choice of Eichel or Hanafin. If the Flames can get Eichel without giving up Hanafin then that's a much better play. If Hanafin was the only way to get it done then okay, but I don't think trading him is even the most likely scenario. Buffalo doesn't want a player just hitting their prime who is a UFA in three seasons. They want futures to help them rebuild. 

 

The reality is whatever salary player we trade to Buffalo, its just so they can flip him for more futures. Likely with a third team involved to make the cap work. With that the case, the Flames should be trading from a position of strength not weakness, and we are weak at D. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An extension to the above. The obstacle the Flames have in acquiring Eichel isn't the lack of futures. I think the Flames can put together a package that will be attractive to Buffalo. 

 

The issue is the cap. No team can just take on 10 million in August. Buffalo also needs to hit the cap floor. So dollars need to change hands. 

 

The problem the Flames have is we don't have the filler players. Trading high value roster players doesn't work because that isn't what Buffalo needs. The players we have that might fit (Backlund,Lucic) don't due to NTCs and term. 

 

I think the Flames need a third team to make this work. When you add that to the injury risk, cap, cost, etc and this is a really tough trade to pull off. The longer this takes the harder it gets because Eichel starts missing more of the season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, kehatch said:

An extension to the above. The obstacle the Flames have in acquiring Eichel isn't the lack of futures. I think the Flames can put together a package that will be attractive to Buffalo. 

 

The issue is the cap. No team can just take on 10 million in August. Buffalo also needs to hit the cap floor. So dollars need to change hands. 

 

The problem the Flames have is we don't have the filler players. Trading high value roster players doesn't work because that isn't what Buffalo needs. The players we have that might fit (Backlund,Lucic) don't due to NTCs and term. 

 

I think the Flames need a third team to make this work. When you add that to the injury risk, cap, cost, etc and this is a really tough trade to pull off. The longer this takes the harder it gets because Eichel starts missing more of the season. 

For me ..I just don’t see Eichel landing here. I think the bigger concern is thinking  this team is just 1 player short of solving its problems. We could bring Eichel here but I still don’t believe this team has the right winning culture nor personel to consider itself a true contender. 
 

Eichel might take BT off the hot seat for a little while and there’s no denying his talent but the Flames would likely end up giving up too much of its future for a high quality player who happens to cost $10M per and is currently injured! My concern is the Flames not fully grasping the context of a winning team. The focus has been on a “1st line RW” or “RHS mobile D men”… or circling back to gritty players. It’s always a plethora of problems with this team… we’ve never been “ just 1 player away..” so to speak. 

 

I’d be as enamoured as anyone to get Eichel, especially if the price is right. I just think it’s time this team actually builds itself a solid foundation as opposed to just filing jerseys.  

 


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kehatch said:

An extension to the above. The obstacle the Flames have in acquiring Eichel isn't the lack of futures. I think the Flames can put together a package that will be attractive to Buffalo. 

 

The issue is the cap. No team can just take on 10 million in August. Buffalo also needs to hit the cap floor. So dollars need to change hands. 

 

The problem the Flames have is we don't have the filler players. Trading high value roster players doesn't work because that isn't what Buffalo needs. The players we have that might fit (Backlund,Lucic) don't due to NTCs and term. 

 

I think the Flames need a third team to make this work. When you add that to the injury risk, cap, cost, etc and this is a really tough trade to pull off. The longer this takes the harder it gets because Eichel starts missing more of the season. 

 

Anyone trading to Buffalo has to include at least 3m or more going there.

You said it yourself, Buffalo needs to hit the cap floor.

They haven't weaponized their cap.

They traded to get more space.

 

Thachuk may not work as a player who wouldn't want to stay there, but they have a year to make him the franchise player.

And pay him like one.

Make him the captain.

He's not too old to be part of the new wave in Buffalo.

Or they work a deal with STL and get mid level or young players in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, kehatch said:

I don't agree Peeps. I get the principle that a 1C is harder to find then a 2D, but that is a make believe scenario and likely not the choice facing the Flames. 

 

First, I think we are a playoff team. We have a full year of Sutter and Treliving has brought on the kind of pieces that fit in a Sutter team. I think we are going to surprise people this season. I don't think we are good enough for a cup, but I do think we have a strong chance for the playoffs. Take away one of our top 4 D though and we arent competitive, especially with Sutter as the coach. 

 

Second, your underestimating the difficulty of getting a replacement D. Look up North for an example of how hard these guys are to get, especially when your right at the cap. 

 

But most importantly, this isn't a choice of Eichel or Hanafin. If the Flames can get Eichel without giving up Hanafin then that's a much better play. If Hanafin was the only way to get it done then okay, but I don't think trading him is even the most likely scenario. Buffalo doesn't want a player just hitting their prime who is a UFA in three seasons. They want futures to help them rebuild. 

 

The reality is whatever salary player we trade to Buffalo, its just so they can flip him for more futures. Likely with a third team involved to make the cap work. With that the case, the Flames should be trading from a position of strength not weakness, and we are weak at D. 

 

Oh for sure it's all hypothetical and we're not going to make that trade.  Just good for discussions from a principle stand point because 1C is harder to get than a 2D.  You also agree that if it costs Hanifin then so be it and I agree.  Hanifin is not my first choice either but just saying that if we have to do Hanifin, then we'll deal with the repercussions after because LD is not as difficult to replace than finding a #1 C.  In a perfect world, it doesn't cost us a D... or like you say, we involve a third team so we can move Monahan instead.

 

Also, in regards to the Oilers, they struggled to get a RD, not a LD.  Like, I would not trade Andersson unless we have a way to quickly get a RD back.  RD are just so hard to find.  LD are much easier.  And yes, if I was BUF, then I'm asking for Andersson.  BUF needs RD.  They have too many LD with Dahlin, Power, Hagg, and Samuelsson.  Most teams would like to add RD and have too many LD.  And so, as easy as it would be to replace Hanifin, I think timing is more the issue because UFA season is a month old and many LD have already been taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, kehatch said:

An extension to the above. The obstacle the Flames have in acquiring Eichel isn't the lack of futures. I think the Flames can put together a package that will be attractive to Buffalo. 

 

The issue is the cap. No team can just take on 10 million in August. Buffalo also needs to hit the cap floor. So dollars need to change hands. 

 

The problem the Flames have is we don't have the filler players. Trading high value roster players doesn't work because that isn't what Buffalo needs. The players we have that might fit (Backlund,Lucic) don't due to NTCs and term. 

 

I think the Flames need a third team to make this work. When you add that to the injury risk, cap, cost, etc and this is a really tough trade to pull off. The longer this takes the harder it gets because Eichel starts missing more of the season. 

 

Well, luckily Backlund and Lucic submit 10-team trade lists this season so we have some options when it comes to the cap.  Lucic will be a hard sell regardless, Flames will probably have to retain salary.

 

I'm also wondering if getting Eichel could help the Flames extend both Tkachuk and Gaudreau on better contracts.  Landing a stud Center like Eichel could convince both players the Flames are closer to legit contenders in the long term.  Assuming we move Monahan for help on D, we could still sport an Eichel/Lindholm 1/2 Center down the middle which is pretty good.  We need to get both players signed long term so our future has more answers than questions.  We don't want to have, especially Gaudreau, pending UFA all season.  It will be a huge distraction.  And with rumblings Tkachuk is unhappy and pending RFA, would he play hard ball next summer in negotiations?  I think landing Eichel and then these two guys having fun scoring and all, they will stay. 

 

And yes, it doesn't matter which LW plays with Eichel.  The other would enjoy the luxury of facing 2nd pairing D.

 

Anyways, getting a third team involved sounds like the logical step forward.  That, or secure a Monahan for LD trade from another team before moving Hanifin for Eichel so we can immediately replace Hanifin's minutes.

Share this post


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

 

Well, luckily Backlund and Lucic submit 10-team trade lists this season so we have some options when it comes to the cap.  Lucic will be a hard sell regardless, Flames will probably have to retain salary.

 

I'm also wondering if getting Eichel could help the Flames extend both Tkachuk and Gaudreau on better contracts.  Landing a stud Center like Eichel could convince both players the Flames are closer to legit contenders in the long term.  Assuming we move Monahan for help on D, we could still sport an Eichel/Lindholm 1/2 Center down the middle which is pretty good.  We need to get both players signed long term so our future has more answers than questions.  We don't want to have, especially Gaudreau, pending UFA all season.  It will be a huge distraction.  And with rumblings Tkachuk is unhappy and pending RFA, would he play hard ball next summer in negotiations?  I think landing Eichel and then these two guys having fun scoring and all, they will stay. 

 

And yes, it doesn't matter which LW plays with Eichel.  The other would enjoy the luxury of facing 2nd pairing D.

 

Anyways, getting a third team involved sounds like the logical step forward.  That, or secure a Monahan for LD trade from another team before moving Hanifin for Eichel so we can immediately replace Hanifin's minutes.

 

I think Eichel works in reverse for Tkachuk.  He would want Skinner money long term.  

The other thing is that I think we bring in Eichel, Tkachuk loses his status and will want out.

Right now, he's neck and neck with Gaudreau for most popular player.

He doesn't want to be 3rd best.

 

It's all just a guess, since we don't know how he thinks, but having a captain come in would make his spot in leadership more ceremonial.

 

If we could do Monahan + future to a 3rd part and get Eichel that solves one issue.

We should probably think long term and figure out whether Tkachuk will be here.

If not, trade him to STL for whatever we can get, whether that is Parayko + Thomas or Kyrou.

The cap balances out and we take care of RD and RW at the same time.

We can move Lindholm back to C and have Coleman and Thomas/Kyrou on 2RW.

Added 3 RHS to the roster.

 

Share this post


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

 

I think Eichel works in reverse for Tkachuk.  He would want Skinner money long term.  

 

 

Tkachuk-Eichel could mean Tkachuk is a 85-point guy long term... so $9-mil-per for what Tkachuk could bring is worth it.

Share this post


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

 

Tkachuk-Eichel could mean Tkachuk is a 85-point guy long term... so $9-mil-per for what Tkachuk could bring is worth it.


i feel more players should go Landeskog money, or Bergeron or Marchand who take less to win or at least have the chance to win. Teams end up like Toronto or Chicago when money is allocated too high. 
 

I know I will get kickback from this though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, robrob74 said:


i feel more players should go Landeskog money, or Bergeron or Marchand who take less to win or at least have the chance to win. Teams end up like Toronto or Chicago when money is allocated too high. 
 

I know I will get kickback from this though. 

The Chicago players are different from Toronto, because the core of that team won 3 cups. Obviously, when you're a winner you get paid more. Look at Blake Coleman. The Leafs are absolutely fair to criticize because their young core hadn't accomplished anything and yet received deals that reset the RFA market. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Eichel thing has to come to a head soon.

 

If he had surgery tomorrow, it's up-in-the-air if he's ready for the start of training camp. If this drags on any longer, it's looking like it will, you're probably talking about him missing regular season games.

 

 

For the Sabres, they have to move him by the end of the month. Moving him in-season will be essentially impossible. For a team trying to rebuild, I wouldn't want this Eichel saga hanging over the team all season. No matter how well a Cozens or Dahlin plays, the question in Buffalo will continue to be "What's happening with Eichel"? If you're trying to build a culture, I wouldn't want a malcontent around. 

 

In theory, Buffalo could deal Eichel at the 2022 draft, but they are fighting the clock a little bit, because July 1 he gets an NMC. If the Sabres haven't liked the offers they've gotten this summer, next summer the offers will be substantially lower. Look at the TDL, Taylor Hall had an NMC which completely hamstrung the Sabres. Eichel can do the exact same by next July if he's still in Buffalo. 

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...