Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Jessemadnote39

Realistic Trade suggestions for improvement

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

I think they had a bit of a falling out this year. Peters preaches situational awareness and Skinner struggles with that aspect of the game. Good skater and goal scorer, but isn't great at the other end of the ice.

Yeah IMO Skinner and Mike Hoffman are very similar players.

 

They can both let it fly which would really help our PP, but will be liabilities in our own end. 

Share this post


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

To me Brouwer is not a consideration.  He's either traded, bought out or riding the 4th line/pine role for another season.  Sure if you can trade Brouwer for either Hyman or Brown go for it.  I think Mangiapanne, Foo, Frolik, Dube, Ferland and maybe others... are just as good as or better than Hyman or Brown, so there is no need to acquire them.

I am not convinced that Brouwer can be traded. He has a no trade clause, and a no trade style of play. lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yeah IMO Skinner and Mike Hoffman are very similar players.

 

They can both let it fly which would really help our PP, but will be liabilities in our own end. 

They seem to be very similar, although Skinner has had some pretty serious concussion issues already so I'd rather take Hoffman.

Share this post


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

They are both great players, no doubt, but let's look at the differentiating facts:  

1. Hamilton led all D in goals scored for the entire NHL, while not even playing much PP for over half the season.

2. In terms of positional value, it goes like this - goalie, D(Hamilton), Centres, wingers(Marner)

3. In terms of D priority, R-shot D(Hamilton) are more rare and much more valuable than L-shot D.

4. Hamilton is 24, signed for 3 more years at a cap-friendly $5.75mm.  Marner is 20, signed for $0.895 for 1 year than looking for  huge contract increase likely over $7mm... Both growing into their primes and this is likely a wash...

 

So, YES, Marner is a great player, but what do you think you're going to need to pay to get another great player, especially one at the most sought-after position of hockey skaters?  Sure they can try to cobble together a package of lessor guys but why would we even consider it?  There are not enough spots for tons of players and we have our own depth.  IF Hamilton gets traded it NEEDS to be for Marner or someone very similar, and yes, there should be pluses coming our way.

Would you give up Tkachuk for Hamilton straight up ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

This is so true.

#1 Rule of allowable trades is "don't create a gaping hole by filling another"

 

I would suggest we have 4 players on this team that are about as close to untouchable as you can get , because  we have nobody in the system with their level of skill set or intangibles to replace them. 

1) Gio - i wavered on this one, but it leaves a leadership hole and hes still good to be on just about any teams top pairing 

2)Hamilton - sorry , but it leaves a gaping D hole , teams around the league are looking for his type, cuz nobody will give them up 

3) Tkachuk - like Peters said, there's maybe 5 players like him in the league and most can only name Marchand

4) Backlund - one of the top 2 way players in the game

 

Maybe 3 players who while not untouchable, you'd have to knock our socks off or somehow replace them in the same trade

1) Johnny- like when I suggested Johnny for Hall, etc

2) Monahan- we sign Tavares , he could be available at the right price ..and even then it would have to be REAL good and tempting

3) Hamonic - top 2nd pairing guy , great contract.. plus we gave up a ton to get him

 

I still say Montreal is our Huckleberry for TJ

If BT were to trade Brodie to MON it would have to be for Gallagher IMO and a 2nd round pick. I agree they could use Brodie because their D is not stacked with anyone good outside of Weber. Gallagher is popular there but at the end of the day he is a flex 2nd/3rd line RW which we could use. I would rather see this deal than a trading of Hamilton although Hamilton would bring back more quality in a deal. I think dealing Hamilton on the hope Brodie could switch back to the RS with Giordano and live happily ever after is the wrong future for the Flames.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

If BT were to trade Brodie to MON it would have to be for Gallagher IMO and a 2nd round pick. I agree they could use Brodie because their D is not stacked with anyone good outside of Weber. Gallagher is popular there but at the end of the day he is a flex 2nd/3rd line RW which we could use. I would rather see this deal than a trading of Hamilton although Hamilton would bring back more quality in a deal. I think dealing Hamilton on the hope Brodie could switch back to the RS with Giordano and live happily ever after is the wrong future for the Flames.

Exactly ..

I compare trading Hamilton for a top RW to trading Johnny for a Vezina Goalie.. sure you could probably do it because he has that value,Montreal would probably at least listen to you on Price for example,  but then how do you fill the gaping hole you just made .

 

Getting Hamilton was a perfect storm, teams just don't trade players like that.

He fell to us because of a serious threat of an offer sheet from Edmonton , so Boston flipped him to us to slap Chiarelli in the face and recoup assets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Exactly ..

I compare trading Hamilton for a top RW to trading Johnny for a Vezina Goalie.. sure you could probably do it because he has that value,Montreal would probably at least listen to you on Price for example,  but then how do you fill the gaping hole you just made .

 

Getting Hamilton was a perfect storm, teams just don't trade players like that.

He fell to us because of a serious threat of an offer sheet from Edmonton , so Boston flipped him to us to slap Chiarelli in the face and recoup assets

I am torn when it comes to Brodie but I like what I see in Valimaki who won't be a long time making the team. If moving him for a quality RW is available we should do it IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I am torn when it comes to Brodie but I like what I see in Valimaki who won't be a long time making the team. If moving him for a quality RW is available we should do it IMO.

agreed,   I'm not suggesting dump TJ for picks just to get rid of him .. he just simply represents a replaceable Value . If we want to acquire a good player , we will need to give up a good player ..but we have to do it from a position of strength. 

Saying he can be replaced isn't intended to slap Brodie in the face or devalue him , its to suggest we have done a good job in stocking our D prospects 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

agreed,   I'm not suggesting dump TJ for picks just to get rid of him .. he just simply represents a replaceable Value . If we want to acquire a good player , we will need to give up a good player ..but we have to do it from a position of strength. 

Saying he can be replaced isn't intended to slap Brodie in the face or devalue him , its to suggest we have done a good job in stocking our D prospects 

 

 

Which we have along the LS especially. Ideally we could use another year to bring along the likes of Kylington and Valimaki but I'm sure we could manage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, cccsberg said:

They are both great players, no doubt, but let's look at the differentiating facts:  

1. Hamilton led all D in goals scored for the entire NHL, while not even playing much PP for over half the season.

2. In terms of positional value, it goes like this - goalie, D(Hamilton), Centres, wingers(Marner)

3. In terms of D priority, R-shot D(Hamilton) are more rare and much more valuable than L-shot D.

4. Hamilton is 24, signed for 3 more years at a cap-friendly $5.75mm.  Marner is 20, signed for $0.895 for 1 year than looking for  huge contract increase likely over $7mm... Both growing into their primes and this is likely a wash...

 

So, YES, Marner is a great player, but what do you think you're going to need to pay to get another great player, especially one at the most sought-after position of hockey skaters?  Sure they can try to cobble together a package of lessor guys but why would we even consider it?  There are not enough spots for tons of players and we have our own depth.  IF Hamilton gets traded it NEEDS to be for Marner or someone very similar, and yes, there should be pluses coming our way.

I don't disagree with this logic but I still think your undervaluing Marner. I think Marner = Hamilton in terms of value. I still don't think the Leafs trade Marner but there is no way you'd get a top line forward plus for Hamilton. And I am a person that does put a high price on Hamilton if the Flames were to trade him (which I don't even want to do)

 

For Marner, I would write down what you would trade Tkachuk for because Marner's value is the same maybe higher. So if you would trade Tkachuk for a Dougie Hamilton comparable then I see where we differ. 

 

12 hours ago, cccsberg said:

To me Brouwer is not a consideration.  He's either traded, bought out or riding the 4th line/pine role for another season.  Sure if you can trade Brouwer for either Hyman or Brown go for it.  I think Mangiapanne, Foo, Frolik, Dube, Ferland and maybe others... are just as good as or better than Hyman or Brown, so there is no need to acquire them.

 

Ya but only Foo is a RH shot, no one else on your list is so yes Hyman and Brown are better fits. Flames really need a few RH shots in their forward ranks and on their PP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skinner is tough. I've always liked Skinner but he seems to be one hit away from a possible end to his career. Hard to say he and Peters didn't mix considering he had 2 really good years before this one so i'm not sure if that is the case or he just had an off year.

 

If Peters really like him and the trade was reasonable maybe, but the concussion history has me pretty worried. Not an ideal fit here IMO

Share this post


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

Skinner is tough. I've always liked Skinner but he seems to be one hit away from a possible end to his career. Hard to say he and Peters didn't mix considering he had 2 really good years before this one so i'm not sure if that is the case or he just had an off year.

 

If Peters really like him and the trade was reasonable maybe, but the concussion history has me pretty worried. Not an ideal fit here IMO

I think best to stay away from Skinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Would you give up Tkachuk for Hamilton straight up ?

I might not do it, but I'd consider it depending on the rest of the roster and what the needs are.  Its in the ballpark, both great players.  Since we have a number of strong D prospects emerging, we can think on those terms, much like Nashville and Anaheim recently.  If I'm getting killed on D and have an excess of strong wingers, its a no-brainer.  Think of the Columbus-Nashville hockey trade of a couple years ago.  Its a win-win for both teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

I might not do it, but I'd consider it depending on the rest of the roster and what the needs are.  Its in the ballpark, both great players.  Since we have a number of strong D prospects emerging, we can think on those terms, much like Nashville and Anaheim recently.  If I'm getting killed on D and have an excess of strong wingers, its a no-brainer.  Think of the Columbus-Nashville hockey trade of a couple years ago.  Its a win-win for both teams.

People talk about drafting the BPA all the time, like its some sort of given and needs to be honoured no matter what, even though who really knows what will happen a couple years down the road.  The problem is when you do and end up stacked at one position, the team is reluctant to make trades to even things out because they've got familiar with the player.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

I might not do it, but I'd consider it depending on the rest of the roster and what the needs are.  Its in the ballpark, both great players.  Since we have a number of strong D prospects emerging, we can think on those terms, much like Nashville and Anaheim recently.  If I'm getting killed on D and have an excess of strong wingers, its a no-brainer.  Think of the Columbus-Nashville hockey trade of a couple years ago.  Its a win-win for both teams.

Character leadership is one of the hardest qualities to find and Tkachuk and Marner have it. Both these players have it so TOR isn't giving up Marner anymore than we would give up Tkachuk. Hamilton is a talent but I can tell you he is not leadership material.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

People talk about drafting the BPA all the time, like its some sort of given and needs to be honoured no matter what, even though who really knows what will happen a couple years down the road.  The problem is when you do and end up stacked at one position, the team is reluctant to make trades to even things out because they've got familiar with the player.  

I disagree and would say if you end up stacked at one certain position you are in a good position to trade away from this source to cover other needs. I look at our LW and see a surplus of quality talent to help with a move to help a talent deficiency on RW currently. We could also very soon need some RHS-RD for our system. If Fox were to bolt we have nobody for our RSD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that it is pretty difficult to draft too many quality RHRD, simply because they are always in short supply in the NHL.

All other things being equal, I still think that a RHRD will return about 20% more value in a trade than a LHLD.

As to drafting the BPA, in most circumstances, it would be foolish to do anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

I disagree and would say if you end up stacked at one certain position you are in a good position to trade away from this source to cover other needs. I look at our LW and see a surplus of quality talent to help with a move to help a talent deficiency on RW currently. We could also very soon need some RHS-RD for our system. If Fox were to bolt we have nobody for our RSD.

We are currently stacked at D and I guess we'll see what transpires.  Everyone is talking like a D for RW trade is inevitable but we'll see what happens.  Unfortunately we may do nothing and come into camp with a glut and backlog of prospects needing spots and nothing too give them.  Although I love Valimaki would it have been better to take a RW?  Just asking.

Share this post


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

We are currently stacked at D and I guess we'll see what transpires.  Everyone is talking like a D for RW trade is inevitable but we'll see what happens.  Unfortunately we may do nothing and come into camp with a glut and backlog of prospects needing spots and nothing too give them.  Although I love Valimaki would it have been better to take a RW?  Just asking.

Yeah Valimaki is great but a Yamamoto, Robert Thomas or Eeli Tolvanen would have been great too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MAC331 said:

I disagree and would say if you end up stacked at one certain position you are in a good position to trade away from this source to cover other needs. I look at our LW and see a surplus of quality talent to help with a move to help a talent deficiency on RW currently. We could also very soon need some RHS-RD for our system. If Fox were to bolt we have nobody for our RSD.

Yes, that should be a given. What I think ccc was getting @ is if management (& fans) fall in love with the potetial of every player we never use the glut to trade for players to fill shortages in other positions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2018 at 5:17 PM, zima said:

I will never understand trading or talk of trading away a top D for a forward especially Hamilton we just gave up a slue of picks for him and he was a top scorer on the back end and were thinking of moving him Confused? First of all we have never come out on top with TO in a trade we fail miserably every time second I wouldn't trust this Management to make a trade That would make us better in the long run. I would love to get rid of a few players that BT has signed but no one would take them unless we paid them.  I would like to see how the kids do next yr before I start making moves only possible thing I might do is trade for a 1st or 2nd round drat pick but who would we lose to do so and would that cost us in the long run again I don't trust the so called brain trust we have and I still think BB should pack his bags he has done nothing that I can see other than make silly or bold statements and the truculence thingy has failed miserably Brouwer Carol and Smith has proved that feaster got dumped for less.

When Feaster and KK were running things, the Flames were becoming a laughing stock.. (think RoR offer as just one example)

BB was brought in to get the Flames back on track and to get back respectability and he has accomplished that and more.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Yes, that should be a given. What I think ccc was getting @ is if management (& fans) fall in love with the potetial of every player we never use the glut to trade for players to fill shortages in other positions.

I understand and maybe this is what separates the average GM from the really good ones. I guess the key would be not to fall in love. LOL

I look at our own situation and see how solid we could be on our LW side and see a hard time for Mangiapane to ever really make our team but we need help on RW in adding quality players. I know prospect for prospect deals never get to many excited but there could be times where both teams benefit. The one I liked was Mangiapane for Nylander in BUF. BUF could stand to add at LW and some scoring after losing Kane. Nylander could benefit from a change of scenery and a renewed opportunity on RW here. We could have a very exciting group in Stockton next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

I understand and maybe this is what separates the average GM from the really good ones. I guess the key would be not to fall in love. LOL

I look at our own situation and see how solid we could be on our LW side and see a hard time for Mangiapane to ever really make our team but we need help on RW in adding quality players. I know prospect for prospect deals never get to many excited but there could be times where both teams benefit. The one I liked was Mangiapane for Nylander in BUF. BUF could stand to add at LW and some scoring after losing Kane. Nylander could benefit from a change of scenery and a renewed opportunity on RW here. We could have a very exciting group in Stockton next season.

 

Going to contrast Willie Nylander and Mangiapane for a minute to illustrate something.

Willie Nylander came into NA hockey and the AHL as a 18 year old and put up okay numbers for 2 years.

Mangiapane came into pro hockey at the usual age for a CHL player.  He put up similar numbers in his first two years.

The opportunities given to each player in the NHL are not even close.

There is nothing right now to suggest Mangiapane will never make it to the NHL.

 

TBH, the same thing goes for Alex.  He's a high pick and is having a little trouble finding his game.  BUFF isn't going to trade a high pick for another guy that has no more NHL success to date, unless they had heavily scouted the player.  If BUFF sees Alex's early struggles as an adjustment, they will be asking for something more valuable.  Like Bennett.  Or Gillies.  Or Andersson.  Right now, I decline any of those.

Share this post


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

 

Going to contrast Willie Nylander and Mangiapane for a minute to illustrate something.

Willie Nylander came into NA hockey and the AHL as a 18 year old and put up okay numbers for 2 years.

Mangiapane came into pro hockey at the usual age for a CHL player.  He put up similar numbers in his first two years.

The opportunities given to each player in the NHL are not even close.

There is nothing right now to suggest Mangiapane will never make it to the NHL.

 

TBH, the same thing goes for Alex.  He's a high pick and is having a little trouble finding his game.  BUFF isn't going to trade a high pick for another guy that has no more NHL success to date, unless they had heavily scouted the player.  If BUFF sees Alex's early struggles as an adjustment, they will be asking for something more valuable.  Like Bennett.  Or Gillies.  Or Andersson.  Right now, I decline any of those.

Noted

I don't think there is tons of moves BT needs to make in the wake of Peters coming in but a few fundamental changes could help us.

Mangiapane for A Nylander could simply be two teams covering needs of position LW for a RW in similar situations.

Trade Stone for draft pick hopefully for what was given up for him.

Trade Brouwer with retained salary for whatever level of pick we can get. I don't think we see a full buyout.

Pick up UFAs Derek Ryan C and James Neal RW would have us looking good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Noted

I don't think there is tons of moves BT needs to make in the wake of Peters coming in but a few fundamental changes could help us.

Mangiapane for A Nylander could simply be two teams covering needs of position LW for a RW in similar situations.

Trade Stone for draft pick hopefully for what was given up for him.

Trade Brouwer with retained salary for whatever level of pick we can get. I don't think we see a full buyout.

Pick up UFAs Derek Ryan C and James Neal RW would have us looking good.

 

 

I am fine with picking up Ryan.  Think he would be a great fit.  Depth at C.  RHS for a new look.  Maybe not a top line RW, but good depth.

I probably value Mangiapane a bit more than BUFF would, so I doubt they make the trade.  Some team value draft pedigree more than results.

But that's just me.  I suspect that for a guy on an ELC with tons of potential they would want Brodie or something similar.

 

Trade/buy out Brouwer; don't care which.  I just don't see a market for Brouwer - too many better players in FA for less.

Trade Stone; don't want a cap dump in return so any pick would be useful.

 

Maybe if we pick up Ryan and Tavares in FA, we don;t need to do anything else except graduate a few prospects. Hehe.

 

Monahan-JT-JH (23m)

Ferland-Backlund-Frolik (11m)

Tkachuk-Janko-Bennett (4m)

Mangiapane-Shore-Ryan (3-4m)

Ex. Hathaway/Lazar (1.75m)

 

Fporwarsd - 43m

Defense - 23m

Goalies - 5.5m

 

Just a thought.  Our 4th line is a manageable cost.  Total still well below the cap, and room to pay Tkachuk next year.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...