Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Jessemadnote39

Realistic Trade suggestions for improvement

Recommended Posts

Id pass and I don't really care about the cost to be honest. I don't think he can stick in the NHL so you likely wind up giving up a 4th, or whatever, and then he heads back to Russia anyway. I think he is a top 6 or bust player so if he struggles what happens? His defnsive game isn't good enough to work him into the lineup or use him as a 3rd liner.

Personally, i'd keep the pick and give Flames prospects a chance.

See I think he automatically passes Grant who some feel should be on the team next year. Myself I think we should just walk from Grant. Obviously cannot crack an NHL roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I think he automatically passes Grant who some feel should be on the team next year. Myself I think we should just walk from Grant. Obviously cannot crack an NHL roster.

 

If Grant made the team, and I agree that most overrate Grant, it would be on the 4th line. IMO, Kholchakev is not a 4th liner and if you acquire him to play on the 4th line he'll bolt to Russia as soon as he can. He wants a shot and IMO that means top 6 because thats what he needs to play. Not good enough defensively to play a bottom 6 role IMO. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring in Tom Wilson WAS and Darcy Kuemper MIN via trades and sign UFAs Luke Schenn D and Chris Stewart RW.

Move out Wideman, Stajan, Bollig, Raymond and Engelland.

We get younger bigger, stronger, truculent and fill the necessary holes with better players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about moving Wideman for a NHL goalie from a team that has a goalie in a similar situation. ie, a player that still has value just perhaps isn't offering enough value on the contract. 

 

That way we trade our overpayment on DEF into the need in need.

 

Dallas is a prime trade partner. They have Lehtonen at 5.9 for multiple years and Niemi at 4.5 for multiple years. Both are 32 yrs old. 

 

If they swapped Niemi for Wideman they have a guy at D that can feed their offensive players and can contribute every game. Whereas with two goalies like that they are having 5.9 or 4.5 mil sitting on the bench every game. Maybe Wideman isnt worth 5.25M anymore but hes still a valuable vet, just closer to the say 3-3.5M range. 

 

Both Niemi or Lehtonen are at least comparable to Cam Ward or Reimer in terms of skill and their contracts have 2 years remaining. Which is about the time we would have to get a good look at Ortio/Gillies/McDonald coming up in our system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about moving Wideman for a NHL goalie from a team that has a goalie in a similar situation. ie, a player that still has value just perhaps isn't offering enough value on the contract. 

 

That way we trade our overpayment on DEF into the need in need.

 

Dallas is a prime trade partner. They have Lehtonen at 5.9 for multiple years and Niemi at 4.5 for multiple years. Both are 32 yrs old. 

 

If they swapped Niemi for Wideman they have a guy at D that can feed their offensive players and can contribute every game. Whereas with two goalies like that they are having 5.9 or 4.5 mil sitting on the bench every game. Maybe Wideman isnt worth 5.25M anymore but hes still a valuable vet, just closer to the say 3-3.5M range. 

 

Both Niemi or Lehtonen are at least comparable to Cam Ward or Reimer in terms of skill and their contracts have 2 years remaining. Which is about the time we would have to get a good look at Ortio/Gillies/McDonald coming up in our system. 

I think BT has to consider a number of options not just for a goalie but the task of moving out some of our unrequired players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, please hear me out and consider everything I say carefully.

I do not know if this would work, but it is worth a shot:

To Montreal:

Calgary's first round pick, 6 overall

Either Wideman (Preferred) or Engelland

Bollig

To Calgary

Montreal's first round pick, 9 overall

Nathan Beaulieu

Michael Mccarron

2nd round pick if Engelland, 3rd round pick if Wideman.

The consensus is not there between picks in the 4 to 15+ range in the draft so there is likely a large number of useful picks. Dropping 3 spots will not likely set the Flames back much. Calgary gets an extra draft pick. A young solid D man who can play top 4 plus a big bodied 6'6 223lb, young RHS RW with some offensive upside plus a salary dump.

What Montreal gets is a better shot at the player they really want to draft, an experienced D man and if they add both bollig and Engelland, they get much more grit and toughness.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, please hear me out and consider everything I say carefully.

I do not know if this would work, but it is worth a shot:

To Montreal:

Calgary's first round pick, 6 overall

Either Wideman (Preferred) or Engelland

Bollig

To Calgary

Montreal's first round pick, 9 overall

Nathan Beaulieu

Michael Mccarron

2nd round pick if Engelland, 3rd round pick if Wideman.

The consensus is not there between picks in the 4 to 15+ range in the draft so there is likely a large number of useful picks. Dropping 3 spots will not likely set the Flames back much. Calgary gets an extra draft pick. A young solid D man who can play top 4 plus a big bodied 6'6 223lb, young RHS RW with some offensive upside plus a salary dump.

What Montreal gets is a better shot at the player they really want to draft, an experienced D man and if they add both bollig and Engelland, they get much more grit and toughness.

Thoughts?

I love the concept but have zero insights on Beaulieu and Mccarron so its hard to judge accurately.  But just getting rid of Wideman/Engelland and Bollig for anything substantial has got to be a huge WIN.  It actually might work for Montreal too as they are much more in a "Win Now" mode than we are.

 

If trading with Montreal I would also add in Poirier who I believe they really, really like, not sure about the additional return?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, please hear me out and consider everything I say carefully.

I do not know if this would work, but it is worth a shot:

To Montreal:

Calgary's first round pick, 6 overall

Either Wideman (Preferred) or Engelland

Bollig

To Calgary

Montreal's first round pick, 9 overall

Nathan Beaulieu

Michael Mccarron

2nd round pick if Engelland, 3rd round pick if Wideman.

The consensus is not there between picks in the 4 to 15+ range in the draft so there is likely a large number of useful picks. Dropping 3 spots will not likely set the Flames back much. Calgary gets an extra draft pick. A young solid D man who can play top 4 plus a big bodied 6'6 223lb, young RHS RW with some offensive upside plus a salary dump.

What Montreal gets is a better shot at the player they really want to draft, an experienced D man and if they add both bollig and Engelland, they get much more grit and toughness.

Thoughts?

 

I pass personally but not because its a horrible deal althought I do think MOntreal would view this as giving up too much to jump 3 spots. They have no depth on D and are giving up their only young NHL dmen and I think they would be weary of giving up McCarron given how desperate they are for size up front.

 

For me though It doesn't make sense for the Flames. I think if you are picking in the top 10 of the draft you need to utilize the opporutnity to claim as high end talent as you can. That is the "reward" for picking that high, so I don't agree with the concept of trading down in order to gain more depth. There are other ways you can get more depth but there are so few ways to gather high end talent so don't pass on your opportunity to do so. 

 

Going from 6-9 likely means you are passing on the top forwards and that's not something I'm comfortable seeing the Flames doing. Bealieu and McCarron IMO project to be solid depth pieces at best and certainly would not provide the impact someone like Tkachuk or Nylander would provide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main reason I made the suggestion to start with, is I have seen in some mock drafts where Nylander has fallen lower than 10th. With someone like Sergachev still on the board or Nylander falling, I personally have no issue dropping 3 spots. Other prospects which seem to fall on mock drafts include Dubois and Keller. You also have Tyson Jost, a RW who broke McDavids U-18 tournament points record. Personally, I read about all of these guys and they have significant talent and a variety of skill sets which would definitely help stock the cupboards for the Flames at approximately the same level.

On the Flames main page mock drafts:

Nylander: 6, 8, 6, 12

Sergachev: 9, 10, 11, 9

Dubois: 5, 5, 9, 5

Keller: 11, 11, 13, 8

Jost: 12, 9, 12, 10

McCleod: 10, X, 7, 11

Other Players in the 4-8 range are Tkachuk, Chychrun, Juolevi.

The thing with picking up guys like Beaulieu and Mccarron on top of picking any of the above players, is that you are increasing the stock in the prospect pool at multiple levels. I have no problem possibly sweetening the pot to get Mccarron by moving guys like Shore, Bouma, Grant. I would be OK moving Colbourne if the size / talent exchange is an issue. They are getting size back in both Engelland and Bollig. Toughness in Bouma.

Is the drop from 6 - 9 in this draft really such a large drop when there is no real consensus with the picks? If Nylander goeas at 6, one of Chychrun, Tkachuk or Dubois falls to 7 at least. This is without anyone going off board and pushing a guy like Bean up the list. Or a Jost or Sergachev.

Any of those prospects would look good in the future as a Flame. Add the fact that guys like Jokkipakka, Nakladal and Beaulieu would be competing for the #4 spot means that during an expansion draft, the Flames could only lose 1 of the 3. Add in guys like Andersson and Kylington plus possibly Sergachev, or whoever in a couple of years, that perceived talent gap from 6 to 9 drops even more.

Montreal has many contracts to re-sign this offseason and need to solidify the team so that it is not all on the shoulders of Price. I know some people don't like the idea of trading down, but the return in the trade could be worthwhile. I wouldn't trade out of the top 10 without amazing returns, but dropping 3 spots to 9 in my opinion would not hurt the Flames at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Flames main page mock drafts:

Nylander: 6, 8, 6, 12

Sergachev: 9, 10, 11, 9

Dubois: 5, 5, 9, 5

Keller: 11, 11, 13, 8

Jost: 12, 9, 12, 10

McCleod: 10, X, 7, 11

 

Personally I would exercise caution basing an opinion off the mock draft on the Flames page. Those are beat writers they are not people that follow the draft.  I think the likelihood of getting Nylander at 9 is very, very close to zero. 

 

It depends on what you are after. Personally I don't view this draft as a chance to get some dpeth and options and into the Flames prosepct pool I view it as a chance to get an elite to very good level player that fills a huge hole.  I think Nylander is a much better fit for what the Flames want/need to get so I'm not willing to pass him up. Yes guys like Jost and Sergachev are very solid prospects but potential first line wingers with RH shots who could score 30 goals in the league don't come around every draft and that IMO is Nylander. 

 

LIke I said i'm not critiquing the trade proposal i'm saying that IMO it doesn't make sense for the Flames. Get the most talented and best fit you can at 6 and don't start dropping down to gain more depth. Thats not what I think you do when you have a top 10 pick. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My use of the mock drafts was specifically to demonstrate a lack of consensus with respect to talent. I agree with a need for talent however I disagree that Nylander is so much better than the others listed. He is not a generational talent like McDavid, nor is he considered an Elite level player like the top 3 in the draft. Do I think, based on other's analysis that Nylander will likely be a top 6 forward? Yes indeed. I do not think he has that much better a chance at it than the others in the 4-10 range and in fact is lower than some of the others. I agree that finding those high end talents are difficult, but it is difficult at most positions, not just RW.

While the RHS is important, I wouldn't pick Nylander over Chychrun for example. Would you take Nylander over Tkachuk if he was available at 6? Dubois? At least 1 of those 3 will be available at 6 and are all typically rated higher than Nylander. If you are going BPA as I have seen most people call for, then Nylander does not go at 6 for most people.

I understand the appreciation for the Right hand shot of Nylander, but I don't think that he will be the piece that makes the team. For the Flames, they can fill more spots and get more out of making the deal with respect to financials as well as improving the Flames overall skill level rather than drafting 1 player who likely will not step straight into the NHL. He will likely take time. If you are not taking a significantly lower player than a Nylander in the draft, not giving away high end prospects or extra draft picks and still improving your team, I don't see why you DON'T make the trade. If the option was McDavid compared to Baertschi then I agree you don't do the trade no matter what, but 3 spot drop in the 5-10 range is not a significant change in talent.

We may need to disagree here Cross, but that is the beauty of living in a place where differing opinions are allowed. That said, I would not be sad to see them pick at 6 and NOT make the trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of BT's offseason sould be to unload Wideman, Stajan, Raymond and Bollig at a minimum but should he also be looking at shedding some prospects ? Suggestions for discussion.

 

Wideman and Hathaway to BOS for Suppan G and a 3rd pick.

 

Stajan and Klimchuk for Kyle Lowry LW.

 

Raymond and Bollig to NJD for anything we can get.

 

Bouma and Agostino to PIT for B Bennett RW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of BT's offseason sould be to unload Wideman, Stajan, Raymond and Bollig at a minimum but should he also be looking at shedding some prospects ? Suggestions for discussion.

 

Wideman and Hathaway to BOS for Suppan G and a 3rd pick.

 

Stajan and Klimchuk for Kyle Lowry LW.

 

Raymond and Bollig to NJD for anything we can get.

 

Bouma and Agostino to PIT for B Bennett RW.

I'm not sure we're quite in a position yet to start losing prospects..unless they've shown they aren't progressing in the chain. Agostino might be in that position..not sure

I do like some of your options. Tho I'm not as big on Subban as some..I'd rather see us send Wideman to Boston straight up for the rights to Kochalchev.. Win win..we shed salary for a prospect. Boston gets return on a prospect they can't sign.

I'm totally open to trading Bouma just due to his tag and injury tendencies, but I have a hunch Jooris may be ahead of him on the trade list

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of BT's offseason sould be to unload Wideman, Stajan, Raymond and Bollig at a minimum but should he also be looking at shedding some prospects ? Suggestions for discussion.

Wideman and Hathaway to BOS for Suppan G and a 3rd pick.

Stajan and Klimchuk for Kyle Lowry LW.

Raymond and Bollig to NJD for anything we can get.

Bouma and Agostino to PIT for B Bennett RW.

I don't trade Hathaway because he is one of the prospects with truculence. If that's going to be our style of play we need him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure we're quite in a position yet to start losing prospects..unless they've shown they aren't progressing in the chain. Agostino might be in that position..not sure

I do like some of your options. Tho I'm not as big on Subban as some..I'd rather see us send Wideman to Boston straight up for the rights to Kochalchev.. Win win..we shed salary for a prospect. Boston gets return on a prospect they can't sign.

I'm totally open to trading Bouma just due to his tag and injury tendencies, but I have a hunch Jooris may be ahead of him on the trade list

I can't understand why so many want to trade Jooris. He is the perfect utility forward, he can play any where and his price is right. This will be his 3rd full season coming up and he now has experience.

I don't trade Hathaway because he is one of the prospects with truculence. If that's going to be our style of play we need him.

I just thought he could enhance the deal so BOS takes Wideman. Hathaway is from the area and would fit right in with BOS. I'm not to worried about replacing a 4th line RWer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand why so many want to trade Jooris. He is the perfect utility forward, he can play any where and his price is right. This will be his 3rd full season coming up and he now has experience.

I just thought he could enhance the deal so BOS takes Wideman. Hathaway is from the area and would fit right in with BOS. I'm not to worried about replacing a 4th line RWer.

 

Jooris had a career year in 2014/15.  This year he played less, but still got 3rd or 4th line minutes.  While he is a serviceable forward, is he really the best we have to play at center or on RW for those minutes?  I have no problem keeping him as a 12th or 14th forward and letting him earn a roster spot.  The other option is to use him in a trade.  Hathaway has little or no value compared to Jooris in a trade.  He isn't a known entity in the league.  At least Jooris provides a C/RW utility, as well as PK abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jooris had a career year in 2014/15.  This year he played less, but still got 3rd or 4th line minutes.  While he is a serviceable forward, is he really the best we have to play at center or on RW for those minutes?  I have no problem keeping him as a 12th or 14th forward and letting him earn a roster spot.  The other option is to use him in a trade.  Hathaway has little or no value compared to Jooris in a trade.  He isn't a known entity in the league.  At least Jooris provides a C/RW utility, as well as PK abilities.

You name the very reasons we should be keeping Jooris. why should we be trading away such a player heading into his 3rd year of experience. The value created or developed with him has value to a team such as our own. You look at 2015/16 as a career year ??? I look at it as a good 1st year. I don't disagree that he should fit in the 4th line or maybe platoon with someone like Arnold at C but I think he has a place here. Also you don't know if BOS knows about Hathaway or not, for all you know they might have scouted him earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand why so many want to trade Jooris. He is the perfect utility forward, he can play any where and his price is right. This will be his 3rd full season coming up and he now has experience.

 

he's RFA.. i think some people think that new # may make him replaceable.. i agree if we can keep him under 1M he's the perfect price

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he's RFA.. i think some people think that new # may make him replaceable.. i agree if we can keep him under 1M he's the perfect price

That should be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You name the very reasons we should be keeping Jooris. why should we be trading away such a player heading into his 3rd year of experience. The value created or developed with him has value to a team such as our own. You look at 2015/16 as a career year ??? I look at it as a good 1st year. I don't disagree that he should fit in the 4th line or maybe platoon with someone like Arnold at C but I think he has a place here. Also you don't know if BOS knows about Hathaway or not, for all you know they might have scouted him earlier.

 

I believe he attended a BOS prospect camp the year before he signed on with Addy.  He attended Brown, which is close to Boston, but that doesn't mean too much.  He was not a highly sought after NCAA player, and really has only played a handful of NHL games.  If Jooris has value, Hathaway has a lot less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he attended a BOS prospect camp the year before he signed on with Addy.  He attended Brown, which is close to Boston, but that doesn't mean too much.  He was not a highly sought after NCAA player, and really has only played a handful of NHL games.  If Jooris has value, Hathaway has a lot less.

I believe it means his IQ is well above your average NHLer lol.

Think Harvard. Harvard students are by no means looking down on Brown students. To be accepted into an Ivy League school like Brown, you are definitely scholarly in the best of ways.

When you think top institutions on the continent, Brown is in the conversation.

In fact, for me, you've just shed some light on him and how he plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he attended a BOS prospect camp the year before he signed on with Addy.  He attended Brown, which is close to Boston, but that doesn't mean too much.  He was not a highly sought after NCAA player, and really has only played a handful of NHL games.  If Jooris has value, Hathaway has a lot less.

Value is in the eye of the beholder. I don't really care so long as Wideman goes, I wasn't trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we live and die by Wideman-type contracts, Raymond too. Just take it for another year and be done with it.

It'll only hurt for a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we live and die by Wideman-type contracts, Raymond too. Just take it for another year and be done with it.

It'll only hurt for a year.

I don't agree with this at all, if you don't want them on your team you find a way to deal them or remove them. We are trying to build something positive here and keeping deadwood isn't the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it means his IQ is well above your average NHLer lol.

Think Harvard. Harvard students are by no means looking down on Brown students. To be accepted into an Ivy League school like Brown, you are definitely scholarly in the best of ways.

When you think top institutions on the continent, Brown is in the conversation.

In fact, for me, you've just shed some light on him and how he plays.

 

If you were following the conversation, the "where" was in relation to Boston scouting him, not on his academic abilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...