travel_dude

And what would you pay a UFA like him to play here? More than Hanifin? Less than Pietrangelo? Two ends of the spectrum, neither is a number 1.

The trade was never going to be a rebuild trade. BT doesn't sign him, it's a trade for a similar return to what we got for Tkachuk. Possibly younger with a top prospect instead of a pick. If you like our #1 LD is Weegar. We trade Hanifin for a C. Or Valimaki + Dube for a C. Think Necas or Roy. Besides, we have some potential internal growth to consider. Pelletier may be the next Gaudreau LOL. Ruzie can replace Monahan. Klapka can be the next Lucic. Poirier/Luz could be the next Kylington/Tanev.

If we are expecting him to be the best player on the team in 7-8 years, then we have bigger problems. Can he be a playmaker for most of his contract? That's really what we were expecting Gaudreau to be. But that was also assuming we had goons to protect him. No onto finishing the expected moves and signings. I doubt we love them all, but this may be the start of more sensible moves. Sign a top 6 capable winger or C for less than $3M. Smart trade of one of the excess D at the least. Move a decent D for a decent C. We haven't improved since the day of the trade, just have more guys locked in. Now tell me we have a deal for Necas and have signed a capable winger on the cheap. I ain't greedy.

Weegar. Weegar. Weegar.

I mean it comes down to being forced to get a trade that actually made us better. Maybe not as long as Tkachuk would have remained good, but who knows. We went from agony of defeat to thrill of victory. For you ABC Wide World of Sports vets.

BT pushed his chips all in on the deal for Tkachuk. All or nothing. He won this hand. Still has a pocket pair of aces. I think Gaudreau has a bigger chance of dropping off becuase of his life situation. Hockey was his life and winning was everything. Going to CBJ changed that. Now it's a job.

There is no question we were signing one of the Johnny's to a bad deal for the future. 8 years of Gaudreau will age as bad as 9 years of Hubie. Maybe one looks better when they turn 35. Your guess is as good as mine if Hubie's looks better.

We may regret the 10.5, but we would have easily have regretted the $10.5 going to Little Johnny. Here's what I couldn't tell you. If we signed JG, does Tkachuk still want out? We wouldn't give him the same deal, but I also think he wanted out. Would JG be able to put up 115 with Toffoli or Mangiapane? I tend to think Hubie is capable of doing that without Tkachuk.

Cost to Flames... $10.5M x 8 Private jet to MTL. One big arse dinner and drinks. Priceless.

It's buyout proof by the looks of it, but I haven't done the math (Capfriendly calc that is LOL). I guess you can compare this to Gaudreau (deal in CGY offered) in a weird sort of way: Hubie One year at $5.9M Eight years at $10.5M. Johnny One year at $6.75M Eight years at $10.5M. The only difference is we had the $6.75M Gaudreau year. All in all, I think Hubie plays longer. Gaydreau is stuck in a place he really doesn't know and is a long long drive away from family. At some point it means less, but I can't see him wanting to play in 7 years time.

Further to the discussion, I had felt that Mange was probably going to be a 30 goal guy since he was trending up. He was efficient in scoring 5v5. He's played more of a defensive role than they typical goal scorer. If he plays with Hubie, I almost expect his scoring to increase. Better passes coming to him. More chances of his passes turning into goals. But, that's just me.

Sorry, my bad. I was talking that Jtech suggested he would revert to 25g and 25a. I think he was more concerned that we pay him long term, nased on one 35+ goal season.

Yes, I thought the same thing. Maybe he was expecting a lowball offer (probably had one) and the Swiss beat that by a mile with 2 years. I doubt Tanev would have enjoyed him being a teammate. LOL

I think by putting out there that we were trading his rights would signal a team could just wait for FA. Besides, at the time, we were supposedly negotiating in good faith with the agent. His last signal was he would love to sign if they wanted him and made the right pitch.

I didn't see that as being "everyone knew". Did they think he might sign elsewhere? Didn't seem to hurt the team in the regular season. But to your point, if they knew it this season, what could BT do after TDL? Trade for a 3rd? Maybe. I don't know that CBJ would have dealt anything.

I'm not sure what a covid boost is. You mean a booster? LOL I would suggest that Mange was one of the most efficient scorers in the NHL. The North division season was hardly a boost. Some meaningless games against VAN, but they hadn't thrown in the towel. We were trying to get in the playoffs afterall. The covid season (bubble year) was cut off in the latter stages. No meaningless games for teams, really. You know, the ones where you play a last placed team that doesn't care. He had 7g and 4a when we broke for the lockdown. Just really ramping it up.

Think it may have been Jtech, but anyways.... Previous season he was on a 26 goal pace. He exceeded that this year, playing on a defensive line for a lot of it. QWe are buying 2 UFA years. I think there was some belief that we should have locked him up longer at near that price. Puljujarvi isn't exactly in EDM's plans, but he will still be an RFA. They bought exactly zero UFA years. He probably would have gotten that amount in arbitration, but this way their is better control. They can trade him or re-sign him in January (small sample size) or later. Or go through this again. Bratt is also going to be a RFA and they bought zero UFA years. Who knows what they really feel about him, but he's more pf a playmaker than goal scorer. Personally, I don't think this is overpayment at all. On the road, he isn't line matched against top lines. At home he is. If the assists were higher, we are talking about a 60-70 point season. But his typical linemates weren't score 20+ goals.

Hey, it's fun to discuss. I should have jumped to a new paragraph.

It's what I would pay. They can't afford to pay him value. We shouldn't give them a free out. I think they trash Karlsson and trade him.

Quck calc: Kuemper over 30 Holtby 29-ish Quick (in 2013-14) was 27 going on 28 MAF (2016-17) 32 Crawford (2012-13 and 2014-15) 28-29, 30-31 Thomas 37 All over 26. Does that meet your approval?

I don't know if an OS works. Vegas would match and just trade someone else, which they love doing anyway. I think we have to give up assets to make the deal really work. Give them something they want that helps their cap. No, I don't want to help them clear cap, but would love to send them an excess D for a C.

Don't think so. Just saying that young goalies aren't always the solution. Binnington and Murray won as newcomers to the team. Murray won the next time as a starter or 1A playing 49 games. Vasilevskiy won in condensed seasons. It's not going to help much having a younger starter playing 60+ games. So, no to give Sutter a young goalie and go nuts. It worked once for him. No better than a 30+ goalie doing the same. 50/32 or 52/30 is about all you should be committing to. Agee doesn't matter.

I get what you are saying, but subtract just $7M while adding $7M+ doesn't really help then this year. For sure it helps next year. Right now they have $11M to sign Bellows, Dobson and Romanov. We can't really take any cap dumps this season unless we moved Lucic separately. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be a solid move. I think we would need to take Bailey and send back Dube to help make the money work. We then waive Valimaki and Mackey is the 7th D. Move Lucic. It seems like a mega deal and They only get a younger Dube and older Kadri, while giving up Bailey and Barzal. They would really have to love Hanifin and Monahan to do it.

So, looking back at the last 12 cup winners, how many were 26 year olds or younger? Kuemper, Holtby, MAF (when he had a hand in it), Quick (2014), Crawford (2013 and 15), Thomas None of them 26 or younger? Vasilevskiy (x2), Binnington, Murray, Quick (2012) Binnington was not the goalie that played most of the season. Murray and MAF split one playoffs and Murray played all but two in one set. Murray did not play much of his winning season. Vasilevskiy's starts in cup winning seasons were 52 and 42, both shorter seasons. So, there is a difficult balance between overplaying the starter to get a better seed and tiring them out. 57 starts seems to be the sweet spot, though some have played as much as 69.

I don't think you will find many that will dispute the notion of starting Vladar more. Sutter has a rendency on being hard on young guys when they make mistakes. He rarely calls them out in the media. But he remembers. Wasn't impressed with DV coming in for the VAN game and getting beat up. "He's the backup, supposed to be ready to come in". I really only think that came up because the press seemed to be harping on Marky. And DV came in cold and got rocked. TBH, I just think it was a bit of lack of trust. Vladar had to do B2B's with Marky out and didn't look great. Or so it seemed Sutter thought. "He has to make that save,". So, as much as we want him to get more starts and run with it, Sutter is standing there. We need the W. You are the backup. Can you deliver?