travel_dude

I'm not sure that is a valid one. You can't preface a condition for a situation that only exists if they re-sign him. He is signed for a year only. If you said 50 games, then that might be doable. If they trade him, he would not meet that condition either, but it was their doing.

Can't do conditional picks on signing. Can only do it on playing X games or reaching certain playoff goals or scoring. You are correct about not being able to make a deal prior to the draft. Makes the pre-signing impossible. If DET was to make the deal on faith and it turned out he won't sign, then they have what we would have after July 1st if he won't sign here and we don't deal him prior.

Isn't Shanny the go-between? But autonomy in the Center of the Universe doesn't exist. At least he could fire coaches there every 6-12 months. At this point I think Leaf fans would love to see Marner traded.

The stats crew doesn't have the luxury of watching said players. It's a reasonable concern that stats don't show a breakout, but also valid that stats show very little. I know it's not easy top predict how a certain player will perform here, nor is it always just the player. It could be how they perform in certain systems. Jarnkrok and Milano are two that jump off the page. TT in Seattle is another. I am a bit quick to blame pro scouting, but it may not be a valid argument. No player is 100% off limits. Trading Lindholm isn't worth it if it doesn't improve the team in the mid term or long term. Instant gratification is unlikely. So, a solid 3C + very good D + top 20 pick is a good alternative. Doubt you get a top 6 player in return that is younger than Lindholm in any trade. Maybe. Maybe BT will trade for Hanifin. They don't really need a top 6 C, and they love offensive D, so maybe Hanifin for Nylander makes sense for both sides. That probably pushes us to make changes elsewhere. Kylington may not be a good short term strategy, but this is also a bit of a rebuild, and Kylington showed pretty big strides in his one year as a Flames top 4. Don't need him to replace Hanifin, as Weegar-Ras is probably our top 2. I'm not hung up about age, as long as there is a good chance the player will age okay over 3-5 years. Lindholm doesn't have the same wear and tear as Monahan did. Nor is he anyway near as sacrificing as Tanev. I would be more okay in moving him if we had a bonafide #2 waiting in the wings. So, your suggestion makes sense long term, but leaves us in the Iggy situation of no top C. We would have to address that sooner than later.

Your handle does make sense. LOL. Too bad for back injuries.

So, who was the coach during all of this? Which coach was there when Bennett was supposedly given the 2nd chance. Did he see any positive change in usage? Which coach refused to name a captain?

I know what you mean. Have 3 jerseys with 13, 23 and 19 and several name t-shirts. Some of them bought when they were marked down big time. Maybe they knew what was coming LOL.

I think the cabinet vote is likely a done deal. It's one of the first things the government will undertake.

I'm not sure Gallant satisfies this. We have to get it right this time. Too many former coaches that were let go. Peters didn't get fired by CAR, but a two time resigning coach isn't a good fit either.

Trading Lindholm sets us back more than any other trade unless it's an improvement of both age and ceiling. For instance, if you were to trade him for say Necas, I think that would be a win and a smart move for now and the future. Or for a projected #1C in a draft. Otherwise, it's a signal that we are good in going backwards for the foreseeable future. I prefer to go into the season without signing Tanev and Zadorov. Tanev is something we should be considering as a trade asset, should we end up as a bubble team. If we are a near contender, then keep him and re-sign him to one or two year deal in the summer prior to UFA. Zadorov is a guy that will have a monster season or similar to less than he did last year. We can re-sign him during the season, as he likes it in Calgary. Backlund is a risk, but I don't think you want to handcuff the team or future team should they trade him. Keep your options open. Toffoli is an easy re-sign. He's not going to get long term and not break the bank. His play suggests he can continue at the same level even given some slowing down. Hanifin is a trade chip. Of the players we can use to improve the F, he is the one that has results that can net a decent return. I would argue that he is the easiest to replace what he brings. Stecher and Kylington are both cheaper versions, and Kylington's ceiling likely hasn't been reached. His defensive game is prbably also able to improve a bit more than Hanifin's.

Small delay with all the defeated cabinet ministers that would need to vote on it. Giess you can get the parliamentary secretaries in their place? Not really sure. Not your typical situations.

I head as much. It may have been due to days of practice available. But they didn't practice it unless they ran into a streak of not scoring.

We chose to replace him with a free agent. If it was a trade then we traded Kadri for Monahan and a 1st etc. Can't really look at it that way of course. We sold an asset that had little value due to being a huge risk at $6.375M I hated that we traded him, but he was a huge risk if he played at a 4th line level. Him being the full year on LTIR wouldn't make us any better off.

The comps for him are all around mid $8M. He was negative when BT had quit and Sutter was still around. Not saying Sutter was his biggest issue, but I think he had an issue with messing with the roster after 6 games and never going back there. That's just opinion, but not really out of the blue. If your feeling that 8-9M is unfavourable, then you won't be happy. I really don't get your fractions. 1/6 is it? 1 - he signs, over 9M 2 - he signs less than 9M 3 - he doesn't sign, we are trading him 4 - he doesn't sign, we keep him 5 - he may sign and does for over 9M 6 - he may sign and does for less than 9M 7 - he may not sign and we trade him 8 - he may not sign and we keep him 4/8 are favorable to us, as in we don't overpay and don't lose him for nothing. Are you guessing the return in any of the trade scenarios? Are you thinking there is any way we don't have him signed and go past TDL without trading him? 6/8 favourable then.

Say what? If he signs, how are we giving him away?

Perhaps the best solution is trading down a smidge, just to pick up a prospect or 2nd round pick. Of course, that depends on who is left when we get to our pick.

Not a Muller fan. Not sure who gets the props or blames for a 10th place to 17th place PP efficiency. We only have him here under Sutter. In the same time period, the PK has remained top 6. Even with the drop off in goaltending, we still stayed about the same. I was more focused on the use of players in the PP as the season went on. Not using Weegar. Using Kadri where he was less effective. Overall, just didn't seem right. The execution suffered perhaps. There is nothing wrong with Love, but I would hope that he adjusts somewhat to the NHL. Maybe I am reading too much into his alignment with Sutter hockey.

I wonder about prices leading up to the draft, especially after teams lose out in the first round of the playoffs. TBH, I can't remember the last player traded for a fist rounder, maybe Schneider? I'm sure there would have been others, but can't think of any. The TDL value for a player on an expiring deal is probably not the right comparison. Lindholm is coming off a decent year, and has a full year left on his contract. He has zero trade protection, if the receiving team can't also work out a deal or they decide to trade him at the TDL. Just looking for context on a pre-draft trade. I would think that this type of trade is few and far between.

As if there are trade we ever love. I'm not adverse to the trade idea, just that we have to get it right if we are moving on. It also sets up the need to trade Backlund if it happened. Ig I had my drothers, I would start with Backlund, not Lindholm, but the player's decision may come before the draft. If so, it starts a chain reaction. Re-tool. Starts with a draft pick. I wonder if the scouts are ready for this kind of move.

If you are talking about Coronato, he's gonna take some time to adjust to the NHL. I think he has the shot, just not the legs yet. By that I mean playing a full minute at full speed. Remember, this is going to be at 3500 feet above sea level, compare to Harvard which is like 20 feet above. Big difference, you saw it with Huberdeau and Weegar. Playing for the Wranglers will help, if he starts there. I like Lucic, but not to play a full season. Not as a defacto 4th line player. But Lucic doesn't want to play as a 14th forward. Don't blame him.

Without spending a ton of time on streams, I don't have the extra time to spend following a team I'm not a fan of. At most, there was telecasts of the Flames or Oilers against DET 4 times. Perhaps Leafs or others playing them in the early Saturday game. SN owns the market in Canada, with some east games on TSN, only in those regions. It sucks. I missed that part of the trade where you added Wallinder. I was thinking this was a to-be-drafted player that I had not heard of, going 17th overall. So, what's the story on him? Is he comitted to any time in Sweden? I get a little concerned with some of the recent rules for some of the Euro leagues if they were signed there.

I'm just saying. 24 year old that was playing most of his 44 games as a winger. But really, all I was getting at was let's not trade Lindholm. We used Hamilton to get Lindholm. Present value understood, but I'm not giving him away. Has to be a bidding war and him definitely not wanting to play here. Seems like maybe we should be fixing the problem with players wanting to leave.

Please stop making suggestions that help Detroit, LOL. I think a 17th overall + a 3C is a lousy deal for us. Unless we parlay that into a top 5 pick. I hate just looking at stats, since I have seen a bit of him on TV, but... Ruzicka had 6g, 14a in 44 games. Most of those games on the 4th line. Veleno had 9g 11a in 81 games. I don't know if you think he will turn into a 40 point guy.

I would take Goodrow over Coleman. Is Goodrow a Bond villian? Freddie Gaudreau is also a value player. I think Backlund drags Backlund down. Having another finisher would likely help him. But, he plays 3v3 like it's 5v5, puts shots on net, dumps the puck. He's notorious at missing the net. When Mangiapane scored 35, Backlund was not getting a career year out of it. I think you have to accept that Backlund is a shutdown player. Gaudreau might be a better choice for the money. Okay, so my suggestion is to use Backlund to get a top 4 D. Use Hanifin to get a top 6 winger. I think you could use Dube as 3C and not be that bad off. So, here's a crazy lineup based on some of these moves: Huberdeau-Lindholm-?? Mangiapane-Kadri-Toffoli ??-Dube-Duehr Zary/Pelletier/Ruzicka/?? Weegar-Ras Kylington-Tanev Zadorov-?? The first ?? relates to the Hanifin trade. The ?? on D relates to the Backlund trade. I have left out Coleman since I think he doesn't fit that lineup. Perhaps we could find a taker for him, with retained salary. It's not important that we fix the cap with his salary moved as much as finding a good player to fit the spot. Really tough with his long term deal though. Perhaps VAN would move Myers for the immediate cap savings. Retain $1.9M on Coleman. It costs us in future cap, but the increase should mitigate that. We can sell Myers at TDL.

Are you suggesting we ask what Jack would do? Oops, wrong person. I was thinking you were talking about Mary Lynn Rajskub. Seriously though, my preference would be fire Huska and Muller, hire a good NHL coach and bring in Love as the top assistant coach. The intent is he learns as he coaches. The pressure on a first time NHL coach for this team is huge. Conny may want to bring in Love, but he has to weigh in the winning out of the gate need. I fear that a coach that had a team playing so close to a Calgary system would have a hard time getting buy in. Zary, Phillips, Duehr, Wolf and Pelletier might, but I fear the others would get frustrated early on. As the replacement to Huska, he could instill the defensive side of the game we seemed to have trouble with. As a head coach, he would be forced to play Huberdeau more as a 2-way winger.