2022 Offseason

[robrob74]

22 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Would JT Miller be cheaper than Barzal?  He's pending UFA.  29 years old.  99-point #2C.  1-year rental basically.

 

What would the Canucks want from us? 

 

I think they'd want a lot . They're like the flames. Always going for it until they can't. 

[LouCifer]

10 hours ago, sak22 said:

There is a BIG difference between me saying I wouldn't do it, vs. I don't think Boston would.  I still haven't seen a good reason why they should or would do that.  Smith is still good enough that if they needed to move him for cap reasons, they could and not have to take a more expensive/less productive player in return, and again they already have a 34 year old LW who makes almost 4 million who only scored 2 goals last year.  

Pardon me then, I must have misread or misunderstood your post 😁

 

11 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I don't remember Boston making that offer. But yeah...

Like most of the posts in here this was a trade suggestion by TBC I believe. And, as above, I must have misinterpreted Sak’s response. 
 

I agree with most of you here that Looch has negative trade value. But let’s be honest with ourselves for a second and recognize that we would never have gotten what we got in the Florida trade for Chucky if Zito checked his emotions at the door before trading for him. 😏 If all trades in the NHL were value for value, it would be a pretty luke-warm league. 

[travel_dude]

30 minutes ago, LouCifer said:

Pardon me then, I must have misread or misunderstood your post 😁

 

Like most of the posts in here this was a trade suggestion by TBC I believe. And, as above, I must have misinterpreted Sak’s response. 
 

I agree with most of you here that Looch has negative trade value. But let’s be honest with ourselves for a second and recognize that we would never have gotten what we got in the Florida trade for Chucky if Zito checked his emotions at the door before trading for him. 😏 If all trades in the NHL were value for value, it would be a pretty luke-warm league. 

 

Jtec suggested Smith for Look (salary retained).  He was suggesting it because both are pending UFA's.  It makes sense from a asset view.  Maybe the value is not there, but fans evaluate things different than GM's do.  Why would we trade Neal for Lucic?  That wasn't a dumb trade, just making the best of a bad thing.  Erat for Forsbergdidn't provide immediate value, but WSH won the cup, not NAS.

 

The thing I keep coming back to, not Lucic related, is that you have two D that are similar.  One is a UFA that will cost close to $7M to retain.  The other is closer to $4M.  If we re-sign Weegar and we have Ras locked in for a bit, then $7M for Hanifin is a big deal.  What would you do?

[LouCifer]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

The thing I keep coming back to, not Lucic related, is that you have two D that are similar.  One is a UFA that will cost close to $7M to retain.  The other is closer to $4M.  If we re-sign Weegar and we have Ras locked in for a bit, then $7M for Hanifin is a big deal.  What would you do?

I’d prefer we keep Weegar and Andersson, but that comes with a caveat. I wouldn’t trade Hanifin for cap reasons, I’d only trade him if there’s a deal to be had for a 2C. And it would have to be a 2C that is close in age to Hanifin. Otherwise, we roll with one of the strongest D corps in the NHL and keep Hanifin in the fold. 

[jjgallow]

9 minutes ago, LouCifer said:

I’d prefer we keep Weegar and Andersson, but that comes with a caveat. I wouldn’t trade Hanifin for cap reasons, I’d only trade him if there’s a deal to be had for a 2C. And it would have to be a 2C that is close in age to Hanifin. Otherwise, we roll with one of the strongest D corps in the NHL and keep Hanifin in the fold. 

 

 I think we need to use the term defenceman loosely when we speak of Hanifin.   I would like to trade him for many reasons.

 

On that note I think there are only a very small number of GMs who think he is a premiere defenceman.  Sadly BT may be one of then.

 

Because of this, I would tend to go for value over position.   Trade him to any GM that takes him seriously,  get full value back.  Whatever that is.  Wingers, centers, D or picks.   Very likely picks would be offered.

 

So if we Must go for it lol...take the picks and convert to the pieces you need.  What those pieces are is another convo altogether. 

 

On that note....I don't think the math adds up.   For a run.  We need two more big pieces.  I would have said 3-4 before the Huberdeau trade and signing.    

 

We can hope for one of those pieces through trades at very best.

 

We still need another piece.    So IMHO the only way we might be able to do this is the Cervenka route.   Except,  not Cervenka who was awful.  So, the Panarin route.   

 

But if you ask me we actually  need a #1D.    So, the Giordano route.

 

Is there a free agent out there right now who could be the next Giordano?  I think yes.   I really do.   Only problem is they are probably 2-3 years of development out from realizing it.  So it doesn't solve our "Win Now" problem lol.   No harm in doing it anyway 

 

[LouCifer]

10 hours ago, The_People1 said:

Would JT Miller be cheaper than Barzal?  He's pending UFA.  29 years old.  99-point #2C.  1-year rental basically.

 

What would the Canucks want from us? 

 

 
I wanted to weigh in on this one, as it connects to my post above to TD regarding Hanifin. I like Miller. I like Miller more than Kadri. I like Miller a lot for the Flames. Him being on a divisional rival complicates any trade here, but, IIRC Vancouver wanted Hanifin even the year before we landed him. I recall reading Vancouver had targeted him and were disappointed we got him. 
 

Lots has changed in Vancouver. New GM, new acquisitions and players, however, perhaps there’s a potential trade here. 
 

CGY <-> VAN

Hanifin, 25, LD, UFA in 2 years $4.95M <-> Miller, 29, C, UFA in 1 year $5.25M

Rationale

- Miller has been in the news because there’s uncertainty with him remaining in Vancouver beyond this next season. This has to be considered by Calgary. Trading for Miller could result in a 1 and done situation, whereas Hanifin gives us 2 years. 
- Miller plays a more valuable position. 2Cs don’t get traded often

- Miller makes $300k more than Hanifin, so it would provide some cap relief to Vancouver who is $2.7M over the cap right now, but has Ferland’s $3.5M LTIR cap relief. 
- Both players reached career highs last year. Miller got 99 points, Hanifin got 48 

 

A trade like this would make Calgary’s offense better, and Vancouver’s defense better. The fact that Hanifin gives Vancouver an extra year of service with the potential of re-signing (whereas Van will already know how easy/difficult it will be to re-sign Miller) should help the “balance” of the trade, even considering we’re divisional rivals. Plus, Hanifin is 4 years younger. We’d have to face Hanifin for at least 2 years whereas Van may only have to face Miller for 1 year. 
 

Aside from the fact that we finally get a legit 2C, Miller’s contract ending this season still allows us to explore extending him or pursuing other 2C opportunities like Barzal if that emerges. 
 

We still have 4 seasons of Andersson, 2 seasons of Tanev, 2 seasons of Kyllington, and 2 seasons of Zadorov… with Weegar and all those other D we signed pending future contracts.
 

I would applaud and support a trade of Hanifin for Miller, if Vancouver was interested. Van could want more than just Hanifin in the trade, but we shouldn’t entertain anything crazy like a first rounder if he can walk the next season. This move would align with “going for it this year” and BT and Sutter’s contracts expiring this year. I think it fits. 

[travel_dude]

26 minutes ago, LouCifer said:

I’d prefer we keep Weegar and Andersson, but that comes with a caveat. I wouldn’t trade Hanifin for cap reasons, I’d only trade him if there’s a deal to be had for a 2C. And it would have to be a 2C that is close in age to Hanifin. Otherwise, we roll with one of the strongest D corps in the NHL and keep Hanifin in the fold. 

 

I think I have been in the mind of Kyl over Hanifin, not just for future cap but for asset management.  It only makes sense that Weegar is viewed as the #1 or #2 at worst.  Hanifin getting bumped down means he will want to get paid in 2 years or leave.  We can't be having that conversation.  He's young and has value.  Yes, it's not #1D value, but a top 3 D is still worth something out there.

 

11 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

On that note I think there are only a very small number of GMs who think he is a premiere defenceman.  Sadly BT may be one of then.

 

Because of this, I would tend to go for value over position.   Trade him to any GM that takes him seriously,  get full value back.  Whatever that is.  Wingers, centers, D or picks.   Very likely picks would be offered.

 

So if we Must go for it lol...take the picks and convert to the pieces you need.  What those pieces are is another convo altogether. 

 

The number of teams willing to trade pics is next to none these days.  Very few remaining.  What you tend to see is money in money out.  Hockey trades.  It's one of the reasons Barrie is not dealt.  EDM seems to think he is a luxury, but he is better than most of their D.  Less defensive than Hanifin. 

 

I think you might find a place like NYI that wants a D and wants to ship out a winger.  We aren't getting Beauvillier for Valimaki, but they be okay with a similar cap for a D like Hanifin.  Doesn't help their cap.  Probably a poor example, but the idea is teams that need D.  Like Seattle (Wennberg for Hanifin) or MTL (Hanifin for Dvorak).  

[JTech780]

As much as I would love to get a big name like Barzal or Miller, I just don’t think we have the assets to pull it off, unless we are willing to move Lindholm. I think he is the only guy we have that gets us one of those two in return.

[travel_dude]

17 minutes ago, LouCifer said:

I would applaud and support a trade of Hanifin for Miller, if Vancouver was interested. Van could want more than just Hanifin in the trade, but we shouldn’t entertain anything crazy like a first rounder if he can walk the next season. This move would align with “going for it this year” and BT and Sutter’s contracts expiring this year. I think it fits. 

 

It's a go for it trade.  I think it has big risks.  You really have to re-sign or be ready to trade him at TDL.  When he's not signed and it's the summer, he's going to FA.  With Hanifin out and Weegar signed ($7M), we have I believe $15M in cap, but only 5D signed.  We may end up having to bank on Valimaki or Meloche or Mackey. 

 

Not sure what the extra has to be.  If he was open to a re-sign and the ask wasn't crazy, we could consider Zary as part of the trade. 

[cross16]

33 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

As much as I would love to get a big name like Barzal or Miller, I just don’t think we have the assets to pull it off, unless we are willing to move Lindholm. I think he is the only guy we have that gets us one of those two in return.

 

I agree and IMO moving Lindholm doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm not a believer he is a number one center but he's very good and I think the idea is to create center depth and not necessarily just get 1 bigger piece. Moving him is just creating another hole. 

 

The Flames best trade asset that they can actually potentially part with is Hanifin and the tricky with trading him is he's UFA in 2 years. His value should be good but I don't see why teams dealing someone like a Barzal or Miller would have interest in him. 

 

Personally i'd rather target some youth at center and try and get a piece that can grow here for multiple years. I'm not really in the throw the chips in the middle mode right now and I don't think it's necessary. 

[The_People1]

51 minutes ago, LouCifer said:

 
I wanted to weigh in on this one, as it connects to my post above to TD regarding Hanifin. I like Miller. I like Miller more than Kadri. I like Miller a lot for the Flames. Him being on a divisional rival complicates any trade here, but, IIRC Vancouver wanted Hanifin even the year before we landed him. I recall reading Vancouver had targeted him and were disappointed we got him. 
 

Lots has changed in Vancouver. New GM, new acquisitions and players, however, perhaps there’s a potential trade here. 
 

CGY <-> VAN

Hanifin, 25, LD, UFA in 2 years $4.95M <-> Miller, 29, C, UFA in 1 year $5.25M

Rationale

- Miller has been in the news because there’s uncertainty with him remaining in Vancouver beyond this next season. This has to be considered by Calgary. Trading for Miller could result in a 1 and done situation, whereas Hanifin gives us 2 years. 
- Miller plays a more valuable position. 2Cs don’t get traded often

- Miller makes $300k more than Hanifin, so it would provide some cap relief to Vancouver who is $2.7M over the cap right now, but has Ferland’s $3.5M LTIR cap relief. 
- Both players reached career highs last year. Miller got 99 points, Hanifin got 48 

 

A trade like this would make Calgary’s offense better, and Vancouver’s defense better. The fact that Hanifin gives Vancouver an extra year of service with the potential of re-signing (whereas Van will already know how easy/difficult it will be to re-sign Miller) should help the “balance” of the trade, even considering we’re divisional rivals. Plus, Hanifin is 4 years younger. We’d have to face Hanifin for at least 2 years whereas Van may only have to face Miller for 1 year. 
 

Aside from the fact that we finally get a legit 2C, Miller’s contract ending this season still allows us to explore extending him or pursuing other 2C opportunities like Barzal if that emerges. 
 

We still have 4 seasons of Andersson, 2 seasons of Tanev, 2 seasons of Kyllington, and 2 seasons of Zadorov… with Weegar and all those other D we signed pending future contracts.
 

I would applaud and support a trade of Hanifin for Miller, if Vancouver was interested. Van could want more than just Hanifin in the trade, but we shouldn’t entertain anything crazy like a first rounder if he can walk the next season. This move would align with “going for it this year” and BT and Sutter’s contracts expiring this year. I think it fits. 

 

Well VAN has Hughes and OEL signed on LD for the next 5 years.  I kind of doubt they want/need Hanifin.

 

Andersson would get it done.  However, I'd rather use Andersson for Barzal since Barzal is RFA.  At least we can trade Barzal to recoup assets next summer.  But at the same time, NYI doesn't want/need Andersson with Pulock and Dobson RHS RD.

 

Maybe the fit is not that good for a Miller trade.

[cross16]

Well Vegas is now definetly out of cap problems. 

 

Division also gets a bit easier IMO. I'm not a big believer that Brossoit/Thompson can carry the mail for them all year although I'd expect them to be in the goalie market now. Holtby would make a ton of sense for them. 

 

 

[The_People1]

2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I agree and IMO moving Lindholm doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm not a believer he is a number one center but he's very good and I think the idea is to create center depth and not necessarily just get 1 bigger piece. Moving him is just creating another hole. 

 

The Flames best trade asset that they can actually potentially part with is Hanifin and the tricky with trading him is he's UFA in 2 years. His value should be good but I don't see why teams dealing someone like a Barzal or Miller would have interest in him. 

 

Personally i'd rather target some youth at center and try and get a piece that can grow here for multiple years. I'm not really in the throw the chips in the middle mode right now and I don't think it's necessary. 

 

I agree we don't trade Lindholm because we want to add Center depth, not swap one for another.  We want to add a Center to push Backlund down to defensive shut down Center role.  No need to score.

[The_People1]

11 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Personally i'd rather target some youth at center and try and get a piece that can grow here for multiple years. I'm not really in the throw the chips in the middle mode right now and I don't think it's necessary. 

 

Could we do Hanifin for Dach?  I think MTL got Dach thinking they could flip him to WPG for PLD and that failed.  Now Dach is unsigned and maybe MTL wants a refund.

 

Dach doesn't look like a point per game impact player but could develop into a nice #2C.

 

And who knows what MTL is doing.  They are rebuilding but trying to win the Cup at the same time.

[sak22]

1 minute ago, The_People1 said:

 

I agree we don't trade Lindholm because we want to add Center depth, not swap one for another.  We want to add a Center to push Backlund down to defensive shut down Center role.  No need to score.

Teams aren't moving Centers because they want to, it's really only when the player wants it or they risk losing the player, or extremely rare that a team has a surplus of good ones and needs to move one.  For Miller and Barzal it is just fan speculation at the moment, Vancouver wants to compete so I don't see them moving on from Miller unless they can get an adequate replacement, and I still don't believe Barzal is high on the Islanders list of contracts to shed to sign Kadri so I really believe all the talk is moot at this point.

[cross16]

13 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Could we do Hanifin for Dach?  I think MTL got Dach thinking they could flip him to WPG for PLD and that failed.  Now Dach is unsigned and maybe MTL wants a refund.

 

Dach doesn't look like a point per game impact player but could develop into a nice #2C.

 

And who knows what MTL is doing.  They are rebuilding but trying to win the Cup at the same time.

 

I would be very surprised if the Habs would do that. I don't think you give up a first rounder for a player you are just hoping to flip, I think they see him as a long term fit. 

 

That's not really a good deal from Flames angle either. I was ok with Dach as a potential buy low option but not as a key return for an asset like Hanifin. He'd add depth but lots of questions whether or not he can be a top 6 center. 

[sak22]

8 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Could we do Hanifin for Dach?  I think MTL got Dach thinking they could flip him to WPG for PLD and that failed.  Now Dach is unsigned and maybe MTL wants a refund.

 

Dach doesn't look like a point per game impact player but could develop into a nice #2C.

 

And who knows what MTL is doing.  They are rebuilding but trying to win the Cup at the same time.

I think Montreal's needs to move a forward first, I think Dvorak is the most probable candidate but getting something closer to what they paid to get him will be the challenge.  But I don't read too much into the contract situation, it's not uncommon for an RFA to go unsigned in mid August, especially one that has underwhelmed based on draft position, for comparison Sam Bennett didn't sign his second deal until early September after he was mediocre in his ELC.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

40 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I agree and IMO moving Lindholm doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm not a believer he is a number one center but he's very good and I think the idea is to create center depth and not necessarily just get 1 bigger piece. Moving him is just creating another hole. 

 

The Flames best trade asset that they can actually potentially part with is Hanifin and the tricky with trading him is he's UFA in 2 years. His value should be good but I don't see why teams dealing someone like a Barzal or Miller would have interest in him. 

 

Personally i'd rather target some youth at center and try and get a piece that can grow here for multiple years. I'm not really in the throw the chips in the middle mode right now and I don't think it's necessary. 

He is absolutely a #1 C.  His entire tenure with the Flames has been in the shadows of JH, SM, and MT, all while being very good offensively AND defensively. The fact he's more complete player makes him more valuable than many #1Cs out there.

[cross16]

8 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

He is absolutely a #1 C.  His entire tenure with the Flames has been in the shadows of JH, SM, and MT, all while being very good offensively AND defensively. The fact he's more complete player makes him more valuable than many #1Cs out there.

 

This is the Daymond Langkow debate all over again but for me it's the same. 2 very good players that are not number one centers because they are more the products of who they play with and now what they can do on their own. A number one center is a play-driving, do everything player and that isn't Lindholm for me. That is NOT meant as an insult in the slightest as I recognize he is an excellent player but IMO the standard of what a number one center is high. 

 

Not something i'm going to debate vigorously but this profile is not one of a number one center for me

 

 

[travel_dude]

48 minutes ago, sak22 said:

I think Montreal's needs to move a forward first, I think Dvorak is the most probable candidate but getting something closer to what they paid to get him will be the challenge.  But I don't read too much into the contract situation, it's not uncommon for an RFA to go unsigned in mid August, especially one that has underwhelmed based on draft position, for comparison Sam Bennett didn't sign his second deal until early September after he was mediocre in his ELC.

 

Dvorak for Hanifin has some sense to it.  Dvorak isn't an awesome #2, but he is capable of becoming one.  And he's still young enough that you can work with him.  The money is somewhat close.  The value of Hanifin should be equal.  I don't think they need to deal with Drouin's cap right now, so going over on Hanifin by about $250k shouldn't be an issue.  They have young guys on D that are on ELC's and 3 goalies included in their cap.

[sak22]

3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Dvorak for Hanifin has some sense to it.  Dvorak isn't an awesome #2, but he is capable of becoming one.  And he's still young enough that you can work with him.  The money is somewhat close.  The value of Hanifin should be equal.  I don't think they need to deal with Drouin's cap right now, so going over on Hanifin by about $250k shouldn't be an issue.  They have young guys on D that are on ELC's and 3 goalies included in their cap.

Not a target I would do personally, Dvorak at 26 and hasn't even hit Hanifin's point total for this year.  I would say Dvorak is only a slight offensive upgrade over Backlund, Montreal would need to add something else of good value because it seems we would be doing them a favor as they must have some buyers remorse there if they spent a 1st and 2nd last year to only give him one year.

[travel_dude]

6 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Not a target I would do personally, Dvorak at 26 and hasn't even hit Hanifin's point total for this year.  I would say Dvorak is only a slight offensive upgrade over Backlund, Montreal would need to add something else of good value because it seems we would be doing them a favor as they must have some buyers remorse there if they spent a 1st and 2nd last year to only give him one year.

 

Not really arguing the matter, but Dvorak played only 56 games last season.

He's cost controlled for 3 years.

He played previously on a poor offensive team like the Yotes.

 

[cross16]

i would agree that Dvorak for Hanifin is a big loss for the Flames. Hanifin should have quite a  bit more value than that. 

 

I still like Dvorak as a player but he comes with a bunch of risk. He really struggles to stay healthy, he can't seem to find a defined role in a lineup and I think you can only talk about "potential" for so long before you realize that a player just may be what he is. He's cost controlled yes but at a number that makes him closer to cap dump territory than it does asset territory. 

I'd still have some interest because he is the type of transition center the Flames need but he isn't a player i'd be aggressive in getting, more of a you get him if the price makes sense type of move. 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

He is absolutely a #1 C.  His entire tenure with the Flames has been in the shadows of JH, SM, and MT, all while being very good offensively AND defensively. The fact he's more complete player makes him more valuable than many #1Cs out there.

 

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

This is the Daymond Langkow debate all over again but for me it's the same. 2 very good players that are not number one centers because they are more the products of who they play with and now what they can do on their own. A number one center is a play-driving, do everything player and that isn't Lindholm for me. That is NOT meant as an insult in the slightest as I recognize he is an excellent player but IMO the standard of what a number one center is high. 

 

Not something i'm going to debate vigorously but this profile is not one of a number one center for me

 

 

 

Would you guys agree that since there are 32 teams in the NHL, then the top 32 Centers in the NHL are #1 Centers?  

[cross16]

15 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

Would you guys agree that since there are 32 teams in the NHL, then the top 32 Centers in the NHL are #1 Centers?  

 

No because it's based on skill set and not circumstance. The number can go up and down depending on the level of talent in the league but for me it's all about talent and not about circumstance. 

 

No different than goalies. plenty of goalies are "starters" for teams but you'd never want them starting for your team.