Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Jessemadnote39

Realistic Trade suggestions for improvement

Recommended Posts

Agreed. It isn't about developing value, it's about winning games.

That said, I would try Giordano-Hamilton, Brodie-Wideman in the preseason. Brodie and Wideman have played well together and I don't think the Giordano Hamilton pair was given a fair crack with Giordano back from injury and Hamilton starting with the team.

But I still think you end up back with Giordano-Brodie and trying to find someone to play with Hamilton (probably Jokipakka).

 

I agree with this. I've said this a few times before but I am a big proponent of splitting up Gio- Brodie so you can ensure that a top dman is basically on the ice at all times against other teams. I think the best teams have too much depth so I don't agree with the idea of stacking D pairings but of course for this to work either Wideman or someong like Jokipakka has to step up. As much as I do like Englelland i'm not a fan of him in the top 4 other than on a short term basis so it has to be one of those 2 or the Flames get a shock and someone like Kulak/Wotherspoon comes out of nowhere and surprises us. 

 

I also agree that Gio-Hamilton should not be written off. Both individually played like crap that first month so I think the fact they were playing together just compounded it, but it didn't create it.  I would try it again and you always have it in your back pocket to go back to Gio-Brodie if it doesn't work and JOkipakka-Hamilton wasn't terrible either. So given there is a fall back plan I would try something that can improve your D core becuase IMO to truly maximize the value of the Flames D core you need Gio and Brodie apart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you maximize Wideman's usage and he responds by having another breakout season, one has to assume that the Flames are playoff bound.  If that's the case, why are you trading away that valuable a resource?  You aren't going to:

  1) break up pairings that are really working well

  2) change the dynamic of the team that radically by trading away a top 4 pairing guy

 

I would suspect that the coach try to maximize the usage of the players who hopefully will be here next year.  We have the top 3 who we know about and a couple of younger guys signed that could be part of the top 4 this year or next.  If Wideman puts up 50 points, you might have to assume that we are keeping him.  

As a GM you always want to give yourself options IMO. Should Wideman be doing well you can keep him or if what is offered helps the bigger picture you can trade him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know everyone wants rid of Wideman and I get that, but IMO Plan A for the Flames is Wideman playing at a level he was close to 2 years ago and moving back into the top 4 to the point where you don't want to trade him. That is where his value is going to be highest to the Flames.

 

That should be the focus, not what he will net at the TDL. If Widmean is moved at the TDL its becuase he has played terrible (bad for the Flames) or the Flames arn't playing well (obviously bad as well).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know everyone wants rid of Wideman and I get that, but IMO Plan A for the Flames is Wideman playing at a level he was close to 2 years ago and moving back into the top 4 to the point where you don't want to trade him. That is where his value is going to be highest to the Flames.

That should be the focus, not what he will net at the TDL. If Widmean is moved at the TDL its becuase he has played terrible (bad for the Flames) or the Flames arn't playing well (obviously bad as well).

In my opinion plan A in the spring should have been to trade him. But at this point you really don't create anything to get him off the roster. We don't need the cap space, we won't get anything for him, and he only has this year under contract.

I don't like how he fits, but barring a better option you might as well see if you can get him going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you maximize Wideman's usage and he responds by having another breakout season, one has to assume that the Flames are playoff bound.  If that's the case, why are you trading away that valuable a resource?  You aren't going to:

  1) break up pairings that are really working well

  2) change the dynamic of the team that radically by trading away a top 4 pairing guy

 

I would suspect that the coach try to maximize the usage of the players who hopefully will be here next year.  We have the top 3 who we know about and a couple of younger guys signed that could be part of the top 4 this year or next.  If Wideman puts up 50 points, you might have to assume that we are keeping him.  

 

Did we not trade Glencross heading into a playoff season?  Wideman will be gone by the TDL regardless of how well or poor he is playing.  Hopefully we can get him going to maximize the return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we not trade Glencross heading into a playoff season? Wideman will be gone by the TDL regardless of how well or poor he is playing. Hopefully we can get him going to maximize the return.

Different situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different situation.

 

Agreed. I get what Cheers is saying that Treliving isnt' afraid to deal a player at the TDL even if in playoff contention but trading a 3rd line player and a potential top 4 or 5 D are very different scenarios. I don't see Treliving/Burke parting with that type of dman heading into a playoff race becuase then you would want to be going out and replacing the same type of asset. 

 

I really don't think the Flames are in as big a rush to move Wideman as the fans are. Treliving is just like Burke in the "you can never have too many dman" camp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we not trade Glencross heading into a playoff season?  Wideman will be gone by the TDL regardless of how well or poor he is playing.  Hopefully we can get him going to maximize the return.

I think any trade has to have the opportunity to develop first, you can't force these things. Glencross was not going to be part of the go forward group and coming off two very subpar years due to lingering injuries we were fortunate to move him and get what we did. I don't think Wideman is a lot different as far as not being part of the go forward however nobody has stepped forward to ask for him either. The situation has the potential to be different come the TDL but you still need a dance partner in order to trade him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we pairing guys for the TDL?  We should be pairing guys for the playoffs.  When we pair guys for the playoffs, Wideman is the odd man out.

 

Look at it this way....it's pre-planning for "tanking for better draft position"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 reasons the Flames could decide to trade Wideman now rather than waiting to see value @ the TDL (or keep him as he is exactly what a playoff team adds @ the deadline).

1) Oberhart comes in playing hardball on the Gaudreau contract & BT caves. On the board we expect 7.5 tops but @ 8.5 we have almost 0 remaining in cap space.

2) BT has an offer giving him a good addition for picks/prospects only but that player is a RFA (like Rakell who is mentioned in a different thread) meaning he needs cap room.

 

In either scenario with Florida trading a prime prospect to shed Bolland's cap hit it's likely they are going all in this year to make the playoffs & farther. Their D is no great guns so Wideman would be a good fit if not for his cap hit. @ full price he eats what they shed in Bolland but with salary retained he'd be a fit (& increase the return from that of a cap dump to a useful player if we don't get greedy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 reasons the Flames could decide to trade Wideman now rather than waiting to see value @ the TDL (or keep him as he is exactly what a playoff team adds @ the deadline).

1) Oberhart comes in playing hardball on the Gaudreau contract & BT caves. On the board we expect 7.5 tops but @ 8.5 we have almost 0 remaining in cap space.

2) BT has an offer giving him a good addition for picks/prospects only but that player is a RFA (like Rakell who is mentioned in a different thread) meaning he needs cap room.

 

In either scenario with Florida trading a prime prospect to shed Bolland's cap hit it's likely they are going all in this year to make the playoffs & farther. Their D is no great guns so Wideman would be a good fit if not for his cap hit. @ full price he eats what they shed in Bolland but with salary retained he'd be a fit (& increase the return from that of a cap dump to a useful player if we don't get greedy).

I think everyone around here would love to see Wideman dealt now vs later however it seems there is no panic on management's part. I actually like TD's idea of Frolik for Rakell with ANA, Frolik is one of those flex 2nd or 3rd line player we likely paid a million or so to much for to help our rebuild along. Rakell may be a better fit on our top line at this time.

Like cross says if we end up with Wideman hopefully we get the player from 2 years ago not the one we saw last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone around here would love to see Wideman dealt now vs later however it seems there is no panic on management's part. I actually like TD's idea of Frolik for Rakell with ANA, Frolik is one of those flex 2nd or 3rd line player we likely paid a million or so to much for to help our rebuild along. Rakell may be a better fit on our top line at this time.

Like cross says if we end up with Wideman hopefully we get the player from 2 years ago not the one we saw last season.

Let's try Wideman and Frolik for Fowler LSD and Rakell RW the Flames retain some salary on Wideman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone around here would love to see Wideman dealt now vs later however it seems there is no panic on management's part. I actually like TD's idea of Frolik for Rakell with ANA, Frolik is one of those flex 2nd or 3rd line player we likely paid a million or so to much for to help our rebuild along. Rakell may be a better fit on our top line at this time.

Like cross says if we end up with Wideman hopefully we get the player from 2 years ago not the one we saw last season.

But there is 0 reason for Anaheim to take on 4.3 x 4 when Rakell serves the purpose, will likely cost less & can be viewed as part of the next generation for the Ducks. If Anaheim is loading up for a SC run they re-sign assets like Rakell & Lindholm then add depth @ the TDL. Having a more expensive Frolik helps them nada.

Let's try Wideman and Frolik for Fowler LSD and Rakell RW the Flames retain some salary on Wideman.

Yeah lets. & after that we trade Stajan & Engelland for Simmonds & Sanheim. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see the Flames trading another one of our D prospects for a pick or player or just straight up swapping up prospects. Culkin, Kulak, Olas-Mattson perhaps. Might be packaged with a Stajan/Widemen/Bollig attached. I can see BT still looking to build aggressively via the draft and trades, still early in the rebuild IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I get what Cheers is saying that Treliving isnt' afraid to deal a player at the TDL even if in playoff contention but trading a 3rd line player and a potential top 4 or 5 D are very different scenarios. I don't see Treliving/Burke parting with that type of dman heading into a playoff race becuase then you would want to be going out and replacing the same type of asset.

I really don't think the Flames are in as big a rush to move Wideman as the fans are. Treliving is just like Burke in the "you can never have too many dman" camp.

That. Plus when we moved Glencross Gaudreau was a rookie, Monahan was on an ELC, we didn't have Hamilton, Frolik, Brouwer, Bennett, etc. We were neck deep in a rebuild and Treliving said from the start he wasn't deviating from the plan. The plan called for trading pending UFA at the deadline and he did.

Now Gaudreau, Monahan, Hamilton, and Giordano are making the big bucks and are established players. We have guys like Frolik and Brouwer. The plan is to make the playoffs and do as much damage as we can. We won't be selling off players thst improve our chances to do that if we are in the mix come the deadline. We might even be buyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wideman's suspension hurt his rep but Flames fans rag on him pretty hard for his defensive lapses. I think Wides is a good and sometimes great defenseman. His offensive skills do go under appreciated. It may be a blessing in disguise..he's out to redeem himself and restore his reputation and he's also in a contract year. Advantage Flames. If we don't trade him hopefully it's because he's playing an important part of a successful Flames season. If not then he's off the books next year anyway.

Flames as buyers could be the case. We'd have to be in a firm playoff spot and would have to find a team to eat some cap. It's hard to say how long BT will wait before making changes...he'll have to wait and see how they respond to GG, those signs may not appear until 40 games in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone around here would love to see Wideman dealt now vs later however it seems there is no panic on management's part. I actually like TD's idea of Frolik for Rakell with ANA, Frolik is one of those flex 2nd or 3rd line player we likely paid a million or so to much for to help our rebuild along. Rakell may be a better fit on our top line at this time.

Like cross says if we end up with Wideman hopefully we get the player from 2 years ago not the one we saw last season.

 

I don't think I suggested Frolik for Rakkel.  I was thinking more along the lines of prospects like Hickey and Poirier for Rakkel, since they are somewhat of a budget team.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I suggested Frolik for Rakkel.  I was thinking more along the lines of prospects like Hickey and Poirier for Rakkel, since they are somewhat of a budget team.  

Sorry about that it was in Free Agency and cross mentioned it might take someone like Frolik in your discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about that it was in Free Agency and cross mentioned it might take someone like Frolik in your discussion.

 

I get my own deals mixed up sometimes.  But Frolik is one of my faves.  I don't want to trade him since I think he is a great 2-way player. He may never be more than a 40 point guy but he is a clutch player.  I would expect he scores 20 goals this season, which is not a slouch.  I think we have a lot of prospects that could be used in trades.  Would like to keep Poirier but he has so much competition for a winger spot - Chiasson, Vey, Shinkaruk, Tkachuk, Mangiapane, Pollock, and Pribyl.  We are even deeper on D - Kulak, Spoon, Andersson, Kylington, Fox, Hickey, Olas-Mattsson....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get my own deals mixed up sometimes. But Frolik is one of my faves. I don't want to trade him since I think he is a great 2-way player. He may never be more than a 40 point guy but he is a clutch player. I would expect he scores 20 goals this season, which is not a slouch. I think we have a lot of prospects that could be used in trades. Would like to keep Poirier but he has so much competition for a winger spot - Chiasson, Vey, Shinkaruk, Tkachuk, Mangiapane, Pollock, and Pribyl. We are even deeper on D - Kulak, Spoon, Andersson, Kylington, Fox, Hickey, Olas-Mattsson....

Do we keep Stajan one more year (this season) and then buy him out? I think he is the only one I would give/add value to a trade to get rid of. I prefer to keep all of our prospects for now. A few of the forwards you mention are on one-year deals and if they don't pan out I would rather have Poirier and hope he can develop his offence.

Let the D battle it out as well. Get everyone developed. :)

I think Wideman can be tradeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get my own deals mixed up sometimes.  But Frolik is one of my faves.  I don't want to trade him since I think he is a great 2-way player. He may never be more than a 40 point guy but he is a clutch player.  I would expect he scores 20 goals this season, which is not a slouch.  I think we have a lot of prospects that could be used in trades.  Would like to keep Poirier but he has so much competition for a winger spot - Chiasson, Vey, Shinkaruk, Tkachuk, Mangiapane, Pollock, and Pribyl.  We are even deeper on D - Kulak, Spoon, Andersson, Kylington, Fox, Hickey, Olas-Mattsson....

I don't know the Frolik types are the players a team like us will or should deal off in a good hockey trade. We overpaid Frolik coming in by about 1M IMO which was ok at the time but if we could get possibly a higher production player, not lose much defensively and save 1M I do that deal. Especially if Rakell is a better fit for the top line.

ANA may be a budget team but they spend where it counts.

Do we keep Stajan one more year (this season) and then buy him out? I think he is the only one I would give/add value to a trade to get rid of. I prefer to keep all of our prospects for now. A few of the forwards you mention are on one-year deals and if they don't pan out I would rather have Poirier and hope he can develop his offence.

Let the D battle it out as well. Get everyone developed. :)

I think Wideman can be tradeable.

I don't think we have a choice but to keep him and use him this year. What happens from there is anyone's guess maybe a trade or they buy him out. The team will need to advance Jankowski by the 2017/18 season for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we keep Stajan one more year (this season) and then buy him out? I think he is the only one I would give/add value to a trade to get rid of. I prefer to keep all of our prospects for now. A few of the forwards you mention are on one-year deals and if they don't pan out I would rather have Poirier and hope he can develop his offence.

Let the D battle it out as well. Get everyone developed. :)

I think Wideman can be tradeable.

In true $s Stajan cost 2.0 after this year making him very tradable to a budget team.

Buyout cost is 2/3 meaning 1.33 but cap hit is the same meaning 1.79 the 1st year & 0.6666 the next.

 

@ worst if the Flames really need the 1.335 next year in cap space accept a conditional pick or useless prospect with 1 year left on a 2 way. It'll be hard to replace him @ that little though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In true $s Stajan cost 2.0 after this year making him very tradable to a budget team.

Buyout cost is 2/3 meaning 1.33 but cap hit is the same meaning 1.79 the 1st year & 0.6666 the next.

 

@ worst if the Flames really need the 1.335 next year in cap space accept a conditional pick or useless prospect with 1 year left on a 2 way. It'll be hard to replace him @ that little though.

Funny how this comment sounds. Most around here have said he is way overpriced for what he brings here. You are now saying we will be hard time to replace him for this price...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at the RFA's still unsigned and there are still quite a few big names out there; Ristolainen, Rackell, Trouba, Lindholm and Kucherov. I doubt we have what it is necessary to get any of those guys without giving up Gaudreau in a trade of unsigned RFA's.

 

The guy that intrigues me is Dmitry Orlov, left shot defenseman, only 25, still has some untapped upside. I don't think he would be overly expensive to acquire. There seems to be some strain in the negotiations with Washington. I wonder if he is looking for more opportunity, he seems to be 5th on Washington's depth chart, here he would battle for that 2nd pairing job with Jokipakka.

 

The other issue is that you might end up competing with the KHL on a new contract. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at the RFA's still unsigned and there are still quite a few big names out there; Ristolainen, Rackell, Trouba, Lindholm and Kucherov. I doubt we have what it is necessary to get any of those guys without giving up Gaudreau in a trade of unsigned RFA's.

 

The guy that intrigues me is Dmitry Orlov, left shot defenseman, only 25, still has some untapped upside. I don't think he would be overly expensive to acquire. There seems to be some strain in the negotiations with Washington. I wonder if he is looking for more opportunity, he seems to be 5th on Washington's depth chart, here he would battle for that 2nd pairing job with Jokipakka.

 

The other issue is that you might end up competing with the KHL on a new contract. 

The holdup is likely because the Caps have under 3.5 in cap space. With Orpik being 35 his time to move up the pairings is likely sooner rather than later. So if he is even available the cost is likely to be significant.

 

Is the KHL a viable option again? Last year players were trying hard to come to the NHL as they weren't receiving their paychecks.

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   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...