Realistic (and unrealistic) Trades - 2024 Edition

[sak22]

Just now, The_People1 said:

 

It wasn't just Chicago though.  There's also TB, COL, WAS, PIT, and LAK.  All tanked and then eventually won a Cup.

 

STL and VGK have been the exceptions... although, VGK was an expansion team so that's a very unique case.   STL, depends if you want to count Erik Johnson #1 overall and Pietrangelo #4 overall.  It's really hard to find a team that completely avoided the tank and still won the Cup.  There are nearly no case studies for this.

 

 

I think he was more pointing to the luck.  With Chicago as said do they win a cup if St. Louis or Pittsburgh take Toews in '06 and they wind up with Johnson or Staal?  or Alzner or Gagner in 2007?  Washington and Tampa's "tanks" began with Ovechkin and Stamkos, Ovechkin was 31 when he won and Stamkos was 30, Stamkos team was so good he didn't even need to play much to win his first.  By comparison Tkachuck, Monahan, Gaudreau, and Bennett were gone mid 20's and only 1 was close to 30, can factor in Lindholm gone before 30, Hamilton traded a week after turning 25, and Hanifin gone at 27.  Nice to be able to keep the good players you do have.  

 

I don't disagree that you need to get the elite players that are far easier to get by being a bottom feeder, I don't necessarily think the teams strategically tanked to do it, and I think most teams did a lot in their power to expedite things.  But also market differences, Tampa, Chicago and LA will have an easier time than Buffalo and Edmonton, and you can guess which one Calgary lines up more with.

[sak22]

6 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

https://flamesnation.ca/news/seravalli-don-maloney-nixed-markstrom-trade-with-new-jersey-on-behalf-of-flames-ownership
 

take it with a grain of salt if you will, but there is belief that Maloney nixed the deal on behalf of the owners. Serevelli but I dunno what is truth coming from him. But I think they've done it before so there is reason to believe it happened again.

And Carter Hart and Dillon Dube's leaves were completely unrelated to the WJC scandal.  Frank is trash.

[travel_dude]

9 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

https://flamesnation.ca/news/seravalli-don-maloney-nixed-markstrom-trade-with-new-jersey-on-behalf-of-flames-ownership
 

take it with a grain of salt if you will, but there is belief that Maloney nixed the deal on behalf of the owners. Serevelli but I dunno what is truth coming from him. But I think they've done it before so there is reason to believe it happened again.

 

Well they seemed to be ok with buyouts and the Neal for Lucic trade.

FS seems to be the only one saying the owners through Maloney nixed it.

I'm sure all parties call FS when they are having trade talks.

Because he's so trusted to report the truth or keep things quiet.

[cross16]

15 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

https://flamesnation.ca/news/seravalli-don-maloney-nixed-markstrom-trade-with-new-jersey-on-behalf-of-flames-ownership
 

take it with a grain of salt if you will, but there is belief that Maloney nixed the deal on behalf of the owners. Serevelli but I dunno what is truth coming from him. But I think they've done it before so there is reason to believe it happened again.

 

 

I'm not sure this is a more vocal person here against the owners than me and i'm calling BS to this. 

 

It makes no sense that they would nix it over salary retention and then turn around and retain on Tanev. Yes I know it's a matter of months vs 2 more years but it also makes no sense that you would let your GM have that conversation and then stop it. Do we really think Conroy went rogue here?

 

Feels like a lot of lines being drawn here to try and get a story. The far more likely here is that they just coudln't agree on what it cost to retain. I think the Flames put a high price on it and the Devils didn't want to meet it. 

 

I'll trust Lebrun and Friedman on this one, both of whom have been saying the same thing. FS wants to be the story so he'll drawn things together more than those 2. 

[robrob74]

2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

 

I'm not sure this is a more vocal person here against the owners than me and i'm calling BS to this. 

 

It makes no sense that they would nix it over salary retention and then turn around and retain on Tanev. Yes I know it's a matter of months vs 2 more years but it also makes no sense that you would let your GM have that conversation and then stop it. Do we really think Conroy went rogue here?

 

Feels like a lot of lines being drawn here to try and get a story. The far more likely here is that they just coudln't agree on what it cost to retain. I think the Flames put a high price on it and the Devils didn't want to meet it. 

 

I agree, but also wonder though, salary retention on Tanev is a this year thing, but retention on Markstrom is two more seasons plus the end of this one. So that's one difference. I could see why they'd might not want to retain on two extra years, and how much would that have been? 

 

After reading it I felt, still using only what if scenarios and not any real evidence, which is why I thought a grain of salt was needed. But at the same time, if owners did put a stop due to the extra two years of retention and how much of it we don't know, it's fully up to them as it's their money.

 

They spend to the cap, but in this situation is kinda like giving money away. 

[cross16]

Just now, robrob74 said:

 

I agree, but also wonder though, salary retention on Tanev is a this year thing, but retention on Markstrom is two more seasons plus the end of this one. So that's one difference. I could see why they'd might not want to retain on two extra years, and how much would that have been? 

 

After reading it I felt, still using only what if scenarios and not any real evidence, which is why I thought a grain of salt was needed. But at the same time, if owners did put a stop due to the extra two years of retention and how much of it we don't know, it's fully up to them as it's their money.

 

They spend to the cap, but in this situation is kinda like giving money away. 

 

 

It is and I think the owners have put a stop to things if they deem it to be too expensive, that part I can understand. But at the same time they've also said yes far, far more often. They have ok'd buyouts, they've ok'd coach firings and they ok'd talking on salary in trades, if it's wroth it. That's the big question, is the money they are going to spend worth it to the club. 

 

If this was a case of "we don't want to pay that money" then I think it's highly unlikely Conroy would have even gone down the path because he would know the answer. He would only go down that path if he felt it was something he could sell as a benefit to the club. 

 

Again for me, I like to keep it simple and I think the simple answer is right there. The value to the club wasnt' wroth the retention being asked. Anything else is just adding complication and when I consider the source, there is a history there of adding things to make them more news worthy or build his name. 

[sak22]

 

3 game stint with the Pens and back to the wire.  Of course had Pittsburgh actually played him on Saturday he would've had 3 points.

[travel_dude]

15 minutes ago, sak22 said:

 

3 game stint with the Pens and back to the wire.  Of course had Pittsburgh actually played him on Saturday he would've had 3 points.

 

If he ever had a chance to make it, here was the best chance I felt.  He looked good in a couple shifts here and if we had managed to integrate him it might have been different.  I think what bothered people the most was that he was the top scoring F in the league and never really got much of a shot.

 

I am over this though.  I cared about it last year when DS was making jokes about Pelletier.

[jjgallow]

5 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Oh my Gord, are we starting to agree again?

Dogs and Cats living together.

Fire and Brimstone.

Mass hysteria.

 

I know you prefer to trade players when they have a standout season.

Well that was 2 seasons ago when we had JH and MT.

Is it really 3 already?

So, now is the next best time.

A chance to add some young players and get a 1st or 2.

Our 4 oldest F and our oldest D are not going anywhere.

Only one of them is not performing to his contract.

But, he also is on a line with a guy known more for being a RW'er.

And Hunt for now.

 

The water is poisoned with Marky, so get him out.

Hanifin is not signing.

Kylington may have future value but is still too fresh this year to have value.

 

 

When did we ever disagree?    I must have missed it.

 

 

[MP5029]

Ok so the hockey writes are hoping to see a Hanifn to NJD trade with 20% retention (no sure why this is but this is what they feel)

 

for

 

Mercer

Holtz

2024 first

2025 second 

 

are these guys on crack? I mean I’d love that 100% but is it me or dose that seem kinda unrealistic?

 

the only way I see anylike

that happening is if

Markstrom was going the other way with 20% retained…unless it’s a sign and trade with Hanifin but can’t see Any team retaining 20% on a new contract over 7 or 8 years that make no sense.

 

anyway, I believe these Hockh Writers are a bit off to say the least.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

 

I'm not sure this is a more vocal person here against the owners than me and i'm calling BS to this. 

 

It makes no sense that they would nix it over salary retention and then turn around and retain on Tanev. Yes I know it's a matter of months vs 2 more years but it also makes no sense that you would let your GM have that conversation and then stop it. Do we really think Conroy went rogue here?

 

Feels like a lot of lines being drawn here to try and get a story. The far more likely here is that they just coudln't agree on what it cost to retain. I think the Flames put a high price on it and the Devils didn't want to meet it. 

 

I'll trust Lebrun and Friedman on this one, both of whom have been saying the same thing. FS wants to be the story so he'll drawn things together more than those 2. 

 

I'm curious what you think of the Tanev trade now though, for similar reasons now that more of the rumours have come out.   Lots of talk about Edmonton offering a first, but they had to take a salary dump and wouldn't do it.

 

So, I mean...there does seem to potentially be a common theme here depending on who you listen to.

 

If I was a GM, I would for sure take on bad salaries to build up more picks.  And ownership would for sure stop me.  lol.

 

Maybe I am just reluctant to blame Conroy.  I dunno.   Need to see what happens with Markstrom before taking a stance.

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

 

I'm not sure this is a more vocal person here against the owners than me and i'm calling BS to this. 

 

It makes no sense that they would nix it over salary retention and then turn around and retain on Tanev. Yes I know it's a matter of months vs 2 more years but it also makes no sense that you would let your GM have that conversation and then stop it. Do we really think Conroy went rogue here?

 

Feels like a lot of lines being drawn here to try and get a story. The far more likely here is that they just couldn't agree on what it cost to retain. I think the Flames put a high price on it and the Devils didn't want to meet it. 

Gotta agree.. makes no sense -- ..not with the timeline etc .  Normally I like Frank , but in this case he seems to want to stir things up somehow 

 

In terms of owners , future or past My thinking is there are worse out there .. Some are cheap , some want too much control etc.. we have one that lets the Flames spend the max.. lets Hockey people make the decisions for the most part ..   We likely lose the team years ago if not for him.. If he wants a bit of say over how HIS money gets spent , I really have no problem with that. Its not like he's cheap 

 

People were upset he wasn't at the retirement ceremony  .. I say so what. He's  not public, never has been .. but players always say they speak to him one on one .. 

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, jjgallow said:

 

I'm curious what you think of the Tanev trade now though, for similar reasons now that more of the rumours have come out.   Lots of talk about Edmonton offering a first, but they had to take a salary dump and wouldn't do it.

 

So, I mean...there does seem to potentially be a common theme here depending on who you listen to.

 

If I was a GM, I would for sure take on bad salaries to build up more picks.  And ownership would for sure stop me.  lol.

 

Maybe I am just reluctant to blame Conroy.  I dunno.   Need to see what happens with Markstrom before taking a stance.

If it makes a difference , early reviews on the D Kid have been great .. coach said he's trending to a solid #2 / #3 dman .. hits.. great skater -- excellent defender.. still learning the system but hope to see him on PK soon 

 

we essentially took 2 2nds instead of a late first and Ceci..  

[jjgallow]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

If it makes a difference , early reviews on the D Kid have been great .. coach said he's trending to a solid #2 / #3 dman .. hits.. great skater -- excellent defender.. still learning the system but hope to see him on PK soon 

 

we essentially took 2 2nds instead of a late first and Ceci..  

 

yeah it could turn out great, for sure.

[phoenix66]

Ruff Fired Today ... ya , didnt see that coming LOL..especially after last night 

[sak22]

7 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Gotta agree.. makes no sense -- ..not with the timeline etc .  Normally I like Frank , but in this case he seems to want to stir things up somehow 

 

In terms of owners , future or past My thinking is there are worse out there .. Some are cheap , some want too much control etc.. we have one that lets the Flames spend the max.. lets Hockey people make the decisions for the most part ..   We likely lose the team years ago if not for him.. If he wants a bit of say over how HIS money gets spent , I really have no problem with that. Its not like he's cheap 

 

People were upset he wasn't at the retirement ceremony  .. I say so what. He's  not public, never has been .. but players always say they speak to him one on one .. 

I have more gripes with him being hidden all the time than the team stuff, team stuff is whatever everyone complaining would be as hands on if they owned the team.  Although I'm sure the reception wouldn't have been nice had he been at Kippers ceremony, but the guy saved the franchise.  If you can't be there release a statement, show some personal gratitude.  Stop going through Bean or King all the time, Hotchkiss was pretty hands on as well, but he knew when he needed to be the voice of the franchise.

[cross16]

10 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I'm curious what you think of the Tanev trade now though, for similar reasons now that more of the rumours have come out.   Lots of talk about Edmonton offering a first, but they had to take a salary dump and wouldn't do it.

 

So, I mean...there does seem to potentially be a common theme here depending on who you listen to.

 

If I was a GM, I would for sure take on bad salaries to build up more picks.  And ownership would for sure stop me.  lol.

 

Maybe I am just reluctant to blame Conroy.  I dunno.   Need to see what happens with Markstrom before taking a stance.

 

 

So if you want to believe the Edm rumors then I think this would have been your choice. 

 

Oilers 1st round and Cody Ceci

Vs

Stars 2nd and Grushnikov. 

I don't think is debatable as to what package is better there, IMO the Stars is clearly better. I would have taken that 10/10.  I think it's less about not wanting to take on the salary dump and more you had a better offer on the table. 

I'm not a big fan of ownership here mostly because of their expectations and I think some arrogance that prevents them from making moves that I think are necessary to win a cup. However, even if I acknowledge my dislike I have to admit than they have been good about providing the financial resources when asked or required to in order to improve the club. Don't think the narrative is totally fair that they hold this club back, the situation could be far worse. 

[The_Tribal Chief]

it is the ownership of this team that Worked there Hash Rate off o get us a new arena deal and literally keep the flames here

[JTech780]

Also if I am Conroy I am fine with taking a player as a cap dump, but not one with term. I want to keep my cap situation as flexible as possible going into the draft and into next season.

[sak22]

3 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

Also if I am Conroy I am fine with taking a player as a cap dump, but not one with term. I want to keep my cap situation as flexible as possible going into the draft and into next season.

At this point we can call Kuzmenko a cap dump, so how many more of those do we need.

[cross16]

11 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

Also if I am Conroy I am fine with taking a player as a cap dump, but not one with term. I want to keep my cap situation as flexible as possible going into the draft and into next season.

 

I agree, but i'll just add or get compensated for it. 

 

Retention or taking on a cap dump comes with a price and if you are not going to build that benefit into the offer than I woudln't be interested in it. 

 

A 1st and Ceci, there is no benefit to me there. That's Edmonton saying ya Ill give you a first but I need you to take Ceci in order to do it so where it he upside? 

 

I think that ultimately agreeing to that cost is what prevents a lot of these trades

[JTech780]

Just now, sak22 said:

At this point we can call Kuzmenko a cap dump, so how many more of those do we need.

I think Kuzmenko was a calculated gamble. He is a guy who is coming off 39 goals, the talent is there, you hope that he can regain that form and click with Huberdeau.

 

Ceci is a 3rd pairing defensemen that is terrible defensively and offensively, zero upside with taking on his contract.

[robrob74]

48 minutes ago, MP5029 said:

Ok so the hockey writes are hoping to see a Hanifn to NJD trade with 20% retention (no sure why this is but this is what they feel)

 

for

 

Mercer

Holtz

2024 first

2025 second 

 

are these guys on crack? I mean I’d love that 100% but is it me or dose that seem kinda unrealistic?

 

the only way I see anylike

that happening is if

Markstrom was going the other way with 20% retained…unless it’s a sign and trade with Hanifin but can’t see Any team retaining 20% on a new contract over 7 or 8 years that make no sense.

 

anyway, I believe these Hockh Writers are a bit off to say the least.

maybe Hanifin and Markstrom? That seems like a big haul for just Hanifin.... 

[sak22]

2 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

maybe Hanifin and Markstrom? That seems like a big haul for just Hanifin.... 

At this point Hanifin makes no sense without an extension and most sources don't have Jersey as high on his list.  I don't see him as a long term need for Jersey.  The 2024 1st should be off the table for NJ.

[cberg]

2 hours ago, sak22 said:

I think he was more pointing to the luck.  With Chicago as said do they win a cup if St. Louis or Pittsburgh take Toews in '06 and they wind up with Johnson or Staal?  or Alzner or Gagner in 2007?  Washington and Tampa's "tanks" began with Ovechkin and Stamkos, Ovechkin was 31 when he won and Stamkos was 30, Stamkos team was so good he didn't even need to play much to win his first.  By comparison Tkachuck, Monahan, Gaudreau, and Bennett were gone mid 20's and only 1 was close to 30, can factor in Lindholm gone before 30, Hamilton traded a week after turning 25, and Hanifin gone at 27.  Nice to be able to keep the good players you do have.  

 

I don't disagree that you need to get the elite players that are far easier to get by being a bottom feeder, I don't necessarily think the teams strategically tanked to do it, and I think most teams did a lot in their power to expedite things.  But also market differences, Tampa, Chicago and LA will have an easier time than Buffalo and Edmonton, and you can guess which one Calgary lines up more with.

That is an excellent point about the ages.  Of course, Point, Kucherov, Vascilevski and etc were likely all younger.  Was Stamkos more like our “old man” Lanny?