travel_dude
-
Posts
52,012 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
104
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by travel_dude
-
Like every player we have ever traded for, I will give Smth the benefit of the doubt and support him. If he can pull off more victories than Elliott did in the same number of games, then we got league average or better tending. Not great, but average. Hiller was a great goalie in Anaheim, before he lost the job and became old in a hurry. I don't see this as an upgrade over Elliott. I don't think Mason would be any worse. The cost of the pick isn't the end of the world. 2nd if we make the playoffs. Let's hope it's a 2nd. The loss of the prospect is the big cost here. Whether Hickey was a flight risk or not, his value as potentially a pending FA is still high. What did Buffalo trade for Vesey rights? A 3rd. And that's because they just wanted his rights.
-
Thought you might enjoy this perspective. While I don't agree with her at times, she does make a good points about "half measures". https://flamesnation.ca/2017/06/17/the-flames-are-a-team-of-half-measures/
-
Hiller was a starter too. BT may in fact go with Smith for the coming year with Rittich as the backup. He can put McCollum as the BU in Stockton and play Parsons full time in Kansas City. Or, he may decide to go after Raanta. Allows you to have a solid NHL backup in case of injury or wean him into the starter job. No different than Mason/Raanta would have been. I think Hickey was a 50/50 shot of signing here. He would be fighting for a spot where we are deep LHS. But a year can make a big difference. If he signs with ARI next year, he may get a shot at the NHL sooner. Or he may not even sign with them. Depends on his value after another season in college. As I said, it's not so much losing Hickey as it is what we got. Smith was ok on a bad team. Elliott was very good on a good team and turned into a questionable goalie on a different team. If we see Smith looking just okay here, then we are no better off.
-
I just don't know what to say. When it was reported that the asking price for Smith was high, I chuckled. Choke on him. BT seems to have a habit of paying Arizona whatever they want in a trade. I'm guessing that BT had discussed the situation with Hickey, and had some inkling that he was going to go UFA next year. Or perhaps there is a hidden handshake for part 2 of this deal. Brouwer for Reider? Stajan for Schenn? Bouma for Duclair? I'm annoyed at losing a D prospect for a old goalie. Had this been a trade for Grubauer or Raanta, I would have been happier. The conditional 2nd is whatever. Hope he has to play x number of games to achieve that. Bottom line is that this is no better than signing Elliott for a 3rd or Mason for just cash. Unless Smith is the 1a/1b guy to mentor Raanta or Grubauer.
-
Check out the expansion tool and figure out which D-man they are going to lose. A young one or someone else.
-
Haven't heard if Detroit was protecting Howard or Mrazek. Howard has a M-NTC so I think he is automatically selectable by Vegas if not protected. Not sure what Vegas would benefit by trading Mrazek. If they protect Mrazek, then they lose a good player, not Howard. If they protect Howard and don't trade him, they lose Mrazek. If they protect Howard and trade Mrazek, they still lose a good player.
-
That's the problem. It's wide open. Nobody standing in front of it.
-
Too long to quote your whole text. Limited NTC, NMC do not necessarily mean Limited NTC and Limited NMC. As reported elsewhere, if Vegas selects MAF, then the NMC is back in place. What does that mean? Means he would have to waive again, does it not? Separate issue, but if his NTC list was done last year, it would need to be updated this year, would it not? BTW, if you choose to use Garrioch or Lawless as your source of truth, then you will have some people here that will dismiss their reports immediately. If his post is true it's because he read Bobbie Mac or someone with some creds.
-
Are you sure about this? Have you read his contract? What exactly is a limited NMC?
-
You can choose to interpret things anyway you like. We all do that. The simple fact is that MAF was required to be protected, unless he waived. That he did. Anything else is speculation on your part, based on the way it's reported. That is unless you actually reviewed his contract and how it falls in line with the CBA. Just because Site A says something, does not make it fact.
-
Posted elsewhere: Re: MAF and his waiving of NMC and the NTC issue. Not sure if this was confirmed, but it was reported that Calgary was on his no-go list.
-
Finally, the boards came back up. Â Looks like they were all down, not just the Flames one. Â Thought it was Wideman'd.
-
To our prospect pool, picks available and our salary cap.
-
The NMC applies before the modified NTC kicks in. It also applies to trades. Waive it to be moved at the expansion draft. Gets claimed. NMC back in place.
-
Originally posted this on Thursday, but the site went down without saving it. Perhaps my understanding of the situation is wrong, but I believe he has to waive his NMC to be exposed. Different kettle of fish. SInce we are entering a new season, I believe he would need to supply a list of the 18 teams now. If they only ask for him to waive the NMC, then that's only good for the expansion draft. If Vegas selected him, his NMC and NTC are back in effect. They would need to ask him to waive.
-
You missed what I was getting at. The waiving only last until he is traded to Vegas or CGY. They would need to ask him to waive again to go to Calgary from Vegas. You can't just be selected by Vegas and be traded to Calgary.
-
I see the cost to get MAF as being as high as Grubauer or Raanta. Doesn't matter where they are when the deal happens. MAF would likely cost more, if he's in Vegas. The other thing about that is that MAF's NTC restarts as soon as he end up in Vegas, so there's that to deal with. The Flames needs "Mr. Right", not "Mr. Right Now" for a goalie. There is no guarantee that Gillies or Rittich or Paerson will even be NHL goalies. We hope that one will. We look for consistency in the AHL. We want to see them start a few games. MAF has a lot of mileage on him, and may not want to play when his contract ends. Smith is far older. Do we want to be in the same boat of having no starter in 2 years if the prospects aren't ready and we only have a NHL backup as plan B? The solution is simple. Negotiate the best deal for the best available starter-in-waiting. Sign a UFA for a fallback option (ie. Mason, etc.).
-
He's a RFA with arbitration rights; my bad. I was thinking he's UFA.
-
Are you suggesting Schenn & Stone(or Franson) or Stone and Andersson? At 3.75m Stone better be a 2nd pairing D for the year. As I had said, I wouldn't complain about $2m for Stone and $2m for Franson. One of the two would have to be the #4D. Those kind of salaries are tradeable. We got Stone with 50% retained, which was about par value for him. I would prefer if we set our sights a bit higher. Stone and Schenn isn't much better than Stone and Engelland. I have to think we could do better. Schultz seems to be a lot more consistent since he went to the Pengies. I doubt they can afford paying him more than $5m this year. Still make the trade for Schenn ($1.25m) and we are a better team. WOuld burn EDM's butt every time we played them too, so bonus.
-
What do you suggest for a #4, since that's the biggest issue.
-
Is Schenn just a Stone 2.0? Not that fast. Hard hitter. Good first pass. The trade is reasonable, but he's no more a #4 than Franson or Stone. The Hawks are the Hawks. Brand recognition. Used to be a contender. Some of the Euros out there only know of a team's history, not where they are trending. Chicago is a big market city, known throughout the world, unlike Calgary. We have more holes on defense than the Hawks right now, but they probably offered a roster spot right away, which BT is never keen on doing. We were in on it as much as Chicago. Had tabled an offer.
-
I don't take a lot of stock in LeBrun's thoughts. His report of the Flames contacting the Yotes is more disturbing.
-
I agree that they need not pay $4m for an average guy this summer. Wouldn't mind as much if the total for two average D-men was $4m, such as Franson and Stone at $2m each. Ideally, I would want to get that next Dougie. Or an almost-Dougie. I have zero interest in Phaneuf. Make a trade now with a team that will lose a D-man for nothing or have to expose a really good forward to protect 4D. I would take the hit on the LV pick.
-
He's a UFA there, so they don't need to protect him. And perhaps they have already discussed his future there. The same reason Grubauer/Mason makes sense here applies to the Flyers. I seriously doubt that LV selects him as their pick from the Flyers. It's all just speculation here. We don't know what the GM's think about their situation, so the trades prior to the draft may be expensive or few and far between. It shouln't cost more to deal before.
-
Considering most of our young forwards were drafted, yes we rebuilt from the forwards back. At the time most of the selections were made, we were thin on depth in every position. In 2012, we took a center, a goalie and three D. In 2013, we went for mostly forwards and some bad selections on D. In 2014, we went for some good D, etc..... Ortio was a miss, Gillies had to go through 4 years of college, Kanzig, Gilmour, and Rafikov will never play in the NHL, but that is drafting. Some teams have a real good player that they can give up to secure the right D-man. We have Backlund, but very few here are willing to lose him to win a great defender. And the draft is messing up the search. I wouldn't be adverse to trading Backlund for one of the big 4 in Nashville. Probably have to add to the deal. Protect 4F and 4D. Would lose Frolik or Lazar or Stajan or Ferland or Brouwer. Losing one of those wouldn't kill us. I would protect Ferland over Frolik, but that's just me. Hanifin is an interesting case. He's exempt. Trade would make more sense after the expansion draft. At that point teams will be looking for players, picks and prospects.
