Realistic (and unrealistic) Trades - 2024 Edition

[rocketdoctor]

7 hours ago, travel_dude said:

I posted that because it helps when we talk about positions.

Can't say how accurate it really is.

I think they missed our new goalies signed out of Europe.

 

Lucas Ciona LW is missing on that graphic.   That's the only ommission that I can think off.

 

 

[travel_dude]

On 7/29/2024 at 8:53 AM, rocketdoctor said:

 

Lucas Ciona LW is missing on that graphic.   That's the only ommission that I can think off.

 

 

 

They left out that goalie we signed Ingatijew.  Like JJ, I won't try to check spelling on it.

I did once.  I can barely remember his name a day later.

[MP5029]

Ok seen this rumour floating around today, I’m not sold on it but, the suggestion was:

 

Cgy: Payako (sp??)

 

Stl: Hubie 

 

thoughts? 

Yes/No/ Whatever?

 

im in the whatever opinion, sheds some salary but thins out the already very thin Forward group….shedding salary is not much of a issue for Cgy unless they use it to acquire 1-2 year bad contracts from contenders and add a pick or two, otherwise it’s not much of anything in terms of a move.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, MP5029 said:

Ok seen this rumour floating around today, I’m not sold on it but, the suggestion was:

 

Cgy: Payako (sp??)

 

Stl: Hubie 

 

thoughts? 

Yes/No/ Whatever?

 

im in the whatever opinion, sheds some salary but thins out the already very thin Forward group….shedding salary is not much of a issue for Cgy unless they use it to acquire 1-2 year bad contracts from contenders and add a pick or two, otherwise it’s not much of anything in terms of a move.

 

Nah, I'm not a fan of Paryko.  STL fans are sick of him.  That would be a waste for us.

[MP5029]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Nah, I'm not a fan of Paryko.  STL fans are sick of him.  That would be a waste for us.

Im With you on this one too…but though maybe see if I was wrong…seems I’m of the same thought of others so far 😊

[Mike_Oxlong]

I'm not too up-to-date on Parayko - is he still a reasonable defender? The upside to this is his size, assuming he uses it effectively and to what extent we expect him to positively affect our D. If we want to focus on building from the D out, then swapping him in for Hubie may also help with Wolf's development. Being brutally honest, we aren't really robust in any area right now, and there's not many better ways to kill a goalie prospect than by letting him get absolutely shelled, game in and game out.

 

That said, if Parayko is reminiscent of fecal matter, then why would we even bother going down that road? We'd be better off retaining 3 on Hubie and trying a swap for Laine and even THAT is a serious stretch.

[cross16]

Probably worth noting that the writer who proposed the deal also thinks that Huberdeau's contract is done in 2028.

 

St Louis is in no position to take on his contract even if the Flames took Parayko (who is not a good defender anymore). 

[conundrumed]

18 minutes ago, Mike_Oxlong said:

I'm not too up-to-date on Parayko - is he still a reasonable defender? The upside to this is his size, assuming he uses it effectively and to what extent we expect him to positively affect our D. If we want to focus on building from the D out, then swapping him in for Hubie may also help with Wolf's development. Being brutally honest, we aren't really robust in any area right now, and there's not many better ways to kill a goalie prospect than by letting him get absolutely shelled, game in and game out.

 

That said, if Parayko is reminiscent of fecal matter, then why would we even bother going down that road? We'd be better off retaining 3 on Hubie and trying a swap for Laine and even THAT is a serious stretch.

I agree. We don't have those aggression guys. We traded them.

Kadri's aging out in that regard. He was fire for that. My point being, the fire has to come from younger players.

Huberdeau's generally been around players that don't have that with us. Because we don't have much of that. It sure isn't him. He might thrive on that.

My biggest fear in trading Huberdeau is finding out, "it wasn't him, it was us". That would suck.

St. Lou would worry me in that regard.

 

 

 

[conundrumed]

4 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Probably worth noting that the writer who proposed the deal also thinks that Huberdeau's contract is done in 2028.

 

St Louis is in no position to take on his contract even if the Flames took Parayko (who is not a good defender anymore). 

It's August 12th.

I hear we're in heavy talks with Detroit re Andersson.

I made that up. It's that easy.

It might trend. lol

 

[sak22]

31 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

It's August 12th.

I hear we're in heavy talks with Detroit re Andersson.

I made that up. It's that easy.

It might trend. lol

 

Until I see it on X from an account with at least 15 followers I can't believe it.

[conundrumed]

6 hours ago, sak22 said:

Until I see it on X from an account with at least 15 followers I can't believe it.

OMG, lol. 1/3rd of ZZ Top is turning in the grave. lol

 

[MP5029]

10 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I agree. We don't have those aggression guys. We traded them.

Kadri's aging out in that regard. He was fire for that. My point being, the fire has to come from younger players.

Huberdeau's generally been around players that don't have that with us. Because we don't have much of that. It sure isn't him. He might thrive on that.

My biggest fear in trading Huberdeau is finding out, "it wasn't him, it was us". That would suck.

St. Lou would worry me in that regard.

 

 

 

Yes and no, with Hubie it’s a chemistry thing, he has a few Players he gels

with and that’s it…we have done the need players to mesh with our star player years ago with Iggy…thing is Iggy could Play well with anyone and just a great player in his own right and be lights out with the right players…

 

the key difference with Hubie is he needs a type of player to be good and he’s simply just not good enough ion his own where as Iggy was.

 

personally I’d much rather move Hubie and see him do well, while Cgy puts together a team that has chemistry…much like they started doing with Monahan, Lindhom, Gaudreau and Chucky…only this time instead of rushing it, I’d like to see them finish the job with a few more drafts and smart trades for top 6 Fwds and top 4 D wherever a weakness may be…none of the UFA fast track BS or bottom 6 depth crap…load up, build up 

 

side note seen a Anderson to WPG trade involving that trouble prospect guy they have, the article stated it would be the prospect plus…personally I think the kid has the right talent but the wrong attitude for Cgy

[robrob74]

4 hours ago, MP5029 said:

Yes and no, with Hubie it’s a chemistry thing, he has a few Players he gels

with and that’s it…we have done the need players to mesh with our star player years ago with Iggy…thing is Iggy could Play well with anyone and just a great player in his own right and be lights out with the right players…

 

the key difference with Hubie is he needs a type of player to be good and he’s simply just not good enough ion his own where as Iggy was.

 

personally I’d much rather move Hubie and see him do well, while Cgy puts together a team that has chemistry…much like they started doing with Monahan, Lindhom, Gaudreau and Chucky…only this time instead of rushing it, I’d like to see them finish the job with a few more drafts and smart trades for top 6 Fwds and top 4 D wherever a weakness may be…none of the UFA fast track BS or bottom 6 depth crap…load up, build up 

 

side note seen a Anderson to WPG trade involving that trouble prospect guy they have, the article stated it would be the prospect plus…personally I think the kid has the right talent but the wrong attitude for Cgy

I think for Hubie is a style thing. The East is a bit more open. Also, the Florida team then were a run and gun team. Calgary is more of a play D the right way and keep possession going the other way. The flow is off for him. 
 

sometimes I wish coaches could coach to the players strengths instead of coaching to defend instead. Defence wins games, but I think if you want a Huberdeau, stylized players need to consider ways they play.

 

im with you on moving Hubie if we can. And for growing the team, I like the idea of staying the course, rely on drafting for about 3-4 more years? 

[travel_dude]

12 hours ago, MP5029 said:

Yes and no, with Hubie it’s a chemistry thing, he has a few Players he gels

with and that’s it…we have done the need players to mesh with our star player years ago with Iggy…thing is Iggy could Play well with anyone and just a great player in his own right and be lights out with the right players…

 

the key difference with Hubie is he needs a type of player to be good and he’s simply just not good enough ion his own where as Iggy was.

 

personally I’d much rather move Hubie and see him do well, while Cgy puts together a team that has chemistry…much like they started doing with Monahan, Lindhom, Gaudreau and Chucky…only this time instead of rushing it, I’d like to see them finish the job with a few more drafts and smart trades for top 6 Fwds and top 4 D wherever a weakness may be…none of the UFA fast track BS or bottom 6 depth crap…load up, build up 

 

side note seen a Anderson to WPG trade involving that trouble prospect guy they have, the article stated it would be the prospect plus…personally I think the kid has the right talent but the wrong attitude for Cgy

 

8 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I think for Hubie is a style thing. The East is a bit more open. Also, the Florida team then were a run and gun team. Calgary is more of a play D the right way and keep possession going the other way. The flow is off for him. 
 

sometimes I wish coaches could coach to the players strengths instead of coaching to defend instead. Defence wins games, but I think if you want a Huberdeau, stylized players need to consider ways they play.

 

im with you on moving Hubie if we can. And for growing the team, I like the idea of staying the course, rely on drafting for about 3-4 more years? 

 

Perhaps FLA learned something about run and gun.  They seemed like less focus on it last year, or at least experienced in the playoffs.  Huberdeau was successful when his line got in scoring position, run and gun or possession.

 

Right now, I see no viable options for a trade other than a cap dump.  Haven't we screwed up enough to stop doing that?  Cap space isn't even an issue right now.  Sure, if some team offered up a young top winger/C and a good prospect we would have to seriously consider it, but not with salary retention.

 

With Gaudreau, it was put a player with him you wanted to get goals.  With Huberdeau, we assume that he should be able to feed our top player but assuming Hubie would be the puck carrier. That is both style and chemistry.  I almost think the best idea would be to play him with Zary at C and Pospisil at RW.  He then has two targets that can get in a scoring position and he can also try to actually shoot.  Stop deferring.  What that does to the lines is anyone's guess.  Mantha-Kadri-Sharky?  Might be something there.  Kuzmenko with Backlund?  Well, Backlund and Coleman do nothjing but gain the zone.  Coleman's 30 suggests that.  Ad Kuz and maybe you have a viable 3rd scoring line too.

 

This is about trades, so I am inclined to look more to trade players that won't be here in 3 years.  Hubie will be here.  Kadri will.  Both might be completer pieces for a team by then.  And we have built up the team in the meantime.  Coleman might be the guy you need to trade now.  

[robrob74]

58 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

 

Perhaps FLA learned something about run and gun.  They seemed like less focus on it last year, or at least experienced in the playoffs.  Huberdeau was successful when his line got in scoring position, run and gun or possession.

 

Right now, I see no viable options for a trade other than a cap dump.  Haven't we screwed up enough to stop doing that?  Cap space isn't even an issue right now.  Sure, if some team offered up a young top winger/C and a good prospect we would have to seriously consider it, but not with salary retention.

 

With Gaudreau, it was put a player with him you wanted to get goals.  With Huberdeau, we assume that he should be able to feed our top player but assuming Hubie would be the puck carrier. That is both style and chemistry.  I almost think the best idea would be to play him with Zary at C and Pospisil at RW.  He then has two targets that can get in a scoring position and he can also try to actually shoot.  Stop deferring.  What that does to the lines is anyone's guess.  Mantha-Kadri-Sharky?  Might be something there.  Kuzmenko with Backlund?  Well, Backlund and Coleman do nothjing but gain the zone.  Coleman's 30 suggests that.  Ad Kuz and maybe you have a viable 3rd scoring line too.

 

This is about trades, so I am inclined to look more to trade players that won't be here in 3 years.  Hubie will be here.  Kadri will.  Both might be completer pieces for a team by then.  And we have built up the team in the meantime.  Coleman might be the guy you need to trade now.  

 

Agree... ya it was what I was kind of getting at. In many of my line combos last month I was putting Zary with a vet like Hubie. Zary is that player with good IQ, controls play and knows how long to keep the puck and when to dish.

 

i don't think the Flames will or can trade Hubie, but maybe with retention. Is 3M retained too much for the owners? They can pitch it like a buyout. Is Huberdeau worth 7.5? If I recall, Flames typically don't buyout until it's closer to the end of a contract though. If they don't retain, they pay out $73.5M. Retaining $3M over 7 years equates to $22.5M. Owners would save $51M. 
 

When you put your lines together I think the flames have decent depth and the lacking is on the D. If Huberdeau could catch fire with a Zary, then I think they'd have something. 
 

I still don't want Conroy to start trading and skipping steps. So like you say, trade guys each year who won't be here in the next 2-3 years.

[sak22]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

Agree... ya it was what I was kind of getting at. In many of my line combos last month I was putting Zary with a vet like Hubie. Zary is that player with good IQ, controls play and knows how long to keep the puck and when to dish.

 

i don't think the Flames will or can trade Hubie, but maybe with retention. Is 3M retained too much for the owners? They can pitch it like a buyout. Is Huberdeau worth 7.5? If I recall, Flames typically don't buyout until it's closer to the end of a contract though. If they don't retain, they pay out $73.5M. Retaining $3M over 7 years equates to $22.5M. Owners would save $51M. 
 

When you put your lines together I think the flames have decent depth and the lacking is on the D. If Huberdeau could catch fire with a Zary, then I think they'd have something. 
 

I still don't want Conroy to start trading and skipping steps. So like you say, trade guys each year who won't be here in the next 2-3 years.

I think as long as he is a 50 point player the retention will have to be 50% and even then do teams want him for that duration?  A buyout does nothing for cap space unless you wait until the last year and even then it would only be about 3.6 in savings which is offset by a 1.8 hit.  I believe we are stuck with him unless we find equal bad contracts for equal bad term.  For the most part we are stuck with him, we can only hope he regains some confidence in the coming years and can be a leader for the younger guys.

[The_People1]

If the Flames are willing to retain half then I think $5.25-mil x 7-years of Huberdeau would interest a few teams.  Huberdeau is a $4-mil to $6-mil player and his numbers support this.  It's not like he's so bad he shouldn't be in the NHL.

 

Huberdeau also has a full NMC so it might have to be MTL or FLA where he'd waive to go.  Same situation as Kadri where maybe he'd only go to COL or TOR.  Those teams basically call the price and we will have to take whatever they give.

[sak22]

17 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

If the Flames are willing to retain half then I think $5.25-mil x 7-years of Huberdeau would interest a few teams.  Huberdeau is a $4-mil to $6-mil player and his numbers support this.  It's not like he's so bad he shouldn't be in the NHL.

 

Huberdeau also has a full NMC so it might have to be MTL or FLA where he'd waive to go.  Same situation as Kadri where maybe he'd only go to COL or TOR.  Those teams basically call the price and we will have to take whatever they give.

I think there is a reason you see more guys like Duchene, Parise, Suter bought out.  There clauses are hard to move, you don't want to tie up a retention spot for too long and teams still don't want to get the player for the term of their original deal.  Duchene for example signed less than 50% of his old deal and for half the remaining term and he was only a year removed from 40 goals.  If Huberdeau became a free agent today maybe he gets 5.25 but no way is a team giving him 7 years.

[cross16]

56 minutes ago, sak22 said:

I think there is a reason you see more guys like Duchene, Parise, Suter bought out.  There clauses are hard to move, you don't want to tie up a retention spot for too long and teams still don't want to get the player for the term of their original deal.  Duchene for example signed less than 50% of his old deal and for half the remaining term and he was only a year removed from 40 goals.  If Huberdeau became a free agent today maybe he gets 5.25 but no way is a team giving him 7 years.

 

I agree. 

 

Salary is one thing but I think even with retention it's the term and the NMC that teams are going to balk on. I still dont' think there is any hope of moving that contract right now. 

[robrob74]

He's also willing to go, and like when Luongo was dealing with similar situation contract hinderance-wise, Luongo said his contract sucks. Huberdeau just said a similar thing this offseason.. 
 

i remember if it was about leaving Calgary or just that the contract obviously doesn't match the output. 

[sak22]

3 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

He's also willing to go, and like when Luongo was dealing with similar situation contract hinderance-wise, Luongo said his contract sucks. Huberdeau just said a similar thing this past summer. 
 

i remember if it was about leaving Calgary or just that the contract obviously doesn't match the output. 

The issue with Luongo was just the term, the cap hit wasn't that bad and his play never dropped to the level that Huberdeau has.  A goalie who can save close to 92% of shots and keep teams under 2.5 goals a game is an easier sell than a winger who's last 2 seasons combined is less than his career high, also while both players loved Florida and would have an easy time going back, they needed a goalie they don't need Huberdeau and can't afford him even at half.

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, sak22 said:

The issue with Luongo was just the term, the cap hit wasn't that bad and his play never dropped to the level that Huberdeau has.  A goalie who can save close to 92% of shots and keep teams under 2.5 goals a game is an easier sell than a winger who's last 2 seasons combined is less than his career high, also while both players loved Florida and would have an easy time going back, they needed a goalie they don't need Huberdeau and can't afford him even at half.

I get what you're saying, but I wasn't comparing contracts or their value to the contracts as much I was comparing what they said about the contract. That the contracts  sucked and it sounds like Huberdeau would be ok with a move, not that I think he can be. Just wondering if there is a way to, and what would it take.

 

i get there's a push to defend or challenge everything, but was really just comparing situations as seemingly untradeable contracts. Luongo also took a bit to get traded too. 

[MP5029]

7 hours ago, sak22 said:

I think as long as he is a 50 point player the retention will have to be 50% and even then do teams want him for that duration?  A buyout does nothing for cap space unless you wait until the last year and even then it would only be about 3.6 in savings which is offset by a 1.8 hit.  I believe we are stuck with him unless we find equal bad contracts for equal bad term.  For the most part we are stuck with him, we can only hope he regains some confidence in the coming years and can be a leader for the younger guys.

So the solution is simple, trade for equality bad contracts but make sure it’s lower term, then trade that contract till you get around 1-2 year term with probably a higher salary and cap hit but flames have the space…once your at 1-2 years even a larger cap hit is easier to work with especially over the next few years 

[sak22]

13 minutes ago, MP5029 said:

So the solution is simple, trade for equality bad contracts but make sure it’s lower term, then trade that contract till you get around 1-2 year term with probably a higher salary and cap hit but flames have the space…once your at 1-2 years even a larger cap hit is easier to work with especially over the next few years 

Not really simple, you can only move Huberdeau where he will want to go and if you are trading for another bad contract it likely has trade protection as well, if you are getting something with lower term you still need to add sweeteners.

[Thebrewcrew]

There's no legs to this, it was speculation, but Bob Stauffer floated the idea of EDM making a play for Andersson.

 

He mentioned a 1st, the picks from STL and Kulak or Ceci. I would think the Flames need O'Reilly in that hypothetical.