Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Jessemadnote39

Realistic Trade suggestions for improvement

Recommended Posts

I assume that's sarcasm.

I don't want to trade Mony or Johnny or Bennett. So with them and Brodie out, who is left that teams would want badly?

Gio (not likely)

...?

Hudler maybe but he's not done anything good to his trade value.

So prospects?

Granlund I could see

Porrier? Not likely to net a big enough return

We should not trade our goalies outside of Ortio but I don't know that there's a demand for him.

So when it comes down to it, we don't have a lot of good players that can bring back good value. It's hard to pitch a trade idea when we don't have a lot to get a lot. Find a player you want then ask yourself what their price is. I am curious as to who you'd like (within reason).

Our biggest addition outside of FA is Janko.

With how connected everything is, it's hard to fleece anyone now. It's value for value or risk for risk.

I guess I'm a lot less worried than most. i agree we could use a top line RW but not a top 10 RW. Someone in the mold of Wayne Simmonds would fit quite well.

We have a core of 6 really good players, nearly all of which will continue improving. We don't need to trade any of these core players, simply build around them.

If you really want a trade suggestion to address top line RW, I would do Kris Russell, Emile Poirer and a 2nd for Miiko Rantanen.

Another one I would look at is targetting Charlie Coyle out of Minnesota using Backlund and Hudler.

Overall I would just let the core develop and adjustthe periphery as need be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a long time ago. BOS fans have little to cheer about these days. Chara is slowing down. Krug is their big guy. If Wideman could hit the net, the fans would love him. For hitting the ref, they would probably cheer him when he stepped on the ice. ;)

If we rid ourselves of Wideman, we would be able to pay a player of Eriksson's skillset the going rate. Eliminate the need to get anything but picks for Hudler. Try to sign him before the TDL if you think there is any issue. Then we actually have a top line RW. No offense to Frolik, but he isn't that guy.

I am a little concerned about the idea of paying guys like Eriksson or Hudler $5-$6mill over 4-6 years, which is about what I think it takes to sign either player.

I get that there might not be a ton of other options out there and if you don't pay them then you are left with holes. With that said teams get themselves into trouble with paying guys to fill holes.

I think we have to look at the player and say, is this player part of the long term solution, if not move on. If you can get them to sign a short term deal then you do it, but anything longer than 2 years is too long for a role player (see Stajan, Raymond, Engelland, Wideman, etc.).

Long term cap management is more important than filling short term holes in the lineup.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm a lot less worried than most. i agree we could use a top line RW but not a top 10 RW. Someone in the mold of Wayne Simmonds would fit quite well.

We have a core of 6 really good players, nearly all of which will continue improving. We don't need to trade any of these core players, simply build around them.

If you really want a trade suggestion to address top line RW, I would do Kris Russell, Emile Poirer and a 2nd for Miiko Rantanen.

Another one I would look at is targetting Charlie Coyle out of Minnesota using Backlund and Hudler.

Overall I would just let the core develop and adjustthe periphery as need be.

Wayne Simmonds is unlikely to be available without an overpay.

 

Definately not enough for Rantanen as he was a 1/10 last draft .

 

I like the idea of Coyle though. Something about that kid really has me thinking he'd be a great addition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worry that they sign someone and end up with a player during their regression. Signing Frolik made sense as he is younger, but signing Hudler to a higher contract doesn't if he continues to regress. Eriksson is having a bounce back year during a contract year.

Does he accept a 2 year deal? We all know from the Raymond contract that deals more than 2 years can kill you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a little concerned about the idea of paying guys like Eriksson or Hudler $5-$6mill over 4-6 years, which is about what I think it takes to sign either player.

I get that there might not be a ton of other options out there and if you don't pay them then you are left with holes. With that said teams get themselves into trouble with paying guys to fill holes.

I think we have to look at the player and say, is this player part of the long term solution, if not move on. If you can get them to sign a short term deal then you do it, but anything longer than 2 years is too long for a role player (see Stajan, Raymond, Engelland, Wideman, etc.).

Long term cap management is more important than filling short term holes in the lineup.

 

I think you have to look at Eriksson as more of a long term solution, much like Frolik.  I would see him as having at least 3-4 good years left.  You sign him because you don't have any core RW that are top 3 quality.  That remains the case unless we managed to draft a top 3 in this draft.  Even then, you are looking at about 2-3 years before that player could be top 3.  He's not a Mason Raymond.  And he is 2 years younger than Hudler.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel bad for Raymond yet I am not surprised. He just doesn't fit. Maybe someone in the east will take a chance on his last year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel bad for Raymond yet I am not surprised. He just doesn't fit. Maybe someone in the east will take a chance on his last year?

Raymond's last year is next year with us and he has a Modified NTC.

I don't think the MNTC would be a big deal however after his 2nd clearing of waivers in this season.

01b1d672f100fec79d5cd577d01b44ea.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne Simmonds is unlikely to be available without an overpay.

Definately not enough for Rantanen as he was a 1/10 last draft .

I like the idea of Coyle though. Something about that kid really has me thinking he'd be a great addition.

I think Colorado knows they need D and have an excess of forwards. We could bump up that price for Rantanen but I don't like that he's a LHS.

We don't have any RHS in our top nine. I thinkthat has to change. Bring on Coyle! (Definitely add Granlund into that package they would love him there)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne Simmonds would be a great pickup, same as Okposo and Eriksson but other than signing Okposo as a UFA we'd have to give up some solid pieces to land them. It's always worth a look, just curious to see what Philly/NYI would want in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlie Coyle might be a decent fit as a 2nd line RW or 3rd line C.

 

A comparative might be a younger David Jones.

 

23 years old, 6' 3", 220 lbs.

 

238 NHL games, .437 PPG, +17 plus/minus.

 

$3.2M Cap Hit on an ascending salary:

 

2015/2016 = $1.9M

2016/2017 = $2.6M

2017/2018 = $3.5M

2018/2019 = $3.75M

2019/2020 = $4.25M

2020/2021 = UFA

No NMC or NTC.

 

His defense, passing, puck possession, shot, & skating are all decent to good.

 

I'm not sure what Arizona might ask for in return; like Jones, Coyle is a streaky scorer and doesn't always use his size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlie Coyle might be a decent fit as a 2nd line RW or 3rd line C.

 

A comparative might be a younger David Jones.

 

23 years old, 6' 3", 220 lbs.

 

238 NHL games, .437 PPG, +17 plus/minus.

 

$3.2M Cap Hit on an ascending salary:

 

2015/2016 = $1.9M

2016/2017 = $2.6M

2017/2018 = $3.5M

2018/2019 = $3.75M

2019/2020 = $4.25M

2020/2021 = UFA

No NMC or NTC.

 

His defense, passing, puck possession, shot, & skating are all decent to good.

 

I'm not sure what Arizona might ask for in return; like Jones, Coyle is a streaky scorer and doesn't always use his size.

Doesn't Coyle play with MIN ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne Simmonds is unlikely to be available without an overpay.

 

Definately not enough for Rantanen as he was a 1/10 last draft .

 

I like the idea of Coyle though. Something about that kid really has me thinking he'd be a great addition.

I wonder if Backlund and Granlund would get you Coyle ? I agree he is tough as nails with untapped talent.

There are a few issues listed in the discussion that some people ignore, some bash and others seem to miss what is being discussed altogether. There have been good proposals, some parts of proposals are good while the rest is out of whack and some are simply bad throughout (maybe just my opinion).

People are asking the question in this thread on what trades will make this team better. It was started at a time when the Flames really had a strong opportunity to improve this year. If wwe pull the trigger right now, there MAY be time to jump up in the standings and make the playoffs, but will the player(s) we get be able to step right in or will they need time to acclimatize and learn the systems similar to Hamilton who even had pre-season with the team.

In all truth, it is unlikely the Flames can overcome 10+ points between now and the TDL. Unless they can be within 4 points of a playoff spot by the TDL, they will be sellers and should be. I think that the decision will be made sooner if they are still around the 10 point range in 2 weeks.

The issues being discussed with moving players, and the good reasoning to do so is lost on some individuals. This is not due, in most part, to stupidity but rather a personal focus on what they see. Those who look at the here and now do not see a reason to move certain players as they cannot give up hope for a playoff push. Others are looking much further ahead and see the lack of advancement right now so players become more moveable for future pieces.

I am personally in the middle. I want to see improvement now, if possible, without hurting the future. I also see what is happening in the summer and I try to look at everything that COULD happen and what is likely. I try to look at things from a hockey and business sense without being blinded by fan glasses. What works for me needs to fit the now, the future and not cause a big fallout.

Drouin, even with the off ice issues will be expensive, too expensive for my tastes. His acquisition would hinder the Flames future. His off ice issues remind me of a worse case than Baertschi (or his father) and I do not want that in the locker room. I honestly think that Baertschi being traded for a 2nd round pick when he was a top half first rounder taught him a little more humility and has actually helped him more this year.

As for trades, I took a suggested move which was not possible and tried to make it fit in a way that did not detract from the team short term but was actually a long term improvement. It also worked in a business sense by adding a similar caliber player to play a similar role who is signed for another year at a better contract. It also helped the other team with respect to potential cap space next season and help for a playoff push this season.

I think the acquisition of Bealieu out of Montreal is reasonable. He is playing sheltered, third line minutes (averaging in the 15 minutes per game range). He is young with growth still to come on a reasonable contract next season. While he will not, and should not be cheap. Montreal is having more cap issues than Calgary. I put Russell and Beaulieu as playing similar roles with similar abilities. Beaulieu has a slightly higher ceiling and so you need to add more than just Russell to make the move. The fact that Russell is UFA after the season and Montreal can negotiate with him helps there cap. The Habs need to beef up a little for the playoffs. Bollig would bring that for sure. retaining salary this season on Russell's contract makes it even more appealing for the Habs. Throw in a first round prospect in Klimchuk plus a conditional mid round pick and the deal on paper seems to swing more to the benefit of the Habs. Contract rounding out bringing Scott and Holloway who are both UFA and not in the Habs NHL plans simply is good business and needed for contract space.

Calgary gets another young but somewhat experienced Dman currently a 4/5 level with 3/4 potential that does not hurt the Flames in the now or in the future. Bollig does not play a big role with the Flames and is thus not a big loss. Klimchuk has future potential but is not an irreplaceable loss when you gain a D man like Beaulieu.

The thoughts of moving Hudler is that he has some potential for reasonable returns compared to his UFA status at the end of thee season. He may simply walk away for no return in the summer so you look at getting return for the future if possible. Having been dropped to the third line this season, he does not appear to be a significant future piece anymore. If he is not slated as a top line player, he can be moved.

Calgary needs to improve the goaltending situation. That does not mean they need to completely retool the tenders with 2 new guys in the organization to be on the big club. This means they need to decide, with 2 current or former starting tenders who are both UFA after the season, something needs to happen. Re-sign one, trade one, trade both, lose both to UFA with no return? These are basically the options for the Flames. Hiller would be the better opinion to trade but has the least likely return. Ramo could provide good return from the right team but leaves the biggest question going into the end of this season and next season.

Wideman still has value, is signed and I believe has an NTC. Guys like Engelland and Smid play similar roles and thus 1 or both are able to be moved. For a 7 man D corps, Brodie, Gio, Hamilton, Beaulieu, Wideman, 2 others, that is a rather solid group if you ask me. Especially if those 2 remaining spots can be filled with young guys able to perform a similar role to Engelland and Smid. Likely at least one will still be around next season. Engelland would be a good pickup by a team looking for depth into the playoffs. He may not provide a huge return, but he could bring something reasonable. Jones could also bring reasonable return and good cap space for the Flames to the right team.

The above moves get returns for players likely to bring some sort of return on upcomming UFAs this summer or moves guys who can bring returns without leaving tough to fill holes while providing more cap space to sign RFAs and possibly bring in more help for the future.

I don't know what other specifics will be done, but I am sure Treliving has some good sense to make good moves.

Players I would not move without overpayment would be Gaudreau, Giordano, Hamilton, Brodie, Bennett, Monahan, Backlund, Ferland. I may be missing someone but those are my Core guys currently.

Comments are welcome, but remember, look at all sides of the argument before blasting back in anger.

I would look FLA's way for trading Wideman as they lose Campbell to FA after this season.

I feel bad for Raymond yet I am not surprised. He just doesn't fit. Maybe someone in the east will take a chance on his last year?

You do not. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Carolina likely parting ways with Eric Staal, I wonder if they would be willing to retain salary on Jordan Staal and move him too.  If they retain say $2-mil-per and J.Staal could be had for $4-mil-per the rest of the way, then maybe the Flames should get involved.  We could use a RHS Center for our 3rd line Center.  J. Staal is great on the PK.


I guess I'm a lot less worried than most. i agree we could use a top line RW but not a top 10 RW. Someone in the mold of Wayne Simmonds would fit quite well.

We have a core of 6 really good players, nearly all of which will continue improving. We don't need to trade any of these core players, simply build around them.

If you really want a trade suggestion to address top line RW, I would do Kris Russell, Emile Poirer and a 2nd for Miiko Rantanen.

Another one I would look at is targetting Charlie Coyle out of Minnesota using Backlund and Hudler.

Overall I would just let the core develop and adjustthe periphery as need be.

 

It will cost a lot more than Russell, Poirier and a 2nd for Rantanen.  More like Dougie Hamilton straight up.  Or two 1st round picks. 

 

I suggest the Flames just sit tight and draft Puljujarvi or Laine instead.

 

Coyle, yes, he's my #1 target right now.  Size, strength, two-way game, untapped offensive potential, fights, etc.  Unfortunately, it will probably cost a lot to get him, like Brodie or Hamilton straight up.


Raymond's last year is next year with us and he has a Modified NTC.

I don't think the MNTC would be a big deal however after his 2nd clearing of waivers in this season.

01b1d672f100fec79d5cd577d01b44ea.png

 

Raymond has a NTC in his 3rd year?!?!  My goodness, who is his agent?  I'm going to go apply to work at Boston Pizza and hire this agent to help me negotiate with Treliving for $1-million-per to manage one store with a No Fire Clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deeds, which deals "don't get the Flames where they want to go"? Where do they want to go and when? I haven't seen many posts say that they are the one and only move that needs to be made, nor do I see anyone recently posting multiple trades that are deemed to be the saving grace for the Flames. There is no 1 answer to fixing the whole team and being the next Stanley cup champions, the thread is asking "what would make the Flames better, realistically".

Most of the recent suggestions, unless they were WAY off the rocker, would improve the Flames. S.C. champs? not likely, but better? certainly.

I know you have solid ideas, or have had in the past. Why not either demonstrate how the posts do anything other than what the thread is asking or make your own suggestions?

There are a few things we can agree on:

1. Ramo is not a long term goalie or the Flames. If he is still the starter in 3 years I would be shocked. He is a decent starting tender who fits a need but will not likely take you to a cup. He will not likely be an All star caliber goalie. We all want to improve the Flames in net. There really is not a ton of other options on the free agent market in the summer for starters. There are some reasonable backups for cheap so at least one of Ramo / Hiller are gone next year.

2. Flames need to improve Forwards and Defence in the now and the future. Older players may help now but are not long term fixes. The Flames need to be careful with players over 30. Not to say no to any 30+ guy (see Jagr the ageless wonder) but be careful as they are typically short term fixes.

Now I am no expert on tenders by any stretch of the imagination. I am going simply on what little I know and stats so forgive me if you think I am erring in my statements or questions.

I doubt we could pry Mrazec out of Detroit. 2.03 GAA and .932 SV% looks good to me and he is RFA. I would guess the price is far too steep. However Enroth in L.A. is 4-3-1 2.15 and .931 in 9 games played. He is a 27 year old, upcomming UFA. Could he take the next step out of Quick's shadow to be a starter? If not is he a better backup? For comparisson, Ramo is 16-17-1 2.62 0.910, Hiller 5-5-1 3.16 .882, Ortio 0-2-1 4.27 .868.

Career Enroth is 2.83 GAA and .911 SV%. Ramo is 2.85 and .906, Hiller is 2.51 and .916.

I believe Enroth would improve the team, at least as a backup. It is very difficult to prove yourself as a starter behind a guy like Quick.

Without moving more significant contracts, you are not able to sign much in UFA to improve the skaters. Stamkos, Eriksson, Ladd, Byfuglien, even Kadri and Boedker are going to cost hefty cap hits. Okposo might be reasonable if the Islanders can't sign him otherwise you need to start looking at trying to trade for RFA rights in order to sign them. Examples like Palmieri (NJD), Chiasson (OTT). The only other way is trades like my previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a long time ago. BOS fans have little to cheer about these days. Chara is slowing down. Krug is their big guy. If Wideman could hit the net, the fans would love him. For hitting the ref, they would probably cheer him when he stepped on the ice. ;)

If we rid ourselves of Wideman, we would be able to pay a player of Eriksson's skillset the going rate. Eliminate the need to get anything but picks for Hudler. Try to sign him before the TDL if you think there is any issue. Then we actually have a top line RW. No offense to Frolik, but he isn't that guy.

If the Flames retain salary maybe Wideman has some value. He is capable of big minutes and he has the big RH shot. At 4 million or so I could see a team take a chance on him.

Wideman for Eriksson makes all kinds of sense for the Flames. But it doesn't really fit for Boston. I understand they could benefit from swapping a forward for a top 4D. But one of their top forwards for a guy having an off season?

Plus, why would Eriksson waive his NTC to come west to Calgary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deeds, which deals "don't get the Flames where they want to go"? Where do they want to go and when? I haven't seen many posts say that they are the one and only move that needs to be made, nor do I see anyone recently posting multiple trades that are deemed to be the saving grace for the Flames. There is no 1 answer to fixing the whole team and being the next Stanley cup champions, the thread is asking "what would make the Flames better, realistically".

Most of the recent suggestions, unless they were WAY off the rocker, would improve the Flames. S.C. champs? not likely, but better? certainly.

.......

 

 

Well I have made suggestions but not necessarily in this thread. As for the humorous suggestions that fall short.. JH is the best example.

 

Goaltenders:

I still believe that we need to find a true #1 goaltender(likely via trade). Even an aging one(still good for 3+ years at least will do because we have a few on the farm who could use the mentorship. 

Who is the best fit is tough to say because we don't have the list of who is available. Someone like Ben Bishop would be a good target even if he costs us some prospects. I think he is core for the Lightning so I would not be willing to trade one of our core though. Picks, prospects and roster players. Even someone Luongo would fit too.

 

RW:

I do not like some suggestions, like taking from LW to get a RW. (Trade JH). We don't have high end talent on the farm for RW) I have not seen or read much that Poirier is ready to step up...yet. This is why I am all for finding a way to keep Huds for a couple more seasons. He isn't ideal but he is better or cheaper than what I see is available. 

 

LW:

If you put Bennett at center where most of the posters here want him our LW looks rather dismal/shallow. JH is the only bright spot here. I think this is why Sam has been on the wing most of this season. There is not a big sense of urgency to play him at center when he is doing so well right now at wing.

 

D:

Russell.. sigh  He can be replaced. We need the money elsewhere .. (for our emerging core) His minutes can be replaced. Engelland played top 4 minutes when Gio went down, we have some prospects that can play on 5/6 pairing. Wideman can play #4 minutes(assuming he is not under suspension) Trading Wideman looks impossible. Miracles take a tad longer.

 

This leaves me with a list of who can go. Russell, Jones, Bollig, Bouma, Colbourne, Granlund, Jooris, Raymond, Smid, Hiller, Ramo.

 

I'd like to keep Huds but if none of the above get you the relief then he has to go too. 

 

Let be honest if Raymond clears again he isn't going to get us anything back in a trade.

.......

Raymond has a NTC in his 3rd year?!?!  My goodness, who is his agent?  I'm going to go apply to work at Boston Pizza and hire this agent to help me negotiate with Treliving for $1-million-per to manage one store with a No Fire Clause.

Yes a modified NTC until the end of his contract with the Flames.

cabd0b16fa8999ea1e18b2318c6ff0a8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Flames retain salary maybe Wideman has some value. He is capable of big minutes and he has the big RH shot. At 4 million or so I could see a team take a chance on him.

Wideman for Eriksson makes all kinds of sense for the Flames. But it doesn't really fit for Boston. I understand they could benefit from swapping a forward for a top 4D. But one of their top forwards for a guy having an off season?

Plus, why would Eriksson waive his NTC to come west to Calgary?

 

I don't know if Louie would waive or not.  There's no telling what motivates a player to waive these days.  Maybe he liked playing with Hammy.  Maybe he's a big skier.

 

The only thing about BOS that makes me think they would even consider this is the pending UFA status of Louie.  They might know what he is asking and not like it.  They may want to get something now instead of nothing in the summer.  Trading Hamilton for some picks is the type of GM you want to talk to.  

 

So, BOS gets a player for this season and next, and gets back an offensive D-man.  There may have to be more in the deal, but it's a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last offseason when they were faced with a cap crunch an wanting to shake up their team Boston traded 2 players that were thought to be part of their core for draft picks and young players. If they want to move Eriksson it would make zero sense for them to suddenly target a 30+ year old dman with 1 year on his deal and is fading.

 

they can do ALOT better than Wideman for Eriksson. If its built around Wideman for Eriksson i'm scared of what top young player the Flames are throwing in to make that deal work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about,

 

To Flames,

Steven Stamkos

Jon Drouin

 

To Lightning,

Sam Bennett

2016 second round pick

Conditional 2017 1st round pick (if the Flames can re-sign Stamkos long term)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Halischuk (WPG) on waivers.  RHS, RW.  6'0" 180 lbs.  

 

He's a pending UFA, and is only making $750k.  His numbers aren't that impressive, but I don't watch enough Jets hockey to know what he's like.  Any thoughts or interest?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Halischuk (WPG) on waivers.  RHS, RW.  6'0" 180 lbs.  

 

He's a pending UFA, and is only making $750k.  His numbers aren't that impressive, but I don't watch enough Jets hockey to know what he's like.  Any thoughts or interest?

 

4-5 years ago maybe but now no. I don't think he's an upgarde over anyone in the lineup and yes that includes Bolig. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4-5 years ago maybe but now no. I don't think he's an upgarde over anyone in the lineup and yes that includes Bolig. 

 

There have definitely been better names (IMHO) on the waiver wire this season.  I see Bollig as a trade chip this year, nothing else.

There is less reason every day to keep him in the lineup.  Find a guy like him that can play up from 4th line and actually provide offense, then I am in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about,

 

To Flames,

Steven Stamkos

Jon Drouin

 

To Lightning,

Sam Bennett

2016 second round pick

Conditional 2017 1st round pick (if the Flames can re-sign Stamkos long term)

 

 

Would be a waste becuase as it stands right now the Flames have no shot at signing STamkos as they won't have the cap space to come close. Stamkos is probably going to get at least 8.5 to 9 million so unless the Flames clear all of their bad contracts plus trade 1 of Gaudreau/Mony you are giving up alot to just get Drouin. 

 

Not a deal I would make personally. I think Bennett has number 1 center potential and top 10 scoring potential so I"m not moving him for a pending UFA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be a waste becuase as it stands right now the Flames have no shot at signing STamkos as they won't have the cap space to come close. Stamkos is probably going to get at least 8.5 to 9 million so unless the Flames clear all of their bad contracts plus trade 1 of Gaudreau/Mony you are giving up alot to just get Drouin. 

 

Not a deal I would make personally. I think Bennett has number 1 center potential and top 10 scoring potential so I"m not moving him for a pending UFA. 

 

I wish we had cap space...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...