Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Jessemadnote39

Realistic Trade suggestions for improvement

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

Is Pulijarvi able to go to the minors?

 

i think this was the problem we had with Bennett. They burned a year, he had a decent year, and then needed to develop and had unrealistic expectations placed on him where he should’ve learned the C game in the minors. 

 

There is only so much learning a player can get in the NHL. What I mean is, the NHL is not meant to be a developmental league. Players need a certain minimum skill in order to stay up. Bennett has always been on the cusp so they kept him up. Plus it isn’t customary to do that. 

 

I guess it it could be easier to place Pulijarvi in the minors if on a different team. Edmonton is at a place of no return as they burnt the proverbial minors bridge much like the Flames did with Bennett.

 

He's waiver exempt if that's what you were getting at.  He is in the AHL right now.

He's also on the last year of his ELC, so they kinda need to know what he is at the NHL level.

There is no rush on their part, though.

They can re-sign him to a cheap contract, since he hasn;t earned much of a raise.

He can refuse to sign and demnd a trade I guess, but teams won;t exactly be lining up for him.

A team could approach him in the summer with a OS, I guess, but he's not really worth the compensation that EDM would let him walk for.

 

All in all, I think he's not really a project as much as he is a bad fit in EDM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, flames for life said:

The only trade I think we need to address is with goaltending.  We don’t need another “project “ like Pulijarvi-anyone remember Lazar?!  If we need more right side depth, play Jankowski there.  He played that a number of times in the minors, and when he’s been with players from the top line, stuff happens.

 Moving Neal to the top line to “jumpstart “ his scoring is ridiculous IMO.  To me it’s rewarding complacency. Neal has to make things happen at any given line, with the time he’s given, to get the reward of bumping someone down, who is being successful on a particular line.

 

Lazar and Puljujarvi aren't even in the same ballpark.

One can skate and shoot, while the other can smile.

Share this post


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

 

Lazar and Puljujarvi aren't even in the same ballpark.

One can skate and shoot, while the other can smile.

Try dat!  But as I recall, Lazar started off strong and then faded out.  The argument was that Ottawa did not develop him properly.  Sounds eerily familiar.

    Having said that, I still am not in favour of trading for P.  I think we have the makings of a really good team.  We have shown good relational pairings, and players that can be interchanged positively.  BP has recognized that and isn’t afraid to mix it up to generate offence, or to shake a line out of apathy.  I like our depth (except for Ryan, who I never liked as a signing), but still think Smith is too slow for today’s game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, flames for life said:

The only trade I think we need to address is with goaltending.  We don’t need another “project “ like Pulijarvi-anyone remember Lazar?!  If we need more right side depth, play Jankowski there.  He played that a number of times in the minors, and when he’s been with players from the top line, stuff happens.

 Moving Neal to the top line to “jumpstart “ his scoring is ridiculous IMO.  To me it’s rewarding complacency. Neal has to make things happen at any given line, with the time he’s given, to get the reward of bumping someone down, who is being successful on a particular line.

Putting Neal on the top line and sending Lindy to the 2nd has nothing to do with rewarding poor play. Its about finding a balance in scoring. Teams will eventually find a way to shut down the top line. right now thats almost 70% of the scoring neutralized.

 

To keep the post on topic............ im not in favor of trying to get Poolparty. Calgary doesnt have a good record with reclamation projects. But none of them have been top 5 draft either.

Share this post


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

Pulljarvi to Calgary is very unlikely. One, we don't a struggling winger. Two, deals for these types of players rarely happens between rivals. It does happen (ie Baertschi) but it's rare and only when there stent other options. Chances are Edmonton has options. 

 

Unlikely agree.  I'm just thinking Puljujarvi is a "buy low" opportunity to take advantage of a GM on the hot seat.  It's not for immediate gains.  Puljujarvi is also not to the degree of absolute ruin like Yakupov was.  He's still young and the slate is relatively blank.  There's still time.

 

Trades with rivals rarely happen and Van was a special case.  As in, we just fired our assistant GM and Van hired him.  So Weisbrod had "his guys" he wanted from the Flames.  Do we have the same thing in Edmonton?  Would Glen Gulutzan count?  I think he probably had an influence in bringing Alex Chiasson to the Oilers.  GG had Chiasson in Dallas and in Calgary.  

 

GG had his favorites like Lazar, Kulak, Brouwer, Stajan, Versteeg, etc.  Lazar is not enough.  What about Stone?  Was he a GG pet that we can pawn off to the Oilers who are desperate to make the playoffs this season? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

To keep the post on topic............ im not in favor of trying to get Poolparty. Calgary doesnt have a good record with reclamation projects. But none of them have been top 5 draft either.

 

I guess it depends on what it's going to cost.  Lazar was a failed reclamation project.  So was Chiasson, Shinkaruk, Colborne (mostly), etc... but a comparable player might be Dougie Hamilton who had a couple seasons with the Bruins and was considered too raw at the time.  We molded him into something great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it'd be a good pickup if it were possible, but I don't see Edmonton trading JP our way. If we want him, I think you'd have to involve a third team, a la Martin Jones to SJ. That said, I don't think that you'd get him cheap. I don't think that the Flames would move Bennett for spare parts, and Chia's got to be thinking that he's worth at least as much as Bennett. 

 

I think that if it were going to happen between the Alberta rivals, they'd be looking at at least one of Brodie, Hanafin, Lindholm, Bennett +, or Rasmussen +. If you could involve a third team, I think it'd open up a few more options, but expect to pay. I'd bet that there are 29 other teams that'd take JP if Edmonton dangled him on the cheap. 

 

Love. 

Share this post


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

I think it'd be a good pickup if it were possible, but I don't see Edmonton trading JP our way. If we want him, I think you'd have to involve a third team, a la Martin Jones to SJ. That said, I don't think that you'd get him cheap. I don't think that the Flames would move Bennett for spare parts, and Chia's got to be thinking that he's worth at least as much as Bennett. 

 

I think that if it were going to happen between the Alberta rivals, they'd be looking at at least one of Brodie, Hanafin, Lindholm, Bennett +, or Rasmussen +. If you could involve a third team, I think it'd open up a few more options, but expect to pay. I'd bet that there are 29 other teams that'd take JP if Edmonton dangled him on the cheap. 

 

Love. 

 

You might be able to do Bennett to ANA, and a D-man going to EDM from ANA.

Share this post


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

 

Unlikely agree.  I'm just thinking Puljujarvi is a "buy low" opportunity to take advantage of a GM on the hot seat.  It's not for immediate gains.  Puljujarvi is also not to the degree of absolute ruin like Yakupov was.  He's still young and the slate is relatively blank.  There's still time.

 

Trades with rivals rarely happen and Van was a special case.  As in, we just fired our assistant GM and Van hired him.  So Weisbrod had "his guys" he wanted from the Flames.  Do we have the same thing in Edmonton?  Would Glen Gulutzan count?  I think he probably had an influence in bringing Alex Chiasson to the Oilers.  GG had Chiasson in Dallas and in Calgary.  

 

GG had his favorites like Lazar, Kulak, Brouwer, Stajan, Versteeg, etc.  Lazar is not enough.  What about Stone?  Was he a GG pet that we can pawn off to the Oilers who are desperate to make the playoffs this season? 

Favorites ? you can't be serious. Any coach can only work with what he is given by a GM.

Share this post


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

Favorites ? you can't be serious. Any coach can only work with what he is given by a GM.

 

Coaches having favorites is a Far Right idea?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pearson for Hagelin.. at first looks like a win for PIT. But digging deeper, Pearson has long been in the rumour mill in LA, he has been playing very poorly. Dito for Hagelin in PIT, they have wanted to rid themselves of him for a while now. Classic shakeup trade even if not much is accomplished. 

Share this post


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

Pearson for Hagelin.. at first looks like a win for PIT. But digging deeper, Pearson has long been in the rumour mill in LA, he has been playing very poorly. Dito for Hagelin in PIT, they have wanted to rid themselves of him for a while now. Classic shakeup trade even if not much is accomplished. 

 

I've always felt Tanner Pearson is overrated.  He has the size and speed but that's it.  No other skills.  He was carried by Carter and Toffoli.

 

It's a nothing trade in my opinion.

Share this post


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

 

I've always felt Tanner Pearson is overrated.  He has the size and speed but that's it.  No other skills.  He was carried by Carter and Toffoli.

 

It's a nothing trade in my opinion.

 

Mid he could play with Crosby. All he has to do is skate and Crosby can bank it off of him. Not that he’ll play with him. Crosby isn’t too shabby a player though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What say you to offering up Stone in a trade with BOS.

Chara now injured as well (UBI).

Kevan Miller (hand)

Charlie McAvoy (concussion)

Brandon Carlo (UBI)

Urho Vaakanainen (may be back in by now)

 

Chara is the more critical injury, but McAvoy is one of those ones that may haunt them long term with his ability to play at a high level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What say you to offering up Stone in a trade with BOS.

Chara now injured as well (UBI).

Kevan Miller (hand)

Charlie McAvoy (concussion)

Brandon Carlo (UBI)

Urho Vaakanainen (may be back in by now)

 

Chara is the more critical injury, but McAvoy is one of those ones that may haunt them long term with his ability to play at a high level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2018 at 10:21 AM, travel_dude said:

 

You might be able to do Bennett to ANA, and a D-man going to EDM from ANA.

Aside from the fact thats still within the division I'm not a fan of ANA getting more physical while CGY gets softer. I would guess EDM would get either Manson or Montour which makes them more physical also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the dislike and I get the idea of moving the $ but I don't think the Flames can afford to move Stone during the season. For 1 you have 2 rookie dmen up here who while playing well, could easily slump. Second, the Flames are not very deep past their top 8. Outside of Kylington, playing anyone else from the AHL in the NHL for a period of time would greatly concern me. Injuries are going to happen. 

 

Far too risky a play IMO. If you move out Stone you'll get little for him and then you'll have to spend more assets at the TDL replacing the depth. Doesn't make sense. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

Aside from the fact thats still within the division I'm not a fan of ANA getting more physical while CGY gets softer. I would guess EDM would get either Manson or Montour which makes them more physical also.

 

It was a suggestion based on what they have in spades.

I think we have been reluctant to trade Bennett to Anaheim, just because of Bennett staying in the division.

 

If the trade involved an Eastern team, it may be more palatable.  Not saying I would do it, just remains a posibility assuming we give up on Bennett in favor of Puljujarvi.  We could trade Bennett to MTL and they send Petry to EDM.  :)  That would be a kick in the pants, wouldn't it considering they gave up on Petry to keep Schultz, who they gave up on.

Share this post


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

I get the dislike and I get the idea of moving the $ but I don't think the Flames can afford to move Stone during the season. For 1 you have 2 rookie dmen up here who while playing well, could easily slump. Second, the Flames are not very deep past their top 8. Outside of Kylington, playing anyone else from the AHL in the NHL for a period of time would greatly concern me. Injuries are going to happen. 

 

Far too risky a play IMO. If you move out Stone you'll get little for him and then you'll have to spend more assets at the TDL replacing the depth. Doesn't make sense. 

 

If the benefit of trading Stone is getting rid of his contract and getting a 2nd or 3rd rounder, I would do it. Turn around and hopefully use that pick at the deadline to get a true #6/7 D. Then you’re only paying 800K - 2.2M less than his contract. 

 

That is money they need for Tkachuk.

Share this post


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

 

If the benefit of trading Stone is getting rid of his contract and getting a 2nd or 3rd rounder, I would do it. Turn around and hopefully use that pick at the deadline to get a true #6/7 D. Then you’re only paying 800K - 2.2M less than his contract. 

 

That is money they need for Tkachuk.

 

While I would agree, I would put the odds of that being the return very low. If it is for sure i'd do it if you net out a positive pick swap, but i'm really skeptical that would be the case. I don't think Stone garners much interest, but maybe in the off season with only 1 year left. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I am jumping the gun a bit here, but after the Oilers game on Saturday, I think one area that we could strengthen is functional toughness. I was thinking ahead to the TDL and a couple of names that might be available are Wayne Simmonds and oddly enough Micheal Ferland. 

 

Not sure what it would cost to get Simmonds but he could be a huge boost to our toughness and the 2nd PP unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2018 at 11:18 AM, robrob74 said:

 

If the benefit of trading Stone is getting rid of his contract and getting a 2nd or 3rd rounder, I would do it. Turn around and hopefully use that pick at the deadline to get a true #6/7 D. Then you’re only paying 800K - 2.2M less than his contract. 

 

That is money they need for Tkachuk.

why are we even discussing moving forwards not even 20 games into a new regime/system and half a new team.. The oilers got rid of their grit instead of speed years ago and they've never recovered.. There's no cavemen playing anymore but you still need hardwork and grit.. A team has many dynamics.. Bennett is not your every day minor leaguer..He has qualities we are short on

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Horsman1 said:

why are we even discussing moving forwards not even 20 games into a new regime/system and half a new team.. The oilers got rid of their grit instead of speed years ago and they've never recovered.. There's no cavemen playing anymore but you still need hardwork and grit.. A team has many dynamics.. Bennett is not your every day minor leaguer..He has qualities we are short on

 

 

 

Ya, I think I was talking about trading Stone. Bennett is my favourite player. Although I think he will tak off and be more if he is traded. I love his game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Horsman1 said:

why are we even discussing moving forwards not even 20 games into a new regime/system and half a new team.. The oilers got rid of their grit instead of speed years ago and they've never recovered.. There's no cavemen playing anymore but you still need hardwork and grit.. A team has many dynamics.. Bennett is not your every day minor leaguer..He has qualities we are short on

 

 

*cough cough*  Lucic  *cough cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the concept of functional toughness, but I also don't think i'm prepared to see the Flames pay the type of cost it would take to get a Simmonds or Ferland. I'm a hard no on Ferland as I think you moved on so don't revisit and Simmonds is going to be very pricey for a rental. I just don't think that good asset management. Would probably look like something around Dube and a 1st and that's just not smart IMO. 

 

As much as I can get behind the idea I think whats interesting about the Oiler game is it showed you why I don't think the toughness element matters as much as some. A large part of the comeback is the Flames skill and speed showed up in the 3rd, and the Oilers slowed their game down by over relying on their "toughness". Still don't mind the idea, but not worth overpaying for and that's exactly what it would take to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...